Who Tanked The Economy?

There were two votes in the Senate last night regarding the $2 trillion bailout package. The bill itself, which was a compromise concoction with some flimsy, temporary relief for ordinary families that progressives wanted and a hideous grab bag of corporate giveaways and bailouts conservatives insisted on-- while holding working people hostage-- passed 96-0 in the wee hours. Cowardly Democrats looked the other way as the corporate conservatives ripped off the country again. But before the Senate voted on that nightmare bill put together by McConnell, Schumer and Mnuchin-- H.R. 748 (Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019 )-- they voted on an Amendment proposed by Ben Sasse (R-NE), Rick Scott (R-FL), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) meant to kick workers in the face. The amendment, meant to hold down unemployment benefits for low wage workers, required 60 votes but failed 48-48. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the only Democrat voting with the Republicans against workers while extremely endangered Republicans up for reelection in November, Susan Collins (R-ME) and Cory Gardner (R-CO), broke with their own party to vote with the Democrats against it. This bill will prove to be catastrophic historically-- and politically harmful to everyone who voted for it. Pelosi and Hoyer are working on a method of voting in the House tomorrow so that there will be no record of who voted for it and who voted against it.

Last night, before the senators voted, we looked at a study showing the efficacy of shelter in place by comparing COVID-19 in San Francisco to COVID-19 in New York (and L.A.), where shelter in place came later and is relatively superficial. Shelter in place works... bigly. But Trump wants to end it-- even before it's started in most of the country. In a tweet yesterday, urbanologist Richard Florida asserted-- with good reason-- that "Trump is positioning blue states and governors to take the fall for the bad economy. He knows they will do whatever it takes to keep their people safe. He can then 'blame them' for the bad economy. He can tell his supporters, he wanted to reopen and fix the economy. 'They' tanked it." Well, that certainly does sound like our Trumpy-the-Clown alright. After all, who else could move without batting an eyelash from "It's a hoax" to a blatantly insane Easter Sunday resurrection of himself, even with the Pope urging people to stay away from the churches Trump is urging people to fill (and turn into pods of contagion and death traps for the devout)?

Tuesday evening, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell was at his very best, exposing the psychological wreck that defines the worst asshole to ever occupy the White House. It's 8 and a half minutes long and it's worth listening to.





Thailand puts the lie to Trump's stupid statements about how the warm weather will kill off the virus. COVID-19 has been ravaging Thailand, where the weather is usually in the 90s, since January. The hard-pressed Thais have been trying to work through this by gradually shutting down. Yesterday (at midnight), this country-- which is so dependent on tourism-- banned all foreigners from entering the country. Most tourists come from China, India, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, the Gulf countries, Europe and North America. But the decree also impacts migrant workers, 60,000 of whom left the country. The authorities have announced that shops selling food and essential consumer goods can remain open but price gougers and hoarders will be prosecuted. If a poor, developing country like Thailand can chose life over lucre, why can't Trump? (Rhetorical question-- although that Lawrence O'Donnell video above answers it very throughly.)

A couple of days ago the New York Times editorial board did what Trump is way too cowardly to do-- the editors told all Americans that the pandemic is getting worse and that all of us need to shelter in place. On Tuesday they wrote that the madman in the White House "needs to call for a two-week shelter-in-place order, now, as part of a coherent national strategy for the coronavirus to protect Americans and their livelihoods. Once he does, and governors follow his request, there will be time to debate how soon some controls might be lifted, or how soon certain people, like those under a particular age, might be free to resume something like normal life. There will be more time then to develop palliative treatments, and more time for the federal government to order up the test kits and ventilators needed nationwide. There will be more time to gather data about which regions, and which people, are most at risk. But the United States has passed the point where aggressive, targeted efforts at tracking and containment, like those pursued by South Korea, have a realistic chance of success. And calls for voluntary social distancing have had mixed results, as the photos of spring breakers crammed together on the Florida beaches last week made clear."

These editors wrote that they're not suggesting that the orange orangutan "has the authority to order a national lockdown, much less advocating that he attempt to enforce one. Instead, we are urging him to use the bully pulpit to put pressure on, and provide political cover for, governors to take the hard steps that are needed. As the president’s own health advisers warn, the worst of the coronavirus pandemic is yet to come. The nation’s slow and spotty response has allowed the virus to spread to every state. Modeling by researchers at the Imperial College London indicates that upward of two million lives could be lost to the pandemic unless America somehow manages to 'flatten the curve.'"

Some cities and states, and even entire nations, already have lockdowns in place. On Tuesday, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, ordered a “total ban” on leaving home for the population of 1.3 billion, for the next three weeks. He warned, “If you can’t handle these 21 days, this country will go back 21 years.”

Other countries have opted for narrower restrictions, and enforcement has varied. But patchwork approaches, like the one the United States defaulted to in the absence of a national plan, have proven inadequate.

The coronavirus can spread so quickly that to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, the restrictions need to be sweeping, they need to be uniform across jurisdictions and they need to be put in place now. It may already be too late for New York, despite the urgent efforts of state and local governments.

Everyone shares Mr. Trump’s concern for the economy. But this is not a moment for mere salesmanship, for conjuring a cheerful vision rather than facing reality. It’s a moment for providing a plan. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he’d “love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter,” which falls this year on April 12. Who wouldn’t? But wishing will not make it so. This crisis has not turned a corner-- it hasn’t even hit yet.

Rather than raising false expectations of a rapid and full return to business as usual, the president needs to be pursuing even more drastic measures. He should announce that, within 24 hours, all nonessential businesses should be shut and residents directed to remain in their homes except for vital trips out, such as to obtain food or medical care. Provisions can be made for people to walk in outdoor public spaces, so long as they maintain a distance of at least six feet.

Two weeks from now, with more testing, we will also have a far better sense of where infections are clustered if more people confine their movements to a limited number of places.

Mr. Trump has proclaimed himself a “war president.” Why, then, won’t he rally Americans around this cause? Winning this war will require shared sacrifice, and tremendous short-term hardship for Americans. But failure would mean devastating loss of life and prolonged, widespread economic pain.

Of course, even extreme social distancing and withdrawal is no panacea. The Trump administration will need to take other steps to stop the spread of this disease.

