Nomination Of Ratcliffe To DNI Is In Trouble Already

Another high-ranking official is departing the White House and there are already concerns about the congressman that President Trump has named to replace him. The current director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, has submitted his resignation, which will become effective on August 15. Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican known for his loyalty to President Trump and who was last seen criticizing Robert Mueller for his report’s take on President Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice, is the president’s pick for a replacement.

Dan Coats, a veteran of the US Army Corps of Engineers who served from 1966 through 1968, was an Indiana congressman throughout the 1980s. He was elected to the first of two stints in the Senate in 1988, filling the seat of Vice President Dan Quayle. Coats left the Senate in 1998 and was appointed ambassador to Germany by George W. Bush in 2001. He was re-elected to the Senate in 2011 where he served until Donald Trump appointed him DNI in 2017.

In his role as DNI, Coats has been at odds with the president several times. He has publicly criticized Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin and his handling of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Coats has also contradicted Trump’s claims that Putin was innocent of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections and defended the US intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s actions.

There are signs that Coats has been outside of Trump’s inner circle for a while. In July 2018, he appeared to be blindsided by news of Vladimir Putin’s upcoming White House visit when NBC’s Andrea Mitchell broke the story on national television. Rumors of Coats’ departure have been swirling for months.

In contrast to Coats’ long record, John Ratcliffe is a law professor who was the mayor of Heath, Texas prior to being appointed DOJ Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security for the Eastern District of Texas by George W. Bush in 2004. He subsequently served as the US Attorney for East Texas from 2007 through 2008. Afterward, he returned to a private law practice until he was elected to Congress in 2014.

As a congressman, Ratcliffe was chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection. In 2017, he was instrumental in the passage of the “Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017,” which authorized the Secret Service to train and educate state and local law enforcement and judicial officials about cybercrime.

The hurdles to Ratcliffe’s confirmation will likely be in regard to both his inexperience in intelligence as well as his embrace of conspiracy theories regarding the Russia investigation. Indeed, Ratcliffe may have been catapulted to the top of the president’s list with his spirited attacks on Robert Mueller during the special counsel’s House testimony last week.

In the hearing, Ratcliffe attacked the Mueller report’s statement that President Trump could not be exonerated, saying, “So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary.”

Politifact examined Ratcliffe’s claim and judged it to be false. Politifact points out that federal regulations state, “At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination [emphasis mine] decisions reached by the Special Counsel.”

Ratcliffe has also repeated the debunked claim that the Steele dossier was the origin of the Russia investigation.  The Steele dossier was referenced in an October 2016 FISA warrant application for Trump associate Carter Page, but, by that point, the FBI investigation of Russian contacts with Trump campaign staffers had already been underway for several months, initiated by the news that George Papadopoulos had been telling contacts about a Russian offer of information on Hillary Clinton since May 2016.

Already, some Democrats are questioning whether Ratcliffe is qualified and suited for the chief intelligence post. There are questions about whether Ratcliffe is too political for the national security position and whether his allegiance to President Trump would allow him to present information objectively.

“I don't know this guy,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said on MSNBC. “I think he's a television character that the president has watched on TV, and he wants to put somebody in this position who's going to agree with his political take on intelligence.”

  

“I'll certainly do my own evaluation, but it strikes me as a very inappropriate choice for the job in a moment when we are trying to lift intelligence out of the political soup,” Murphy said, adding that Ratcliffe had a history of acting as “one of the president's accomplices in trying to politicize intelligence.”

“The president doesn't want people to challenge him, and when you think about an intelligence director, you want independent advice,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) told CNN. “You want to have the best available intelligence to make decisions that are based on facts and reality. That is not something our current president wants.”

Republicans have not jumped to defend their colleague. Although many Republican officials have issued statements lauding Coats and his tenure as DNI, so far none have offered support for Ratcliffe’s nomination. To the contrary, the New York Times reported that Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) “cautioned the president's advisers that he considered Mr. Ratcliffe too political for the post, according to people familiar with the discussions.”

Blocking an appointment to the cabinet is notoriously difficult. FiveThirtyEight points out that only nine cabinet appointments have been voted down by the Senate throughout US history. The last time a Senate controlled by the president’s party nixed a nominee was in 1925. However, it is more common and recent for presidents to withdraw nominations for candidates who may lack sufficient support for confirmation.

It is too early to predict the outcome, but with Republicans only holding a three-vote majority in the Senate, few defections would be needed to sink Ratcliffe’s nomination. Ratcliffe’s most likely fate might be to have the president withdraw his nomination after several Republican senators voice their doubts about his qualifications.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Satire: Democrats Propose Redistributing Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers

As Democrats approach their second primary debate, there is angst among the 2,352 presidential candidates over Joe Biden’s persistent polling lead. The other candidates and their supporters are reportedly bristling at the fact that Biden, an old, white man, maintains a comfortable polling lead over a diverse selection of candidates that includes women, African Americans, an Asian, a gay man, an aging hippie, and a matched set of white billionaires.

 “He didn’t build that,” Elizabeth Warren said of Biden’s widespread polling support at a recent secret meeting of the Democratic hopefuls. “He inherited most of those voters from Barack Obama since they remember him as Obama’s running mate.”

“That’s called ‘white privilege,’” Kamala Harris added. “He’s taking votes from a black man when there are other black candidates in the race who should be getting those votes.”

Bernie Sanders, who has consistently run a distant second to Biden, argued that taking support from the frontrunner and distributing it to other candidates was the most progressive thing that the Democratic Party could do.

“From each according to his polling numbers to each according to his need,” Sanders quipped, “and I really need another 10 to 15 percent in the polls. Redistributing some of the Joe’s polling numbers is only fair since he has plenty of them and so many of us don’t. We need to share the wealth.”

“That’s right,” said Kirsten Gillibrand.

“I don’t get it,” Sanders continued, “I was a rock star in 2016 and now no one pays attention to me. Isn’t this old Jewish socialist radical enough anymore? I’m still hip.”

“You think you’ve got it bad,” Beto O’Rourke chimed in, “What about me? I almost beat Ted Cruz in Texas just last year and now I can’t get arrested again.”

“I mean seriously, bro,” he continued, “I’m standing up on tables everywhere and generally raising a ruckus, but it’s like no one knows I’m alive. I think I’m having an existential crisis. Maybe if I shot someone on Fifth Avenue.”

