Americans Blame Trump for the Government Shutdown

A new WaPo/ABC News poll has bad news for Donald Trump. By a wide margin (53% to 29%), Americans blame him, not the congressional Democrats, for the government shutdown. That only adds up to 82%, because 13% say a pox on both of their houses and the rest have no opinion. In 2013, when the government shutdown for 16 days, 53% blamed congressional Republicans and 29% blamed Barack Obama. The public seems to be getting the idea that Republicans consider shutdowns to be a bargaining tool and they don't like it. The split is highly partisan, with 85% of Democrats blaming Trump and 68% of Republicans blaming the congressional Democrats. However, independents blame the Republicans by a wide margin (30 points). Among women, the margin is 35 points. Among men, it's closer, but even they blame the GOP by 13 points. The longer the shutdown goes on, the longer people will remember it. If it goes on for months, the more likely it will play a role in 2020.

A second poll, this one from CNN/SSRS, has similar results, with 55% blaming Trump for the shutdown and 32% blaming the Democrats. The CNN poll also put Trump's approval rating at 37% and his disapproval rating at 57%. If the shutdown continues for a long time, it could get worse. Being 20 points under water is not a great place to start a reelection campaign.

There is no obvious way out because, for Trump to win (in his mind), the Democrats must lose. A deal in which both sides get something is fundamentally unacceptable to him and he will resist it with all his might. He doesn't really care about the wall. What he cares about are two things: (1) having his supporters think he cares about the wall, and (2) crushing the Democrats. If all he cared about was the wall, he could easily make a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in the form of funding for the wall and citizenship for the dreamers (and maybe other immigrants) in a single bill. Maybe in the end it will have to be something like that, but so far he is not willing to actually make a deal and Pelosi will never cave, especially after seeing poll numbers like these.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) talked to Trump yesterday and then appeared on Fox News and said: "What's he supposed to do, just give in? He's not going to give in." Part of the problem is that Trump lives in an even thicker bubble than most presidents, and there is nobody left around him who is willing to tell him that his position isn't nearly as popular as he imagines. Since the polls show the Democrats winning the battle for public opinion, they will never give in either. So this could go on for a long time. (V)

Barr's Confirmation Hearing Will Be All about Mueller

Tomorrow, the Senate will begin confirmation hearings for AG nominee William Barr. It will be Kabuki Theater at its finest. Everyone knows the plot, the script, and the outcome in advance; it's all about how the actors play their respective roles. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will praise Barr to the moon, saying he is experienced and fair and will be a wonderful AG. Democrats will try to pin him down on how he will handle the powder keg that is special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Barr will be evasive and refuse to make any promises other than to uphold the law. He might promise not to shut down Mueller, except for cause, but certainly won't promise to keep his hands off the investigation. He also won't promise not to relay information from Mueller to Trump. Besides, how could such a promise even be enforced?

Last June, Barr sent a memo to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein in which he called Mueller's obstruction of justice investigation "fatally misconceived." He also wrote that Mueller should not be allowed to subpoena Trump about obstruction. The Democrats are sure to ask him about the memo, but it is almost inconceivable that they will get him to promise to recuse himself from the investigation due to bias.

As usual in this kind of situation, Barr is very likely to be approved by the Judiciary Committee with every Republican voting to confirm him and every Democrat voting to reject him. Then the full Senate will confirm him along party lines. Elections matter. (V)

Why Manafort's Polling Data is a Big Deal

Due to some sloppy editing, the world now knows that Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, gave polling data to GRU intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik. Many people may be wondering why this matters. In a piece in the Washington Post, advertising executive David Measer explains.

He says that advertisers and political campaigns are fundamentally the same: They both want to convince a lot of people to do something (buy a product or vote for a candidate, respectively). The data that Manafort gave the Russians was undoubtedly very detailed, not just "Trump 47%, Clinton 46% in Wisconsin." It almost certainly had breakdowns by partisanship, age, gender, income level, education, race, urban/rural, and many other factors. The polls also no doubt included questions about issues.

This is precisely what the Russians would need in order to focus their election interference most efficiently. Were older people in Arizona worried about immigration? Then target older people with messages about how Hillary Clinton is weak on immigration. Do millennials in Colorado hate big banks? Then tell them over and over how much Clinton earned speaking to Goldman Sachs. Do religious blacks in Virginia have some qualms about Clinton? Then remind them that Hillary is the abortion-for-all candidate. The possibilities are endless. The data was worth its weight in gold (or maybe bitcoins, although they don't weigh much), so providing the Russians with invaluable data they couldn't get on their own is a very big deal. Some might even call it collusion. (V)

The Don and Vlad Show, Part I: Trump Hid What He Said to Putin from U.S. Officials

Donald Trump has now established a pattern of keeping senior U.S. officials in the dark about what he has said to Russian President Vladimir Putin in their meetings. He even demanded the notes used by his own interpreter and ordered the interpreter not to tell anyone what he said to Putin or what Putin said to him. Consequently, despite Trump's having met Putin five times since he took office, there is no record—not even a classified record—of what the two men talked about. At least, there isn't one in the United States.

