Donald Trump pushes back against fallen soldier's widow

Donald Trump last week dodged a question about the deadliest combat mission of his presidency last week, and instead touched off a week-long controversy. David Petraeus told ABC News' Martha Raddatz yesterday that he's known White House Chief of Staff John Kelly for years, and he assumes Kelly is "trying to figure out how to turn down the volume, how to get this behind us."

I get the sense Kelly's boss has other plans.

Today's developments started with a striking interview with the widow of one of the four American soldiers killed earlier this month in Niger, an attack the president still hasn't acknowledged.

The pregnant widow of Sgt. La David Johnson said Monday that the phone call she received from President Donald Trump before meeting her husband's body at Dover Air Force Base made her more upset as the president struggled to remember her spouse's name.

"I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband's name, and that's what hurt me the most because if my husband is out there fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country, why can't you remember his name?" Myeshia Johnson told ABC's "Good Morning America." "And that made me cry even more."

Soon after the ABC segment aired, Trump turned to Twitter to declare, "I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, and spoke his name from beginning, without hesitation!"

So, the president wants us to believe his version of events, rejecting the word of a grieving widow -- who's account is bolstered by a car full of witnesses, who heard the conversation on speaker. Or put another way, Trump's message of the morning is that Myeshia Johnson is lying.

And that leads me to two questions for the White House to consider.

read more

Trump gives chemical industry insider power on regulating chemicals

Up until fairly recently, Nancy Beck was an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the trade association for the nation's chemical industry. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, however, Donald Trump's administration has given Beck a job at the EPA -- helping lead the agency's toxic chemical unit.

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.

The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.

So scientists and administrators in the E.P.A.'s Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.

It was, of course, Beck, the former American Chemistry Council executive, who demanded the revision. Voters who supported Donald Trump because they hoped he'd "drain the swamp," preventing corporate insiders from helping call the shots in government agencies, are getting the exact opposite of what they wanted.

But just to twist the knife a little more, consider what the political appointees at Trump's EPA had to say when the New York Times called for a comment.

read more

Why it matters if Trump pays his aides' legal bills

Despite his considerable wealth, Donald Trump is not paying for his own legal team. As the investigation into the Trump-Russia scandal continues, the president has several attorneys representing his interests, but it's the Republican National Committee -- and by extension, its donors -- paying the tab.

The same is reportedly true of Donald Trump Jr., who helps lead the president's private enterprise, and who's supposed to be steering clear of politics altogether.

And what about the officials throughout the White House who also face legal scrutiny? Up until very recently, it's been assumed they're on their own, but the Washington Post reported that they may have a rich benefactor: their boss.

President Trump plans to spend at least $430,000 of his personal funds to help cover the mounting legal costs incurred by White House staff and campaign aides related to the ongoing investigations of Russian meddling in last year's election, a White House official said. [...]

The arrangement drew immediate criticism from Walter Shaub, the former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, who suggested on Twitter that it is rife with potential conflicts.

"A potential witness or target of an investigation (and boss of investigators) paying for legal fees of other potential witnesses or targets?" Shaub wrote.

Axios' original report on this used the words "pledge" and "promise" to describe the president's intention to defray the costs of his aides' legal representation.

I'm highlighting the specific verbs because Trump's credibility in this area is something of a joke. This is, after all, a president who's been caught lying about contributions to veterans' charities. Sure, he may say he's prepared to use his own money to help cover the legal costs of his team, but what Trump says and what Trump does often have little to do with one another.

But just for the sake of conversation, let's say the "plan" is legitimate. Let's assume that Trump will follow through on this vow, grab his checkbook, and start writing checks to his staffers' law firms. That brings us back to Walter Shaub's concerns.

read more

Donald Trump's 'blind spot on Russia' isn't going away

After Congress approved new economic sanctions against Russia, Donald Trump grudgingly signed the bill into law, but not before blaming lawmakers -- including members of his own party -- for undermining the U.S. relationship with the Putin government.

But the story took a strange turn recently when the public learned that the sanctions still haven't been implemented, despite the deadline included in the law. On "Meet the Press" yesterday, NBC's Chuck Todd sought an explanation from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a proponent of the sanctions.

TODD: [Y]ou've come on this show numerous times and said, "Russia needs to be punished." You passed a tough sanctions bill. You passed it in July. The president signed it in early August. There was a deadline of October 1st. It is not October 1st. It is October 20th and the sanctions have not been implemented. Why?

GRAHAM: I think that the Trump administration is slow when it comes to Russia. They have a blind spot on Russia I still can't figure out.

Really? You still can't figure it out? It's just a total mystery as to why this president might have a "blind spot" when it comes to the foreign adversary that launched an espionage operation that helped put Donald Trump in power?

Is it really that difficult to wager a guess?

For his part, the president isn't done trying to downplay the significance of the scandal. On Saturday, for example, Trump took aim at the dossier put together by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, insisting it's been "discredited." In reality, as Rachel has noted on the show, the document has stood up pretty well to scrutiny.

Soon after, Trump suggested that Moscow's investment in campaign-related ads on Facebook was "tiny," adding, "What about the billions of dollars of Fake News on CNN, ABC, NBC & CBS?"

read more