“I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,” spoke up Marianne Williamson, “Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves… but not just white turtle doves. As I told the prime minister of New Zealand, in my vision of America, turtle doves of all races, creeds, colors and sexual orientations are loved and welcome.”

“Um, yeah,” replied Amy Klobuchar. “That Joe Biden makes me so mad that I could stab him with my salad fork. I was the first moderate in this race and I’m a woman on top of that, don’t you know! If it wasn’t for Joe Biden, I’d be getting those moderate votes.”

“That’s right,” said Kirsten Gillibrand.

“I deserve those poll numbers more than anyone,” exclaimed Andrew Yang. “They talk about Elizabeth Warren’s plans, but I’ve got a plan for everything and my plans are more realistic than hers. Well, except for the universal basic income. I put that in there as a joke. But seriously, if space aliens abduct America’s honeybees, I have a plan for it. It’s on my Yang Gang website.”

“I can pay for those voters,” burst Pete Buttigieg. “Since the first debate, I’ve raked in the donations but only about a dozen voters will admit to supporting me. What sense does that make?”

“That’s because you’re gay,” answered Tulsi Gabbard. “Homosexual men across the country are supporting you and everybody knows that they have lots of money from their careers and since they don’t have kids, they get to keep it. Unlike the cis gender voters with kids whose money goes out as soon as it comes in, your voters have disposable income left over to send to you.”

“That sounds a bit homophobic,” John Hickenlooper jumped in.

“Sorry,” Gabbard replied. “Force of habit. Who are you anyway?”

“I'd like to each the world to sing in perfect harmony,” Williamson broke in. “I'd like to buy the world a coke and keep it company.”

“Yes,” nodded Kirsten Gillibrand gravely.

The door flew open and Joe Biden burst into the room.

“Hey old buddies, what is everybody doing here? I hope you’re not planning to stab Old Joe in the back. Et tu, Kamala?” Biden asked with a raised eyebrow.

“We want your polling numbers, Joe,” Harris replied. “It’s time for some affirmative action so bus your numbers on over to Kamala.”

“It’s for the greater good, Joe,” Elizabeth Warren said. “Modern Democrats are too woke to get behind a white, cis male like you.”

At that point, Biden calmly donned his aviator sunglasses and reached for a double-barrel shotgun that he had concealed just outside the door. Biden fired a blast into the air. Pieces of ceiling tile and shattered glass rained down as the candidates scattered and ran for the exits.

“That always works,” Biden cackled.

The meeting was adjourned.

Originally published on The Resurgent as satire.

Another Weekend, Another Racial Trump Tweet

You might think that a politician who spent the better part of the last two weeks defending himself against charges of racism would be careful about what he says. In the case of Donald Trump, you’d be wrong.

After drawing intense criticism for his tweets telling unnamed “’Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” to “go back” to their home countries, President Trump was at it again this morning with a series of tweets attacking Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). In the tweetstorm, Trump called Cumming’s Baltimore district “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.” To top the rant, Trump alleged that Cummings was a thief.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1155073964634517505?s=20

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1155073965880172544?s=20

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1155076476930338816?s=20

Where Trump’s “go back” seemed bigoted and tiptoed up to the line of racism, today’s tweets jump over the line with both feet. The statement that “no human being” would want to live in the district, which is 55 percent black, has clear racial overtones.

There are several accurate statements that President Trump could have made about Cummings’ seventh congressional district. It is the poorest district in the state with almost 18 percent of its residents below the poverty line per data from BiggestCities.com. It ranks dead last among Maryland districts for income per household. Crime is a problem in parts of the district. On the other hand, the Washington Examiner points out that the district is in the upper half of House districts nationally and also includes many upscale neighborhoods, including one named the safest place in the country in 2018.

I’m not going to call Trump a racist. I don’t pretend to know what is in his heart. What I am going to say is that Donald Trump says things sound bigoted on a fairly regular basis. He seems to relish the controversy and the attention that his outlandish statements bring, perhaps holding to the theory that any publicity is good publicity.

That doesn’t necessarily hold true in politics.

Trump’s antics regularly distract from the news cycle in a self-defeating way. His “go back” tweets unified Democrats who had been in the midst of a veritable civil war. The president’s attack on Cummings comes only hours after the Supreme Court handed him a victory on funding for the border wall. On a day when Republicans should have been gloating over their judicial triumph, they suddenly find themselves once again explaining why Donald Trump is not a racist.

If President Trump wanted to drive minority voters en masse from the GOP, he wouldn’t have to act very different from how he already behaves. After three years of Trump, the Republican Party has precious few minority voters to lose, but there are many white voters who will flee a party that they perceive to be headed by a racist. Trump’s long list of quasi-racist statements is akin to making Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” comment a dozen times over.

If Republicans don’t want to be thought of as racists, the obvious solution would be to not say things that sound racist and to condemn and retract statements that break the first rule. However, Republicans are once again caught between a rock and a hard place by the president’s unforced error. They must explain away Trump’s statements by focusing on Baltimore’s crime and poverty and not the fact that the president singled out a black congressman representing a predominantly black district in a predominantly black city. If they break ranks from the president, Republican officials risk alienating the Trump base in their primary election. Republicans have the choice of tarring themselves with the racist brush in the eyes of moderates and minorities or looking like a squish to the Republican base.

Maybe Donald Trump’s defenders are right. Maybe he isn’t a bigot and only has a bad habit of making clumsy statements (although being a straight talker was supposed to be one of his big advantages over other politicians). On the other hand, when Trump keeps stepping into the same steaming pile of excrement over and over, it lends credence to the theory that he is saying exactly what he means.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck.

  
Originally published on The Resurgent

July 27th, 2019 Trump Wins Victory On Wall At Constitution’s Expense

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to lift a stay by a lower court judge preventing President Donald Trump from reprogramming funds appropriated by Congress to build the wall. The decision will allow the president to use $2.5 billion in funds designated for defense spending to begin construction on about 100 miles of border wall. Republicans applauded the decision, but the blows being struck against the Constitution’s balance of powers will have lasting consequences.

The ruling stems from President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency on the southern border last February and move money appropriated by Congress for other purposes to the construction of the border wall. Under the president’s plan, $600 million from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counter-narcotics activities, and $3.6 billion from military construction projects would be reprogrammed to finance construction of the wall. Friday’s ruling regards the $2.5 billion for the Defense Department, which Trump had designated for fencing in Arizona, California, and New Mexico.

