No One Can Force A Presidential Candidate-- Let Alone A President-- To Read (Or Understand) The U.S. Constitution... Trump's Executive Orders

The big news Sunday was Trump's executive orders after he sabotaged the negotiations with Congress for a pandemic relief bill. No doubt, his zombie followers will eat it up. No one else will. Jim Tankersley did an analysis for NY Times readers-- Trump’s Go-It-Alone Stimulus Won’t Do Much to Lift the Recovery. He wrote that Señor Trumpanzee's executive actions "were pitched as a unilateral jolt for an ailing economy. But there is only one group of workers that seems guaranteed to benefit from them, at least right away: lawyers." The orders include an eviction moratorium, a new benefit to supplement unemployment assistance for workers and a temporary delay in payroll taxes-- although if re-elected he's planning to make it permanent, a way to fulfill nearly 9 decades of GOP dreams to end Social Security. "They could," wrote Tankersley, "give renters a break and ease payments for some student loan borrowers. But they are likely to do little to deliver cash any time soon to Americans hit hard by the recession. Even conservative groups have warned that suspending payroll tax collections is unlikely to translate into more money for workers. An executive action seeking to essentially create a new unemployment benefit out of thin air will almost certainly be challenged in court. And as Mr. Trump’s own aides concede, the orders will not provide any aid to small businesses, state and local governments or low- and middle-income workers. If the actions signal the death of a congressional deal to provide that aid, economists warn, the economy will limp toward November without the fiscal support that hastened its recovery after its quick dive into a pandemic-induced recession."

The federal government’s aid to small businesses through the Payroll Protection Program was set to expire on Saturday. Executives, trade groups and business lobbyists had pushed hard for a second round of lending-- along with new programs to get money to the businesses and industries hit hardest in the crisis-- to be included in any congressional stimulus deal. Mr. Trump’s actions do nothing to help those companies.

Low- and middle-income families’ spending power was bolstered in the spring by direct payments of $1,200 per adult that were included in a relief bill Mr. Trump signed into law in March. Lawmakers were pushing for a second round of those checks in a legislative deal. Mr. Trump’s measures will not provide them.

The orders will not provide aid to states and local governments, whose tax revenues have plunged as a direct result of the contraction in economic activity brought on by the virus. Without more money from the federal government, states and local governments will almost certainly have to cut their budgets and lay off workers, increasing the ranks of the unemployed.

Supplemental unemployment benefits of $600 per week, which expired at the end of July, had been supporting consumer spending at a time when about 30 million Americans are unemployed. Mr. Trump’s memo seeking to repurpose other money, including federal disaster aid, to essentially create a $400-a-week bonus payment is likely to be challenged in court and is unlikely to deliver additional cash to laid-off workers any time soon. It, too, raises questions even if it is deemed legal-- for instance, whether states that are already struggling with their budgets will be able to afford the 25 percent contribution that Mr. Trump’s memo says they will need to make toward the new benefit.

...But if negotiations falter now and aid remains scarce for people and businesses, Mr. Trump will be making a political bet: that it is better to tell voters he tried to help the economy than to have actually helped it. Mr. Trump is the president, and he has happily claimed credit for the economy’s performance.

If job growth slows further, and millions of unemployed Americans struggle to make ends meet, he will need to make the case for why the symbolism of acting alone won out over the farther-reaching effects of cutting a deal.

On State of the Union yesterday, Pelosi told Dana Bash that "whether they're legal or not takes time to figure out. I associate my remarks with what the Senator Sasse who says, they're 'unconstitutional slop.' Right now we want to address the needs of the American people. As my constitutional advisers tell me, they're absurdly unconstitutional." In case anyone doesn't understand what Pelosi was saying there, Alan Grayson, a bona fide genius, explained that "The Trump executive orders are not only illegal, but they’re unconstitutional. Anyone who tries to implement them will be facing criminal charges under the Antideficiency Act, 31 USC 1341. And, obviously, this is an impeachable offense, a “high crime” that abuses the power of the office. Trump is a Constitutional pyromaniac. As to the policies in the executive orders, the emperor has no clothes, so he’s trying to steal the Democrats’ clothes. It’s pathetic to watch the orangutan scratch his belly, screetch, and pretend that he gives a damn about anyone else."

Tom Suozzi (D-NY) represents the North Shore of Long Island, from the border of AOC's district in Queens (Whitestone and Beechhurst) straight thru Nassau and into Suffolk as far as Kings Park and the Nissequogue River. The former Nassau County Executive, Suozzi is now a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Understanding how tax dollars are raised and spent is his field of expertise. And this morning, discussing Trump's clownish executive orders, he told us that "It’s not about the merits of $400 unemployment (of which $100 is paid by the states), or a payroll tax cut (which will decimate Social Security) or any of his executive orders. It is about the fact that it’s ILLEGAL. It is why we have a Congress. The President can’t, other than in limited instances, just do what he wants, especially when it comes to spending money. It’s just more in a long list of gimmicks by a failing president trying to hold on to power."

The Washington Post assigned a team to work on figuring it out-- Jeff Stein, Erica Werner and Renae Merle. They saw it-- as did much of Congress-- through the parameters of Trump's challenge to the constitutional order. "The measures," they wrote, "would attempt to wrest away some of Congress’s most fundamental, constitutionally mandated powers-- tax and spending policy. Trump acknowledged that some of the actions could be challenged in court but indicated he would persevere. Trump bemoaned how Democrats had refused to accept his demands during the recent negotiations but attempted to brush it aside, saying four measures he signed Saturday 'will take care of pretty much this entire situation.' But there were instant questions about whether Trump’s actions were as ironclad as he made them out to be. A leading national expert on unemployment benefits said one of the actions would not increase federal unemployment benefits at all. Instead, the expert said it would instead create a new program that could take “months” to set up. And Trump’s directive to halt evictions primarily calls for federal agencies to 'consider' if they should be stopped. Trump also mischaracterized the legal stature of the measures, referring to them as 'bills.' Congress writes and votes on bills, not the White House. The documents Trump signed on Saturday were a combination of memorandums and an executive order."

McConnell cheered him on, although he didn't explain why Trump's executive actions didn't include a second $1,200/person stimulus check that Congress had already agreed to. As Forbes reported, Trump targeted a payroll tax, reduced unemployment benefits, a bogus eviction moratorium study that won't keep a single family from being evicted and some student loan relief that will do little to help anyone "as his four areas of focus for an executive order. He never mentioned including stimulus checks as part of his executive order plan."

Jack Balkin summed up the unemployment aide program part of Trump's made-for-TV ploy on his must-read blog as Inadequate, Unworkable, and Unlawful. He wrote that Trumpanzee's "effort to relieve the pressure he and Senate Republicans have been feeling over the expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits is a failure on every level. It provides too little in aid. It will miss many families in need. It will expire very soon. It likely cannot be implemented in some states. And it is transparently unlawful."





How many lies can you count? As Alan Grayson put it the day after Trump's nationally televised half hour of gaslighting, "I would advise anyone who is still under the illusion that Trump is fit for office to listen to his speech yesterday. He is a babbling fool and a Constitutional pyromaniac, with a human applause track wired in the room to feed his infinite, insatiable ego."

Jim Himes (D-CT), like every congressional Democrat I've spoken to, is not satisfied with how the GOP is handling this, not even a little. "The so-called executive orders are way too little, way too late," he told me. "Americans are suffering badly and the Republican response has been to 'hit pause,' then to ask for F-35s and full expensing of business lunches, and now to offer weak presidential action. It is time for my Republican colleagues to summon even a fraction of the passion and enthusiasm with which they cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% to actually help the American people in a historic crisis."

