The latest Quinnipiac poll, released yesterday, includes all kinds of bad news for Donald Trump. His overall approval rating, for example, has fallen to just 37%, his lowest to date, and a depth of support with no modern precedent for a president just two months into his first term.
But just as interesting as the topline results are some of the specific details. From the pollster's report:
President Trump is losing support among key elements of his base:
* Men disapprove 43 - 52 percent, compared to a 49 - 45 percent approval March 7; * Republicans approve 81 - 14 percent, compared to 91 - 5 percent two weeks ago; * White voters disapprove 44 - 50 percent, compared to a narrow 49 - 45 percent approval March 7.
To be sure, when a president enjoys 81% approval from voters in his own party, that may sound pretty good. It's not. Note that Trump's support from the GOP has fallen 10 points since the last Quinnipiac poll.
When a beleaguered president's overall approval rating is just 37%, he's even more dependent on die-hard loyalists. When that same president is shedding support from his own base, it's evidence of a leader with a problem. read more
Donald Trump told reporters yesterday he felt "somewhat" vindicated about his wiretap conspiracy theory following the bizarre press conferences yesterday from House Intelligence Committee Chairman David Nunes (R-Calif.). The president then turned to Twitter to promote messages saying how right he was.
This was an odd reaction. There's more to this story than the specific details in the president's tweets, but the fact remains that when he was making the case for his conspiracy theory, Trump said he was personally targeted, and Nunes said the opposite. He said the surveillance was illegal, and Nunes said the opposite. He said Obama was personally involved, and Nunes said the opposite. He said the surveillance was before the election, and Nunes said the opposite. He said this was all part of a campaign-related scheme, and Nunes said the opposite.
In other words, Trump was "vindicated" to the extent that the president got literally every detail wrong.
I mention all of this because it's emblematic of a leader who continues to struggle, in alarming ways, to separate fact from fiction. If you haven't read Trump's newly published interview with Time magazine's Michael Scherer, it's well worth your time. The questions about the president's awareness of reality and appreciation of objective truths are only going to grow louder as a result of some of his more ridiculous comments.
He started by arguing that Hillary Clinton's emails were on Anthony Weiner's laptop, the Democratic primary race was "rigged against Bernie Sanders," and that he was "totally right" about Brexit. All three of these claims are plainly and demonstrably wrong.
Trump went on to say his conspiracy theory about Barack Obama conducting illegal surveillance of him has merit because, "I have articles saying it happened." He does not actually have articles saying it happened.
This exchange soon followed:
TIME: One of my ideas here is that throughout the campaign and now as president, you have used disputed statements, this is one of them that is disputed, the claim that three million undocumented people voted in the election…
TRUMP: Well I think I will be proved right about that too.
TIME: The claim that Muslims celebrated on 9-11 in New Jersey…
TRUMP: Well if you look at the reporter, he wrote the story in the Washington Post.
When the conversation turned to Trump's conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz's father and the JFK assassination, the president said, "Well that was in a newspaper.... I didn't say that. I was referring to a newspaper.... Why do you say that I have to apologize? I'm just quoting the newspaper."
The "newspaper," in this instance, was the National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid with which Trump has an eerily friendly relationship. read more
Of all the many Goldman Sachs veterans Donald Trump has tapped for key posts in his administration, perhaps the toughest to defend is Jay Clayton, the president's choice to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission. He is, after all, a Wall Street lawyer who's been asked by the president to help oversee Wall Street.
In a new op-ed, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), members of the Senate Banking Committee that will consider Clayton's nomination today, sounded a skeptical note.
American families need an SEC chairman who will watch out for their interests -- not short-term corporate profits. That's why we'll be asking Clayton about his willingness to be more vigilant and increase oversight of stock buybacks. We also want to know if Clayton will be willing to help investors identify companies that choose to invest in the U.S. economy and American workers.
If the SEC would require publicly traded companies to disclose more detailed information about jobs moved overseas -- and jobs brought back home -- investors could choose to invest in companies that make our economy stronger. Additionally, requiring public, country-by-country disclosure of profits stashed overseas would reveal to investors the companies that rely on tax havens to avoid U.S. taxes.
