Republicans Fret As Trump Seems Determined To Start A Global Trade War

Just to show you the chaos that Donald Trump creates in the media narratives, the fact that he has basically started a global trade war over the last two days is barely making a ripple compared to his outright lie that he didn't fire Comey because of Russia, his pardon of D'Souza, and his threatened pardons of Blagojevich and Stewart, pardons clearly meant to influence Cohen and Manafort to not become cooperating witnesses.

On Tuesday, Trump changed course once again and decided to go ahead with the 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods. The Chinese already have their retaliatory tariffs lined up and ready to go, specifically designed to strike at the heart of Trump country in the Midwest and rural America.

Today, Trump announced that he would also go ahead with the steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the EU. The purported grounds for this action is "national security". But Wilbur Ross directly contradicted that rationale by claiming these tariffs were designed to put pressure on Canada and Mexico in the NAFTA renegotiation as well as the EU in separate trade talks. In response, Canada and Mexico have already announced their own retaliatory tariffs, and the EU is preparing theirs.

Again, these retaliatory tariffs will probably strike communities in the Trump base of support more than others. Even Ben Sasse recognizes that threat, saying, "This is dumb. Europe, Canada and Mexico are not China, and you don't treat allies the same way you treat opponents. We've been down this road before - blanket protectionism is a big part of why we had the Great Depression". Orrin Hatch released a statement saying these tariffs are essentially a "tax hike on Americans" and House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady said that "these tariffs are hitting the wrong target" and Trump's action "puts American workers and families at risk".

So far, the stock market has barely reacted, down just about 1%, so it appears that this is being treated as just another Trump negotiating tactic. And Trump has already backed down on these tariffs once before. Obviously, trying to read Trump's mind is a fool's errand. But it appears that the pressure on China is related to the North Korean talks and the Canadian and Mexican tariffs are all about NAFTA, as Ross readily admits. The tariffs on the EU are also probably designed to get voluntary quotas on steel and aluminum out of the EU, as the South Koreans have already done.

But I'm pretty sure that our trading partners, especially Canada and Mexico, are getting tired of these extortionary tactics. And, at this point, Trump's actions may be counterproductive as any concessions from Canada and Mexico on NAFTA will now be viewed by their own constituents as caving in to Trump's extortion. Justin Trudeau said that today "a turning point in the Canada-U.S. relationship" and the current Ontario Premier declared "I think that we've all had just about enough of Donald Trump. This is a president who rules by tweet. He's a man who doesn't seem to get that his bluster and his bullying are costing people real jobs."

And many of those lost jobs will come from Trump's base of support. The Chinese have targeted Midwestern soybean and sorghum farmers. The Chinese and the Mexicans have targeted Iowa and Arkansas hog farmers. According to John Murphy of the US Chamber of Commerce, "US steel prices have risen 40% since Jan. 1 and are now nearly 50% higher than in Europe or China. And today the volume of metals imports subject to tariffs is being doubled. The impact on manufacturing and construction will be very substantial." And that manufacturing base is again located in Trump's Midwestern heartland as the map below illustrates:

Trump seems determined to start a global trade war. But that war is likely to harm Trump's own working class base more than anyone. And that may be a very dangerous place for Republicans to be heading into the midterm elections, a fact Republican legislators apparently recognize. Whether Trump does is presently unclear.

Media Missing The Broader Context Of Trump's Lies

I know it's hard for the media to keep track of and focus on all the lies and scandals coming out of the Trump administration. That is especially difficult because Trump is a master of feeding the media beast, knowing that not allowing it to focus on one issue for any sustained period makes all the lies and scandals just sound like background noise. Hillary Clinton, more than anyone, knows the damage that a daily media pounding on one relatively trivial issue can do. I also know that it's not necessarily fair to single out one particular reporter or story as illustrative of the media at large. But in this case, I do think it is instructive in highlighting the media's failure to truly understand the environment they are working in.

ThinkProgress has the story of Margaret Brennan's interview with GOP Representative and head of the Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows, on Face the Nation on Sunday. I know Face the Nation doesn't have nearly the clout that it had before the emergence of cable and the internet. But, on the other hand, it is still one of CBS' flagship news programs. So you would hope Ms. Brennan would actually be informed on the issues. Instead, she actually supported the totally false notion promoted by the President that there is a law that requires children to be separated from their families who cross the border illegally.  Here is the entire exchange:

BRENNAN: I want to ask you as well about immigration because we could talk all day about the other topic. The president tweeted yesterday that it’s a horrible law to have parents separated from their children if they cross the border illegally. Do you agree it’s horrible?
REP. MEADOWS: Yeah I think it is a horrible law. It’s one of those that actually —
BRENNAN: Do you want to change it?
REP. MEADOWS: Actually, I think there is real bipartisan support for changing it. Here's one of the interesting things. As we've been in these negotiations on trying to fix the immigration problem, this came out just the other day. I said I just can't imagine that it's the law, that you have to separate these individuals. Now obviously, human trafficking is a big deal, how do you know that they're really  parents and a family unit, so we would have to address that. But I think conservatives, moderates, and Democrats all agree that keeping a family together is the best strategy.

Of course, there is no such law. What has happened is that the Trump administration has changed its policy to treat every border crossing as a criminal act. Because of that change, the parents need to be immediately sent to criminal detention facilities. But children are not allowed in those facilities so they now have to be separated from the parents and are treated as unaccompanied minors, even if the children are only months old.

The disturbing part of this policy change is that it is intentionally designed to be cruel. As Jeff Sessions said, "We don’t want to separate families, but we don’t want families to come to the border illegally. This is just the way the world works."

Now everyone makes mistakes and there have been plenty of media outlets that have reported the truth about Trump's false claim that this law that forces separation of families actually exists. So this particularly egregious error on a flagship news program is not going to be the end of the world. But I do think it speaks to the real difficulties that responsible media organization have in avoiding simply becoming an unwitting mouthpiece for Trump propaganda.

This is deeper than simply the continual and ongoing discussion about whether to call Trump's statements "lies" or "falsehoods" or "untruths" or "unconfirmed" or whatever. It is simply the fact that the President's statements have to be reported at face value and then their validity gets vetted. But just the simple fact of reporting Trump's initial false statement is all the amplification that he desires.

As I was writing this, Daniel Dale crystallized the point in a tweetstorm about Trump's speech last night in Nashville. Writes Dale, "What I mean when I say a bigger issue than the lie-vs.-other-word debate is whether Trump's extreme dishonesty gets covered at all: try to find a story on that rally that notes he said more than a dozen things that weren't true, or just notes he was mostly detached from reality. His lies and other false claims get called out on Twitter a bit. And then the actual stories just quote him saying untrue things without correcting them, or pick out a newsworthy argument or attack without noting that the speech was dominated by unprecedented dishonesty. Trump's unprecedentedly dishonest, unprecedentedly unfocused speeches are crammed into a normal-political-speech-article template, with any semblance of fact-checking relegated to a sidebar later in the week or not done at all. It Is Bad."

Moreover, the fact that the mainstream media eventually gets around to calling his statements lies is meaningless to Trump and much of his supporters because they already believe that the mainstream media itself is full of lies. So, in the end, the media provides the amplification Trump desires without the context getting through to a significant portion of the public.