Republicans Still Holding Up Pandemic Relief-- Hoping To Make Political Points

Trump has a stronger hand than the Democrats do in the negotiations over the pandemic relief package. That's because he doesn't care about the impact on the American people and even the most conservative and corporatist Democrats do care-- or, at the very least, have to appear to. Trump couldn't care less if millions of people starve or are evicted-- especially if he can blame it on his political opponents.

Yesterday, The Hill reported that Pelosi and Schumer offered a split the difference deal-- the Democrats $3.4 trillion package that passed in May would meet the GOP $1 trillion plan that McConnell proposed in the middle to something between $2 billion and $2.4 billion. Trump refused. At a press conference, Pelosi said "'We'll take down a trillion, if you add a trillion in.' They said absolutely not... I will once again make the offer: We'll come down a trillion, you go up a trillion, and then we'll be within range of each other. But again, this a very different set of values across the table."

Mnuchin confirmed that by calling Pelosi's offer a "non-starter." Trump appears to want to get into a fight with the Democrats by claiming he can fix everything by executive order. He can't. He never quite understood that Congress authorizes spending not presidents or even would-be dictators.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), a senior member of both the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee has a good overview of this kind of negotiation. "Maybe you can accuse Democrats of being overcomprehensive in our initial offer," he told me yesterday, "but when people are suffering that’s no sin. What is ludicrous is the Republican idea of deductions for fancy business lunches and more fighter planes. And of course, they can’t even pass that awful idea in the Senate."

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) was as brutal in what he had to say about this ugly hostage situation as McConnell and the congressional Republicans deserve: "When Mitch McConnell called himself the Grim Reaper, like most people I assumed he was talking about killing legislation. Sadly it looks like he is taking the self-proclaimed position a bit more literally these days. With more than 1,000 Americans dying every day from COVID-19 and millions out of work, the Republican Senate’s refusal to act on an additional relief package is as heartless as it is stupid. Let’s review the facts: House Democrats passed a bill in May extending unemployment insurance, preventing evictions, funding local government etc. We asked Republicans to work with us and negotiate a compromise. They refused (the Senate Majority Leader even implied states should just go bankrupt). Then they recessed the Senate for half of July wasting more time as relief was set to expire. And now Leader McConnell is negotiating in bad faith and trying to gaslight the American people. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, don’t be stupid, wear a mask in public!"

Hopefully California Democrat, historian Liam O'Mara will be joining Himes in Congress next year. "There are, indeed," he said, "very different values at play in discussion of pandemic relief. Ken Calvert is whining about the presence of support for cannabis banking protections in the House bill. Excuse me, Congressman?? You have farmers harassed left and right in Riverside County because federal policy is out of touch with both medical needs and reality itself. And helping to protect small farmers and provide relief to patients is a sticking point, while billions is pork to defence contractors is not?? The GOP isn't interested in helping the American people. They are interested in funnelling ever more money into the hands of their corporate overlords, and offer the most minimal relief to ordinary people only when forced. As it stands, the now-expired small business lending system we created for this emergency was extensively raided by profitable corporations, and Calvert voted against oversight for that spending. He wants welfare for the rich, and to hell with stores, restaurants, barbers, and the rest. Ken Calvert will never fight for you-- he will continue to raise your taxes, steal your wealth, and laugh all the way to the bank. It's time we stood up and said no."

Another top Democratic challenger, Mike Siegel, who is running against Trump crony Michael McCaul in central Texas, noted that "Creating a mountain of public money out of thin air to backstop Wall Street and donor interests, while refusing to do the same for working people is sadly par for the course with this corrupt administration. We need new leadership that fully funds solutions that fit the actual scale of the problems we face with the coronavirus and with our crumbling economy."

Kara Eastman, one of the 5 mostly likely Democrats to flip a red district blue, told us that "One of Trump's chief enablers in Congress, Don Bacon, seems to be in line with the Administration's approach. He voted 'no' on the HEROES Act and he's made public statements that show he cares very little about the people in Nebraska who are facing evictions and a loss of unemployment benefits. It's no surprise from a representative who has voted 95% with Trump but it's the opposite of what we need here in Nebraska's Second. If I had been in Congress I would have voted 'yes' for the HEROES Act and I would have strongly pushed for aid for more cities when the CARES act first passed, too. Bacon failed to do so and now Omaha is facing a massive budget shortfall."

State Rep. Jon Hoadley just won her primary in Michigan's 6th congressional district on Tuesday. This morning he told me that his opponent, serial Trump-enabler Fred Upton "stood with Trump against much needed funding for working people, first responders, teachers, and health care workers. Right when Southwest Michigan needs a leader to work on these issues, Upton isn't putting his 33 years in Congress to any use for us. Time for change."

 




Bernie has introduced the Make Billionaires Pay Act which is a one-top 60% tax on billionaires' profits from the pandemic to pay for Americans healthcare costs. Bernie: "The legislation I am introducing today will tax the obscene wealth gains billionaires have made during this extraordinary crisis to guarantee healthcare as a right to all for an entire year. At a time of enormous economic pain and suffering, we have a fundamental choice to make. We can continue to allow the very rich to get much richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer. Or we can tax the winnings a handful of billionaires made during the pandemic to improve the health and well-being of tens of millions of Americans... In my view, it is time for the Senate to act on behalf of the working class who are hurting like they have never hurt before, not the billionaire class who are doing phenomenally well and have never had it so good... Instead of more tax breaks for the rich while more Americans die because they cannot afford to go to a doctor, let us expand Medicare and save lives by demanding that billionaires pay their fair share of taxes."

Sanders' legislation would cover all medical bills, including prescription drugs and coronavirus-related expenses, over the next 12 months with the tax staying in effect until January 1, 2021.

So who's he talking about? The tax would generate over $421 billion and these 5 would make up for $87.1 billion of it. The amount is how much their wealth grew between March and May

• Jeff Bezos (Amazon)- $71,299,000
• Bill Gates (Microsoft)- $14,452,000
• Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)- $37,968,000
• Larry Ellison (Oracle)- $13,665,000
• Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway)- 7,791,000

The other big losers would be Jim, Alice and Ron Walton, Steve Balmer, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Michael Bloomberg, Charles and Julia Koch, MacKenzie Scott (+$22,946,000), Phil Knight, Sheldon Adelson, Jacqueline and John Mars, Elon Musk (+$45,902,000), Michael Dell, Jim Simons, Len Blatvatnik, Laureen Powell Jobs, Stephen Schwarzman, Rupert Murdoch... Bezos would pay $42,779,000 and Gates would pay $103,780.Each Koch would pay around $2.6 million and it would only cost Bloomberg $2.7 million. If you're on this list, it's going to cost you; otherwise-- not.

Why Did Trump Order Barr To Fire Geoffrey Berman Friday Night?

Yesterday Neal Katyal, a former Acting Solicitor General, and Josh Geltzer, Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, penned a piece for The Atlantic on why Trump keeps losing at a conservative Supreme Court. "The legal reasoning may look like it turns on obscure technicalities," they wrote, "but the administration’s cases are falling apart because of something much more deeply wrong... Trump keeps losing not because of something obscure, but because of something fundamental: his abuse of the executive branch. Much of his administration’s approach to governance rests on attempting executive actions that lack any meaningful justification rooted in expertise, or even rational thought."