Lines of authority and policy aims need to be clarified within the White House. Vice President Mike Pence is the official crisis czar, but Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, has his own response team working on, among other things, outreach to the private sector. Certain senior aides, with business leaders whispering in their ears, are at odds with some health advisers about what restrictions are needed and how heavy the government’s hand should be. There has been much grumbling among people both inside and outside the administration that it’s hard to tell who’s running the show. That is complicating decision-making at all levels.

Federalism is integral to American government, but the administration needs to get serious about running a coordinated national response. When Mr. Trump effectively told governors, You’re on your own. Go find your own supplies in the marketplace, he at least gave states greater purchasing flexibility. But he also set up a free-for-all in which states are now bidding against one another-- as well as against municipalities, the federal government and other nations-- for scarce resources such as protective equipment and ventilators. This causes not only price competition but also misallocation of resources, as each state scrambles to amass its own stockpile, regardless of relative need.

This editorial board is reluctant to grant any White House more executive power, much less this one, given its track record. But in this case, there is no one else to coordinate at the national level. It is the federal government’s job to look at the big picture, tracking where needed resources are available and deciding where they should go. Systems must be set up to provide for quickly shifting equipment and workers from areas with low levels of infection toward those in dire need.

There are encouraging signs that the White House is moving in this direction, albeit belatedly. On Tuesday, the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Peter Gaynor, announced that his agency would make its first use of the Defense Production Act to speed procurement of test kits, protective masks and other equipment needed to fight the virus. Later in the day, Vice President Mike Pence said that 2,000 ventilators were en route to New York State from the national emergency stockpile, with another 2,000 being dispatched on Wednesday. The state estimates it will need 30,000 of the machines.

There remains a drastic shortage of not only protective gear and other equipment but also hospital capacity in hard-hit areas. The administration should use the Defense Production Act to ramp up assembly and distribution of much-needed medical supplies where it makes sense. The president also should fully mobilize the National Guard, with an assist from active-duty military and Reserves, to tackle projects such as erecting field hospitals and setting up drive-through testing centers.

It’s time to put an end to the free-form daily task force briefings featuring the president, the vice president and a rotating cast of other officials. They are a poor use of time for most of the participants and, worse, have repeatedly served up confusing and even false information. The president should tap a respected figure, preferably someone apolitical and with experience in crisis management, to serve as the point person for these briefings. When developments merit, other officials can be brought in to address specific topics.

All this may seem like an overreaction to a health crisis that many Americans aren’t yet feeling. But though it has already wasted time and opportunities to contain the coronavirus, the United States still has a chance to apply hard lessons learned by China, Italy and other nations. A nationwide lockdown is the only tactic left to parry a viral adversary that is constantly on the move, and to buy the time for medical workers to prepare for what comes next.

Former Afghanistan War general Stanley McChrystal and former Navy Seal Chris Fussell, also in The Times, gave a quick tutorial about what a post-9/11 world entitles us to expect from our leaders. Short version: not what we've been seeing. They feel that effective leadership today is expected to communicate, share information, make decisions and, most critically, maintain a cohesive culture... and today our nation's leadership-- both political and corporate-- is managing their teams through a crisis with no clear end in sight. Their column points clearly to the horrifying inadequacy of Trump and his pathetic team of fifth raters.

Leaders must be visible with their plans, honest with their words and adaptable with their actions-- all while maintaining compassion for the situation and the impact it is having on their team.

Understandably, these leaders are already weary from a succession of crisis response meetings and market assessments designed to get their team through this change. While tiring, these are all necessary efforts. But the leaders we’ve spoken with also recognize that these are simply the very first steps of a marathon. They know that the real challenge lies ahead.

In any crisis, there is a natural temptation to simply wait it out. Today’s leaders cannot give in to this instinct. We’re facing a perfect storm of economic downturn, social isolation and a fast-spreading pandemic. The answer to this problem will not suddenly reveal itself; leaders must create solutions. Any leaders who are not already on a war footing and preparing to fundamentally change their organizations for the foreseeable future must start moving today.

Here’s what that means.

First, don’t hunker down. At the height of the Royal Navy’s dominance, British naval officers, impressive in ornate uniforms, were expected to stand erect on the ship’s decks during battles, clearly exposed to enemy fire. It was not that little value was placed on their lives. Rather, ever greater value was placed on their leadership. Their job was to be visible to their sailors, and show calm amid the chaos. Today’s leaders must also stand and be visible to their organizations, their communities, and their families.

Second, demonstrate candor-- and demand it from the leaders below you. In combat, when things look bad, the front-line troops always know it before the leadership. Denying reality makes your people assume you’re either lying or out of touch. Organizations can handle bad news and tough times if they feel their leaders are focused on solving the issues at hand. Today’s leaders must be honest with their people to a level that will and should feel uncomfortable.

Third, give up more authority than feels natural. Fighting through complexity requires quick and informed action at the edge. This is dependent upon fast, transparent and inclusive communication. Organizations will need teammates making independent decisions close to the point of action, not waiting for direction. It’s tempting in times of crisis to grab the reins and yank back, but this will be more disruptive than it is helpful. Be connected, listen and adapt based on what your front line is telling you.

Finally, be more compassionate than you think you need to be. As your organization disperses to remote-work status, the loss of personal interactions will quickly sink in. It will be easy for leaders to overlook or undervalue the fear and stress their people are feeling because of this isolation. All of us learn by watching our teammates, and we gain confidence through informal feedback from our colleagues or bosses. Your organization has lost that person-to-person contact. You must immediately take your culture online, and learn to reinforce camaraderie, esteem, and compassion, via digital platforms.

...We are now weathering a once-in-a-hundred-year event, and Americans are hurt-- physically, emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Leaders at all levels in society need to embrace the changes this crisis brings rather than struggle against it. Your people need you. This is your moment, and you can rise to it.

Thursday Morning COVID-19 Update

Washington Governor Jay Inslee is doing the right thing by announcing a ban on events and social gatherings attended by more than 250 people-- should be less than 100-- in an effort to slow the coronavirus outbreak. I see there is a big empty space in the Rolling Stones tour schedule between San Diego's Credit Union Stadium where it is still due to begin on May 8-- that will never happen-- and May 12's show at the BC Place Stadium in Vancouver. Charlie Watts is 78 years old. Jagger and Richards are both 76. This would probably have been their last tour but I would guess the chances of it happening are around about zero.