Plaintiffs in the case were a group of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and represented by the ACLU. The groups argued that they had “recreational and aesthetic interests” such as “hiking, birdwatching, [and] photography” in areas near the border. In June, a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama agreed and blocked the transfer of funds. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in a two-to-one vote, noting that Congress had appropriated $1.375 billion for border barriers, rather than the $5.7 billion requested by the president. In the court’s view, that meant that the $2.5 billion had been “denied by the Congress.”

“As for the public interest, we conclude that it is best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction,” Judge Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee, wrote for the court.

The Trump Administration appealed the stay to the Supreme Court, which ruled on Friday, that, “The government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review.” This means that the injunction preventing the Trump Administration from spending the reprogrammed $2.5 billion is lifted and the case returns to the lower court.

The Supreme Court’s five conservatives voted to lift the stay while Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer proposed a compromise in which the government could negotiate contracts but not actually spend the reprogrammed money until the case was fully decided.

While the ruling is understandably being celebrated by Republicans, the decision, along with another June decision by a different federal court, puts the judicial thumb firmly on the executive branch’s side of the scale that represents the balance of federal power. In the June decision, a Trump-appointed judge rejected a similar lawsuit by House Democrats, arguing that the national emergency spending represented a political dispute that was outside his authority to decide.

The fundamental problem is that courts are tying the hands of Congress in the face of abuses of executive authority. President Trump moved the funds under a federal statute that allows money to be reallocated to address “unforeseen needs” that have not been “denied by the Congress.” In the case of the border wall, neither condition applies. The problem of illegal immigration is hardly unforeseen, having been a hot button issue for more than a decade. The question of the border wall is one that has been repeatedly considered and denied by Congress. In fact, Trump’s national emergency declaration came immediately after the government shutdown in which he demanded unsuccessfully that Congress appropriate money for the wall.

As Republicans were fond of noting during the Obama era, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power of the federal purse. If federal courts refuse to rein in an executive that flouts the rule of law in order to bypass an uncooperative Congress, then the constitutional power of Congress is weakened and the president, already much more powerful than the Framers envisioned, becomes even stronger and less accountable. If the courts won’t uphold the constitutional role of Congress in the appropriation of funds then impeachment may be Congress’ only weapon against an out-of-control executive branch.

The judicial battle over national emergency funding for the border wall is not over yet, however. The Sierra Club case will now go back to the lower court to be decided. House Democrats are also appealing the lower court ruling in their own lawsuit against the president’s transfer of funds. It is entirely possible that one or both cases will return to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the question of whether using a national emergency to bypass congressional appropriations is constitutional, rather than the technical question of whether plaintiffs have the legal standing to sue.  

The idea that a border wall is the answer to the illegal immigration problem has become an article of faith on the right. Personally, I have my doubts about whether a barrier along the border would be as practical or effective as its proponents claim (click here for details). However, the legal question that needs to be answered is not whether a wall is a good idea but whether the president can unilaterally transfer funds appropriated by Congress to programs that were specifically rejected by Congress.

For Republicans to back the president on that question is to support a broad expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress. Backing that expansion confirms that Republicans are not a small government party of constitutionalists but a party that favors big government solutions when they come from the right. With many new Trump appointees on the bench, it is entirely possible that Republicans may get their wall over the objections of Congress, but the expansion of presidential power may come back to bite them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Joe Biden Surges Back To Massive Lead

Joe Biden is defying the naysayers and regaining lost ground in Democratic primary polling. A new Fox News poll shows the former vice president with a commanding lead over his rivals in the form of the support of 33 percent of Democratic voters. His nearest opponent, Bernie Sanders, was a distant second at 15 percent.

The new poll is not an outlier. Other recent polls have also shown Biden with support in the upper 20s to low 30s. Another new poll by Economist/YouGov showed Biden at 25 percent, Politico/Morning Consult found him at 33 percent, and a Hill/HarrisX poll from last week gave him 29 percent. The Real Clear Politics average shows Biden trending upward from a low of 26 percent to his current average of 29 percent. While Biden’s standing is still below his average from before the first Democratic debate in June, he has unquestionably reversed his slide in the polls.

The news is not so good for Kamala Harris. The California senator saw a surge after the June debate and has since dropped off. Harris rose as high as 14 percent in the polling average before declining to her current standing at 11 percent.

The news also is not good for Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator’s popularity ebbed after Biden entered the race and has since stagnated at an average of about 15 percent.

In addition to Biden’s resurgence, Elizabeth Warren has been the other beneficiary of Sanders’ and Harris’ misfortune. In June, the alleged Native American candidate almost doubled her single-digit share of average polling support, climbing from a low of seven percent at the beginning to 14 percent. She and Sanders are currently in a statistical tie for second place, but both are far behind Joe Biden. No other candidate aside from the top four has more than five percent support.

Part of Biden’s appeal is likely that he is seen as more moderate and electable than the other Democrats. Both Fox News and the Economist reported that, by about a two-to-one margin, Democrats preferred a candidate who was more like to beat Trump than one who reflected their policy preferences. In head-to-head polling matchups, Biden averages an eight-point lead over Trump, which would almost certainly be a large enough win to overcome any Electoral College edge that Trump might have. Bernie Sanders is favored over Trump by about four points, which could lead to an Electoral College tossup, while Harris and Warren have only a two-point edge.

Biden, who was born in Pennsylvania and later became a senator from Delaware, which is part of the greater Philadelphia media market, would also have an important advantage in a state that Trump won in 2016 and hopes to carry again. The blue-collar Trump voters of Pennsylvania would be more likely to rally around “Blue Collar Joe” than the other Democratic hopefuls. That is evident from state polling in which Biden leads his nearest contender by more than two-to-one.

Under the new rules for the Democratic primary, superdelegates will not be allowed to vote on the first ballot and state delegates are awarded to candidates based on their proportion of votes in the state primary. There are no winner-take-all states as in the Republican primary. This means that if Biden can maintain support from a quarter to a third of Democratic voters, he will almost certainly win the nomination. There are a couple of scenarios that could change that, however.