Trump’s abuse of the executive branch is one of the most damaging aspects of his presidency, because it rejects a reasoned approach to making government policy. Trump has made clear-- most notably during the impeachment process-- that he disdains the civil servants who bring deep expertise and valuable experience to important policy questions. So it’s not surprising he blew off their advice that adding a citizenship question to the census would not help in any meaningful way and would harm the core enterprise of the census itself. Trump doesn’t care what they have to say, and his Cabinet members—like the commerce secretary-- seem not to care, either. Such disregard is not merely some technical violation-- it’s a body blow in Trump’s assault on civil servants.

This is part of Trump’s bigger disregard for law and process. Trump has made clear time and again that he doesn’t really care what the law says... Trump doesn’t see law as a constraint, but something to be manipulated-- and that’s clearly a message his Cabinet seems to have received. Consequently, they play fast and loose with the law. The Court, in this decision and last year’s, is essentially saying that the law still matters.

Ultimately, that’s precisely what’s at stake as long as Trump is president. If all that matters is a president’s policy preferences, then law-- including judicial review-- is basically a facade: Dress it up enough, and it’ll pass muster. But if law matters-- if building a record and considering facts and providing honest reasons matter-- then Trump is sure to keep losing.

Once Trump realized he couldn't manipulate U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara he fired him and quickly called in Geoffrey Berman-- a long time Republican campaign donor who had maxed out to Trump and who had worked as a volunteer on the Trump transition team-- for an interview. Satisfied that he could manipulate Berman, he had Attorney General Pete Sessions appoint him to head the Southern District of New York-- at the same time he appointed 16 others to head DOJ offices around the country on an interim basis until the Senate could confirm them; Trump never formally nominated any of them and the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York, acing on behalf of a unanimous court, then appointed Berman U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirms someone nominated by the president.

Berman soon started investigating Trump cronies and allies, including Trump fixer Michael Cohen, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY), far right domestic terrorist Cesar Sayoc, Putin assets Natalia Veselnitskaya, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, Halkbank, the largest state-owned bank in Turkey-- causing Trump difficulties with Turkish autocrat and Trump briber Recep Tayyip Erdoğan-- and Trump procurer Jeffrey Epstein, whose case resulted in the firing of Trumpist Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. And... Giuliani.

Trump wanted him gone and on Friday night he was preemptively fired by Trump hatchet man William Barr, who called it a "resignation." That sparked this popular meme to start trending on social media:

Barr indicated that Trump intends to nominate the lapdog SEC chairman Jay Clayton to replace Berman-- who has exactly ZERO prosecutorial experience, exactly the kind of prosecutor that would be ideal for Trump's purposes. Meanwhile, Berman at first publicly refused to vacate the office and said that until a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate, the office’s "investigations will move forward without delay or interruption." Presumably, one of those investigations is of great concern to Señor Trumpanzee. By late yesterday, Berman, no doubt under immense pressure, had folded and agreed to step down. Interestingly, Trump claimed he had nothing to do with the firing and Barr claimed that he was ordered to fir Berman by Trump.

Jim Himes is a senior member of the Intelligence Committee and chair of its Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research. Saturday morning he told me that "The AG’s foolish attempt to forcibly 'resign' the US Attorney must be investigated by the Congress. Neither Barr nor anyone in the White House gets the benefit of the doubt anymore. If Barr’s action was designed to protect the President from investigation he should resign."

I look forward to the day that Texas progressive congressional candidate and former Austin City Attorney Mike Siegel is serving on the House Judiciary Committee. I asked him how he reads this DOJ mess. He got right to the point-- and fast-- telling me that "Protecting our democracy can’t wait for the electoral cycle. AG Barr is undermining the rule of law, debasing the DOJ and turning federal prosecutors into Trump’s personal minions. The House should impeach Barr and until then, use every tool at their disposal to impede his corrupt abuses."

Ted Lieu is co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, which helps the House Democrats formulate messaging. I hope his tweets this weekend are indicative of how the whole caucus feels about Trump and Barr firing Berman. Lieu, a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent his first tweet on the scandal almost immediately after the attempt by Barr to deceive the American people and make it look like Berman had resigned: "Wow, not only is US Attorney for SDNY Geoffrey Berman not resigning, he went out of his way to say that SDNY’s investigations and important cases will continue unimpeded. Was Bill Barr of the Justice Department trying to obstruct an investigation or case by attempting to fire him?"

An hour later he addressed other Department of Justice employees directly, reminding them that "All of you took an oath. That oath was not to Donald Trump or Bill Barr. It was to the Constitution. If Trump or Barr gives you an order that conflicts with the Constitution or statutes, I urge you to follow the example of US Attorney Berman."

Then in the wee hours of the morning he tweeted directly at those same employees again: "There is a 16 alarm fire due to the perversion of DOJ by Bill Barr. I urge you to file motions with the courts ASAP; use whistleblower statutes; report to IG; or contact the House Judiciary Committee. Do everything you can to ensure the rule of law is followed."

After some sleep and, presumably further reflection, Lieu tweeted that "We are witnessing the most corrupt Administration in US history. Donald Trump and Bill Barr have repeatedly fired government officials to protect themselves or their friends. From the FBI Director to multiple Inspectors General to Jessie Liu to the attempted firing of Berman."

Late Saturday, following a day of chaotic Trumpian melodrama, Lieu tweeted "Bill Barr will not investigate himself. But we on the House Judiciary Committee can and will investigate him. The spectacle he created in firing US Attorney Berman is part of a broader pattern of apparently corrupt behavior where Barr has intervened to protect Donald Trump and his friends."

Putin Is Eager To See U.S. Nukes Removed From Turkey

The Axios headline was both disturbing and likely inaccurate: Pelosi and Graham team up to oppose Trump's Syria decision. There's a whiff of an implication that they're trying to somehow change Trump's decision. As unlikely as it is, Trump's the commander-in-chief, as well as an ignorant moron. And as Pelosi knows-- even if Graham doesn't-- there is no way for Congress to overrule his decision. In this matter, he's in charge; they're not. Pelosi is already working on making sure there's a new commander-in-chief as soon as possible. Graham's working just as hard to make sure Trump is the commander-in-chief for another 5 years and a month.

Politico reported that bipartisan efforts will be used "to overturn President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops." That will never happen; it's as insane as Trump is. What they're actually doing that makes sense is preparing harsh sanctions against Erdoğan's government, which might be effective-- and might be the only alternative to doing nothing-- although a sanctions regime carries some very serious risks as well.

Under normal circumstances-- with a normal president and State Department, regardless of party-- something like this would have been handled diplomatically, not as part of a childish twitter rampage aimed at reelection. Pelosi on her conversion with Graham: "Our first order of business was to agree that we must have a bipartisan, bicameral joint resolution to overturn the President’s dangerous decision in Syria immediately," whatever that means. "Next, we must put together the strongest bipartisan, bicameral sanctions package similar to the bipartisan bill the House is advancing. As we find ourselves in a situation where the President gave a green light to the Turks to bomb and effectively unleashed ISIS, we must have a stronger sanctions package than what the White House is suggesting."

Graham spoke about the conversation as well: "Speaker [Pelosi] supports bipartisan sanctions against Turkey’s outrages in Syria. She also believes we should show support for Kurdish allies and is concerned about the reemergence of ISIS. I will be working across party lines in a bicameral fashion to draft sanctions and move quickly, appreciating President Trump’s willingness to work with the Congress. The Speaker indicated to me that time was of the essence."