The DNC is being proactive for a change. The Sunday night Bernie v Biden debate in Arizona will take place the way more and more events will be taking place-- with no live audience. The White House, meanwhile, "is racing to develop contingency plans that would allow hundreds of thousands of employees to work remotely full time, an extreme scenario to limit the coronavirus that would test whether the government can carry out its mission from home offices and kitchen tables. The Office of Personnel Management, which oversees policy for the workforce of 2.1 million, has urged agency heads in recent days to 'immediately review' their telework policies, sign paperwork with employees laying out their duties, issue ­laptops and grant access to computer networks."

Everything is about playing catch-up with a regime run by a flaming asshole who only thinks about himself and about the here-and-now. not about the future and not about the American people. Yesterday David Lim and Brianna Ehley reported another only in America story, namely that testing, which pages behind the rest of the world, is threatened by shortages of critical lab materials. "The slow pace of coronavirus testing," they reported, "has created a major gap in the U.S. public health response. The latest problem involves an inability to prepare samples for testing, creating uncertainties in how long it will take to get results." Missing: "an adequate stock of the supplies used to extract genetic material from any virus in a patient’s sample."

On Monday, Trump promised he would address the coronavirus pandemic at a press conference on Tuesday. Tuesday he didn't show up. Wednesday morning the Dow headed down another thousand points on the opening. Investors were disappointed at Trump's malfeasance and very much want to see the stimulus package. Last night he addressed the public from the Oval Office and basically said nothing of importance or interest, just read the stuff that his health advisors wrote for him-- basically the opposite of everything he's been saying all along for the last month and a half.

Trump's attention seems to be focused on a costly taxpayer-funded bailout for the oil, travel and hotel industries. People are starting to notice that the Trumpist regime is moving rapidly to aid certain businesses, quite the contrast to its "lackadaisical response to the spread of the virus itself. After early warnings from the devastating outbreak in China, the federal government largely failed to prepare for the coming crisis, health experts say. Among other issues, the US is way behind other nations in testing. Trump himself has consistently downplayed the risks and spread erroneous advice and information." Reuters pointed out that House Dems are putting together a more sensible package to address the COVID-19 catastrophe, including paid sick leave for those affected and expanded "federal food aid programs, especially to low-income families whose children might not be able to attend schools where they receive meals." There is likely to be a House vote today before the House goes off for a week-long recess. If you see one of them out and about, don't shake his or her hand.

Unlike Trump's pointless speech last night-- which might have been of value if it had been made in January-- this clip is very scary but absolutely necessary to listen to-- all the way through. And pay attention-- and get your family and friends to listen as well:

Impeaching Señor Trumpanzee-- Where Are The Missing Votes Hiding?

UPDATE: There are now 211 members of Congress in favor of opening an official impeachment inquiry-- meaning all they need is 7 more, something they will have before the end of the day.

On Tuesday morning-- apparently with an OK from Pelosi-- John Lewis, who is considered by many the "conscience of Congress," spoke on the House floor, reversing his public impeachment position. "We cannot delay. We must not wait. Now is the time to act. I have been patient while we tried every other path and used every other tool. We will never find the truth unless we use the power given to the House of Representatives and the House alone." This gives immediate cover to a least a dozen wavering members. It is also, part of Pelosi's staging strategy.

Even Status Quo Joe, locked in a deadly battle about who's family is more corrupt, noticed that maybe it was time to call for Trump's impeachment if he doesn't fully cooperate with all ongoing congressional investigations and subpoenas.

Last night, in announcing she would have the House begin a formal impeachment inquiry, Pelosi said that "The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I am directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry."

As best I can figure out, there are 159 members of Congress who have now publicly called for a formal impeachment inquiry, the most recent being Michigan New Dem Haley Stevens. Not one Republican has taken the step, although Independent-- former Republican-- Justin Amash has. So that means 158 Democrats out of 235 are on board for impeaching Trump. That leaves 77 Democrats still not there yet. These are the Democrats who are either against it or still, at this late date, making up their minds-- and, as far as I can tell, some who are about to make a big splash in the news tomorrow (watch for my book for the details). The percentage next to each name is Trump's 2016 score and the bolded scores show where Trump won the district:

• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- 46.6%
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- 48.5%
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)- 40.9%
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- 43.3
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 54.8%
• Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL)- 47.4%
• Matt Cartwright (D-PA)- 53.3%
• Ed Case (Blue Dog-HI)- 30.5%
• Kathy Castor (D-FL)- 39.0%
• Jim Clyburn (D-SC)- 30.3%
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)- 38.2%
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 36.4%
• Joe Courtney (D-CT)- 45.8%
• T.J. Cox (New Dem-CA)- 39.7%
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)- 46.4%
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 38.5%
• Elijah Cummings (D-MD)- 20.2%
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 53.5%
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- 46.0%
• Susan Davis (New Dem-CA)- 29.6%
• Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)- 40.4%
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- 50.8%
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- 47.1%
• Abby Finkenauer (D-IA)- 48.7%
• Lois Frankel (D-FL)- 39.1%
• Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)- 29.6%
• Jared Golden (D-ME)- 51.4%
• Vicente González (Blue Dog-TX)- 40.0%
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 48.8%
• Josh Harder (D-CA)- 45.5%
• Jahana Hayes (D-CT)- 45.8%
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 53.2%
• Steven Horsford (New Dem-NV)- 44.6%
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- 32.1%
• Andy Kim (D-NJ)- 51.4%
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)- 49.3%
• Conor Lamb (D-PA)- 49.4%
• John Larson (D-CT)- 36.3%
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)- 35.9%
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- 47.5%
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- 39.9%
• Dave Loebsack (D-IA)- 49.1%
• Stephen Lynch- (New Dem-MA)- 34.4%
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 39.1%
• Donald McEachin (New Dem-VA)- 37.1%
• Jerry McNerney (D-CA)- 38.0%
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- 12.7%
• Joseph Morelle (D-NY)- 39.1%
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 44.1%
• Richard Neal (D-MA)- 36.5%
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 47.7%
• Jimmy Panetta (New Dem-CA)- 23.2%
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- 8.7%
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 61.8%
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- 53.6%
• Raul Ruiz (New Dem-CA)- 43.4%
• Linda Sanchez (D-CA)- 27.4%
• Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)- 22.3%
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 44.1%
• Bobby Scott (D-VA)- 31.9%
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)- 26.6%
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- 28.6%
• Donna Shalala (D-FL)- 38.9%
• Albio Sires (New Dem-NJ)- 21.5%
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 50.1%
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)- 41.9%
• Tom Suozzi (New Dem-NY)- 45.5%
• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)- 24.3%
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 50.6%
• Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX)- 23.7%
• Peter Visclosky (D-IN)- 41.5%
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- 35.8%
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)- 47.6%
• Frederica Wilson (D-FL)- 15.4%