Part of this is certainly and simply the power of the bully pulpit. But part of it is also driven by the media cult of personality where the focus is more so on Trump than the actual policies carried out by his administration. And if Brennan and CBS had been focused on the actual policy issue of family separation at the border, they would have understood that it was the result of a change made by the Trump administration, a change made with stated intentional cruelty, and that there was no "law" requiring it. And the network would therefore not rely on Trump's misleading tweet to describe the policy.

Of course, Brennan's gaffe merely compounds the problem. The White House subsequently released a statement decrying the Democrats' "catch and release" approach to immigration and Obama's "open borders" policies. I guarantee there are numerous Trump supporters out there who will now say that Obama was purposely not enforcing the law and letting all these illegal immigrants into the country. If ever confronted, they will respond that they saw it reported on CBS so it must be true. And, as of Tuesday, neither the network nor the show has issued a correction for the false assertion that the law on separation exists.

The larger problem for the mainstream media, which Dale hints at, is that they are engaged in a war for the truth and the heart of our democracy, a fight against a rising tide of autocracy, but they don't seem to realize the battle they are in. Trump and the Republican party now have a massive propaganda machine behind them in Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, as well as the usual closed networks on social media. And, with Trump, we have a President who is only interested in feeding that propaganda machine and far less concerned with the traditional media. The story of how Trump's lies fit into that larger story largely goes uncovered.

Yes, there are plenty of reporters and media outlets doing fantastic work uncovering the lies and corruption of this administration. It's not that the media isn't combatting Trump's lies and propaganda, It's that they are limited by a structure designed for a traditional approach to government and governing. The media still has their top reporters covering the White House briefing where Sarah Sanders simply lies to them all on a regular and repeated basis. As many have asked, is that the best use of those powerful resources?

As Dale notes, Trump's mendaciousness is so all-pervasive, his disregard for facts is so all-encompassing, that the traditional methods of covering him simply do not work. They merely amplify his lies. The lede should always be that the President gave another unhinged speech full of lies, not regurgitating those lies and subsequently determining their lack of veracity.

Without a constant focus on that broader context, the media will find itself slowly but surely slipping into simply becoming another arm of the propaganda machine. It happened to Margaret Brennan and Face the Nation.

Stanley Cup Finals Preview

It will be the Washington Capital against the Las Vegas Golden Knights in the Stanley Cup finals starting tonight. Both teams got here using a similar formula in the previous round of the conference finals, namely scoring first and then shutting down the opposition.

Amazingly, in the twelve combined games in the conference finals, the team that scored first won every game but one. The Golden Knights defeated the Winnipeg Jets 4-1, taking the last four games in a row. (I had predicted the Jets winning in 7.) After the freewheeling Jets rolled in game 1, the Vegas defense and the goaltending of Marc Andre Fleury began to assert themselves. Starting in game 2, the Jets also began to show a woeful habit of giving up a goal within seconds of getting the goal that got them back in the game. It seemed every time the Jets tied the game up and seemingly grabbed the momentum, they would inevitably give one up almost immediately thereafter. They could never get their nose ahead in any game after game 1. Marc Andre Fleury stole game 3 for Vegas with multiple sequences of miraculous saves and Dustin Byfuglien, who had been a rock for Winnipeg all playoffs long, made a couple of egregious errors in game 4 that cost the Jets that game. After that, it was all she wrote, as the Vegas defense kept the Jets from the free skating game they like to play and Fleury was there to take care of any quality Jets chances.

The Caps took the longest route possible to beat the Tampa bay Lightning, winning in 7 games. (I had the Lightning winning in 6.) The Caps completely dominated the Lightning in the first two games of the series in Tampa. They outhustled, outhit, and totally outplayed the Lighting and, heading back to DC, it looked like it could be a quick series. But the next two games were a total reverse of the first two, with the Lightning shutting down the Caps offense and getting their own defense involved in the offense. And when the Caps put in a truly lackluster performance in game 5, it looked like another typical Washington collapse. But not this year and not this team. With Ovechkin leading the way on offense, the Caps totally shut down the Tampa offense, shutting them out in both game 6 and game 7 to win the series.

The lesson of the conference finals should carry over to the finals. Both teams are tough to breakdown when they get the lead, so scoring first should mean a lot in this series. The Caps power play is especially deadly, with Ovechkin and T.J. Oshie providing a dual scoring threat at forward and John Carlson blasting from the point. But the Golden Knights probably have the advantage in goal, with Fleury putting up record numbers for a playoff season. I have shown no faith in Caps goalie Brayden Holtby during these playoffs and he has defied my predictions throughout. He will have to continue playing at his recent level if the Caps are to win the Cup. In addition, it could really hurt the Caps if Brooks Orpik, who was injured in game 7 against the Lightning, misses more than a game or two. Finally, second-tier scoring for either team could be the deciding factor in this series.

There are a couple of larger stories to this final as well. George McPhee is responsible not only for putting together the core of the Capitals roster but also for building the Golden Knights from scratch into Cup finalists in this their very first year. Of course, long-struggling franchises like the Coyotes and Canucks may be more than a little envious and angry over an expansion draft system that allowed such a juggernaut to be so quickly built.

Lastly, this will be Alexander Ovechkin's first trip to the finals, having suffered heartbreak after heartbreak in his 13 year career. The Caps historical playoff failures have been in spite of Ovechkin's efforts rather than because his failure to produce. His supporting cast has just never been good enough. This year's team is different, showing resilience throughout the playoffs and especially in the last series against the Lightning.

If there is any justice in this world, (and, looking at the current state of the world, you can see there isn't), Vegas shouldn't be rewarded for an expansion draft designed to make them successful and Ovechkin should finally win his championship.

Prediction: Caps in 7, with Ovechkin scoring an overtime winner.

French Open Preview And Predictions

I always seem to forget that the French Open starts on Sunday, so, once again, I am late with my preview. And with this being a clay court tournament, most of the suspense will come from the women's side of the draw where the chances of someone coming out of the blue to win it all are far greater.

That happened for Jelena Ostapenko last year. But it was not to be this year as she lost 7-5, 6-3 in a dreadful first round match on Sunday, filled with innumerable errors and 13 double faults by Ostapenko. Ostapenko's play over the last year has proved her title was no fluke but she readily admitted after the match that she felt the enormous pressure of defending her title and it effected her play. Venus Williams also fell to same bug that afflicted Ostapenko, committing 35 unforced errors in her two set loss to Qiang Wang, whom Williams had defeated here in the first round last year.

Theoretically, that should have opened up that quarter of the bracket for last year's quarter-finalist and one of this year's favorites, Elina Svitolina. But even she looked in jeopardy as she fell behind 5-1 in the first set before finally getting it together and rattling off 12 of the next 15 games.

The top quarter of the draw is dominated by the ever erratic #1 seed, Simona Halep, who is looking to avenge last year's loss in the finals and finally win a Grand Slam title. There is really no one in her quarter, other than herself, who should stop Halep from reaching the semis. Similarly, the bottom quarter of the draw is open for the #2 seed Caroline Wozniacki whose only competition should come from Petra Kvitová, neither of whom really prefer the red dirt of Roland Garros.