All eyes will be on Biden next week as Democrats take to the debate stage in Detroit for their second primary debate, another two-night affair to be held Tuesday and Wednesday. After his lackluster performance in June and his subsequent drop in the polls, Biden will be under intense pressure and scrutiny as Democratic voters decide whether he would be able to stand up to Donald Trump in a general election fight. Another disappointing performance could send Biden supporters to their second choice candidate.

Another possibility is that the numbers could change as candidates drop out. The recent Morning Consult poll also asked about second choices. At 30 percent, Biden was the top second choice of Sanders supporters but he fared worse with Warren and Harris supporters at 17 percent and 26 percent respectively. If two of his three top-tier opponents dropped out, Biden could face a strong challenger in a two-way race. (If that happens and Bernie Sanders ends up being elected president, just remember that I predicted the possibility way back in August 2018.)

The Democratic primary campaign is barely underway but, for now at least, it seems as though Democratic voters are sticking with Joe Biden. In an election year in which the primary goal is to oust a very unpopular opponent who won largely because his previous opponent failed to inspire the blue-collar core of the Democratic Party, Biden appears to be a safe choice.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Shouldn’t Gloat Over Mueller Testimony

In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon squared off in the first nationally televised presidential debate. Nixon, who was leading by eight points in the polls going into the debate, had been recently hospitalized and refused to wear makeup. Kennedy, tanned from the campaign trail, decided at the last minute to wear makeup. Visually, the two candidates contrasted sharply with Nixon appearing pale and unshaven and Kennedy looking tan and fit. People who listened to the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won, but Kennedy’s edge with television viewers was enough to erode Nixon’s lead. Yesterday’s Mueller testimony was a lot like that.

For those of us who were unable to watch the hearings but were able to hear parts of it on the radio, Mueller sound calm, collected and careful. However, those who watched the hearings on television thought that Mueller underperformed. Much of the difference seems to be a question of style versus substance.

In the hours that followed, Republicans attacked Mueller’s style as well as his refusal to answer questions about the Steele dossier, even though his opening statement made clear that he would not comment on ongoing matters or privileged information from within the Justice Department. This is consistent with Mueller’s public statement in May in which he said that any testimony would not go beyond his office’s written report.

Mueller’s grueling testimony before two committees seemed to largely consist of Democrats baiting him to attack President Trump and Republicans attacking the Russia investigation vicariously through him and chortling when he failed to show that he had every passage of his two-volume report memorized. Mr. Mueller didn’t give either side what it wanted, parsing his words carefully as lawyers tend to do.

The main thrust of Mueller’s testimony consisted of four points which were emphasized in his opening statement. First, Mueller pointed out once again that the “Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” This fact continues to be downplayed by President Trump and Republicans. Second, there was not enough evidence to charge any member of the Trump campaign in a criminal conspiracy related to that interference. Third, the special counsel investigated attempts to obstruct justice and lie to investigators, but, fourth, “based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Even though President Trump and Republicans are celebrating in the aftermath of Mueller’s testimony, the grilling did more damage to President Trump’s image. In an exchange with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) Mueller conceded that Trump’s actions seemed to meet the three-pronged test for criminal obstruction that consists of an obstructive act, connection to an official proceeding, and corrupt intent.

In another exchange, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Hawaii), said, “We have heard today that the President ordered former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire you. The President ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we’ve heard the President ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he, you, stop investigating the President. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. And I like to ask you the reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President. Correct?”

“That is correct,” Mueller answered.

Lieu pressed, “The fact that their orders by the President were not carried out. That is not a defense because the statute itself is quite broad. It says that as long as you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.”

“I’m not getting into that at this juncture,” Mueller answered.

Later in the day, Mueller clarified his answer to Lieu, stating in his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee, “Now before we go to questions, I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m ready to answer questions.”

In another short exchange, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) asked, “Isn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful?”

Mueller answered, “I would say generally.”

If the president’s written statement to investigators was untrue, then Donald Trump could be indicted for lying to investigators. In a separate exchange, Mueller did acknowledge that Trump could be indicted after he leaves office for crimes that he might have committed while he was president.

In another moment that directly contradicted Trump’s claims, Rep. Nadler asked, “The president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and it completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct, not what the report said,” Mueller answered, effectively calling the president a liar.

If Democrats failed to score a knockout blow at the hearings, so did Republicans. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out on Twitter, Mueller hardly seemed like the zealous head of witch hunt. Instead, the special counsel was very restrained and repeatedly failed to seize opportunities to attack Trump.

https://twitter.com/JonahNRO/status/1154039243863285762?s=20

One of his most direct criticisms of the president was Mueller’s statement condemning Trump’s 2016 embrace of WikiLeaks. When asked if Trump’s statements were a problem, Mueller replied, “Problematic is an understatement, in terms of what it displays, in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

The hearings were not must-see TV, but they were not a bust either. For Republicans to celebrate that Mueller did not indict the president represents a low moment for the Grand Old Party. The facts consistently presented by Mueller paint the picture of a chief executive with no respect for the rule of law.

In the end, the allegations that President Trump acted to block the Russia investigation on multiple occasions stood. Democrats made their point that Trump’s actions meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice even if Mueller’s adherence to the OLC memo prevents him from saying so publicly. Republicans are left to defend a president whose actions can only be defended by saying that he was unsuccessful in attempts to obstruct justice because his subordinates failed to follow his orders.

Mueller’s testimony and written report show that on multiple occasions, Donald Trump tried to interfere with and block the Russia investigation. Either the president knew he was acting illegally, in which case he is corrupt, or he was ignorant of the requirements of his job and unwilling to listen to advisors who tried to help him. In either case, Trump is unfit for office.

Pelosi Reins In Nadler On Impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to discuss the Democratic strategy against President Trump yesterday after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s grueling day of testimony. Rep. Nadler (D-N.Y.) reportedly favored pushing forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump, but Pelosi continued to resist the move, arguing that the time was not yet right in later comments to reporters.

Sources speaking to Politico said that Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee asked whether an impeachment inquiry required a full house vote or could be started by the committee itself. Nadler answered that the Judiciary Committee has the power to launch the proceedings.

Pelosi continued to argue for a “slow, methodical approach” even though more than 90 House Democrats have already signed on to the idea of impeachment hearings. She noted that there are still several Democrat lawsuits pending against the Trump Administration on matters such as the president’s personal finances and tax returns. Pelosi also stressed that some support from Republicans or a shift in public sentiment was necessary. Nadler responded that public support for impeachment against Richard Nixon was low when the House began impeachment proceedings against him in 1973 but increased as news of Nixon’s illegal activities spread.