Notice that Tom Suozzi's and Josh Harder's names are crossed off the list-- as many, many others will be in the next 2 days-- because they just changed their positions. I was talking with members all day yesterday who have confirmed that there's quite a bit of choreography going on here. I knew something was cooking yesterday when Long Island Democrat Tom Suozzi posted this on his Facebook page at 3am (PT):

As many of you know I have been reluctant to support impeachment of the President.

My reluctance was based upon my belief that: impeachment will further divide an already divided country; the President will use impeachment proceedings to try and solidify his base, arguing that his opponents are more interested in stopping him than solving the country’s problems; less than a majority of American voters support impeachment; the Senate, under Mitch McConnell and GOP control, are unlikely to support impeachment; the history of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings instruct cautious deliberation on such a weighty matter. Most importantly, for those of us who do not support the President, I argued that our attention should be focused on replacing him in the 2020 election.

However, the most recent admission by the President about his conversations with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he urged him to investigate a political opponent and his family, is eerily reminiscent of reports that candidate Trump solicited foreign intervention in the 2016 election as documented in the Mueller report.

Furthermore, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community notified Congress of a “credible” and “urgent” whistleblower complaint related to the President’s conversations with the Ukrainian President. Now, despite federal law requiring the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint to Congress, the administration has blocked its release to Congress. This refusal is in outright contravention of the law and is again similar to the President’s and his administration’s refusal to comply with other mandates. I cannot ignore this flagrant disregard for the law.

Inaction would give this president (and future presidents) assurances that their misdeeds are immune from punishment. Inaction also would seriously diminish the role of the Congress as a co-equal branch of government determined to utilize its Article I powers.

I believe that it is my Constitutional duty and the duty of the United States Congress to move forward with impeachment inquiries.

I have not made this decision lightly. We must now build the case and establish sufficient evidence to garner a majority of the House to support impeachment and sufficient evidence that will require any rational member of the Senate to convict.

If my theory about Pelosi working this all out carefully is true-- and I have tons of confirmation that it is-- you will be seeing lots of notes like Suozzi's tonight and tomorrow. An old friend of this blog, Matt Cartwright, whose district went pretty substantially for Trump in 2016-- while reelecting him then and last year-- told me that "At some point, it becomes necessary to announce certain conduct by an American president as unacceptable. There have been credible allegations this week that the president abused the power of his office, on the international stage, for political gain. We need to get to the bottom of these serious allegations through comprehensive impeachment proceedings and document production. Whether such hearings result in actual impeachment of the president and or senior cabinet officials remains to be seen."

In his note, Harder wrote that "I wanted to reach out quickly about a rapidly changing situation in Washington. We've been closely following the whistleblower story about President Trump's phone call with Ukraine since last week. Based on recent developments, I've decided that if the allegations are true, it is time for the House to open impeachment proceedings. Here's what I just told the Modesto Bee for their story:

"Last week, we found out that the president himself may have put our national security at risk, invited another foreign government to interfere in our election, and used American tax dollars to further his own political agenda... Anyone willing to sacrifice the national security interests of the United States for their own benefit is unfit to be president.”

"While," Harder continued (with the DCCC talking points) I will be keeping my focus on issues that are most important to folks in my district-- affordable healthcare, good paying jobs, and access to water-- I will also be doing everything I can to make sure the truth comes out. Because it's what the American people deserve. So during a time like this, I feel it's my responsibility to add my voice. Our democracy demands it."

Trump disagrees that he should be impeached. Imagine that! On his way into the UN yesterday, he told a gaggle of reporters that he thinks "it’s ridiculous. It’s a witch hunt. I’m leading in the polls. They have no idea how they stop me the only way they can try is through impeachment. It’s nonsense, and when you see the call, when you see the readout of the call, which I assume you’ll see at some point, you’ll understand. That call was perfect." He's not leading in the polls; he's cratering with almost no path to victory unless he can get Biden the nomination by appearing to Democratic primary voters be so against him.

Yesterday Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Bernstein suggested that Pelosi is following a very carefully choreographed strategy towards impeachment, similar to the one Tip O'Neill used against Nixon. Even as Nixon was cruising to a reelection landslide after Watergate was committed, O'Neill "reckoned that so many bad things had been done by the Nixon men that they simply could not be kept secret indefinitely. Privately, he urged his surprised colleagues in the House leadership to get ready for impeachment. But O’Neill was patient. The House didn’t move after the cover-up collapsed in spring 1973, or after dramatic Senate hearings that summer revealed that Nixon was personally involved. Only after the Saturday Night Massacre in October, when Nixon ordered Justice Department officials to fire the special prosecutor overseeing the probe, did they start moving toward impeachment. And then for months, the judiciary committee slowly gathered evidence to make its case. This strategy eventually worked, as the story gradually came out and moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats began defecting from Nixon-- followed by the rest of the Republican Party in August 1974. Has Pelosi been emulating O’Neill? She’s been taking plenty of heat from pro-impeachment Democrats. She’s certainly been unwilling to get ahead of her caucus. Perhaps that’s because she thinks impeachment could be avoided. Or perhaps she’s been betting that Trump’s past and current lawlessness would keep supplying new evidence pushing ambivalent Democrats toward action-- and that a measured, patient process would be far stronger than a rushed one."