Trump's behavior is at odds with what previous presidents have done. They always went into top meetings with expert staff members who took detailed notes for State Dept., CIA, and other officials to study later. This secrecy does not sit well with House Democrats. The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), said he wants to investigate. One thing he can do is subpoena Trump's interpreters and question them, hoping they won't answer every question with "I don't remember." (V)

The Don and Vlad Show, Part II: FBI Suspected Trump Might Be Working For Russians

Donald Trump's secrecy was not the only big story on the Russia front this weekend. There was also a report from the New York Times that, early in Trump's presidency (and shortly after he fired James Comey), the pooh-bahs at the FBI found the Donald's behavior towards Vladimir Putin to be so suspicious they opened an investigation into whether or not he might have been compromised by the Russians.

The administration responded badly to the news, of course, but they couldn't quite settle on an angle. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that it was "not worthy of a response." Donald Trump apparently did not get the memo, because he responded at length on Twitter, starting with this:

Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin’ James Comey, a total sleaze!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2019

The harangue went on for another several tweets; the President also did an interview with Jeanine Pirro on Fox News. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for her part, declared that, "James Comey was fired because he's a disgraced partisan hack, and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, who was in charge at the time, is a known liar fired by the FBI." This despite the fact that Comey definitely had nothing to do with this investigation, and there is no evidence McCabe had anything to do with it, either.

The timing of this story was very bad for the administration, as it came just hours before the news of Trump hiding his conversations with Putin (see above). Taken together, it makes it appear more and more like the Russians either have kompromat on Trump, or business opportunities for Trump, or both. Put another way: What is a plausible innocent explanation for the President's behavior? He has not, for example, kept his conversations with Kim Jong-Un or Mohammad Bin Salman a secret. Nor has he sent over 100 tweets denying he did anything wrong in relation to those gentlemen, or their countries. Long ago, Trump's single-minded obsession with denying Russian collusion or any other problematic behavior moved into "he doth protest too much, methinks" territory.

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) opined that when it comes to the Mueller investigation, "Washington is obsessed with it. And when you get outside the Beltway, I don't find anybody concerned with this at all." Only Cruz knows why he is willing to go to the mat for a man who viciously attacked both his wife and father, but whatever the reason is, this is an exceedingly unwise position for him to take. It is entirely untrue, first of all, as revealed by both polling and by the extensive coverage of the matter. And if Trump and his party talk themselves into believing it's no big deal, they are setting themselves up for even more punishment at the polls in 2020. When Richard Nixon resigned in August of 1974, nobody wanted to be the guy who had been saying "Watergate is no big deal" a year earlier, and there's every chance that "Russiagate is no big deal" will be just as radioactive 12-16 months from now. (Z)

Giuliani Thinks Mueller's Report Will Be Horrific, But Has a Plan

Donald Trump's TV lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, puts on a brave front. However, he recently told a friend that he expects special counsel Robert Mueller's report to be "horrific." It is doubtful that Giuliani knows any more about what Mueller has on Trump than the public at large, but Trump may possibly have bragged to Giuliani about some things he has done (e.g., making millions by helping Russians launder some of their ill-gotten rubles) and Giuliani may be assuming that Mueller already knows about this.

But, like any good lawyer, Giuliani has worked out a strategy to help his client. He wants Mueller to turn the report over to Trump so the president can edit it and "correct" mistakes in it before it is released to Congress and the public. Giuliani said: "As a matter of fairness, they should show it to you—so we can correct it if they're wrong. They're not God after all. They could be wrong." Giuliani didn't give details, since he hasn't seen the report yet. But, for example, if the report says: "The campaign colluded with the Russians," Giuliani could change that to "The campaign did not collude with the Russians," since according to Trump, the original statement is wrong.

Now that Giuliani has let the cat out of the bag in terms of strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's ears have probably perked up, and he no doubt has made a note to subpoena Mueller after the report is out to ask him, under oath, if the public version of the report differs from the original. He might also try to subpoena the original report, but the White House may by then have forced Mueller to give up all copies. Thinking ahead, Mueller may have deposited a copy with New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) before surrendering his last copy. 3D chess anyone? (V)

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1...Liftoff

The campaigns are launching. John Delaney has been running around Iowa for years (not that anyone has noticed), but now we can expect a spate of campaign launches. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tossed her hat in the ring on New Year's Eve. Now we have two more, with others expected in the next few weeks.