The Democrats agreed that their next step would be to file a lawsuit to enforce a congressional subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was a prime witness to the president’s attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. Per the special counsel report, the president ordered McGahn to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia probe, to pressure the DOJ about Mueller’s alleged conflicts of interest, to fire Mueller, and then told him to lie about his instructions from the president. House Democrats subpoenaed McGahn back in May, but he refused to comply after the White House instructed him not to cooperate, claiming executive privilege.

Although Pelosi is slow-walking the calls for impeachment, she appears to be considering the idea at the right time. At a press conference following the Democratic caucus meeting reported by Politico, Pelosi argued that more evidence was needed before an impeachment inquiry was launched.

“If we have a case for impeachment, that’s the place we will have to go,” Pelosi told reporters. “Why I’d like it to be a strong case is because it’s based on the facts — the facts and the law, that’s what matters.” She said that investigations are “not endless in terms of time.”

“The stronger our case is, the worse the Senate will look for just letting the president off the hook,” Pelosi added, hinting that she might allow impeachment to proceed even without the support of Republicans in the Senate.

“If it comes to a point where the cone of silence and the obstruction of justice and the coverup in the White House prevents us from getting that information, that will not prevent us from going forward and in fact, it’s even more grounds to go forward,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s calculations on impeachment are political as well as legal. The 2020 presidential campaign is heating up and Republicans are showing no sign of abandoning Donald Trump. Any impeachment inquiry would extend into the election season and distract from other issues. There is also the possibility that surviving impeachment would give the president enough of a boost to win re-election. So far, most Democratic presidential candidates have steered clear of the impeachment issue.

The likely reason why is that voters show little enthusiasm for impeaching Donald Trump. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 21 percent of registered voters wanted to begin impeachment hearings. Tellingly, 51 percent of independents oppose impeachment and think that Trump should finish his term.

Speaker Pelosi’s cautious approach seems to be the best plan for Democrats, who must both on reining in the current Trump Administration and preventing the president from winning re-election. Democratic overreach on impeachment could alienate the independents and moderates whose votes are needed to usher in a Democratic victory next year.

Under Pelosi’s strategy, President Trump will be the subject of more investigations and a continual dribble of unflattering information throughout the campaign. If support for impeachment builds, Pelosi will be positioned to capitalize on it. If not, she will have been building the case to voters that Donald Trump should be fired.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Overcoming Economy Is Big Hurdle For 2020 Democrats

Despite President Trump’s unpopularity, he does have one big thing going for his re-election campaign. If history is any indicator, the Democrats may have a difficult time overcoming the president due to the continued strength of the economy.

Axios pointed out earlier this year that every incumbent president since FDR who has avoided a recession in the runup to an election has been re-elected. On the surface, that would appear to be good news for Donald Trump, who has presided over an economy that grew 2.2 percent in 2017 and 2.9 percent in 2018 and a consistently low unemployment rate. Voters have typically rated Trump’s handling of the economy much better than his overall performance as president.

A recent focus group of swing voters, also reported by Axios, showed that many voters who switched from Obama to Trump, liked Trump’s economic policies, including his tariffs, even though they were put off by his behavior.

“His antics, mannerisms, and personality I could do without,” a member of the focus group said, “but I feel like there are a lot of good things happening in the country that people don’t like to admit.”

“Our economy would have to really crash for me to vote against him,” he added.

At only 12 participants the focus group’s size was too small to represent a statistical sample of voters, but their responses do elicit a number of questions. The most obvious is why, when the economy is seen as his strong point, Donald Trump chooses to focus on immigration and picking fights with low-level Democrats, strategies that seem to be hurting his standing with most of the electorate.

Headlines recently reported that the president reached an all-time average approval rating. The buried lede was that Trump’s all-time high was an embarrassing 42.7 percent. A comparison with the approval rating of other presidents (going back to Truman) at this point in their term by FiveThirtyEight finds Trump’s approval below every other president except Jimmy Carter, who went on to lose his re-election campaign.

Interestingly, George Herbert Walker Bush, the other incumbent who failed to win re-election, had a 70 percent approval rating at this point in his presidency. In 1991, the first Bush was riding high after winning Desert Storm, the first Iraq war, but a recession from July 1990 to March 1991 sparked by high gas prices after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve led to his defeat the following year. Two other factors, Bush’s decision to raise taxes despite a promise of “Read my lips: no new taxes” and a third-party challenge Ross Perot, also contributed to the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

The second important point from the focus group is that if the economy falters swing voters could quickly abandon President Trump. The most serious threat to the Trump economy is something that his supporters view favorably: his trade wars.

Already, there signs that the Trump economy is not as strong as advertised. A growing number of economists see the potential for a recession before the election. Fortune notes that “the greatest downside risk is trade policy and increased protectionism.” This is especially true since trade talks between the United States and China, one of our largest trading partners, have been unproductive.

The concern about a recession is echoed by corporate financial officers surveyed by Duke University. CNN reported that almost 70 percent of CFOs cite the trade war and a shortage of skilled workers, which is exacerbated by President Trump’s restrictive immigration policies, as reasons that there will be a recession before the end of 2020.

The recession jitters are not unfounded. New data from the Federal Reserve released this week shows that US manufacturing is already in a recession after six consecutive months of declining production. The manufacturing slump is a direct consequence of the trade war. The decline in manufacturing spells trouble for Trump’s hopes of reclaiming the Rust Belt states that pushed him to victory in 2016.

There are other indications that Trump is in trouble on the economy as well. Despite the backing of participants in the focus group, a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Trump’s standing on the economy may already be slipping. The poll showed that majorities now disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy in general as well his positions on taxes and trade negotiations. While two-thirds said that the economy was good, only 17 percent believed that they got a tax cut and only 15 percent saw the tariffs as beneficial.

As recession fears mount, Donald Trump faces a situation similar to the one that dashed the electoral hopes of the first President Bush. Trump’s tariffs, which are literally tax increases on trade, have offset the economic stimulus of the 2017 tax reform and are acting as a drag on the economy. Likewise, Trump may well have a strong third-party challenger who can siphon the votes of disaffected Republicans. If the economy slows to a recession, the situation will be very similar to the one that took down a much more popular president.