One more smart look at this-- why Vox's Zack Beauchamp is no longer sitting on the impeachment fence. Ukraine-Gate, he wrote, "changes everything. Impeaching Trump over Robert Mueller’s findings in the Russia investigation would have been an attempt to address past offenses; impeaching Trump over these calls would be an attempt to halt what sure looks like an ongoing attempt to hijack American foreign policy in service of the president’s reelection. Democrats have an obligation to try to stop this before it gets any further. There is now no question: It’s time to impeach Donald Trump.

The most compelling argument against impeachment, to my mind, was that it wouldn’t really accomplish anything.

There’s a virtual guarantee that impeachment will fail in the Republican-controlled Senate, which means there’s no real chance of actually removing Trump from office. Public opinion about the Russia scandal became more set along partisan lines as time went on, making it unlikely that drawing attention to it would galvanize public opinion against the Trump presidency in 2020. Why risk distracting Democrats from the issues on which Trump is genuinely unpopular, and jeopardizing the House Democratic majority, when the gains were so marginal?

This seems to be something like the reasoning that has guided Pelosi’s stolid opposition to impeachment. It’s not obviously correct, but it’s a serious argument-- and one that pro-impeachment Democrats and commentators dismissed too easily.

The new Ukraine scandal challenges this logic. There is now an obvious and immediate pragmatic upside to impeachment: stopping an ongoing abuse of presidential power that could undermine the integrity of the 2020 election.

State Senator Kai Kahele is running for the seat in Hawai'i's second district currently occupied by Tulsi Gabbard, who opposes impeachment. Kahele is more in sync with the Democratic Party-- and with voters in Hawai'i. Even before the whistleblower came forward about Trump's call with the president of Ukraine, he told me that "Some say impeachment will tear this country apart; I say that Donald Trump has already torn our country apart. He clearly has put his own self-interest and self-profiting above the interests of the American people. The recent revelations of taxpayer money being spent at his properties overseas and his desire to steer the G-7 summit to his resort in Florida, in addition to continued foreign government spending at the Trump DC Hotel, raise serious questions in regards to the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report outlined numerous instances of possible obstruction of justice. Now is the time for Congress to fulfill it’s constitutional duty to serve as a check and balance on this administration and conduct a full impeachment inquiry to see if there is enough evidence to remove the President from office. Only once Donald Trump is forever gone from the White House can we start to put our country back together again."

There are quite a few progressive candidates running for seats held by Trump-friendly Blue Dogs. In each case, the challengers are backing impeachment, while the incumbents are opposing it. In Arizona, Eva Putzova is running against "ex"-Repubican Tom O'Halleran, a Trump enabler. "My opponent," she told me last night, "chose to stick with the Republican Party while Bush's administration was involved in war crimes and torture, while the Party was taken over by Tea Party's racism, and through most of Obama's presidency, so it's no surprise he is not demanding Trump's impeachment despite numerous, frequent, and credible reports of Trump committing impeachable offenses. Voting with Trump nearly 40 percent of time, our representative in Arizona's first congressional district switched parties, but not his value system. If I were in Congress and president from any party behaved so irresponsibly and with such a disregard for the integrity of the Office of the President, I would not hesitate to call for impeachment proceedings. Our democracy is at stake."

It's the same thing up in Oregon where Milwaukie mayor Mark Gamba is facing off against Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "We pride ourselves as Americans for having a society that lives by the rule of law rather than the tyranny that some other countries suffer under," said Gamba. "The question is: What is our country becoming when a President thumbs his nose at our laws and seemingly breaks them with impunity?  We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances so that we can never be ruled by a tyrant. I believe that it is the implicit duty of congress to protect our democracy by holding the other branches of government to the same standards we are all held to. If I were in Congress, I would be calling for an in depth and thorough Impeachment Inquiry. Kurt Schrader once again shows himself to be unwilling to step out of his comfort zone even when he knows it’s the right thing to do. He hasn’t done it in order to stop the climate crisis, he hasn’t done it to make sure every American can receive the medical care they need, he hasn’t done it when it came to supporting a living wage for every hard working American and now he won’t do it to protect our democracy from a tyrant."
 
Shan Chowdhury, the southeast Queens progressive challenger to corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks made a good point: "We need less sheep and more shepherds. Many established democrats are changing their tune because of house leadership finally finding some courage to do their jobs. Activists and grassroots organizations have called for impeachment from the start of the president's term. Too many impeachable offenses were cast aside for political gains: lying to federal agents, ties to Russia, support for white nationalist violence, and spewing misogynistic and racist speech. So it’s about time! We need to stop playing politics, and starting doing the right things."

 

She's Like An Agnostic-- Have You Seen Her All In Gold, Like A Queen In Days Of Old

Yesterday, Washington Post reporters Paul Kane and Rachael Bade wrote that Nancy Pelosi is skeptical of Medicare-For-All and that she questions whether Medicare-for-all can deliver benefits as good as Obamacare. I literally have never met anyone using Obamacare who likes it and I have never met anyone using Medicare who doesn't love it. So I'm confused about what Pelosi is babbling about, when she said on Thursday Medicare-For-All might be too expensive and that she'd rather build on Obamacare. "I’m agnostic," she said slyly. "Show me how you think you can get there. We all share the value of health care for all Americans-- quality, affordable health care for all Americans. What is the path to that? I think it’s the Affordable Care Act, and if that leads to Medicare-for-all, that may be the path." Tragic! Just tragic.

You may have heard me telling this story before, so... if you have I apologize in advance. Before retiring I was a TimeWarner divisional president and things like health insurance for top corporate executives were carefully negotiated by high-priced attorneys as part of contracts. Except in the case of health insurance, attorneys long ago had done all the negotiating. Chairmen and presidents got the best package the "free market" offered. There really wasn't any negotiating to do. It was built into the deal already-- the best is the best and there's nothing better than that. So that's what I had, amazing health insurance, or at least I thought so. I was much younger and healthier and didn't use it much-- almost not at all, and certainly not enough too think much about it other than to know in the back of my mind that I had the best of the best so... no worries.