The remaining quarter of the draw is actually stacked, with three-time champion Maria Sharapova, 2016 champion Garbine Muguruza, #3 seed Karolina Pliskova, and the GOAT Serena Williams, who is returning from her maternity leave from the sport but has yet to find her form. You know Serena will really be back at some point and she surely knows how to rise to the occasion. But she is probably pointing to Wimbledon rather than focusing on the French. You just have the feeling that whoever comes out of this quarter will have the confidence to take down Halep in the semifinal.

Especially for the women, the red clay is the great equalizer and women we have barely heard of can get hot and do serious damage in this tournament as we saw with Ostapenko last year. This year's sleeper might be Kiki Bertens who is in form, beating Wozniacki and Sharapova before losing to Kvitová in the finals of Madrid.

On the men's side, the drama is all at the bottom half of the draw which is populated by #2 seed Alex Zverev, Dominic Thiem, who took down Nadal in Madrid, the still struggling Novak Djokovic, and Gregor Dmitrov.  Thiem may have the game and plan to beat Nadal but I just don't think he can string enough great tennis together over the course of two weeks to get there, especially when he would face Zverev in the quarters.

The top half of the draw is dominated by #1 seed Rafa Nadal. Perhaps the only two names that might concern Nadal in his half are Juan Martin del Potro and Denis Shapovalov. For Nadal, it should be a cakewalk to the final and whomever he plays there will have logged many more minutes and even hours on court.

Finals Predictions:

Pliskova v. Svitolina; Svitolina wins in 3 long grueling sets;

Nadal v. Zverev; Nadal wins in 3 workman-like sets

Trump Does Not Play Eleven Dimensional Chess

Incredibly, in the wake of Trump's cancellation of the North Korean summit, the emerging media meme is that the cancellation is just part of Trump's negotiating strategy with many believing that the summit will eventually happen anyway. I believe the despicable Hugh Hewitt even called the decision to call off the summit "a master stroke" on MTP Daily on Friday.

The logic behind this viewpoint is actually unfathomable but it goes like this. Deep down, Trump really wants this summit and so does Kim, so they both have an incentive to eventually meet. Of course Kim wants to meet with Trump. Sitting down in a face-to-fact meeting as an equal with the American President has been a goal of every North Korean leader since the end of the Korean War.

And of course the North Koreans were going to vehemently object to Bolton and Pence floating the "Libya option" if the North does not denuclearize, After all, that "option" means the annihilation of the Kim regime. But, after Trump's withdrawal, the North put out an extraordinarily restrained statement saying they were still willing to meet with Trump "at any time". And yesterday, he apparently asked for and got a meeting with Moon in an attempt to revive the summit.

But sitting down at that meeting does not mean Kim has any intention of giving up his nuclear weapons, which it seems clear he believes is his regime's literal life insurance policy. But something Kim might be willing to do is sign a peace treaty with the South and give up is his long range ICBMs which are the delivery vehicle that threatens the United States. In return, he would be looking for a withdrawal of US forces from the South and some economic aid.

So, for Kim, the reasons for his desire to have the meeting are clear. And his willingness to meet with Moon is also entirely consistent. Beyond keeping the détente between the North and the South going, with possible economic aid in return for reduced tensions, continuing to meet with Moon also advances Kim's aim of opening up a divide between the US and South Korea. And having a meeting between Kim and Moon where the US is not only not participating but an active part of the problem is exactly what Kim wants. Kim can now continually portray himself as the one willing to meet, making Trump more and more look like the one obstructing the meeting as well as looking more and more like the weaker party. In the end, however, Kim may want the summit with Trump but he certainly doesn't need it.

Trump's desire for the meeting has never been defined by any specific policy outcomes other than denuclearization. Rather, it seems, the reasons that Trump wants the meeting are primarily political. It seems clear he was drawn by the lure of "doing what no other President has done" and the possibility of the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, the meeting provides a distraction from the Mueller investigation that is quickly closing in on him. More importantly, the polling on his handling of the North Korean issue has risen by 20 points and, until Thursday, was viewed favorably by a majority of the country. That, in turn, has driven up Trump's overall approval rating and probably helped bring the generic poll advantage for Democrats down considerably.

But the idea that this withdrawal was part of an eleven dimensional chess strategy by Trump is simply ludicrous. First of all, numerous reports indicate that Trump withdrew because he thought the North Koreans were going to withdraw first. And his letter, which reads like a teenage "I'm breaking up with you before you can break up with me" missive, is clear enough indication of that. More importantly, if, as the strategy theory postulates, Trump really still wants the meeting, then why didn't he just go ahead and have it. It's not like Kim is going to give him anything extra now in order to have the meeting. In fact, Trump isn't even asking for any new concessions in order to have the meeting.

The reality, of course, is that Trump is now in an even weaker position than he was last Wednesday. The South Koreans and the Chinese are no longer interested in exerting maximum pressure so our sanctions will have far less impact. And now Trump is clearly being looked at as the one who doesn't really want to have the meeting, as the obstacle to the desired peace on the peninsula, which is why we almost immediately saw Trump and his advisers start promoting the line that the summit may still take place sometime. Regardless of what happens now, if the summit does end up happening it will be Trump that will now be coming to the meeting looking like the supplicant, rather than Kim. Does anyone really think that is something that Trump would tolerate.

In a prior post, I've illustrated that Trump's seemingly "impulsive" foreign policy moves have been best explained by his racketeering mentality that has either extorted or accepted bribes. We have seen that play out in the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and the UAE on one side and Qatar and Iran on the other. We have seen that in Trump's interactions with Ukraine and China.

In fact, the two countries most invested in this summit and potential ratcheting down of tensions between North Korea and the US are probably South Korea and Japan, the two countries most directly threatened by Kim's nuclear capability. I find it hardly a coincidence that the very same day Trump withdrew from the summit he also impetuously and unexpectedly floated the idea of a 25% tariff on imported automobiles.

The media portrayed these tariffs as a threat to Canada and Mexico in the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations, which are now largely stymied over the auto issue. But Trump's threat was, in reality, meaningless in those negotiations. The Canadian foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, called the national security rationale for these tariffs "frankly absurd". And the head of the US Chamber of Commerce declared "If this proposal is carried out, it would deal a staggering blow to the very industry it purports to protect and would threaten to ignite a global trade war". Because of the extortionist nature of the threat, it could be argued that it stiffens the resolve of Mexico and Canada over the auto issue and actually complicates the NAFTA renegotiations.

Once again, the media portrayed Trump's actions as being eleven dimensional chess in the NAFTA negotiations. But there is another equally acceptable explanation that fits in with the timeline of what was happening on Wednesday and Trump's pattern in sudden foreign policy decisions. South Korea and Japan are also countries that export a lot of cars to the US as well as build them in the US. The value of Japanese car exports to the US now stands at about $40 billion while the US market now accounts for almost 50% of South Korean car exports. South Korea has already been adversely effected by the voluntary quotas it imposed after the implementation of aluminum and steel imports.