The flip side is that the Fed has indicated that it will cut interest rates in the near term. The expected cuts may goose the economy enough to drag Trump across the finish line.

Finally, there is the possibility that, as his supporters often say, that Donald Trump has created a new dynamic in Washington but not necessarily the way that they mean. Several polls over recent months have indicated that more than half of voters refuse to support President Trump for re-election for any reason. The aversion to Trump’s behavior, which one focus group member said is not “where it should be for a president,” may be strong enough that even a good economy will not assure his re-election.

With 16 months to go until the election and with no Democratic candidate holding a lock on the nomination, there are too many variables to predict how the election will turn out. Democrats should be cautious in their expectations about taking on an incumbent in a good economy. Trump’s economy might well sink into recession before the election, however, and, even if it remains strong Trump may have alienated so many voters that he loses anyway.

President Bush’s experience should be a lesson for President Trump. Clinton’s mantra during the campaign was “it’s the economy, stupid” while Bush allowed himself to be distracted. Just as importantly, Bush laid the seed of his own defeat with his tax increase, without which, the 1990 recession and the sluggish growth that followed might never have happened. Trump’s tariff taxes, which are slowing the economy, his focus on his unpopular immigration policies, and his unpresidential behavior may be the seeds of his own defeat.

Originally posted on The Resurgent

Nunes 'Expects Worst' From Mueller Testimony

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, says that he “expect[s] the worst” when former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before Congress next week. Speaking to Fox News, the California congressman said that he expects Mueller to show up for the testimony and hinted that what he tells Congress could be damaging to President Trump.

“I really expect the worst, because Bob Mueller does not have to show up,” Nunes said. “So, he's doing this on his own free will. That tells me the last time he operated on his own free will, everybody forgets, (Attorney General William) Barr came out with a memo, was very clear about the decisions that he had made, and then a few days later, Mueller decided on his own to go out and hold a nine-minute press conference.”

“So I am very concerned,” Nunes continued. “I think we should expect the worst because he only has to say a couple [of] things and the rest of the media -- not saying you here at Fox, but 90 percent of the media will take one little phrase and run with it and try to run towards impeachment.”

“And look, I know there was no collusion and I know there was no obstruction, so in that sense it was fine,” Nunes added. “However, there shouldn't -- this whole investigation was an obstruction of justice trap.”

Nunes fails to point out that avoiding the “obstruction of justice trap” was a simple matter. All the president had to do was not attempt to obstruct the ongoing investigation. Per the testimony of Trump Administration officials contained in the Mueller report, however, the president did not meet this low bar.

Since the Mueller report was released last April following a summary version by Barr in March, Republicans have claimed that Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction. However, Nunes’ uneasiness with Mueller’s testimony indicates that the claim is on shaky ground. Mueller’s previous public statement in May seemed explicitly tailored to counter Republican claims that the report had exonerated the president.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller pointed out in both the written report and his public statement. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

Not making a determination is not the same thing as an exoneration.

In his statement, Mueller went on to explain why his team did not make a determination as to whether President Trump broke the law, saying, “Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office…. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

“A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller continued. “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

Mr. Mueller will testify in open session on July 24 before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. His testimony was originally scheduled for July 17 but was moved in order to give members of both parties more time for questioning. It is also possible that the change could have been due to the fact that President Trump had scheduled a rally in North Carolina for the same day, which could have distracted from Mueller’s testimony.

At this point, no one knows what Mueller will say in his testimony, but Republicans are obviously nervous that he will undercut their claims that President Trump did not obstruct justice in his attempts to block the Russia investigation. A question that is certain to be asked is whether Mueller would have indicted Mr. Trump for his actions if he had not been president. If Mr. Mueller answers directly, it could do more serious damage to President Trump’s already shaky reputation.

Another likely line of questioning involves Mueller’s letter to Barr contradicting his public characterization of the report. In the private letter sent after the release of Barr’s summary but before his decision to release a redacted version of the report, Mueller said that the public summary “did not fully capture the context nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions” and that it had led to “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

The bottom line is that if, as President Trump and Republicans have claimed for the past several months, that the president did nothing wrong then there would be nothing to fear from Robert Mueller’s testimony. The fact that Republicans “expect the worst” from the author of a report that the GOP has claimed exonerates the president should make us wonder how honest Republicans have been in their defenses of the Donald Trump.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Should Welcome Sanford Campaign

The Republican Party has long been a free-market party. The basic idea of free markets is that when there is competition between vendors, both buyers and sellers benefit. Competition forces sellers to be innovative and efficient and, in return, they have the opportunity to earn profits and market share with a well-run business. Buyers benefit from lower prices and a wider variety of products to choose from. So it is with Mark Sanford’s consideration of a primary challenge against President Trump.

Right now, the Republican Party is a monopoly. For years, I countered liberal claims that there was no diversity on the right by saying that Republicans had diversity of thought while the left largely engaged in groupthink. Today, however, that intellectual diversity is largely a thing of the past. Republican opinion ranges from those who enthusiastically agree with everything that Donald Trump says to those who reluctantly agree with almost everything that Donald Trump says. 

Enter Mark Sanford.

Sanford is a former governor of South Carolina who served from 2003 through 2011. In June 2009, he admitted to an extramarital affair after an unexplained absence in which he had traveled to Argentina to meet his mistress. After his divorce, Sanford staged a comeback and was elected to the House of Representatives where he served from 2013 until this year after being defeated in the Republican primary.

As a congressman, Sanford backed Trump in 2016 but became “one of the president’s most eloquent critics” per the Washington Post. Despite his criticism, FiveThirtyEight noted that Sanford had one of the strongest pro-Trump voting records in the House. He lost the 2018 Republican primary election after Trump attacked him on Twitter and endorsed his opponent, who ultimately lost the seat to a Democrat in the general election.

 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1006630395067039744

Sanford is likely to be a stronger contender against Donald Trump than William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian candidate who has already launched a primary challenge against President Trump. Weld, who has so far run a stealth campaign, is a fiscal conservative but holds views on social issues that are outside the Republican mainstream. Sanford, on the other hand, has a 93 percent rating from Freedom Works. Conservative Review lamented his primary loss, noting that he was defeated because he had opposed President Trump’s trade war, allowing his opponent to label him a “Never Trumper” despite his strong pro-Trump voting record.