On Friday, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced that she would like to be president. We all know that every morning 100 senators look in the bathroom mirror and see a future president, but it is not true that 435 representatives do it as well. Only one sitting House member (James Garfield) has ever been elected president. It is hard to understand what Gabbard is up to. In 2016, she was vice chair of the DNC until she resigned to support Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). It goes without saying that she is very progressive, but that lane in the primaries is already cluttered with better-known politicians, including Warren, possibly Sanders, and potentially Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and others. It's hard to see how she beats the more established progressive candidates. It's not likely that she is doing this just to get some name recognition so she can run for the Senate. Both of Hawaii's senators are Democrats and neither one is anywhere near retirement age (which for the Senate is somewhere around 100). It's a bit of a mystery.

On Saturday, Julián Castro jumped in as well. Technically he is running for president, but in his case, he might actually be running for vice president. He was mayor of San Antonio and later Secretary of HUD in Barack Obama's cabinet. He is certainly better known than Gabbard, but he has a different problem: Beto O'Rourke. If O'Rourke runs, the two of them will be in the Texas primary on March 3, 2020. Only one of them can emerge as a viable candidate, and very few people expect that to be Castro. Another problem is that he is a Latino, and if he doesn't make it into the top 10 in Iowa and New Hampshire (which are very white states), he might not even make it to Texas. Still, if he does reasonably well in 2019 and doesn't stumble, the eventual Democratic nominee might decide that a young (44) Latino would be a good addition to the ticket. (V)

Monday Q&A

This feature figures to be heavy on shutdown questions for...well, as long as the shutdown is ongoing.

What are the mechanisms by which Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) controls the agenda in the Senate? Is there anything like a discharge petition in the Senate? Assuming the dissatisfaction of Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is real, what options do they have, short of threatening to caucus with the Democrats, to try to pressure McConnell to schedule a vote on a budget resolution that would end the shutdown? J.Z., Santa Rosa, CA

This is a tricky question to answer, so bear with us. McConnell's power is rooted partly in Senate rules, but mostly in tradition and precedent.

Let's start with the "rules" part first. As we've noted in other answers, the Senate did not have party leaders until the early decades of the 20th century. The Democrats first formalized the role of "bill manager" (what is now known as whip) in 1913, bestowing the honor on J. Hamilton Lewis (IL) in 1913. The Republicans did the same with James Wadsworth (NY) in 1915. In the 1920s, the GOP and the Democrats began choosing party leaders as well, with Oscar Underwood (AL) earning the blue team's nod in 1920 and Charles Curtis (KS) taking leadership of the red team in 1924 or 1925 (Henry Cabot Lodge did the job for a few years before that, but only unofficially). This new state of affairs was pretty well established by the 1930s, such that in 1937, Vice President John Nance Garner (in his capacity as President of the Senate), decided that the majority leader has "right of first recognition" on matters before the Senate (followed by the minority leader, the majority whip, and the minority whip). This pretty much means what it sounds like: When the Senate is gaveled to order, the majority leader gets to talk, make motions, etc. before anyone else.

It is from this rule—which, again, was made up out of whole cloth by Garner—that McConnell's authority derives. What evolved out of this, very quickly, was that the majority leader is not only the first person to bring up legislation, he's the only one to have that privilege. On paper, it is technically possible and within the rules for, say, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to bring a bill up for consideration. However, even if he wanted to rebel against close to a century of tradition (which senators rarely do), he would need the votes of his entire caucus plus those of four Republicans in order to move forward.

So, is there any chance that Collins, et al., decide to join Schumer, just this one time? Not really, for a number of reasons. First, because 3 Republicans plus 47 Democrats and Independents is still one vote short. Second, because every time a tradition like this is undermined, it's likely gone for good, and the senators are generally unwilling to make that long-term sacrifice for a short-term gain. Third, because leadership does not take kindly to behavior like this, and Sen. Collins, for example, would quickly find herself removed as chair of the Senate Aging Committee and reassigned as the chair of Senate Committee on Places Where the Sun Doesn't Shine. Fourth, and finally, because it wouldn't do much good to rebel. If there are 60 senators willing to vote down a filibuster (which would be necessary), then there would almost certainly be 67 willing to override a veto. After all, the former would be poking both Donald Trump and McConnell in the eyes, whereas the latter would be poking only Trump.