There is no distance between the negotiating stance of the US and that of South Korea and Japan. Both those countries would prefer the denuclearization of North Korea. So the idea that these auto tariffs are bringing Japan and South Korean into line on North Korea is a non-starter. It might be plausible to claim that Trump is using this tactic to gain even more concessions on trade from these two countries knowing that they both want to see the summit with Kim go forward. But, based on what we have seen from Trump both before and since his inauguration, this looks like another simple extortion attempt for personal gain. If the summit actually occurs, I would not be surprised that we will find out at some later date that the Trump Organization received some money or beneficial treatment from South Korea and quite possibly Japan.

Trump does not play eleven dimensional chess. I sincerely doubt he even knows how to play regular chess. The only games Trump knows is PR and racketeering with expertise in extortion, bribery, and money laundering. The initial reaction to virtually anything Trump does should be at last initially treated though that prism.

Natural Weekends - Clouds

Natural Weekends - Local Wildlife

US Economy Showing Signs Of Stress

The economic recovery will be 10 years old next month, making it the longest economic expansion in US history. Of course, this slow but steady expansion is coming off the greatest financial decline in US history, by some measures even greater than the Great Depression. But it also begs the question of how much longer this expansion can run.

For the first time in nearly two decades, rates on US government debt are higher than other developed countries. The last time this situation occurred was in June, 2000. The yield on the benchmark 10-year bond has moved up to 3.1%, increasing borrowing costs across the economy. This rise in rates actually reflects two conflicting trends, optimism about the short-term future of the economy compared to the resto of the world and rising inflation expectations, partially driven by the explosion of the deficit prompted by the Trump tax cuts.

In fact, the Fed will intends to raise rates at least two more times this year, with a 50-50 chance of a third hike, which will further push up yields and borrowing costs, adding to the chances that the economy will slow. In addition, higher inflation erodes any wage gains workers might receive. Last month, inflation adjusted wage gains were basically flat and have actually been falling since 2015.

The rise in rates is also driving a stronger dollar which will actually make imports cheaper and exports more expensive. That will hurt the agricultural and manufacturing sectors, while possibly providing lower prices for consumers over all. And it will also drive up our trade deficits, driving Trump, who is fixated on them, into even more self-destructive trade policies, such as the auto tariffs currently being floated.

However, those lower prices will probably be offset by higher gas prices. For the bottom 40% of Americans, rising gas prices will have eliminated any of the gains from the Trump tax cut this year. For the bottom half of that 40% group, higher gas prices will have consumed over three times more than they received from that tax cut.

Another additional data point, (h/t to Matt Yglesias on this one), comes from the recently reported decline in US fertility rates. As sociologist Philip Cohen notes, "That drop in 2017 is the biggest since the last recession started. In fact, we have seen no drop that big that’s not associated with a time of national economic distress, at least since the Baby Boom". Other studies have shown that a large decline in fertility is actually a leading economic indicator. Cohen summarizes, "This is a pretty solid warning sign, although not definitive, of an economic downturn coming in the next year or so".

These economic statistics show that the economy is moving out of the low growth, low interest rate environment that has dominated for the last decade. If that movement is actually reflective of a economic downturn, that could spell real danger for Trump and the Republicans, maybe not for this fall's election but for the leadup to 2020.

Another Step Back To The Gilded Age

While we are all consumed by the daily revelations that the Trump presidency is just one massive racketeering enterprise, the Federalist Society's one million dollar Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, cast the deciding vote in a major decision to take us back to the Gilded Age when workers had little or no protections.

The decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis enshrines the right for corporations to include not only a forced arbitration clause in their employment contracts but also waive their right for redress in a court of law in disputes with management. This decision essentially guts the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that allowed workers to band together for "mutual aid and protection". In his opinion, Gorsuch simply ignored the intent of the NLRA, instead relying on the earlier 1925 Arbitration Act that allowed such clauses. As Ginsburg pointed out in her defense, the NLRA was specifically written to address the imbalance between employers and workers that still existed after the Arbitration Act was passed.

I have written many times about failure of forced arbitration to protect workers and customers. Arbitration hearings are, by design, stacked against the complainant. Companies usually have lawyers or other agents representing them while the employee actually has to find the time to show up, usually with no legal or arbitration expertise to rely on. For complainants that actually make the effort to go through arbitration, the chances for success are limited. Often the companies themselves are able to choose the arbitrators and an arbitrator that is too friendly to the complainants will find that he is hearing fewer and fewer cases and making less and less money. In California, a study of 33,000 credit card arbitration cases over the course of three years found that the companies won 95% of the cases, with some of the cases discharged in less than ten minutes. Of course, credit card arbitration cases may not be representative of employee actions but it is hard to believe the results would differ dramatically.

Moreover, individual complaints are far more likely to trigger retaliatory actions from the employer, including threats to and eventual termination of employment. A collective action provides greater protection for each individual worker.

The case that prompted this Supreme Court review, Epic Systems v. Lewis, is instructive about what the results of this decision will be. The case was triggered by an employee who claimed that Epic Systems had illegally denied him and other employees overtime wages by misclassifying their worker status. After reaching a $5.4 million settlement for wage theft with workers in 2014, the company instituted new employment contracts that banned workers from bring wage disputes against the company on a collective basis. In February, 2015 employee Jacob Lewis filed a suit as a collective action against the company for wage theft from technical writers, of which Lewis was one. The company fought the suit, saying that the technical writers needed to go to individual arbitration instead of a collective court action, which is how the case ended up in the Supreme Court. In addition, another suit, again claiming wage theft, was brought against the company in December, 2016.

In the span of two years, Epic was involved in at least three separate actions involving wage theft. The company seems to be engaged in serial wage theft, but according to Gorsuch and the other conservative members of the Court, workers should not be allowed to engage in collective action to combat this broad assault on their pay. This decision by the Court just opens the door for corporations to continue to engage in massive wage theft, which is already costing workers somewhere between $40 and $60 BILLION per year.

Similarly, the Harvey Weinstein scandal provides an insight into this decision's effect on sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. Weinstein used forced arbitration clauses to stifle and silence the victims of his sexual abuse who were employees for decades. For predatory bosses, this decision is a declaration of open season and totally at odds with the emergence of the #MeToo movement.

But there is actually a far more important reason that this ruling is an abomination, as pointed out to me by an esteemed legal friend. Our judicial system is built on a foundation of case law. Legal cases provide the precedent for subsequent decisions. By forcing these employment cases into arbitration, we essentially freeze employment case law as it exist now. That should be a frightening thought as we deal with the looming future of increased automation and the emergence of AI and confront issues we have not seen before in our quickly and ever-changing workplace.

Donald Trump - The Art Of The Racketeer

Donald Trump is basically a racketeer, specializing in the crimes of extortion, bribery, money laundering, and now obstruction of justice. The people who knew this best, far more than the American people and press, were the corrupt foreign governments and oligarchs with whom Trump had engaged in his racket over the last few decades, whether through extortion, bribery, or money laundering. And these foreign entities knew better than anyone how to deal with Trump.

The most advantageous position to be in with Trump is to have enough leverage over him so he can not extort you, because that is his default option. Conversely, the least advantageous position is where Trump has all the leverage and can extort you. Bribery can strengthen or weaken your position depending on the situation, but, even then, bribery will only get you so far without leverage as bribery brings no loyalty from Trump. If you are not the law, the best way to fight back against  a racketeer is to become a racketeer yourself.

It seems clear, based on Trump's refusal to ever criticize Putin, that the Russians had plenty of leverage over Trump and were determined to use it. In addition, the Russians had been laundering money with Trump for over a decade. And they knew he could be bought. That leverage, combined with the Russian campaign to discredit Hillary, was designed to get the sanctions lifted in return for Trump becoming President. The Russians also knew that they could enhance their position with Trump with additional bribery, holding out the possibility of that chimerical Trump Tower in Moscow. The Russians were actually in prime position with Trump, apparently having enormous leverage over him and being able to bribe him with something he desperately wanted.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were in a somewhat similar position to the Russians but probably did not have the same level of leverage over Trump that the Russians did. They did have years of history dealing with Trump and knew he could be influenced by their money. Trump had done business with both the Saudis and the UAE for years. Trump already had two branded golf course in Dubai and his UAE partner promised to invest $2 billion more in Trump properties after Trump's election. And Trump himself admitted that Saudis were currently buying apartments in his buildings, in addition to having helped bail Trump out way back in the 1980s.

We now know that the Saudis and the Emiratis were proposing a social media campaign to help the Trump election effort, led by Israeli Joel Zamel who had previously done work for Russian oligarch and one-time Paul Manafort benefactor, Oleg Deripaska. A meeting was set up by dual-national Emirati and convicted pedophile George Nader and Erik Prince, (who subsequently committed perjury in front of a Congressional committee about the meeting), with Donald Trump Jr. and representatives from the two countries. Nader and Prince were also set up the meeting in the Seychelles to set up a back channel with the Russians. According to the New York Times, Trump Jr. reacted positively to the idea, much as he had when meeting with the Russians. In fact, Nader met multiple times with Trump campaign officials including Kushner, Flynn, and Bannon in the last two months of the campaign.

After the election, Nader not only paid to produce a presentation about the effectiveness of the social media campaign but also paid Zamel a reported $2 million, although that payment can not currently be linked directly to the election disruption effort. Whether this Saudi effort, which began in August 2016, was in concert with Russia, especially after the Manafort connection to Deripaska was uncovered earlier that month, remains unknown.

Nader seems to been emboldened by this success, realizing that Trump could be bought and also that he now had a certain amount of leverage. And Nader was determined to capitalize on that, not only for himself but also for the Saudis and Emiratis. After Trump's inauguration, Nader met with both Kushner and Bannon and began pushing a similar campaign against the Iranians, but using economic warfare as well as propaganda. He pitched this idea, as well as a proxy army to fight against the Iranians in Yemen in coordination with Erik Prince, to both the Americans and the Saudis.

Those specific plans don't seem to have materialized but their outlines can be seen in subsequent actions by Trump, the Saudis, and the Emiratis. In May of 2017, Trump was in Saudi Arabia and signing a $110 billion deal to sell arms to Saudis to aid them in the proxy war with Iran. By June of 2017, the Saudi Arabia and the UAE accused Qatar, who they viewed as an ally of Iran, of supporting terrorism, cutting all trade and diplomatic relations, and instituting a blockade of the country. Despite the fact that Qatar housed the most important US base in the Middle East, Trump fully supported the Saudi and Emirati action, claiming Qatar was "a funder of terror at a very high level."

By now, George Nader had hooked up with Elliot Broidy, the deputy finance chair of the Republican National Committee, and they continued to try to build anti-Qatar sentiment in Congress and in the White House in hopes of getting major business deals with the Saudi and Emiratis, including potentially moving the important US base from Qatar to one of those countries.

In early December, Broidy made the first of his $1.6 million hush money payments to a Playboy model whom he apparently got pregnant and paid for her abortion in a deal setup by Michael Cohen. There is circumstantial evidence that Trump was actually the one who had the affair with the model and got her pregnant and that Broidy was simply paying her off on Trump's behalf. That evidence includes the fact that the same pseudonym for Trump in the Stormy Daniels case was used in Broidy's supposed NDA with the model. That theory is also bolstered by the fact that, on the very next day after that initial payment was made, Broidy had a personal meeting with Trump in New York. And by the end of the month, Broidy and Nader had signed over $1 billion in deals, primarily with the UAE, as well as receiving nearly $1 million in US defense contracts over the course of 2017. Nader himself subsequently donated nearly $200,000 to the RNC in order to get his picture taken with Trump.

The Saudis, the Emiratis, George Nader, and Elliot Broidy all saw how to deal with Trump. The Saudis and Emiratis gained leverage by helping Trump get elected. They collected with a huge arms deal and support in their proxy war with the Iranians. Nader and Broidy tried to exploit that situation and found their way in to Trump by paying off the Playboy model for him.

The Qataris were apparently unable or unwilling to play the same game as the Saudis and the Emiratis. For Trump, Qatar had been a wasteland. The Trump Organization investigated potential opportunities on Doha at the beginning of this decade, with Ivanka pursuing deals as late as 2015, but none of it came to fruition. Apparently, the only business relationship Qatar had with Trump  at the time of his election was a lease for a space in Trump Tower for Qatari Airlines.

At the same time that the Saudis and the Emiratis were pushing to interfere in the election, possibly in coordination with the Russians, the Kushner family was negotiating unsuccessfully with the Qataris to help bail them out of the fiasco of 666 Fifth Avenue. In addition, it seems likely that the Qataris were also angling to be the middlemen in the deal to sell the Russian oil giant Rosneft, the commission on which had been promised to Carter Page in return for the lifting of sanctions on Russia. That potential deal probably led to the Qatari foreign minister to a Trump Tower meeting with Michael Flynn in December, 2016.

It appears the Qataris were caught holding the bag, which turned out to be a mythical 50% stake in Rosneft, when it became clear in early 2017 that the Russian sanctions would not be lifted anytime soon. By April of 2017, whether related to the collapse of Rosneft deal or not, the Qatari deal to bail out the Kushners also fell apart.

As 2017 progressed and the blockade was instituted and continued, the Qataris, having realized the error of turning down the Kushners and badly underestimating the efforts of the Saudis and Emiratis, were desperately trying to get back in Trump's good graces. In January of 2018, the Qataris bought a $6.5 million apartment in Trump Tower with the purported purpose of getting back in Trump's good favor. Around the same time, they refused to provide Mueller with information about meetings that the aforementioned Nader and Broidy had with Jared Kushner and other Trump officials back in 2017. In addition, according to a declaration in a bizarre lawsuit involving basketball and Ice Cube, the Qataris had previously paid off Flynn and were attempting to bribe Steve Bannon with the intentions of getting access to Trump.

In April, 2018, Trump totally reversed his position on Qatar, welcoming the Emir of Qatar to the White House and praising him as "valued partner and longtime friend". That same month, Michael Cohen hooked up with a major Trump inauguration donor and pitched the Qataris on investing in a pair of unfinished Alabama nuclear power plants. Then, just a few days ago, it was reported that Brookfield Asset Management had agreed to bail out the Kushners by investing in the 666 Fifth Avenue debacle. Brookfield is partially owned by the Qatari sovereign wealth fund but claims that no Qatari money will be going to the Kushner. Due to the fungibility of money, that assurance is virtually meaningless.