Sanford’s primary loss in 2018 is emblematic of the current state of the GOP. No matter how strong a candidate’s conservative record, any criticism of President Trump will get them labeled as a “Never Trumper,” which is the trendy new way attack a candidate’s character that has apparently replaced “RINO” since Trump, a long-time Democrat has assumed control of the Republican Party. As I said earlier, intellectual diversity is a rarity in today’s Republican Party.

Even though Sanford will have an uphill battle against the incumbent president, his primary campaign should be welcomed by Republicans. After Trump’s offensive tweets over the weekend, it should be obvious that the president has a problem with moderates and minorities. A USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 68 percent of Americans found Trump’s tweets offensive and 2018 exit polls showed that the GOP had lost ground among virtually every demographic. Further, the president’s trade war has eroded support in farm states that are typically solidly Republican as well as the Rust Belt states that propelled Trump to victory in 2016.

Mark Sanford gives Republicans a choice. If Sanford decides to run, Republican voters can opt between a candidate that preserves the best of Trump’s policy but who does not have the baggage of off-the-wall comments and the tariff war, which has almost completely offset the benefits of tax reform.

The problem for Sanford is that Republicans don’t necessarily want a conservative who is not controversial. A new Reuters poll found that Republican support for Trump increased by five points after his weekend tweetstorm. A March poll from Morning Consult found that only 20 percent of Republican primary voters said that they wanted a candidate other than Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, a Sanford candidacy would offer conservatives in the Republican Party an alternative to Trump. In contrast to 2016, when Republicans reluctantly accepted Trump in the general election out of necessity to defeat Hillary Clinton, if the party voluntarily embraces the president in the 2020 primary it will mean that Trump has fundamentally changed the nature of the Republican Party, perhaps irrevocably, from a conservative party to something else. Republican voters should at least have a choice in the direction of their party.

The Republican resistance to any challenger to Trump is indicative of the president’s weakness. The Republican establishment realizes that President Trump’s support is likely to be both shallow and fragile. They fear that a primary battle that shines the light on Trump’s personal flaws and poor record of achievement outside of tax reform and judicial appointments could expose the fundamental differences between the base that follows Trump’s personality and the traditional Republican conservatives who are more concerned with a principled platform. The illusion of party unity depends on no one questioning the president.

On the other hand, with Republican fortunes are tied to an increasingly unstable incumbent and Republican luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh embracing trillion-dollar deficits and proclaiming that fiscal conservatism is a thing of the past, the debate over the future of the Republican Party is not only necessary, it is long overdue. Reintroducing diversity of thought and holding an honest and serious debate about President Trump’s character and record can only strengthen a party that has been hemorrhaging voters since 2016. For that reason, conservatives should welcome a campaign by Mark Sanford even if it ultimately fails.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Should Welcome Sanford Campaign

The Republican Party has long been a free-market party. The basic idea of free markets is that when there is competition between vendors, both buyers and sellers benefit. Competition forces sellers to be innovative and efficient and, in return, they have the opportunity to earn profits and market share with a well-run business. Buyers benefit from lower prices and a wider variety of products to choose from. So it is with Mark Sanford’s consideration of a primary challenge against President Trump.

Right now, the Republican Party is a monopoly. For years, I countered liberal claims that there was no diversity on the right by saying that Republicans had diversity of thought while the left largely engaged in groupthink. Today, however, that intellectual diversity is largely a thing of the past. Republican opinion ranges from those who enthusiastically agree with everything that Donald Trump says to those who reluctantly agree with almost everything that Donald Trump says. 

Enter Mark Sanford.

Sanford is a former governor of South Carolina who served from 2003 through 2011. In June 2009, he admitted to an extramarital affair after an unexplained absence in which he had traveled to Argentina to meet his mistress. After his divorce, Sanford staged a comeback and was elected to the House of Representatives where he served from 2013 until this year after being defeated in the Republican primary.

As a congressman, Sanford backed Trump in 2016 but became “one of the president’s most eloquent critics” per the Washington Post. Despite his criticism, FiveThirtyEight noted that Sanford had one of the strongest pro-Trump voting records in the House. He lost the 2018 Republican primary election after Trump attacked him on Twitter and endorsed his opponent, who ultimately lost the seat to a Democrat in the general election.

 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1006630395067039744

Sanford is likely to be a stronger contender against Donald Trump than William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian candidate who has already launched a primary challenge against President Trump. Weld, who has so far run a stealth campaign, is a fiscal conservative but holds views on social issues that are outside the Republican mainstream. Sanford, on the other hand, has a 93 percent rating from Freedom Works. Conservative Review lamented his primary loss, noting that he was defeated because he had opposed President Trump’s trade war, allowing his opponent to label him a “Never Trumper” despite his strong pro-Trump voting record.

Sanford’s primary loss in 2018 is emblematic of the current state of the GOP. No matter how strong a candidate’s conservative record, any criticism of President Trump will get them labeled as a “Never Trumper,” which is the trendy new way attack a candidate’s character that has apparently replaced “RINO” since Trump, a long-time Democrat has assumed control of the Republican Party. As I said earlier, intellectual diversity is a rarity in today’s Republican Party.

Even though Sanford will have an uphill battle against the incumbent president, his primary campaign should be welcomed by Republicans. After Trump’s offensive tweets over the weekend, it should be obvious that the president has a problem with moderates and minorities. A USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 68 percent of Americans found Trump’s tweets offensive and 2018 exit polls showed that the GOP had lost ground among virtually every demographic. Further, the president’s trade war has eroded support in farm states that are typically solidly Republican as well as the Rust Belt states that propelled Trump to victory in 2016.

Mark Sanford gives Republicans a choice. If Sanford decides to run, Republican voters can opt between a candidate that preserves the best of Trump’s policy but who does not have the baggage of off-the-wall comments and the tariff war, which has almost completely offset the benefits of tax reform.

The problem for Sanford is that Republicans don’t necessarily want a conservative who is not controversial. A new Reuters poll found that Republican support for Trump increased by five points after his weekend tweetstorm. A March poll from Morning Consult found that only 20 percent of Republican primary voters said that they wanted a candidate other than Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, a Sanford candidacy would offer conservatives in the Republican Party an alternative to Trump. In contrast to 2016, when Republicans reluctantly accepted Trump in the general election out of necessity to defeat Hillary Clinton, if the party voluntarily embraces the president in the 2020 primary it will mean that Trump has fundamentally changed the nature of the Republican Party, perhaps irrevocably, from a conservative party to something else. Republican voters should at least have a choice in the direction of their party.