As to a discharge petition, the Senate does have them, but they are very different from the House version. In the House, as long-time readers know, 218 members can vote to force the Speaker to bring a bill up for a vote. It's rare, though it almost happened last year, as the House grappled with the dreamers. In the Senate, a discharge petition is possible only when the upper chamber wants to overturn a presidential regulation. And what the discharge petition does is allow the matter to skip the "consideration by committee" part of the process and head to the whole Senate for a vote, in the interests of efficiency. This is specifically designed as a response to shenanigans where a president tries to implement a whole bunch of new rules right before a recess, or right before he leaves office. In short, the House and the Senate both have discharge petitions, but they are so different in their purposes that they really shouldn't even have the same name.

Note also that there are a few narrow circumstances where members of the Senate have been granted specific, statutory authority to disregard the normal procedures. For example, the 2017 law passed in response to Russia's bad behavior allows the minority leader to force a full Senate vote if the administration tries to lift any of the sanctions against that country. As chance would have it, the administration did just that a couple of weeks ago, and so Schumer is expected to invoke that provision this week. However, there is no statutory equivalent for budget squabbles.

The conclusion, then, is this: There is no plausible way, under current circumstances, that McConnell's caucus can override his judgment as regards the shutdown. As long as he says "no vote," there will be no vote.

---

I Googled state government shutdowns and didn't find any. With divided government in a number of states, it seems like gridlock could lead to a government shutdown at the state level. Do you know of any? H.P., Fletcher, NC

They happen, but they are relatively rare. In part, that is because voters feel the pinch of a state shutdown pretty quickly (DMVs, state parks and beaches, schools, etc.) and get cranky. In part, it is because a state is at greater risk of their credit rating taking a big, and costly, hit than is the federal government. And, in part, it is because some states have rules in place that prohibit this kind of thing from happening in one way or another (in most cases, the previous budget is just carried over until a new one is in place).

The most recent state-level shutdowns were in New Jersey and Maine, both of them for a few days in July 2017. The most notorious state-level shutdown in recent memory, however, was in 1992 in California, when Gov. Pete Wilson (R) and the Democratic-controlled legislature could not agree on how to deal with the ongoing recession, and how to respond to various crises that had befallen the state, including wildfires and the L.A. riots. That shutdown lasted a staggering 63 days.

---

Will the shutdown cause the United States to miss bond payments, and if so, when will that happen? J.S., Washington, D.C.

The Second Liberty Bond Act (1917) allowed the Treasury Dept. to maintain its public debt functions, even in the absence of specific authorization. This became 31 USC 3129, and the Department has interpreted that to mean that they are entitled to maintain their public debt functions in all cases (not just in the case of liberty bonds from 100 years ago). As long as nobody objects to that interpretation (and nobody has during previous shutdowns), then bond payments will continue.

---

I heard on the news this morning that the White House switchboard is closed due to the shutdown, that people get a recording when they call. What other White House staff are not working due to the shutdown? In particular, are the cooks still working, or does the President have to send out for take-out? S.C., Mountain View, CA

Trump would undoubtedly enjoy any excuse to order takeout (the closest McDonald's is 0.7 miles away, incidentally). However, the shutdown is not going to give him any added justification for eating Big Macs. The White House has 359 full-time employees. Of those, 156 have been deemed "essential," and so are still working. That includes the folks doing food preparation, janitorial work, and security. Most of the furloughed employees are receptionists and secretaries.

---

In an apparent rerun of their greatest hit ("Birtherism"), some right wing web sites are starting to claim that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) is not a natural born citizen and therefore cannot run for president. All point to the fact that, even though she was born in the U.S. (Oakland, CA), her parents were not yet U.S. citizens at the time. One site also claims that she grew up in Canada from age 7 through high school graduation and that such an extended period spent abroad, if confirmed, would somehow weaken her position even more. What is your take? O.D., Lisbon, Portugal

Let's start with the Canada part. It is true that Harris lived in Canada for about a decade, but that is a red herring. It is meant to hint at something problematic, but it has no significance to the "strength" of her position. The only residency requirement for the presidency is that the candidate must have lived in the United States for 14 years. And that 14 years doesn't even necessarily have to be the 14 years immediately before the election. To take one example, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was not a resident of the U.S. for much of the 1940s (for obvious reasons), and yet was elected president in 1952. In any event, Harris has lived in the U.S. consecutively for the last four decades (almost), so she meets the requirement, both overall and consecutively. Her nation of residence when she was a teenager is not germane.