Erdoğan's government has claimed from the start that Trump knew exactly what Turkey was planning, when he gave them the thumbs up to invade the Kurdish enclave in Northern Syria. How did Trump know? Erdogan sought his assistance, which he provided-- withdrawing U.S. troops from the area and leaving the our Kurdish allies and their families to Erdoğan's tender mercies.

The U.S. has a major airbase in Adana in southern Turkey, Incirlik, and Russia has been wanting to see the 50 U.S. nuclear weapons out of there; that has a lot to do with why Putin has stirred up trouble between Erdoğan and the easily manipulated Trump. The last time the U.S. put sanctions on Turkey was in 1978 when Turkey invaded Cyprus. The Turks came close to shutting down Incirlik then but decided to just suspend all operations instead. The EU has already imposed an arms embargo against Turkey and Trump will do that even without a congressional resolution, which is likely to be much stronger than what Trump wants. Removing those nuclear weapons is being actively discussed in the Pentagon.

Erdoğan has threatened to send millions of refugees into Europe as retaliation. He was in Baku yesterday-- not staying at the dilapidated Trump Tower there-- and he told the media that he will react forcefully to NATO attempts to isolate Turkey. "We are determined to take our operation to the end. We will finish what we started,” he said. “A hoisted flag does not come down. Erdoğan is a dick-- like Trump-- but Turkey is a strong American ally. Someone should be treading carefully.

The nuclear weapons are now Erdoğan's hostages. This is exactly the kind of situation where having a hothead and impetuous know-it-all sitting in the Oval Office poses dangers for the U.S. and the rest of the world. Jim Himes (D-CT) is a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee and chair of its Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies. Earlier today he told me that "Trump has fatally abandoned our only real ally in the region, the Kurds, stirred the ISIS hornets’ nest and given Russia, Assad and Iran a free hand. For which he got what?"

Ted Lieu (D-CA) is usually thought of as one of the most brilliant minds on the House Judiciary Committee. OK-- but he's also one of the most valuable members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This evening he reminded us that "The Kurdish people have been one of America's staunchest allies for decades. In 1996 I participated in Operation PACIFIC HAVEN, where the DoD airlifted Kurds out of Iraq and into Guam. We did this because the Kurds helped the United States fight Saddam Hussein and we had a duty to protect them from violent retaliation. More recently the Kurds helped the United States fight ISIS. Our strategy to contain and retake territory from ISIS in Syria was successful primarily due to the sacrifices of thousands of Kurdish fighters on the ground. Anyone who has heard me speak about foreign policy knows that I believe we should not be engaged in endless war around the globe. As a veteran, I am in favor of bringing our troops home. But we must end these engagements in a smart and strategic way that honors our commitments and protects our men and women in uniform. Trump's reckless decision to abandon our allies has destabilized the entire region. It has pushed the Kurds into an unholy alliance with Assad and Putin, allowed hundreds of ISIS affiliates to escape from Kurdish-run prisons, put our troops in harms way, and endangered our national security."

 Andy Levin (D-MI) is an influential member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of its Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation. He's also deputy whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This morning, in a note about Trump, he told me that "truly, on top of all of his impeachable offenses, we have never confronted a president as uncoachable, as unstable, as ignorant and as insecure-arrogant as Trump in modern times. His ability to make a complete disaster of foreign policy on a whim while on the phone with a foreign strongman (pant, pant, pant) has darn nearly accomplished the impossible-- uniting Congressional Democrats and Republicans."

Tom Suozzi (D-NY), the sharpest member of Congress from Long Island, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, told me today that "There are all kinds of theories about what game the President is playing-- helping Erdogan, helping Putin, business gain, ignorance, naivite, total lack of judgement, or more likely, trying to change the front pages to help his re election. The bottom line, however, is this is not a game. This is serious business. It is life and death. ISIS. World balance of power. War. People’s existence. Just like healthcare, immigration, gun violence prevention, climate change and so much more are serious life and death issues for real people. Freedom and democracy are serious business. This is no time for game playing. Times up."

A Putin puppet, Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader of Russian nationalist Liberal Democratic Party, proclaimed just before the U.S. election that if Trump won, Russia would "drink champagne in anticipation of being able to advance its positions on Syria and Ukraine."

How Dangerous Is Trump To America As A Foreign Asset?

Yesterday, in his Atlantic column, David Frum delved into a sordid piece of British history that led to the Founding Fathers including the power of impeachment in the Constitution. The recently restored Charles II of Great Britain, in need of money he couldn't get from Parliament, accepted bribes from the French Sun King, Louis XIV, in return for Dunkirk, then a British base on the coast of France (and for Charles' pledge to convert to Catholicism). "Foreign corruption inducing treason," wrote Frum, "was the core impeachable offense in the eyes of the authors of the Constitution." Trump, having never read the Constitution nor bothered studying American history, commits crimes against the Constitution daily and is undoubtably guilty of treason and should be impeached, tried removed from office and them face the most severe criminal consequences for his actions.

Frum, though, uses his intro to go in another direction: the current whistleblower report about promises Trump has made to some unnamed foreign potentate, likely either Putin, Netanyahu or bin Salman. (For example, did bin Salman transfer a billion dollars to Trump for his personal promise to attack Iran, the top priority of both Saudi and Israeli foreign policy?) Frum isn't as speculative:

Which is why a whistle-blower report filed with the inspector general for the intelligence community, reportedly concerning an improper “promise” by President Donald Trump to a foreign leader, has jolted Congress.

...Trump has been engaged in improper contacts with foreign governments for years, and built deep business relationships with foreign nationals. Russian assistance helped elect him. Money from wealthy Russians reportedly helped keep his businesses alive from 2006 to 2016. Since 2016, more and more foreign money has flowed Trump’s way. Trump literally has a hotel open on Pennsylvania Avenue to accept payments—there’s a big carpet in front, his name on the door, nothing even remotely clandestine about the flow of corruption. That corruption seeks returns. Again and again, Trump has acted in ways that align with the interests of foreign states, raising questions about his motives.

Exactly what was promised in this particular conversation, and to whom, America and the world wait to hear. Perhaps there exists a reasonable explanation for a conversation that the Trump administration is trying hard to keep from public view. But the basic grammar of all Trump scandals has been visible from the beginning: many secrets, no mysteries.

What's this all about? If you've been under a rock this week, Congress and a Trumpified intelligence community are fighting over a whistleblower complaint that Trump secretly made "a promise" to a foreign leader that, according to the Washington Post was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community... It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver."

CNN reported that "the revelations have unleashed a new firestorm in the nation's capital over Trump's perplexing foreign policy dealings and the administration's across-the-board efforts to frustrate Congress' constitutionally authorized role of oversight of the executive branch. But they will also open debate about the extent of the President's powers, which give him expansive latitude in national security."

The drama centers on the refusal of acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to hand over the whistleblower's complaint to Congress. The stalling had already prompted speculation that Trump or senior aides could be involved.

After a standoff with House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, Maguire agreed Wednesday to testify next week, in a public hearing about the affair. There is no indication that he will hand over the report-- especially in an open hearing.

Schiff had sent rumors into overdrive on Sunday when he said Maguire had cited a "higher authority" in refusing to hand over the complaint and referred to "privileged communications."

...The reports will trigger a controversy about Trump's handling of intelligence and his opaque conversations with foreign leaders.