Then I decided to retire. Then I was worried. I had a preexisting condition. Maybe I was uninsurable. Maybe insurance would cost a small fortune. But then I discovered that part of my best of the best package included a golden parachute provision: the company would continue insuring me until I was eligible for Medicare. Groovy; no more worries. In the time between when I retired and did become eligible for Medicare, I grew older-- imagine that-- and less healthy, more in need of doctors' care. The insurance suddenly came in handy. I started to worry about what would happen when I was pushed onto Medicare. What would I do then? How much worse was it than the best the private market had to offer?

And the day came. It came at around the same time that I was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer. First I discovered something that apparently no one has told Ms. Pelosi. Common ole Medicare-- with the supplemental plan you need for the extra 20% of costs-- that everyone uses, high and low, is actually BETTER, BETTER, BETTER, than the best insurance the private market offers. I know... it sounds astounding and hard to believe. But... let me put it this way. When the hospital bills that I never had to pay reached the $2 million mark, I stopped looking at them. Medicare is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. When friends tell me they've been diagnosed with something, the first thing I ask them is if they're on Medicare yet.

Because I was in the music business, I know an inordinate number of people who use Obamacare to access insurance. I've never met anyone who had anything better to say about it than "it's better than nothing." The best things about Obamacare are rules for society-- like no insurance industry terrorism over preexisting conditions allowed-- but in terms of an individual's care, Obamacare is... yeah, better than nothing. Like if Medicare is an "A+," Obamacare is, more or less a "C" (at best). A "C" isn't that bad, I guess. An A+, when it comes to life or death, is a lot better.

It shocked me that Pelosi doesn't understand what either Medicare or Obamacare is, except in theory. But when I thought about it, I realized I was foolish to be shocked. You understand about Medicare when you experience it, not when you read about it. She has some kind of congressional insurance so what does she know about Medicare? Nothing real. And Obamacare? She knows how great and innovative and crucial it was for society-- but not how badly it sucks for individuals stuck with it.

There are 107 original co-sponsors for HR 1384, Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All legislation. Pelosi isn't one of them. Nor is Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn or Ben Ray Lujan, her 3 top lieutenants. DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos didn't sign on either. Neither did Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries. That's the top leadership of the House Democrats-- and not a single one is a Medicare-For-All co-sponsor.

It's mostly progressives, with a smattering of non-progressives worried about primaries because they represent blue districts-- like Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Bill Keating (New Dem-MA), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX), Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Diane DeGette (D-CO), Adam Smith (New Dem-WA), Mike Doyle (D-PA)... And not many freshmen (just 17), who have been discouraged from signing on by Hoyer's operation. These are the only freshman members who have signed on so far:

• AOC (D-NY)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• Joe Neguse (D-CO)
• Chuy Garcia (D-IL)
• Mike Levin (D-CA)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)
• Debra Haaland (D-NM)
• Katie Porter (D-CA)
• Jared Golden (D-ME)
• Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
• Lori Trahan (New Dem-MA)
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)
• Vernonica Escobar (New Dem-TX)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)

When Pelosi told The Post that "when most people say they’re for Medicare-for-all, I think they mean health care for all. Let’s see what that means. A lot of people love having their employer-based insurance and the Affordable Care Act gave them better benefits." People who say they like their employer-based insurance are as ignorant as I was when I thought it was great (and as she is). She's right when she says "the Affordable Care Act gave them better benefits." That's what the Affordable Care Act did for America, but those social policies are baked into the cake now-- and Pelosi and her colleagues who passed them and defended them should be acknowledged and applauded for the incremental piece of progress they made. Now it's time for a giant step forward: Medicare For All, which, of course, includes ever policy achievement Pelosi is defending regarding Obamacare. But when Pelosi said "Medicare is not as good a health benefit as the Affordable Care Act," she's just plum out of her mind. When it comes to what Medicare does for patients compared to what Obamacare accessed insurance does... no one who says Medicare is better should be in a position to influence anything to do with policy.

Pelosi took a hand in improving the only bad part of Medicare, Bush's wretched Medicare Part D (the pharmaceuticals part of the plan) and it's a bit better now. So not an "F" anymore-- a "C." A "C" is better than an "F." Thank you Nancy Pelosi for the lovely "C." We want an "A." What the Medicare-For-All proposals do is get rid of Part D and make pharmaceuticals affordable instead. The other improvements include dental care, as well as eye and ear care-- seeing and hearing. How's that for improvements? Long overdue, in part, because Nancy doesn't understand healthcare except from the perspective of the multimillionaire she is.

Midnight Meme Of The Day

by Noah

For those who don't know, Cigarette Smoking Man, or "Smoking Man" as he is always referred to, is the evil Svengali or arch-villain of the long running X-Files TV show. He knows where all of the smoking guns lie, or "smocking guns" as a moronic freak we call Señor Trumpanzee would say. In the longest running plot thread of the show, it is FBI Special Agents Mulder and Scully who take time off from saving us from freaks to save us from "Smoking Man" and his accomplices. It is the "Smoking Man" who has lined himself up with the bad guys from outer space who plan to dominate Earth for their own purposes. There are parallels with real life.

As a devoted X-Files fan, I can attest that, in no episode of the long running series, has there been a freak or space alien as bizarre as those we see in the Trump White House. Freakazoid #1 of course is the Trumpanzee, His bizarre tweets, including the recent one to which tonight's memes refer, filled with misspellings, lies, insane bleatings, and garbled syntax barely scratch the surface. But think of the others in the cast of characters: The shape-shifting First Lady, Spicy, toy soldier wannabe Kellyanne, the Mooch, Vice President Pence who looks like he got embalmed years ago and doesn't know it, and last, but in no way least, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. How do you choose a Freakazoid #2 among that bunch? And, I left one out, Stephen Miller. I mean just look at that guy! It's like Pee Wee Herman grew up to be truly evil, and not just a perv who haunts XXX movie theaters. Although, would it surprise anyone if Miller spends his free time watching Nazi-themed porn such as "Deported Women Of The SS:Special Section" or any of the infamous Ilsa series?

And, think of the White House staffers we've never seen. You know the parade of monsters has no end. You know that anyone working in the Trump White House is a monster at worst or just damn creepy at best. In fact, I have to wonder why The X-Files never did an episode based on the Trump administration last season. I can only surmise that the writers just had nothing they could add. It is what it is and all we know is what we see on our TVs and what we hear about what happens when the White House freaks go out at night.