The Qatari story is the flip side of the Saudi story. To begin with, the Qataris had virtually no leverage with Trump and, for whatever reason, they did not pay the bribes necessary to sway Trump. Without any leverage, they were subject to his whims which isolated them tremendously. The situation could only be ameliorated by paying off Trump and his family.

The Chinese had to confront this issue even before Trump was inaugurated. Trump's anti-China rhetoric during the campaign surely upset the Chinese but, like everyone else, they expected Clinton to get elected. So they were already on their heels when Trump made a call to the new Taiwanese leader in early December, 2016 and proposed to use the US relationship with Taiwan and the so-called "one China" policy as a bargaining chip in resetting our relationship with China. This was a typical Trump opening extortion gambit.

That call broke the agreement of the "one China" policy that accepted Taiwan as being part of China and the Chinese government as the legitimate government of all China. It reversed decades of US policy and, as China made clear, threatened to put the US and China on a path toward a potential military confrontation over Taiwan, especially if the new Taiwanese leader decided to declare independence.

Days before Trump's inauguration, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman warned, "Not everything in the world can be bargained or traded off. Whoever attempts to harm the one-China principle out of any motive or uses the principle as a bargaining chip will definitely be facing broad and strong opposition from the Chinese government and people, as well as the international community", with state-owned media warning that Trump was "playing with fire" and China would "take off the gloves".

In early February, Trump had his first call with President Xi of China in which Trump totally capitulated, walking back his earlier comments about Taiwan and fully recommitting to the "one China" policy. This prompted a reaction and realization from the Chinese that was best summed up by former head of the American Chamber of Commerce in China who said the incident "confirmed to the world that he is a paper tiger … someone that seems threatening but is wholly ineffectual and unable to stomach a challenge."  Two months later, Xi, was having a summit in Mar-a-lago with Trump and providing important Chinese trademark approvals for Ivanka Trump's line of business. China had the economic and military might to confront Trump over the "one China" policy but it also quickly figured out he could be bribed and flattered. And they have been using that combination on Trump ever since.

The other day, Steve Mnuchin admitted that the US was "putting the trade war on hold" when it came to China, adding that the $50 billion in threatened tariffs are suspended for the moment. The aluminum and steel tariffs will presumably remain in place.

Looking back over the last few weeks, it is easy to see the original Chinese playbook being trotted out again. China responded to the Trump tariffs forcefully, imposing their own duties on US sorghum and pork and refusing to buy American soybeans altogether. These targeted actions struck at the heart of Trump's rural Midwestern base. Then the Chinese government backed a $500 million loan to a Trump-licensed Indonesian theme park. Three days later, Trump rescinded the sanctions on the Chinese telecom giant ZTE, remarkably worrying about their impact on Chinese jobs by tweeting, "President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!" And now, less than a week after that, the trade war gets put on hold. China wins and Trump folds, but not before banking some more money for the Trump Organization. And the strategy of essentially extorting Trump back, combined with some personal bribery, has worked again for the Chinese.

We can see this process of extortion and bribery play out in a slightly different way with the Korean crisis. It is unclear whether the genesis of the ratcheting up of pressure on the North Koreans was a valid response to the increasing nuclear capability, or simply Trump listening to his hawkish advisers, or part of the plan to try and squeeze China. But it was always clear that Kim Jong-un was able to respond to Trump's threats by showing that he had the capability of delivering a nuclear warhead not only to Hawaii but the American mainland. He showed he had enough leverage to rebuff Trump's aggressiveness. But Trump's tactics against the North Koreans actually had a far greater effect on the South Koreans.

Shortly after he came into office, Trump threatened to terminate the US trade deal with South Korea. At the time, Trump's overly aggressive rhetoric was actually frightening the South Koreans more than the North. In May of 2017, South Korean President Moon was elected on a platform of improving relations with the North, with just 40% of the vote. His approval rating has shot up to over 80%, largely as result of his attempts to defuse the crisis on the peninsula.

The problem that South Korea had was that, not only did they have no leverage over Trump, they also had nothing to really offer Trump in order to pay him off. Yes, the Korean Aerospace Industries did pay Michael Cohen $150,000 in late 2017 in an attempt to shepherd through a defense contract in partnership with Lockheed. But that was hardly going to be enough.

Moon's strategy, it appears, was to play to the President's vanity in order to save his country from potential annihilation. It was the South Koreans who convinced Trump that his brilliant diplomacy was bringing Kim to the negotiating table and it was the South Koreans who first floated the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump. And Trump fell for Moon's flattery hook, line, and sinker.

Kim was only to happy to play along with this fiction as it offered the chance to stand on equal footing with an American President as well as offering the remote possibility of eliminating US forces from South Korea. At worst, it would drive a wedge between the US and South Koreans, ultimately benefitting Kim and the Chinese.

Moon is desperate to keep these negotiations going but at the same time must live in fear of the what will happen when they inevitably end in failure. Somehow, he still managed to stroke Trump's ego enough to convince him to cancel US-South Korean military exercises that Kim objected to. But now the rubber is meeting the road. Trump is finally realizing that Kim has already gotten much of what he wanted, namely the invitation to sit down with the President as an equal. And, despite what Moon says, Kim will never unilaterally denuclearize, leaving Trump to head into the summit with virtually no leverage at all as well as knowing that North and South Korea have little capacity to personally bribe him. For Trump, that's a lose/lose proposition. Moon will be hung out to dry and China will once again have outflanked Trump.

The stories with Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, China, and the Koreas are all complicated and complex. But the reason for examining them in detail is to show just how much Trump is driven by his racketeering mindset, how it explains so much of what would normally be seen as irrational decisions, and how so many curious actions by foreign powers are also explained by realizing they understand his racketeering mindset and penchant for extortion and bribery.

The racketeering approach to international diplomacy creates another problem that is reflected not only in the lack of preparation for the Kim summit but also in the complete disarray among the team sent to China to negotiate on trade.  The racketeer wants to ensure that the fewest number of people are in on the extortion or bribery. That means that often times his top advisers are intentionally kept in the dark about what Trump's real policy is. In an administration filled with already outsized egos, that approach exacerbates the discord among his advisers as they each try to outdo each other to implement what they want the President's policy to be, since the President himself never establishes a policy. That racketeering approach also explains Trump's penchant for bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral. It is far easier to extort/bribe in one-on-one situations than it is in a roomful of participants.

Some will say that you always go into any negotiation by staking out the maximum position, especially in the area of international diplomacy. And you can certainly make that case for many of Trump's actions. But far too often, it seems, that Trump takes a maximalist position that ends up benefitting himself and his family. And far too often, Trump immediately retreats from his maximalist position after he and his family have received those benefits.

In fact, Trump's actions are almost always best explained by thing of him as a racketeer. And the people who know him best, like Michael Cohen, the people that work for him, like Scott Pruitt, and the people who most successfully interact with him, like the Russians, Saudis, Emiratis, and Chinese, approach him with that racketeering mindset.

This creates a serious problem for virtually everyone else who can not or will not approach Trump in this way. For our allies in the West, especially those who abide by the laws, it makes the task of dealing with Trump especially difficult. Because of the stricter corruption laws in those countries, Trump rarely did business there, so they have virtually no direct leverage over Trump. With the possible exception of the EU, none of our allies has the economic strength to threaten Trump's base in the way that China is able. In addition, those stricter corruption laws make it far more difficult for those countries to personally bribe Trump and his family.