A political duel will also rage about the whistleblower's decision to make the complaint. On one hand, the President's sweeping powers in foreign policy conferred by the Constitution and a democratic mandate give him wide latitude to say whatever he likes to a foreign leader. American presidents have been making promises to their counterparts on the world stage for generations. It's a practice that might be said to be part of their job.

...Maguire's conduct appears to be the latest manifestation of the administration's multi-front strategy to thwart Congress' oversight efforts.

If an inspector general in a government department finds misconduct or uncovers information that rises to a high level of wrongdoing defined as "urgent and credible" under whistleblowing legislation, the legal recourse is to involve Congress.

The controversy came to a head only a day after Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski put on an aggressive display in a House Judiciary Committee hearing that prompted the White House to preview a sweeping executive privilege claim even though he never worked for the federal government.

The White House has sought to prevent testimony from many other current and former executive branch officials, leading to a string of looming court clashes that in themselves fulfill Trump's goal of slowing Democratic investigations.

Maguire is a retired Navy admiral who formerly led the National Counterterrorism Center. He was chosen by Trump following a succession drama after the permanent director-- former Sen. Dan Coats, who was never seen as close to the President-- announced he would step down in July. Trump passed over the office's No. 2, Sue Gordon. Sources told CNN at the time she was not seen as the kind of loyalist Trump wanted in the role.

At the time, Maguire was seen as a force for stability. Trump's first pick to replace Coats, Rep. John Ratcliffe, stepped down after controversy over the Texas Republican's qualifications and amid concern he would be a political appointee who would first be loyal to the President, not his duty as director of national intelligence.

Trump's Xenophobia And Racism Is Very Appealing To Some In Tennessee

Elaine Chao, Trump's Secretary of Transportation-- and Mitch McConnell's beard-- was born in Taiwan and Trump's Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Robert Wilkie, was born in Germany. Texas Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Currently 28 members of Congress were born in other countries, including close Trump crony, Mark Meadows, who was born in France. Among the naturalized Americans in Congress today are Stephanie Murphy (Vietnam), Ilhan Omar (Somalia), Adriano Espaillat (Dominican Republic), Ted Lieu (Taiwan), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador), Norma Torres (Guatemala), Salud Carbajal (Mexico), Chuy Garcia (Mexico), Albio Sires (Cuba), Pramila Jayapal (India) and Mazie Hirono (Japan).

A normal American president would be thanking them for their service to the country and celebrating the fact that they chose to become citizens of the U.S. But no one ever accused Trump or being a normal American president. Many people have noted that, at least technically, he isn't even a legitimate president, since Russia helped to put him into the White House by stealing the 2016 election.

Sunday morning Trump was ranting and raving on Twitter about how "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is too be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

Ted Lieu was on MSNBC a couple of hours later and he noted that Trump is a "racist ass." Want the full context? "I never thought I’d see the day when a president was telling immigrants to go back to where we came from. Donald Trump is demonstrating he’s a racist ass. He’s not uniting us. I can’t wait until he leaves the office of the presidency." James Slack, a spokesman for UK Prime Minister Theresa May said she thinks "the language used to refer to these women was completely unacceptable." Bloomberg reported that "May’s comments are likely to put pressure on the two rivals to succeed her, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson, to join her in denouncing the president’s language when they take part in a live debate on Tuesday evening." The head of Britain's Conservative Party is calling at Trump-- knowing full well he will attack her as soon as he hears about it, while not ONE Republican congressmember has said "boo." Where is John Katko? Fred Upton? Brian Fitzpatrick? Elise Stefanik? Lee Zeldin? Peter King? Doug LaMalfa? Where's Mario Diaz-Balart, Don Bacon, Michael McCaul and Jaime Herrera Buetler? All hiding out! Not a peep out of any of these morally bankrupt enablers! (UPDATE: Texas Republican Will Hurd, the party's only African American member in Congress-- and who represents a 70% Latino district, was just on CNN and he agreed that Trump's tweets were racist. That's one.)




Earlier today, Señor Trumpanzee tried defending his Sunday tweets telling the 4 Democratic women of color to go back to the "broken and crime infested" countries they came from, apparently unaware that 3 were born in the U.S.A., and asserting, falsely, to reporters, "These are people that hate our country." When asked if he was concerned that most people see his disgusting tweets as racist, he said, "It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me." That's true; many do-- basically his own revolting Know Nothing racist base. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats rallied behind the AOC, Ilhan, Ayanna and Rashida-- and Pelosi is scheduling a vote on a resolution condemning Trump's comments. This will force every Republican to take a stand. I wonder if it will make any of her "Majority Makers" uncomfortable too.

Milwaukie, Oregon Mayor Mark Gamba, like Ted Lieu, wants Trump to know what he thinks of his racist, xenophobic and unAmerica attack on the 4 congresswomen. "The Conman in Chief is terrified of the four young congresswomen because even at his level of self delusion he recognizes what true patriots look and sound like. He recognizes that if they can start to shift our country towards a direction that truly serves the 99%, his game is up as is that of all the status-quo corporate sellouts. I stand with @AOC, @RashidaTlaib, @IlhanMN, @AyannaPressley."

Jim Himes, a congressman from Connecticut who was born in Peru, told us a couple of hours after Trump's crazy tweet storm, that "Once again Trump demonstrates the contempt he holds for people of color and those he doesn’t deem sufficiently American because they’re not of European descent. Apart from betraying our country’s core values, he is encouraging white nationalism. This white guy is not holding his breath for the President’s demand that I return to Peru, the country of my birth."

It's worth remembering that although Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia-- but has been living in Minnesota since she was 10 years old-- the other 3 women Trump was attacking were all born in the U.S. Ayanna Pressley was born in Cincinnati. AOC was born in New York City. And Rashida Tlaib was born in Detroit, which she now represents in Congress. Ilhan responded by e-mailing her constituents that "Trump knows exactly what he is doing with this bigoted attack. He’s stoking white nationalism because he is angry that I am serving in Congress and fighting against his hate-filled agenda.

Since the beginning of Trump’s time in office he has tried to ban immigrants from Somalia from entering our country. He may have succeeded in getting his Muslim ban but he won’t succeed in banning my voice and fight.

I will fight each and every day to repeal the ban and put it into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

His administration has created and is fueling a human rights crisis on our southern border. He is keeping children in cages, detaining immigrants for profit, forcing people to live in unsanitary conditions separated from their loved ones. I have spoken out about these terrible conditions at every turn, have called for abolishing ICE, and voted ‘no’ on the recent bill to give the Trump administration more funding on the southern border with zero oversight or accountability.

I have repeatedly called for impeachment proceedings to begin in the House because we have a constitutional responsibility to investigate Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Donald Trump is lashing out at me because I am fighting back against his hate-filled policies at every turn and that makes me a target. I am fighting for an agenda that is supported by the American people and that terrifies him.

By telling me that I should return to Somalia, Trump is trying to silence the voices of the people I represent. But I will always fight for what is right and will never back down in the face of Trump’s attacks on me.

I didn’t run for Congress to sit on the sidelines. I ran to restore moral clarity to Congress and to fight for and defend our democracy. And that is exactly what I plan to continue doing. Donald Trump lashing out at Alexandria, Ayanna, Rashida, and me shows that he is threatened and angry about our progressive, for-the-people movement.