And to carry on the theme o' the meme: A special bonus Midnight Meme!

"Can you imagine President Trump. The worst nightmare. But we can't say that. Because it could happen. This is one of the wonders of this country. Who would've thought that Ronald Reagan could be President."

-Keith Richards, 2015

Today is Keith's birthday. Happy #74 Keith Richards! One Love.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Thank you Keith Richards! You are a brilliantly succinct man of words, not to mention one hell of a musician!

In The Time Of Trump...

In the time of Trumpanzees I was a monkey. What about you? Bill Graves was the governor of Kansas from 1995 until 2003, a mainstream Republican. People liked him; he was reelected with 74% of the vote. Yesterday he endorsed Democrat Laura Kelly-- no relation to Chief of Staff Bill Kelly who famously said about Trump: "He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had."-- to be Kansas' next governor instead of neo-fascist Kris Kobach, the GOP nominee. "Laura Kelly is the only Democrat I have ever endorsed for public office," said Graves. "And the reason I’m doing that now is because I believe so much is at stake in the state of Kansas. I have known Laura for over thirty years. She has all the qualities and all the capabilities that we are looking for to lead the state during this difficult time and to reestablish the state to what it once was." Maybe that's why he endorsed her and maybe he endorsed her for the same reason General Bill Kelly said Trump is an idiot. Fear for our country that the fascists are about to take over.

Fear is the name of Bob Woodward's new book. I haven't read it yet. But I'm going to Istanbul soon-- long flight-- and I will on the plane. Meanwhile, I'll just have to make do with today's Washington Post preview by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa. They wrote that Woodward's 448-page book "paints a harrowing portrait of the Trump presidency, based on in-depth interviews with administration officials and other principals [and] "depicts Trump’s anger and paranoia about the Russia inquiry as unrelenting, at times paralyzing the West Wing for entire days. Learning of the appointment of Mueller in May 2017, Trump groused, 'Everybody’s trying to get me'-- part of a venting period that shellshocked aides compared to Richard Nixon’s final days as president." I guess this previously untold scene from Fear would be a good way to eventually start the movie about the end of Trump's illegitimate presidency:

John Dowd was convinced that President Trump would commit perjury if he talked to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. So, on Jan. 27, the president’s then-personal attorney staged a practice session to try to make his point.

In the White House residence, Dowd peppered Trump with questions about the Russia investigation, provoking stumbles, contradictions and lies until the president eventually lost his cool.

“This thing’s a goddamn hoax,” Trump erupted at the start of a 30-minute rant that finished with him saying, “I don’t really want to testify.”

...[Trump, who had refused to be interviewed for the book] called Woodward in early August, after the manuscript had been completed, to say he wanted to participate. The president complained that it would be a “bad book,” according to an audio recording of the conversation. Woodward replied that his work would be “tough,” but factual and based on his reporting.


A central theme of the book is the stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters, both for the president personally and for the nation he was elected to lead.

Woodward describes “an administrative coup d’etat” and a “nervous breakdown” of the executive branch, with senior aides conspiring to pluck official papers from the president’s desk so he couldn’t see or sign them.



Again and again, Woodward recounts at length how Trump’s national security team was shaken by his lack of curiosity and knowledge about world affairs and his contempt for the mainstream perspectives of military and intelligence leaders.

At a National Security Council meeting on Jan. 19, Trump disregarded the significance of the massive U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula, including a special intelligence operation that allows the United States to detect a North Korean missile launch in seven seconds vs. 15 minutes from Alaska, according to Woodward. Trump questioned why the government was spending resources in the region at all.

“We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told him.

After Trump left the meeting, Woodward recounts, “Mattis was particularly exasperated and alarmed, telling close associates that the president acted like-- and had the understanding of-- ‘a fifth- or sixth-grader.’”

In Woodward’s telling, many top advisers were repeatedly unnerved by Trump’s actions and expressed dim views of him. “Secretaries of defense don’t always get to choose the president they work for,” Mattis told friends at one point, prompting laughter as he explained Trump’s tendency to go off on tangents about subjects such as immigration and the news media.

Inside the White House, Woodward portrays an unsteady executive detached from the conventions of governing and prone to snapping at high-ranking staff members, whom he unsettled and belittled on a daily basis.

White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly frequently lost his temper and told colleagues that he thought the president was “unhinged,” Woodward writes. In one small group meeting, Kelly said of Trump: “He’s an idiot. It’s pointless to try to convince him of anything. He’s gone off the rails. We’re in Crazytown. I don’t even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I’ve ever had.”

Reince Priebus, Kelly’s predecessor, fretted that he could do little to constrain Trump from sparking chaos. Woodward writes that Priebus dubbed the presidential bedroom, where Trump obsessively watched cable news and tweeted, “the devil’s workshop,” and said early mornings and Sunday evenings, when the president often set off tweetstorms, were “the witching hour.”

Trump apparently had little regard for Priebus. He once instructed then-staff secretary Rob Porter to ignore Priebus, even though Porter reported to the chief of staff, saying that Priebus was “‘like a little rat. He just scurries around.’”

Few in Trump’s orbit were protected from the president’s insults. He often mocked former national security adviser H.R. McMaster behind his back, puffing up his chest and exaggerating his breathing as he impersonated the retired Army general, and once said McMaster dresses in cheap suits, “like a beer salesman.”

Trump told Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a wealthy investor eight years his senior: “I don’t trust you. I don’t want you doing any more negotiations. … You’re past your prime.”

A near-constant subject of withering presidential attacks was Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump told Porter that Sessions was a “traitor” for recusing himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, Woodward writes. Mocking Sessions’s accent, Trump added, “This guy is mentally retarded. He’s this dumb Southerner. … He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”

At a dinner with Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, Trump lashed out at a vocal critic, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). He falsely suggested that the former Navy pilot had been a coward for taking early release from a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam because of his father’s military rank and leaving others behind.

Mattis swiftly corrected his boss: “No, Mr. President, I think you’ve got it reversed.” The defense secretary explained that McCain, who died Aug. 25, had in fact turned down early release and was brutally tortured during his five years at the Hanoi Hilton.

