A Strong Inference that the WH Counsel Talked to Trump About How to Respond to Yates’ Concerns

The day after Sally Yates talked to White house Counsel (or is it Council?) he came back with questions, somewhat reminiscent of those John Dean might have asked, but much less intelligent or knowledgeable.  Washington post, Dana Milibank:

He called the DOJ officials back to the White House the next day and asked them a perplexing question, Yates recounted to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee Monday afternoon: Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another White House official?

Yates explained what should have been self-evident: Not only were Pence and the American public entitled to know the truth, but the Russians also knew that Flynn had lied to the vice president — so the Russians had the goods on him. “To state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised with the Russians,” Yates testified. “Logic would tell you that you don’t want the national security adviser to be in a position where the Russians have leverage over him.”

But Trump didn’t move to fire Flynn. He fired Yates instead.

 At the White House counsel’s request, Yates had arranged for him to see the evidence against Flynn on Monday, Jan. 30. But he didn’t come that day, and that night Yates was sacked for refusing to implement Trump’s order banning travelers from several majority-Muslim nations.
Well, where on earth did counsel Don McGahn come up with that question?  I would have think the answer would have been obvious to the cleaning staff.
But the Donald, not so clear.
Now, as we learned from Watergate, White House calls, meetings, etc., may not have tapes and transcripts, but they are all logged.  So the circumstantial case for Presidential involvement in the Flynn cover-up, for cover up is what it certainly appears to have been, grows, and the lurking question of motive gets larger.  That Obama had previously at least generally warned Trump off Flynn, to no avail, and that Spicer now says that the warning was ignored as sour grapes from a loser, does not help Trump’s case at all.
P.S. Is it not tragically and deliciously ironic that the Trump White House had to ask why it would be a problem if someone lied?  Did they have to look up the meaning of the word?

 

 

An Additional Example of The Breakdown of Nation State Autonomy– White House staff and Trudeau

At one level, this is astonishing. From The Hill.

White House officials enlisted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to help convince President Trump not to unilaterally withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), according to a Monday report.

The unique and potentially embarrassing approach, which was first reported by Canada’s National Post, apparently worked. Following phone calls with Trudeau and Mexican President Peña Nieto, Trump backed off of reported plans to pull out of NAFTA last month.

Instead, Trump announced that he would renegotiate the 23-year-old deal agreement among the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

I am sure this will draw attention mainly as yet another example of the dysfunction of the White House and its nominal occupant.

But the idea that the staff of a nation’s chief executive would find it appropriate to bring in as an ally the chief executive of another country to change their own bosses mind is in fact merely symptomatic of the fact that today the real disputes are between loose alliances of elites whose loyalties and communications now cross national boundaries.

It is related to the interest of foreign countries in state by state politics in the US, is reflected in part by Flynn, and whoever else is ultimately implicated in “Russiagate,” (what did the President know, and when did he know it?) not thinking through what they did.  It is surely also reflected in the myriad state department staff who have tried to reassure elites among our allies that we are not yet as unpredictable as monitoring twitter might suggest.  Think about the conversations between Brussels officials and the British Civil Service right now.  Or between Bannon and LePenn.

At least arguably, the problem for Flynn, and whoever, is not that they had conversations, but that they made no distinctions between our friends and our allies, or rather that their actions reflected a lack of understanding that there is a distinction.

The fact is that as national interests become more and more interconnected, this is an almost inevitable process.  The questions are how to manage it so that the interests of the excluded are not even more abandoned, and how to see this as part of the process of creating trans-national institutions and governments.  Would the United States ever have been established if the leaders of the thirteen states had not already somewhat  known each other, and known whom they could trust.

We need very new ways of thinking about this.

Lobbying and Campaigning Rights for Nonprofits

So, if religious groups can have a tax exemption, but are not resticted in their campaign and lobbying activities, surely it must be unconstitutional to deny the same rights to nonprofit organizations.  That would both be content based discrimination and establishment of religion.

That might lead to more than Trump bargained for today.

Be careful what you wish for.

Are We Headed For a 2018 Veto Proof Budget?

Two events in the last couple of days suggest that Democrats and Republicans may have to combine to pass a veto-proof budget for next year.

Trump has announced that a shut down would be a good thing.  That might be good for Republicans fearing a primary, but not for those fearing the Democrats, as many will be  by the fall.

The 2017 budget appears to be relying on a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, put together over Trump’s at least apparent disapproval, to get over the top.  Moreover, the budget contains a surprising number of “up your’s Donald” provisions, and almost nothing of what he wants.

So, a veto proof budget may be the only way to keep the country functioning, and that may align with congressional and Senate interests in both parties.

What a year!

P.S.  The used to be a joke that new Congressman of both parties were told by thee seniors – “always remember who the real enemy is.” The newbie would name the opposing party and the elder statesman would reply: “No, the Senate.”  Maybe the answer in both parties, and now both chambers, is becoming “the President.”

Hard not to see why.