One Republican congressman finally spoke up. Maryland's one Republican, far right crackpot Andy Harris, defended Señor Trumpanzee‘s tweets, telling a Baltimore radio station, WBAL, that they were not racist. "They’re obviously not racist. But again, when anyone disagrees with someone now the default is to call them a racist, and this no exception." So there you go! Harris' gerrymandered district-- by the Democratic-controlled legislature-- packs every Republican within reason into one big red district in otherwise all-blue Maryland. The state's PVI is a nice healthy D+12-- and Harris' is R+14. Trump beat Hillary there 62.0% to 33.4%, while statewide, she beat Trump 1,677,928 (60.33%) to 943,169 (33.91%).

Has anyone connected Trump's penchant for putting women and children into concentration camps with his German ancestry? Maybe instead of slamming these 4 women of color working for all of us in Congress, Trump should join Ted Cruz in condemning therapist Republican governor of Tennessee for honoring the founder of the KKK. Because of Bill Lee's proclamation, Saturday was officially Nathan Bedford Forrest Day in Tennessee, as it has been since 1921.

If if Trump refuses to condemn the Tennessee governor, Rep. Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis in Congress, sure did: "We should not be honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and the perpetrator of the massacre at Fort Pillow. Gov. Lee should be bringing Tennessee into the 21st century not backsliding into the 19th."

In Trump's world Forrest is the "real" American while AOC and her colleagues are not. Here's a biographical sketch of Forrest-- so you can decide for yourself:

Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the most polarizing figures of the Civil War era, was born July 13, 1821 in Chapel Hill, Tennessee-- a small town on the Duck River. When his father, a blacksmith, died when he was 16, Forrest moved to the Memphis Delta and eventually became a successful businessman-- indeed a millionaire-- dealing in cotton, land and slaves.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861:

“I wish none but those who desire to be actively engaged. COME ON BOYS, IF YOU WANT A HEAP OF FUN AND TO KILL SOME YANKEES”

In February 1862, Forrest’s unit was stationed at Fort Donelson on the Cumberland when Gen. Ulysses S. Grant forced its surrender. Rather than accept Gen. Buckner’s decision to capitulate, Forrest and his men slipped away, through the snow, and fought at the Battle of Shiloh less than two months later. That summer he began to make the kind of lightning raids that made him perhaps the single most feared cavalry commander of the entire war and earned him the nickname “the wizard of the saddle.”

He was promoted to brigadier general and at the close of the year made himself a thorn in the side of Grant’s Vicksburg campaign, disrupting his lines of communication and attacking his supply depots. During a skirmish at Parker’s Crossroads on New Year’s Eve, Forrest and his men were totally surprised when a Union force suddenly appeared in their rear and threatened to surround them. “Charge ‘em both ways,” Forrest famously ordered. They did, and were able to escape the trap and to fight another day. Constantly on the move, bold on the attack and swift in retreat, no Union commander was able to effectively come to grips with Forrest’s cavalry during the war.  In September, they took part in the great battle of the Western Theater: Chickamauga. Forrest’s men pursued the retreating Union army into Chattanooga and took hundreds of prisoners. In December, 1863 he was again promoted to major general.

The following spring, in April 1864, Forrest and his men were involved in one of the most controversial episodes of the Civil War. After surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime.  Though accounts varied, the incident stands as one of the most gruesome of the Civil War era; “Remember Fort Pillow” became a rallying-cry for African-American soldiers throughout the Union Army.

Later in the summer, Forrest won one of his greatest victories at Brice’s Cross Roads, defeating a force twice the size of his own. His legend was constantly growing. That year, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman declared: “that devil Forrest must be hunted down and killed if it costs ten thousand lives and bankrupts the federal treasury.”

Forrest continued to torment the Union high command as the war entered its fourth year. In February, 1865 Forrest was again promoted, to lieutenant general, becoming the only man on either side to rise so far. When Robert E. Lee surrendered to Grant in April, Forrest surrendered as well, declaring that, “any man who is in favor of a further prosecution of this war is a fit subject for a lunatic asylum.” Over the course of the conflict, Forrest had given as much as probably any man for the cause.  He had 29 horses shot from under him, killed or seriously wounded at least thirty enemy soldiers in hand-to-hand combat, and had been himself wounded four times.

After the war, Forrest is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans. He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869. Forrest died of diabetes in Memphis on October 29, 1877.

UPDATE: Mike Siegel's follow up:

I stand with Ilhan.

If you’ve been on this list for a while, you know I don’t spend much energy talking about the President. You hear enough about Trump elsewhere, I’m sure, and I prefer to focus on the concrete work we are doing here in the Texas 10th to improve the lives of the people.

But what the President said yesterday deserves comment. In essence, Trump told four members of Congress-- all women, from diverse racial backgrounds-- to “go back to where you came from.” A racist message, based on the assumption that only white people are “from here.”  Nonsensical, to an extent, given that three of the Representatives are American-born. But also targeted: in particular at Rep. Ilhan Omar, a naturalized U.S. citizen who arrived here as a refugee from Somalia.

Trump thinks that attacking Omar, who is Muslim, Black, and progressive, is good politics.

We need to show the world he is dead wrong.

Mike's young family

I was lucky enough to be born in this country. But I come from a family that includes Jewish ancestors, who came here as refugees; much of our family was not so lucky, unfortunately, and perished in the Holocaust. I also come from a family that includes Protestant ancestors, who came here as refugees, fleeing religious persecution. And so many of us have similar histories: how we came here, recently or generations ago, for sanctuary and opportunity.

And that, truly, is what makes America great. Despite the structural flaws in this country, the history of injustice and inequality, there is also a recurring theme: of families from around the world, from hundreds of countries and cultures, who arrived here to build a better life, not just for themselves, but for all of us.

And the attack on Rep. Omar-- at the same time we are locking up asylum seekers in concentration camps, and announcing nationwide “raids” to terrorize immigrant communities-- is an attack on the promise of America itself. Trump knows he cannot win if the diverse, open-hearted people of this country come together. His regime only prospers through division, fear and hatred.

We must fight back. We must stand up for Rep. Omar-- not just because she is an important voice and leader, a loving community member and sincere and committed representative, but also because she represents the best of this country. The promise of a better life. The poetry inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, that all will be welcome within these borders.

So let’s stand up for Ilhan. Let’s stand up for refugees. Let’s stand up for all of the marginalized communities in this country. Let’s unite across cultures and differences.

Together, we are strong. Unbeatable, even. And Trump knows that. Let’s make sure his days are numbered.

Amash Declares His Independence From The Republican Party

Sunrise, Independence Day... and Justin Amash's own personal Declaration of Independence was published in the Washington Post. "Today, I am declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party. No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. I’m asking you to believe that we can do better than this two-party system-- and to work toward it. If we continue to take America for granted, we will lose it." He wrote that he's become "disenchanted with party politics and frightened by what I see from it... the two-party system has evolved into an existential threat to American principles and institutions... True to Washington's fears, Americans have allowed government officials, under assertions of expediency and party unity, to ignore the most basic tenets of our constitutional order: separation of powers, federalism and the rule of law. The result has been the consolidation of political power and the near disintegration of representative democracy."