In our domestic politics, we encounter the same issue. Often, Trump's maximalist positions bleed right into outright extortion. AT&T and Jeff Bezos are essentially being extorted by Trump over the independence of the media outlets CNN and Washington Post, respectively. Trump specifically threatened the AT&T merger with Time Warner because of CNN's coverage. And Trump has tried on multiple occasions to get the Post Office to raise the rates on Amazon deliveries. These are pure and simple extortion attempts. AT&T attempted to resolve this problem by adopting the racketeering mindset, paying Michael Cohen $600,000 to advise on the merger. So far, apparently, Bezos has resisted going down that path.

And bribery is always an option, with the various Trump properties as perfect vehicles for delivering boatloads of cash to Trump. For those with foresight and greater ambition, a $1 million donation to the Trump inauguration run through a shell company would buy multiple federal judgeships and a Supreme Court justice.

But by far the biggest problem with a racketeer as President is the degradation and erosion of the rule of law. Prosecutors and judges are used to dealing with racketeers who bribe witnesses and obstruct justice. They are used to having the defense team undermine the credibility of witnesses. They are familiar with massive public corruption. They are totally unprepared for a racketeer who has the power to investigate the prosecutors, pressure them to turn over evidence, and potentially and actually fire them. Unfortunately, so far, the DOJ has paid every extortion demand that Trump and his co-conspirators in the House Republican caucus have made.

There was no evidence or reason to indicate that the inspector general needed to investigate how the FISA warrant was obtained on Carter Page. There was no reason to allow those member of Congress to review the FISA application for Page. There was no reason to provide the classified document that launched the Russia investigation and set its parameters. There was even no reason to provide the personal texts between two FBI agents. And there was no reason to fire McCabe just hours before his retirement, denying him his full pension.

Many of these demands were made by Trump's co-conspirators in the Republican House Caucus. But now Trump himself is demanding an investigation of the investigation in order to determine whether FBI "imbedded" someone in his campaign. That "spy" was simply a confidential informant who was reporting on the Trump campaign officials' contacts with the Russians as part of the investigation into the Russian interference in our election. That informant's cover has now been blown, probably damaging US intelligence agencies' ability to get information in the future.

As Matt Miller notes, "Trump’s demand crossed every institutional norm that has long safeguarded the Justice Department’s independence." And Rosenstein basically capitulated, not only adding this to the inspector general's ongoing investigation but also allowing only Republican members of Congress to view highly classified information about the Russian investigation. That information will immediately be passed on to Trump to help him prepare his defense and attack the prosecution further. The fact that Democrats are apparently not invited to this review of classified documents makes it an especially egregious capitulation, one that former Deputy Attorney General Harry Litman has called an "abomination".

A few weeks ago, Rosenstein himself made a strongly worded statement, saying, "I can tell you that there have been people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time. I think they should understand by now that the Department of Justice is not going to get extorted. We’re going to do what’s required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job." His repeated caves to Trump and GOP demands regarding the Russia investigation show that this is clearly not the case. As Miller says, "Trump was clearly testing the limits of the system that constrains presidential interference with the Justice Department. And the response so far...shows that the system is failing."

Yes, Rosenstein is between a rock and a hard place. But he must know the extortion will never stop and his repeated capitulations will bring ever more demands. That is the way of the racketeer and extortionist. David Frum made an especially cogent point on Last Word the other night when he said Rosenstein must stop thinking like a lawyer and more like a politician and "choose the maximally damaging time" to say no to the President and this may have been that time. In other words, the most effective way to stand up to a racketeer is to become one too.

Rosenstein's resignation would not create a constitutional crisis simply because we have clearly been in a slow moving constitutional crisis since we inaugurated a racketeer as President. The crisis began when the President refused to give up his business interests. It continued with firing of Comey. It continues with the Congressional lack of action regarding Trump's brazen Emoluments Clause violations. And now it continues with Trump's and his Republican co-conspirators' demands for confidential details about an investigation into himself.

Donald Trump is entirely ignorant and uninterested in policy or policy details. He has no "beliefs" other than personal enrichment and adulation. Because of that, it is often difficult to discern whether his actions are driven by the beliefs of others or simply attempts to garner praise. But approaching everything he does as an extension of his racketeering enterprise, as a result of extortion or bribery, explains so many of his seemingly inexplicable actions. And that approach also needs to color how we as a country respond to him.

Wells Fargo Just Can't Stop Improperly Adjusting Customer Accounts

Wells Fargo has always been my favorite recidivist corporate criminal, sometimes challenged by Uber, and now overshadowed by ICE and the Trump administration in vileness and vindictiveness. I have to give Wells credit, though. They have managed to stay out of the news for the last few months, pretty much ceding the criminality lead to the Trump administration. But, unsurprisingly, Wells couldn't stay away for long.

Reuters is reporting that Wells' employees "improperly changed information on documents related to corporate customers", specifically adding or altering information in those accounts without the customers' knowledge of permission.  According to the report, Wells' employees were merely adding addresses and Social Security numbers to the various names listed on certain accounts in a desperate attempt to comply with a regulatory consent order to clean up the bank's anti-money laundering processes. These violations occurred in 2017 and extended into 2018.

At least Wells wasn't opening and closing new accounts for those customers without their knowledge or permission in order to juice commissions. And this time their criminal behavior was actually an attempt to comply with the rules rather than breaking them. So maybe things are getting a little better at the bank. But, as we see with this latest violation, "a little better" for Wells is such a  low bar that it still involves improperly screwing around with their customers' accounts without their knowledge or permission. To coin a theme for our esteemed leader, what kind of human beings run these financial institutions.

Natural Weekends - More Osprey

Preakness Preview

It will probably be another muddy track down at Pimlico today for the running of the Preakness stakes. The field for the Preakness is always a lot thinner than the Derby and this year it seemed as though the race had almost been conceded to the Derby winner Justify.

But just days ago, Good Magic, the runner-up in the Derby, was entered, setting up a rematch of the Churchill Downs race. Good Magic looked to be in pretty good position against Justify at the top of the stretch in that race which actually gives him hope in this, the shortest of the Triple Crown races.

Also keep an eye on Quip, a new entrant who decided to pass up the Derby in order to focus on this race. The other five horses in the race are all long shots and should not be a factor in the race (famous last words).

I'll go with Good Magic providing the upset, with Justify a close second and Quip hanging on for third. For those looking for more excitement, boxing either of the two favorites with the rest of the field might actually be worth a flyer.

Trump Prepares For The End Game And Killing The Mueller Investigation

Investigations seem to be closing in on Trump from all sides these days. As more evidence that millions of dollars, much apparently from overseas, flowed into Essential Consulting, Michael Cohen is telling friends he "can't take this anymore".  Evidence has emerged that indicates Trump was signing a secret letter of intent to build a Trump Tower in Moscow on the very day he was claiming he had no business in Russia in a Republican primary debate, in what David Corn points out could be the greatest conflict of interest in American political history. Eyewitness testimony shows that the Trump team was totally focused on getting dirt on Hillary Clinton in the Trump Tower meeting and that Trump himself was involved in crafting the false explanation of that meeting. Mueller is also closing in on Roger Stone, subpoenaing at least two of his close associates.

Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, is under increasing pressure to flip with his ex son-in-law now apparently agreeing to cooperate. The deputy campaign manager has already flipped as has Trump's national security adviser who was negotiating to provide the "quo" of removing sanctions to the Russians "quid" of support for Trump and other possible benefits. The investigation into Trump's collusion with Russia was more active during the campaign than initially realized and involved at least one "government informant".

Trump has been forced to admit he did pay Stormy Daniels off, prompting a criminal referral for reporting violations. Due to a recent court ruling, the discovery phase of Summer Zerbos' defamation suit looks like it will begin soon, potentially exposing Trump's unscripted comments about women during his time at the apprentice. Michael Avenatti claims he has two more women who were paid hush money to stay quiet about their affairs with Trump.

Michael Cohen has been exposed as running an extensive pay-to-play scheme, the proceeds of which potentially may have gone to Trump or the Trump organization. Trump's odd foreign policy moves with ZTE and Qatar also hint at potential issues of bribery and brazen violations of the Emoluments Clause.

Mueller has apparently finished his investigation of obstruction of justice and is forcing Trump to go through contortions to pretend he wants to speak to Mueller despite the fact that everyone, even his supporters, knows that would be political and legal suicide.

Over the last few weeks, Rudy Giuliani has significantly moved the goalposts on a number of critical issues. He admitted that Trump actually did pay off Storm Daniels. He has floated the idea that the President might invoke the Fifth Amendment when he talks to Mueller. He has thrown Jared Kushner under the bus. And now Giuliani is virtually admitting that the Trump campaign was talking to the Russians in a specific effort to collude. But, he claims, since the campaign didn't use the dirt they either did or did not receive, that proves there is no collusion. Specifically Giuliani said, "They never used it, is the main thing. They rejected it. If there was collusion with the Russians, they would’ve used it." This narrows the concept of collusion, which is not a legal term, rather dramatically, but ignores the actual legal exposure of conspiracy, especially if the Trump team helped coordinate the timing of the Wikileaks and Russian leaks of Democratic data. And now, Giuliani is again floating the idea of firing Rosenstein.

To the normal, informed observer, it appears that Giuliani is actually doing Trump more harm than good. In reality, however, Rudy is preparing Trump supporters who get their news from the Trump propaganda machine like Fox News and Sinclair for the damaging information that he knows will come out. He can admit that Trump paid Stormy Daniels and claim it was not a campaign violation. He can say Trump may take the Fifth Amendment or not even meet with Mueller but that's because Mueller is laying a perjury trap. He can say that, of course, the Trump campaign sought out and got dirt on Hillary, but it's not collusion because the campaign itself didn't use it. He can say that the informant that provided information about the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians was actually an FBI spy, part of the treasonous plot that also tapped Trump Tower.

The reason it appears that Giuliani's statements continually hurt Trump's case is because the facts themselves, whether they've been revealed yet or not, hurt Trump's case. Giuliani is just trying to get out ahead of all that.

All of this has prompted Trump and his minions to double down on the strategy of attacking the investigation and investigators. Trump has described the whole affair as a "political witch hunt" and, bizarrely and perhaps revealing his ignorance of history, "bigger than Watergate". Sean Hannity has described the investigation as "a direct threat to this American Republic" and threatening the rule of law. Giuliani is promising more direct pressure on Mueller and more calls for the investigation to end.

In addition, the Trump team is taking another, more dangerous path in attacking the investigation. The plan is to force the DOJ/FBI to release confidential information about the investigation and some of the sources it has used. If the DOJ refuses, it will provide the excuse Trump needs to fire Rosenstein and/or Sessions. If the confidential information is provided, it will be used to not only prepare Trump's defense but also to attack the integrity of the Mueller investigation. The tactic has already been used on the issue of the Carter Page FISA warrant and the authorization from Rosenstein to allow Mueller to investigate Manafort's financial crimes. The latest attempt at this strategy involves trying to "out" the confidential informant that the FBI used in the early part of the investigation during the Trump campaign. Incredibly, Trump's co-conspirators in the House have already drafted articles to impeach Rosenstein in order to remove him.

As Paul Krugman notes, this is bordering on treason and the Republican party is going along with it. At this point, whether this effort succeeds or not, it decreases the likelihood that confidential informants will provide information to the intelligence community in the future and therefore threatens the safety of our country as well.

A recent focus group in Wisconsin showed that, unsurprisingly, Trump supporters reflected his messages about Mueller. Those supporters described Mueller as "'unethical,' 'desperate,' 'partisan,' and 'a liar'" while mimicking the President's words about a "witch hunt". And, as Hilary Clinton noted some time ago, about half of those supporters would have no problem if Trump shot Rosenstein or Mueller in the middle of Fifth Avenue if that's what it takes to protect their vision of white Christian nationalism. But, remarkably, even some Trump supporters in this focus group did not want to see him fire Mueller, saying it would look "suspicious" and indicate Trump was hiding something. That attitude is probably the only thing that has prevented Trump from already ending the investigation.

This is the conundrum that Trump faces. The facts that keep emerging make him look more and more guilty, on collusion, on obstruction, on corruption. The response from Trump vacillates between seeming determined to end the investigation, which even his supporters currently believe will be political suicide, or attacking the credibility of the that investigation. The problem is that every new damaging piece of information against Trump increases his rage and requires a ratcheting up of the pressure on Mueller. Both approaches eventually end up in the same place - with some attempt to end the investigation.

Frighteningly, a new CBS poll shows that a slight majority of Americans now view the Mueller investigation as being politically motivated. This opinion is rising simply because more Republicans are jumping on board with Trump's witch hunt theory. If this continues, Trump will at some point feel he has enough political capital to end the investigation.

My guess is that Trump will keep this level of fury up until the election, hoping to energize his base by making the Mueller investigation an election issue. He will keep ratcheting up the attacks on Mueller while claiming more and more that he can not be challenged as President. He has already claimed in legal filings that he has absolute immunity from any challenges regarding the Emoluments Clause. He engages in blatant abuses of power such as demanding the Postmaster General raise rates on companies Trump dislikes. And he has already shown that he believes he can fire anybody in government for whatever reason, including the purpose of obstructing or ending an investigation, at any time, without consequence or liability.

I think the most dangerous time for Mueller will be during the lame-duck session after the election. That would provide an opportune time for Trump to end the investigation. If the Democrats win the House, shutting down Mueller before the Democrats could begin their investigations becomes politically palatable and further allows Trump to claim those Democratic investigations are old news and continuing the witch hunt. And if the GOP holds on to the House, then Trump knows he will have the support to end it.

Of course, November is a lifetime from now and Mueller has many cards to play that we know nothing of. An indictment of a top Trump campaign official that shows real coordination with the Russians would be a significant game changer. It might also prompt Trump to act to end the investigation sooner. One thing I think we can be sure of, however, is that Trump will not go away quietly like Nixon. Especially with the makeup of the Senate, he will fight to the bitter end and seems entirely willing to burn the house and our country down with him.