The Republican resistance to any challenger to Trump is indicative of the president’s weakness. The Republican establishment realizes that President Trump’s support is likely to be both shallow and fragile. They fear that a primary battle that shines the light on Trump’s personal flaws and poor record of achievement outside of tax reform and judicial appointments could expose the fundamental differences between the base that follows Trump’s personality and the traditional Republican conservatives who are more concerned with a principled platform. The illusion of party unity depends on no one questioning the president.

On the other hand, with Republican fortunes are tied to an increasingly unstable incumbent and Republican luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh embracing trillion-dollar deficits and proclaiming that fiscal conservatism is a thing of the past, the debate over the future of the Republican Party is not only necessary, it is long overdue. Reintroducing diversity of thought and holding an honest and serious debate about President Trump’s character and record can only strengthen a party that has been hemorrhaging voters since 2016. For that reason, conservatives should welcome a campaign by Mark Sanford even if it ultimately fails.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Just Say 'No' To The 'Book Of Trump'

Sometimes Trump supporters are compared to cultists. In many cases, the comparison is unfair, but sometimes, as an outside observer looking in on the MAGA movement, you have to shake your head in amazement. That was the case last week when Miriam Adelson, wife of billionaire Republican political donor, Sheldon Adelson, called for the addition of the “Book of Trump” to the Bible.

In an op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal, Mrs. Adelson celebrated President Trump’s pro-Israel policies. In her piece, which stops short of extolling his godly virtues, she compares Trump to Esther, the Biblical queen who saved the Jews from a genocide at the hands of Haman, an evil advisor to the king of Persia.

Noting that Trump is still not widely supported by American Jews, Adelson writes, “Scholars of the Bible will no doubt note the heroes, sages, and prophets of antiquity who were similarly spurned by the very people they came to raise up.”

“Would it be too much to pray for a day when the Bible gets a ‘Book of Trump,’ much like it has a ‘Book of Esther’ celebrating the deliverance of the Jews from ancient Persia?” she asks. “Until that is decided, let us, at least, sit back and marvel at this time of miracles for Israel, for the United States, and for the whole world.”

The answer to that question is, of course, yes. It would be much too much to amend the Bible so that it sings the praises of Donald Trump. The very fact that the question is asked seems to indicate that something is deeply amiss within the Republican Party. There are many reasons why there will never be a Book of Trump, not least of which is that the Old Testament canon was established hundreds of years before the time of Christ. More than that, making Donald Trump the object of holy devotion seems antithetical to the teachings of the Bible.

The consecration of Donald Trump is not limited to Adelson, who is Jewish, but also occurs in evangelical circles as well. I described several months ago how Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress led his church in a “Make America Great Again” hymn and attacked Christians who were not on the Trump train. Likewise, Franklin Graham has called upon Christians to pray for Trump to triumph over his enemies and said that “God was behind the last election.”

In some cases, Trump supporters go beyond equating Trump with Esther or King David and make him equal to Jesus himself. Just ahead of the 2018 election, a billboard in St. Louis pictured Trump with the caption, “The Word became flesh - John 1:14,” a messianic reference to Jesus Christ. The first chapter of John begins with the statement, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” An ebook on Amazon is titled “Donald 'MESSIAH' Trump: The Man, the Myth, the Messiah?” and asks if the president is the “Last Trump of God.”

The message is also carried forth by many rank and file Trump supporters. If you have ever frequented pro-Trump social media groups, you have probably seen memes like this one depicting Christ guiding President Trump’s hand as he signs documents in the Oval Office or this photo of a Trump supporter wearing a shirt that reads, “Jesus died for you, Trump lives for you.” Some of the social media content is satirical, some is not, and it is often difficult to tell the difference. The tendency of the Trump movement to deify the object of its obsession is so widespread and so transparent that it has inspired articles in GQ and Psychology Today as well as on Christian sites such as Red Letter Christians.

Just last week, a Michigan couple held a MAGA-themed, July 4 wedding in which the groom wore his Marine dress uniform and the bride wore a wedding gown crafted from a “Make America Great Again” flag. Bridesmaids wore red MAGA hats with the exception of the maid of honor, a Democrat who wore a plain red cap instead. While the article does not identify the religious beliefs of the couple, marriages have traditionally been a covenant between man, woman, and God rather than man, woman, and president.

While some on the right have argued that Democrats have become secular and replaced God with quasi-worship of the state or an environmental religion centered on climate change. Now it seems that some Republicans, either because they are either secular themselves and lack a focus for the innate human need to worship God or because they are simply misguided and perhaps Biblically illiterate, have replaced God with Donald Trump.

I am not going to spend time itemizing Donald Trump’s continuing unchristian behavior or rehash the fact that, as recently as the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump was at best a nominal Christian who said he had never prayed for forgiveness and who was simultaneously lying about hush money payments to a porn star with whom he had cheated on his pregnant wife. I am also not going to suggest that every Trump supporter literally worships the president, although some certainly seem to do so.

What I am going to do is point back to the first of the Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Putting President Trump on par with God and Jesus is literally placing a false god before the real one. Even putting partisan politics ahead of worshipping God is worshipping an idol. Further, Jesus himself warned against false prophets. In his Mount Olivet discourse, Christ said that at the end of the age “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24). That day may have come.

As Bobby Azarian wrote in Psychology Today, “No one is infallible, no one is free from bias, and no one is honest all of the time, no matter how hard they may strive,” a statement that echoes the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man, the idea that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

“When you believe that someone is truly a godsend, you can excuse anything,” Azarian warns. “It all becomes ‘for the greater good.’ And when that happens, it is a slippery slope to gross abuses of power that continuously increase in magnitude.”

If such adoration was aimed at Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, conservatives and Republicans would rightly ridicule it and those who practice it. The response should be no different because the object of affection of these Trump supporters is a Republican president. No American should bend a knee before a leader of either party and Christians should only kneel to worship Christ. Whether Trump-worship is an actual cult or merely a cult of personality, worship of a president does not bode well for either the Republican Party or the American Republic.