He's clearly not going to be caucusing with the Republicans. Will he be caucusing with the Democrats? Most of the Democrats in Congress I spoke tot this morning were unsure and didn't have anything to say about it. Jim Himes (CT) told me that "Justin has always marched to the beat of his own drummer. I don’t agree with him on much, but I admire his commitment to principle at a time when most other Republicans are happy to abandon theirs in service to Donald Trump." According to ProgressivePunch, Amash's crucial vote record for 2019 is tied for the 218th most progressive. There are 16 Democrats who have been voting to the right of him this year! Tied with Sharice Davids (KS) and Mike Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ), Amash votes more progressively than (from bad to worse):

• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Conor Lamb (PA)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Jared Golden (ME)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)

Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also admires Amash's independence. This morning she told me that he "is a principled legislator. While we disagree on many issues, he truly understands the responsibility of legislators to our Constitution and to ensuring that nobody is above the law. I applaud him for following his values and standing up for the Constitution. I hope his example inspires other Republicans to do the same and save not just their party, but their country."

Another outspoken progressive Democrat, Jamie Raskin (D-MD), told me that "Amash is taking all the principles left in the GOP with him. The Democratic Party welcomes libertarians and true conservatives who want to conserve the land, the air, the water, the peace, the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights. Come on all the way over Justin to the party of the people!"

Pig-man has an instant comment, of course

The rest of the Republicans in the Michigan congressional delegation has been trying to blame Amash for their state losing out on a big Depratment of Defense contract for an ICBM interceptor site. 5 right-wing kooks-- Fred Upton, Bill Huizenga, Tim Walberg, Paul Mitchell, and Jack Bergman-- are pissed off because they feel the state is being punished for Amash's opinions. And they're blaming Amash instead of Trump. Amash, who now-- as of today-- had 4 GOP primary opponents (virtually guaranteeing his reelection)-- laughed in their faces. Now he'll be able to proceed to the general election with a primary.

This week, Amash was interviewed by Jane Coaston for Vox and they discussed a wide range of topics, far more interesting than the regular bullshit political interviews are lately. Notice that he distinguishes between conservative Republicans and "Trump Republicans."

Coaston: It seems to me that [the current debate over changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to regulate social media companies’ moderation practices] is evidence of the breakdown in the relationship between libertarians and conservatives and kind of a tough time to be a libertarian-minded conservative.

Amash: I think it does play into a general shift within the Republican Party away from a fear of big government and more toward a sense of victimization that society is coming after them. And it might be corporations, it might be people who live in urban centers, [but] they’re coming after them to take away their freedoms and culture.

Coaston: But I think the fact that a Republican is suggesting that companies, private companies, submit to the government that they are being neutral-- not just the government, but to unelected FTC commissioners-- that is an inherently unconservative idea.

Amash: Well, it depends on what you mean by conservatism. It is more like Trump’s brand of conservatism, which is again, something very different. It’s nationalism and populism and again, a sense of victimization, like the rest of society is coming after us and we’ve got to defend ourselves against that at all costs.

A lot of Trump Republicans have this mindset that they have to fight this all out war against the left. And if they have to use big government to do it, they’re perfectly fine with that. So when I go to Twitter and talk about overspending or the size of the government, I get a lot of reactions now from Trump supporters saying, “Who cares how big the government is”, or “Who cares how much we’re spending as long as we’re fighting against illegal immigration and pushing back against the left.”

Coaston: You came into the House as part of the Tea Party wave that was very focused on rejecting “big government.” And now a lot of the folks who were part of that wave, if they’re still in Congress, have been much more inclined to argue that “if you can’t beat them, join them” with regards to big government. What has that shift been like for you?

Amash: I feel like I’m among the last of the Tea Party. It doesn’t really exist in any major form anymore. It’s been disheartening because the first few years while I was in Congress, I did feel like we were making progress in shifting the dialogue toward limited government and economic freedom and individual liberty.

And over the past few years, it has gone in the other direction, and a lot of the people who once stood with me are no longer there. Some of them got voted out of Congress, and others just don’t emphasize these issues anymore. I don’t think it started because of Donald Trump. I believe Donald Trump is the culmination of many years of shift in this direction.

Coaston: So on that, could you talk more about other ways that you saw that shift coming before kind of June 2015 and the rise of Trump?

Amash: Before then, it was gradual. [Like] this concept of nationalism that I started to see pop up more and more at town halls or on social media, where I heard Republican speaking favorably of nationalism. And at first I thought it was just people mixing up their terminology. I was like, “No, you mean patriotism.” Like we should be patriotic, [have] love for our institutions, in our country and the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality-- those are the ideals of patriotism.

But I started to hear [the word] nationalism more and more. And that’s a concept that really is about a love for your people simply by virtue of being your people, not related to any principles you hold or what your country stands for, what ideals you’re striving for. It’s about [how] Americans are just inherently better, or [how] particular Americans in some cases might be viewed as inherently better. And that’s a very dangerous ideology, and it is certainly not what this country was founded on.

Coaston: How would you define what limited government or small-government principles means to you?

Amash: I define them as adherence to the Constitution and to the principles of federalism. That is to say, a government that is closer to home may have more power over your daily life than a government that is far away from you.

So our constitution really follows this design where the federal government is given the power to handle things that are national and scope that affects everyone regardless of their circumstance. As an example, every state needs to be defended against foreign attack, whether the state has a population of 1,000 or 10 million. You have a federal government that defends the nation so that each state doesn’t have to have its own military force to defend against foreign invaders.

Whereas locally, you might have a government that is very involved in your day to day life, but because it’s such a small locale, you can easily avoid it. If you don’t like the government, you can move. You also have more influence over it because it is representing fewer people. So presumably your voice is louder in the mix if you want to complain about the government or change things.

Coaston: How concerned are you about government spending in the deficit?

Amash: Very concerned.

Coaston: Why? I know this is one of those very “conservatism 101” questions. But we now have a president has talked a lot about how much he loves debt. How do you make the case that this is still an issue?

Amash: I’ve been making the case since I started that it’s not sustainable and the next generation will pay the price if we don’t address it now. We have legislation every week that comes up and it will be offered without offsets. And these days Republicans seem okay with that, just spending more money without reducing spending elsewhere.

People talk about what they hear on TV. So if they hear on TV that a particular issue is the most important, that’s what they’re going to talk about. Or if they see on social media that particular Republican personalities are saying something, that’s what they’re going to talk about. And when you’re only one person presenting a different vision like I am, or maybe there are a few others, but we’re outnumbered, it’s obvious which way things tend to go in terms of public perception.

So right now, I think there aren’t a lot of polls that are going to show spending or debt as a major concern for people. But they remain, if not the biggest, one of the biggest problems right now especially at the federal level.

Coaston: What would be your ideal way to start solving that problem?

Amash: I think you probably need a balanced budget amendment. I’m really not keen on amending the Constitution because I think we have a fantastic framework. [But] my fear is that if you don’t have a balanced budget requirement, what ends up happening is they will either keep spending until we have a catastrophe. That’s it. They’ll just keep spending. There’s no either there. They’re just going to ... if you don’t have it, they will just keep spending until you have a financial crisis.

Coaston: What we’re seeing are two parties that are in a defensive crouch against each other, where Republicans want to protect Republicans, and right now that is Donald Trump, and Democrats presumably want to protect Democrats.

It seems to be that you’re currently one of the very few people, especially within the Republican Party, who believes that that’s not the job of Congress, that the job of Congress is to make laws and pass legislation, presumably. So when you’re talking with Republican colleagues, is that a challenge?

Amash: The purpose of government is to protect people’s rights. And Congress should serve as a deliberative body that ultimately reflects the will of the people through their representatives. What we have right now is a system that runs almost completely top-down, where the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader dictate everything to everyone.

And in a system like that, the parties inevitably become more partisan because everything is driven by just a few people, and the leaders in Congress spend a lot of their time figuring out ways to avoid putting their members on the record. They want it to be just a personality fight rather than a discussion of over policy matters.