“Oh, okay,” Trump replied, according to Woodward’s account.

With Trump’s rage and defiance impossible to contain, Cabinet members and other senior officials learned to act discreetly.

Woodward describes an alliance among Trump’s traditionalists--— including Mattis and Gary Cohn, the president’s former top economic adviser-- to stymie what they considered dangerous acts.

“It felt like we were walking along the edge of the cliff perpetually,” Porter is quoted as saying. “Other times, we would fall over the edge, and an action would be taken.”

After Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad launched a chemical attack on civilians in April 2017, Trump called Mattis and said he wanted to assassinate the dictator. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward.

Mattis told the president that he would get right on it. But after hanging up the phone, he told a senior aide: “We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to be much more measured.” The national security team developed options for the more conventional airstrike that Trump ultimately ordered.

Cohn, a Wall Street veteran, tried to tamp down Trump’s strident nationalism regarding trade. According to Woodward, Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Cohn later told an associate that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump did not notice that it was missing.

Cohn made a similar play to prevent Trump from pulling the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, something the president has long threatened to do. In spring 2017, Trump was eager to withdraw from NAFTA and told Porter: “Why aren’t we getting this done? Do your job. It’s tap, tap, tap. You’re just tapping me along. I want to do this.”

Under orders from the president, Porter drafted a notification letter withdrawing from NAFTA. But he and other advisers worried that it could trigger an economic and foreign relations crisis. So Porter consulted Cohn, who told him, according to Woodward: “I can stop this. I’ll just take the paper off his desk.”

Despite repeated threats by Trump, the United States has remained in both pacts. The administration continues to negotiate new terms with South Korea as well as with its NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico.

Cohn came to regard the president as “a professional liar” and threatened to resign in August 2017 over Trump’s handling of a deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. Cohn, who is Jewish, was especially shaken when one of his daughters found a swastika on her college dorm room.

Trump was sharply criticized for initially saying that “both sides” were to blame. At the urging of advisers, he then condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis, but almost immediately told aides, “That was the biggest fucking mistake I’ve made” and the “worst speech I’ve ever given,” according to Woodward’s account.

When Cohn met with Trump to deliver his resignation letter after Charlottesville, the president told him, “This is treason,” and persuaded his economic adviser to stay on. Kelly then confided to Cohn that he shared Cohn’s horror at Trump’s handling of the tragedy — and shared Cohn’s fury with Trump.

“I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times,” Kelly told Cohn, according to Woodward. Kelly himself has threatened to quit several times, but has not done so.

Woodward illustrates how the dread in Trump’s orbit became all-encompassing over the course of Trump’s first year in office, leaving some staff members and Cabinet members confounded by the president’s lack of understanding about how government functions and his inability and unwillingness to learn.

At one point, Porter, who departed in February amid domestic abuse allegations, is quoted as saying, “This was no longer a presidency. This is no longer a White House. This is a man being who he is.”

Such moments of panic are a routine feature, but not the thrust of Woodward’s book, which mostly focuses on substantive decisions and internal disagreements, including tensions with North Korea as well as the future of U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

Woodward recounts repeated episodes of anxiety inside the government over Trump’s handling of the North Korean nuclear threat. One month into his presidency, Trump asked Dunford for a plan for a preemptive military strike on North Korea, which rattled the combat veteran.

In the fall of 2017, as Trump intensified a war of words with Kim Jong Un, nicknaming North Korea’s dictator “Little Rocket Man” in a speech at the United Nations, aides worried the president might be provoking Kim. But, Woodward writes, Trump told Porter that he saw the situation as a contest of wills: “This is all about leader versus leader. Man versus man. Me versus Kim.”

The book also details Trump’s impatience with the war in Afghanistan, which had become America’s longest conflict. At a July 2017 National Security Council meeting, Trump dressed down his generals and other advisers for 25 minutes, complaining that the United States was losing, according to Woodward.

“The soldiers on the ground could run things much better than you,” Trump told them. “They could do a much better job. I don’t know what the hell we’re doing.” He went on to ask, “How many more deaths? How many more lost limbs? How much longer are we going to be there?”

The president’s family members, while sometimes touted as his key advisers by other Trump chroniclers, are minor players in Woodward’s account, popping up occasionally in the West Wing and vexing adversaries.

Woodward recounts an expletive-laden altercation between Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter and senior adviser, and Stephen K. Bannon, the former chief White House strategist.

“You’re a goddamn staffer!” Bannon screamed at her, telling her that she had to work through Priebus like other aides. “You walk around this place and act like you’re in charge, and you’re not. You’re on staff!”

Ivanka Trump, who had special access to the president and worked around Priebus, replied: “I’m not a staffer! I’ll never be a staffer. I’m the first daughter.”

Such tensions boiled among many of Trump’s core advisers. Priebus is quoted as describing Trump officials not as rivals but as “natural predators.”

“When you put a snake and a rat and a falcon and a rabbit and a shark and a seal in a zoo without walls, things start getting nasty and bloody,” Priebus says.

Hovering over the White House was Mueller’s inquiry, which deeply embarrassed the president. Woodward describes Trump calling his Egyptian counterpart to secure the release of an imprisoned charity worker and President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi saying: “Donald, I’m worried about this investigation. Are you going to be around?”

Trump relayed the conversation to Dowd and said it was “like a kick in the nuts,” according to Woodward.

The book vividly recounts the ongoing debate between Trump and his lawyers about whether the president would sit for an interview with Mueller. On March 5, Dowd and Trump attorney Jay Sekulow met in Mueller’s office with the special counsel and his deputy, James Quarles, where Dowd and Sekulow reenacted Trump’s January practice session.

Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’”

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.

Later that month, Dowd told Trump: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”

But Trump, concerned about the optics of a president refusing to testify and convinced that he could handle Mueller’s questions, had by then decided otherwise.

“I’ll be a real good witness,” Trump told Dowd, according to Woodward.

“You are not a good witness,” Dowd replied. “Mr. President, I’m afraid I just can’t help you.”

The next morning, Dowd resigned.

Last Supper I and II by Nancy Ohanian