Though the op-ed didn't mention Clayton's background, it doesn't offer much hope for those seeking robust oversight of the finance industry. As the Washington Post recently reported, "As chairman of the SEC, Clayton would help police many of the same large banks he has spent decades representing as a lawyer, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays." read more
At yesterday's White House press briefing, a reporter asked Press Secretary Sean Spicer about the day's most shocking report: Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was paid millions of dollars a year to "benefit" Vladimir Putin's government in Russia. Spicer responded by talking about Hillary Clinton -- mentioning her seven times.
Later, at the same briefing, NBC News' Peter Alexander asked the press secretary, "[C]an you say with certainty with right now that there isn't anybody else that's working in the interests of another foreign government working for this government right now?" Spicer wouldn't answer the question directly.
And then, of course, there were the questions about whether the president was aware -- or should have been aware -- of Manafort's foreign lobbying work. Spicer didn't seem to appreciate the line of inquiry. From the official transcript:
"[Manafort] was a consultant, he had clients from around the world. There is no suggestion that he did anything improper. But to suggest that that the president knew who his clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane. There is not -- he was not a government employee. He didn't fill out any paperwork attesting to something. There is nothing that he did that suggests, at this point, that anything was nefarious. He was hired to do a job; he did it. That's it -- plain and simple."
As part of the same Q&A, Spicer added, "No, the president was not aware of Paul's clients from last decade. No." Asked if that lack of scrutiny is a problem, the press secretary said, "What else don't we know? I mean, where he went to school, what grades he got, who played he played with in the sandbox?"
That's a nice little soundbite, but it's hardly persuasive. read more
House Intelligence Committee Chairman David Nunes (R-Calif.) has forgotten some important things. The California Republican no longer remembers, for example, that he doesn't actually work for Donald Trump's White House.
At the same time, Nunes has also forgotten that powerful members of Congress who intend to serve as sycophantic cheerleaders for their party's president should at least try to pretend to be credible and responsible.
When it comes to the Russia scandal, Nunes announced in mid-December that he had no intention of even looking into the matter, though he later changed his mind under pressure. Two months later, he tried to exonerate then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, shortly before the White House fired him for lying about his communications with Russia.
"[Nunes] held not one, but two fairly breathless press conferences alleging ... something, he couldn't quite say what, about the intelligence community and the Trump transition, of which he was an executive member. Things that he had seen, but he could not describe, that made him feel alarm, that made him feel concern, that ought to make us all feel alarm and concern, and they certainly would make us feel those things if only we knew what these things were, but he would not tell us.
"In fact, he did not even have those things in his possession, and he had not shown them to the rest of the people on his committee, who are participating in this investigation he's supposed to be leading."
It is exceedingly rare to see a powerful member of Congress, in the middle of an investigation into a serious scandal, commit an act of self-sabotage in such a dramatic fashion. read more
Russia's intervention in last year's presidential campaign is no longer in doubt. What's unclear is whether Vladimir Putin's government received cooperation from Republican campaign officials who were eager to help their allies in Moscow.
House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who's helping lead a congressional investigation into the Russia scandal, appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" over the weekend, and raised a few eyebrows with vague references to circumstantial evidence.
"There is circumstantial evidence of collusion," Schiff said, referring to alleged cooperation between Russia and Donald Trump's campaign. "There is direct evidence, I think, of deception and that's where we begin the investigation.... There is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more."
Jeff Horowitz, reporter for the Associated Press, talks with Rachel Maddow about the AP's scoop that Paul Manafort, before he was Donald Trump's campaign manager, was paid millions by a Russian oligarch to serve the interests of Vladimir Putin in the U.S. watch
Charlie Savage, national security reporter for The New York Times, talks with Rachel Maddow about how the investigation into collaboration between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia has made many Americans newly aware of how the U.S. gathers intelligence. watch
Rachel Maddow explains a confusing pair of press conferences by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes, in which Nunes asserted some new evidence in the investigation into whether the Donald Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election. watch
Rachel Maddow reports on developments in the investigation into coordination between the Donald Trump campaign in Russia, from a new report on Paul Manafort acting in Russia's interest to a new characterization of the evidence by ranking House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff. watch
On Sun he alleged "circumstantial evidence" of collusion btwn Trump campaign & Russia. Mon, he elaborated on that on TRMS. But this is new: https://t.co/wOyvNzjiye