You’ll have members in each party who are in districts that are moderate or maybe even lean against the incumbent. And those members of Congress in those districts will be inclined to vote in a way that reflects the will of their district. And that makes people like Nancy Pelosi and [former House Speaker] Paul Ryan nervous because they want to maintain control over everyone for purposes of a national message, because ultimately they view their job as maintaining the power of the party overall and continuing their own power.

If there’s one thing Speaker Pelosi wants more than anything, it’s to stay in power. You can see what she’s doing, for example, with impeachment. I don’t think it’s a sound strategy, unless she only cares about staying in power and not doing what’s right.

It is very hard to convince people to change this system, to decide that a system where members of Congress have to actually debate things and take tough votes and where the outcome is not predetermined, to convince them that that is the right system is very difficult. And the way our system is supposed to work is the outcomes are supposed to be discovered, not dictated. But for a lot of my colleagues, they’re not interested in that system of government, even though that is the system the founders designed.

Coaston: When you hear from your constituents, what are they concerned about that’s taking place, that you don’t think is getting enough attention?

Amash: Generally speaking, my constituents, and Americans on the whole, want a deliberative process in Congress. I think they care a lot more about the process and the way our institutions operate than most people in Congress recognize.

The partisans are the loudest. They tend to dominate social media, they tend to come to local events. They’re the ones who tend to be active in politics. For a lot of my colleagues, they hear from the most partisan people almost all the time. And they assume that that means those viewpoints are the ones that their district holds.

And I guess I’m aware enough to recognize that most Americans, including most of my constituents, are going about their day-to-day lives and they are not super partisan, they are not super concerned about whether Trump is the greatest or the worst. They’re desiring representation in Congress that will be honest and thoughtful and considerate.

Coaston: On that subject, what have you heard from your constituents when you talked about impeachment in your Twitter thread, or when you’ve talked about impeachment more broadly?

Amash: Again, it depends on which constituents you talked to, but on the whole, the reaction has been positive. Not because everyone agrees with me, but because people want their representative to think through the issues, to be impartial, not in the sense that the person doesn’t have principles or positions, but to not let their own outcome biases affect their judgment.

They don’t want someone who’s going to prejudge situations. And I think I’ve proven to my constituents over time that I’m independent minded. I’ll do what I think is right, and it’s not going to be based on what my party is saying, and I’m not going to prejudge the outcome.

Coaston: Something that’s been expressed by libertarians recently is that they’re not sure if libertarians can really work with Republicans. Has that been a challenge for you?

Amash: I have been openly a libertarian Republican in my district for many years. I haven’t shied away from the word libertarian. I’ve been very clear about it in the years I’ve run for office that I am a libertarian philosophically, and people have voted for me. They voted for me in the Republican primary, they voted for me in the general election and I won by larger margins in both cases than most other candidates running. It is possible to be a philosophically libertarian and operate within one of the two major parties.

One of the reasons I’ve always described myself as libertarian and use that word repeatedly is so that people will connect the word to the work I’m doing. One of the things I like to tell libertarians when I go to conferences and other places is that libertarians are not really a small minority in the country. Most Americans have rather libertarian tendencies or classical liberal tendencies-- the spirit of this country is very much libertarian or classical liberal.

Most Americans, in my view, fall within the sphere of libertarianism or classical liberalism. They might not call themselves libertarian, they might not call themselves classical liberals, but they fall within that sphere and could support a party that presents those ideas. And so I think that there is room for a third party presenting those, that presenting that vision.

Coaston: Do you think the Libertarian Party is doing that in the right way right now?

Amash: Right now it’s still a rather small party. I think that part of the problem, again, is that libertarianism has been presented in the wrong way. And I’m not blaming this on the party, to be clear, but generally speaking, libertarians have thought of themselves as some kind of a small minority within the country and everyone else is a big government statist. And that’s just not true. It really is the case that most Americans, certainly a plurality of Americans, hold fairly libertarian or classical liberal views on a multitude of issues. If you are looking for everyone to be [libertarian economist Ludwig] von Mises, then no, you’re not going to find those people out in society everywhere. But if you’re talking about people who hold dear to the philosophy on which our country was founded, then you’re going to find all sorts of those people. And that’s really at the heart of libertarianism. It’s a belief in a limited constitutional government and the rule of law and equality under the law, and those are things that are most Americans believe in.

Coaston: I would challenge you there.

Amash: Go for it.

Coaston: Many Americans, I would say, believe in personal libertarianism, as in the government should not get involved in what I do. But those people over there, the government should be very interested in what they do. When you’re talking about these issues, how do you combat this?

Amash: If I’m talking to people [at town halls] where they are supportive of liberty in their own life but not in other people’s lives, you just run through examples with them and you get them to rethink the contradictions that they hold. You show them that they are playing into a double standard or they are perhaps acting hypocritically. And I found that actually, if you do this in a thoughtful, measured way, a lot of people are receptive to it.

What this country is really about is following the process and if you can get them to see that process is really in itself a high ideal, something that we should strive for, a sound process, then you can get them to accept that sometimes this process means they will not get the outcome they want. Because they will recognize that it makes things better overall for most people most of the time.

We follow a set of rules and we all live within those rules. We treat everyone equally within those rules and that means that sometimes you won’t get the outcome you want, but on the whole, we will all be better off. And other countries that strive for outcomes, where the government just strives for outcomes, those are the ones that have a lot of unrest. They have more poverty. They are more likely to have a dictatorship.

And that’s why, again, I’m nervous about this turn toward nationalism within the Republican Party, just like there’s a turn toward socialism within the Democratic Party, because those are very much sort of outcome based philosophies. If those were dominant philosophies in the United States, we would be worse off in almost every way.

Coaston: What do you think about the rise of populism among conservatives more generally?

Amash: Populism has its place. But on the whole, if your system is based on populism to the exclusion of principles, then it will fail. The populism has to be bound by principals. And right now you have a lot of populism that is completely unbound. The idea is just to seek a particular outcome and principles be damned-- if big government is the way to achieve it, then so be it. And that means essentially discarding our entire system for the sake of a particular outcome.

Coaston: You now face a primary challenge, and the primary challenge seems to be based entirely on Trump. When you talk to your constituents in advance of that primary, how are you going to talk about Donald Trump?

Amash: The same way I’ve always talked about him. My oath is to support and defend the Constitution, and that’s what I do. I didn’t run on an oath to support and defend a particular person. If some candidate wants to do that, to claim that their oath is to Donald Trump, be my guest. I don’t think that flies as something that will be successful in the campaign in my district. I am who I am, and I wouldn’t want to do this job if I had to be something I’m not. I ran on a set of principles and I will uphold those principles. And I have a lot of faith in the people I represent.

Again, I think I have a better understanding of America as a whole than a lot of my colleagues here who think that America is just right-wing people and left-wing people.

I recognize that America is a diverse place with a lot of different opinions and most of my constituents, like most of America, want us to go to Congress and do the job with integrity and honesty and follow a set of principles. And whether the outcome is right, left or in the middle, they mostly just want us to do our jobs properly. I have a lot of faith in the people I represent.

UPDATE: Ro Khanna

Rep. Khanna (D-CA) has worked on bipartisan legislation with Amash. He just told me that he found him to be "one of the most thoughtful and independent members in the House. I have loved working with him on issues of restraint in foreign policy in particular. I will work with him whatever party he is in. He’s an asset to the House."