As to Harris' parents, it is true that neither was a citizen when she was born. However, anyone who makes the claim that she is not a natural-born citizen as a result of this either does not know what they are talking about, or is engaging in wishful thinking. Over 100 years ago, this exact question was answered very clearly and directly by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was a Chinese-American man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents who were unable to attain citizenship under the terms of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. He took a trip abroad, was denied re-entry into the U.S., and sued. The Court ruled that anyone born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is automatically granted citizenship and is thus a natural-born citizen.

The Wong decision has never been contravened by a subsequent SCOTUS decision, and so remains the law of the land today. Those who wish that was not true have generally taken one of two approaches. The first is legislation meant to overturn the decision and/or the citizenship clause of the Constitution. Since such legislation would have to be a constitutional amendment, such efforts have never gone anywhere. The second is careful parsing of the Court's verbiage, particularly focusing on the word "jurisdiction." The problem is that judges back then were very wordy and also very precise, and so the majority opinion explained exactly what the justices meant by that added clause. They did not wish to impose/grant citizenship upon the babies of foreign diplomats. Such babies might be born in the U.S., but are not subject to her jurisdiction. So, they are excluded from natural-born citizenship. Harris, by contrast, is not excluded.

In short, the Harris birther claims are no more valid than the Obama birther claims were. We would also add that this is a binary situation; either someone is a natural-born citizen or they are not. It is not the case that some people have a stronger claim on natural-born citizenship than others.

As long as we are on the topic of what it means to be a natural-born citizen, here is a riddle for you to ask your coworkers today: "What do Tulsi Gabbard (who is very progressive) and Barry Goldwater (who was not so progressive) have in common? Answer: Both are/were natural-born citizens. Gabbard was born in American Samoa, an American territory, and Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory before it became a state. Neither one is/was constitutionally barred from being president though, even though neither one was born in one of the states. Also for the record, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was born in Canada and the late John McCain was a Zonian, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone. Almost everyone born to an American citizen parent outside the U.S. proper is a citizen at birth.

---

Could Congress impeach Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, for inhuman acts against children, lying, etc. Would this be a good way to issue a warning to President Trump? R.W., Barrington, IL

Is this legally possible? Yes, it is. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution makes clear that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" are potentially subject to impeachment proceedings if they commit "high crimes and misdemeanors."

As a practical matter, impeachment is rare, and impeachment of cabinet officers is even rarer. Congress is generally reluctant to tell the president who their advisors should be, and it's also not too easy for a cabinet official to commit high crimes and misdemeanors, particularly in a way that would be provable in the trial held in the Senate. In fact, only one cabinet officer has ever been impeached: Secretary of War William W. Belknap, in 1876. Belknap was taking kickbacks in exchange for granting lucrative trading contracts to his college buddies. He was acquitted, primarily because he resigned before the trial was over. Some of the votes for acquittal were from senators convinced that Belknap was guilty, but that the Senate no longer had authority over him.

Based just on past precedent, then, it is highly unlikely that Nielsen would be impeached. Add into it that it would be hard to prove Nielsen's direct complicity in the alleged crimes, and that the current Senate has little interest in confronting Donald Trump and/or angering his base, and the chances of her being put on trial are roughly equal to the chances of Donald Trump being succeeded in 2024 by Kanye West.

---

Given all that is implied and could eventually be confirmed, would Donald J. Trump's efforts to work for Russia be the single most significant political scandal in U.S. history? What other scandal could possibly come close? S.G., Claremont, CA

You're right, there is simply no other scandal that measures up. When one thinks of the other great scandals in U.S. history—Teapot Dome, Crédit Mobilier, Watergate, etc.—the actual harm done to the country by the miscreants was relatively small. Watergate, which currently holds the honor of being the biggest scandal, was just a third-rate burglary. The reason it spun out of control is not only that Richard Nixon tried to cover it up, but that his behavior shocked people (who were used to the "imperial" presidency), and it brought to light all sorts of other shady behavior by Tricky Dick & Co.

Russiagate, by contrast, places at risk the security of the United States, and the health of its elections and its system of government. Further, there are some scandals that involve the president, and others that involve his underlings. There are some scandals that involve immoral behavior, and there are others that involve illegal behavior. Trump's working with Russia, if it is proven to be the case, would (like Watergate) be the extremely rare scandal that checks all the boxes: The president, his underlings, immoral behavior, and illegal behavior. The closest thing the United States has had to Russiagate, among those incidents generally classified as "scandals," was Iran-Contra. That too checked all the boxes, and it also did great harm to the United States and its national security.

Note that there are some dubious actions undertaken by past administrations that rival Russiagate for the harm they did to the United States and the world. For example, the Bush administration's invention of justifications for invading Iraq after 9/11. However, we do not usually use the word "scandal" to describe such matters.

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer, click here for submission instructions and previous Q & A's. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger