Trump Can't Find a Consistent Way to Blame the Democrats for the Shutdown

Ten days into the government shutdown, and Donald Trump knows the Democrats are to blame for it (even though he took credit for it earlier), but he can't make up his mind exactly why they are to blame. He has accused them of avoiding talks because they have no position. He has accused Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) avoiding talks so she can become speaker. He has tried to drive a wedge between Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He keeps looking for something that will stick. He has three more days to find something, because it is very likely that on Jan. 3, the House will pass a budget bill without any funding his wall. At that point, he will have to find a new line of attack, since either (1) Senate Republicans will kill the bill, or (2) he himself will have to veto it.

Since the parties are not negotiating, and won't until Jan. 3 at the earliest, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) floated a plan to tie legal protection for the dreamers to funding for the wall. This was been floated many times before, but Trump has always shot it down. In theory, if Pelosi, Schumer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) all agreed to such a plan, they could pass it and then override Trump's veto, but both Republicans are scared to death of crossing Trump.

Nevertheless, Republicans are going to have to do something. Just saying: "It's the wall or nothing" is not going to work after the Democrats take over the House, because polls show Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown. Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) admitted this yesterday when he told CBS: "We're gonna have to negotiate." But the Democrats have no reason to cave on this. To get them to agree to any wall funding is going to require a major concession on the part of the Republicans, such as Graham's proposal to tie it to legalization of the dreamers, something that is anathema to Trump's base. And the Democrats will probably go further than mere temporary work permits. They will demand a full path to citizenship in a few years.

There is one other way out of the impasse, but it is a bit of a long shot. The bill could contain $1 billion for repairing existing fencing. Trump could tweet that the Democrats caved and he got his wall money. His base would believe it. CNN and MSNBC would report otherwise, but his base doesn't watch them, so they would never know. Whether this strategy would work depends entirely on whether Fox News decides to play along with the charade. (V)

McChrystal Says Trump Is Immoral

Four-star Gen. Stanley McChrystal (ret.), the former top commander in Afghanistan, unloaded on Donald Trump in an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz yesterday. He said that Trump is a liar and immoral. He really didn't mince words, saying: "If we want to be governed by someone we wouldn't do a business deal with because their—their background is so shady, if we're willing to do that, then that's in conflict with who I think we are."

McChrystal also criticized Trump for withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria, saying it will lead to greater instability in the region. Trump claimed that he could do that because ISIS has been defeated. McChrystal disagreed, saying: "I don't believe ISIS is defeated."

Active military officers are not allowed to light into the commander in chief, but McChrystal is retired, so he is not restricted in any way and can say what he thinks. Nevertheless, for a former four-star general to call the commander in chief an immoral liar is something new.

McChrystal also warned anyone thinking of taking the job of Secretary of Defense to consider whether his values align with Trump's, and if not, then to conclude that maybe it's not the right job. Of course, if every possible job candidate takes that seriously, it will guarantee that only a spineless toady would take the job, which might not be the best thing for national security. (V)

Kelly Gives an Interview with the Los Angeles Times

Stanley McChrystal was not the only four-star general who talked to the media yesterday. So did departing White House chief of staff John Kelly. His interview was with the Los Angeles Times. Here are some of the highlights from it.

• Trump has dropped his demand for a concrete wall; a fence will do quite nicely, thank you
• It was Jeff Sessions, not Trump, who came up with the "zero tolerance" policy at the border
• Trump often chafed at being told he couldn't have his way because it was illegal
• When Kelly was Secretary of Homeland Security, Trump sprung the Muslim ban on him without notice
• Kelly said that being Trump's chief of staff is a bone-crushing, difficult job

These revelations aren't entirely new, but they do serve to confirm earlier reports. For example, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also recently said that Trump had asked him to do things that were illegal and he had to tell the President that he couldn't do them, much to Trump's chagrin. And trying to manage a president who has little understanding of the law, governance, or even politics, is no doubt a bone-crushing job. So, that's not hard to believe. (V)

Pay No Attention to Lindsey Graham

Many times in the last two years, Lindsey Graham has been among the Republican senators most willing to stand up to Donald Trump and speak up for more traditional Republican values. Well, until Graham backs down, that is. That little drama played out, once again, this weekend.

The Senator, you may recall, has been extremely unhappy with Trump in the past few weeks, particularly over the President's decision to withdraw from Syria, and the sweeping of Jamal Khashoggi's murder under the rug. The Senator sat down for lunch with the President on Sunday, to lay down the law, and to explain what's what. And Graham came out of that meeting with this:

I learned a lot from President @realDonaldTrump about our efforts in Syria that was reassuring. (1/3)

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 30, 2018

The President will make sure any withdrawal from Syria will be done in a fashion to ensure:

1) ISIS is permanently destroyed.

2) Iran doesn’t fill in the back end, and

3) our Kurdish allies are protected.

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 30, 2018

President @realDonaldTrump is talking with our commanders and working with our allies to make sure these three objectives are met as we implement the withdrawal. (3/3)

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 30, 2018

So, that's a total capitulation on Syria. And poor Khashoggi didn't even get so much as a mention.

Who knows exactly why Graham flips and flops so wildly and so publicly? Possibilities include:

• Like Trump, he has poor control of his emotions.
• Like Trump, Graham is lacking in the spine department.
• This is what the voters of South Carolina want.
• This is what Graham thinks the voters of South Carolina want.
• Graham is a shameless opportunist, and regards consistency as the hobgoblin of small minds.

In any case, Graham has now earned a place on the list with his outgoing colleagues Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Bob Corker (R-TN), among others. They may talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, their words mean very little. And so, the next time Graham waggles his finger and delivers some sharp words for the President, it is best to just ignore him, because he doesn't really mean it. (Z)

The Environmental Impact of the Wall

As Donald Trump and the Democrats spar with one another over building a border wall/fence, the matter is largely being discussed from an economic and symbolic perspective. Is this a wise investment of billions of dollars in taxpayer money? How will it affect the flow of goods between the U.S. and Mexico? What kind of statement does it make to Americans, many of whom are immigrants? What kind of statement does it make to Mexico and the rest of the world's nations, many of whom are (or, at least, have been) America's partners?

Federal government scientists, however, have raised a very different concern. Starting last year, they started producing reports on the environmental impact of a wall along the Texas border. In particular, they observe that animals do not have an awareness of international borders. This may have something to do with the fact that such borders are both (1) an abstraction, and (2) something that did not exist for approximately 99.999% of these species' evolutionary history. Consequently, a great many species have migratory patterns that cross the Mexico-U.S. border. If a wall is built, their very survival will be threatened, since they will be unable to move with the seasons, they may be unable to reach the areas where they reproduce, and they could get caught up at an unexpected barrier that runs along a river and drown.

These scientific reports have largely not seen the light of day because, of course, they were buried by the Trump administration. Specifically, outgoing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wanted to "support the border security mission." And the odds are good that this angle will not become a part of the discussion in the next week. Of course, if Donald Trump had a little more imagination, this could be his out. He could say, "The scientists have told me that a lot of beautiful, beautiful animals will die if we physically seal the border, so we're going to have to go with a high-tech solution involving drones that will be safer for all involved." The Democrats would probably even go for it, since their position all along has been that they are ok with border security, but not a wall. But imagination is not generally the strong suit of politicians. (Z)

Democrats United against Trump but Split on Everything Else

By February, several (maybe even many) of the Democratic presidential candidates will be in full campaign mode, either announced or otherwise. After all, the first Democratic primary debate will be in June 2019, and each one wants a place at the table and needs a way to separate himself or herself from the masses (of other Democrats running for the job). They all hate Donald Trump, but on everything else, there is little agreement.

For example, progressives are pushing for a green New Deal, which would reimagine the U.S. economy and focus it on being sustainable, rather than growing (and using more natural resources) all the time. Centrists are fine with bits and pieces of it, but certainly not the whole package.

And discussion of a green New Deal is only part of the disagreement over the economy. Some Democrats want a $15 minimum wage, but some on the left want a higher minimum wage and some in the center want it to vary from $9.30 in places with a low cost of living to $11.90 in expensive places. To get agreement, though, first there has to be some acceptance of the cause of wage stagnation for the past four decades. Centrists say it is automation and globalization, so the solution is job training and help steering coal miners into something that has a future. Progressives see the problem is the rise of massive corporations with massive power, so the solution is to break them up.

Another point of contention is health care. All Democrats agree that the current system is broken. Where they differ is how to fix it. Progressives are for a single-payer system like Canada has, which they call "Medicare for all." But other Democrats think that is much too radical a step that won't play well with the public. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has a different idea, namely, to allow people 55 and older to buy into Medicare. Over time the lower age limit could be reduced. Brown and some others are sure to hammer the "Medicare for all" proponents with a single question: "How are you going to pay for it?"

Energy is on all Democrats' lists, but the approaches are different. Progressives want to phase out fossil fuels and replace them with sustainable energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Centrists note that many union members work in road construction, pipeline construction, coal mining, and related industries and changes that destroy millions of their jobs will not be popular with them.

Now on to trade. Democrats were surprised by the support that Donald Trump's tariffs got from many people. They don't want to agree with him, but they need to find a way to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and keep China from taking over the world. There is little to no agreement on how to do this.

Then there is foreign policy in general and the Middle East in particular. Views on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, are all over the map. Now two Muslim women newly elected to the House want to support the boycott of Israel. That doesn't fly at all with most Democrats or most voters. When debate moderators ask candidates: "What are your plans for the Middle East?", expect a lot of hemming and hawing.

In short, there is going to be a lot of diversity of ideas coming from Democrats in the next few months, as each one tries to put together some kind of coherent platform that voters can understand and agree with. This, of course, is not a unique situation. The last time a political party did not control the White House, and yet went into a presidential election year with all members on the same page, policy-wise, was...well, never. When the system is set up to only have room for two major parties, this kind of squabbling is the nature of the beast. (V)

Where Will Trump Be Tonight?

In D.C., the big question is: "When will the shutdown end?" But in Palm Beach, FL, it is: "Will Donald Trump show up tonight?" This is a pressing question for members of his Mar-a-Lago club. Members there pay a $200,000 initiation fee and $16,000 in annual dues. Some of them also paid $650 for a ticket to the New Year's Eve party there tonight ($1,000 for guests, both prices exclusive of a mandatory 20% tip and 7% tax). Some of them are grumbling that, given the initiation fee and dues, they should at least be allowed to come to the club tonight for no extra fee, but hundreds of them grudgingly coughed up the extra money for a chance to meet Trump tonight. Now the big question is whether he will show up, and if not, can they cancel and get a refund at this late date?

At the moment, Trump is not planning to go there. On the other hand, the rest of his family is there, and spending New Year's Eve alone in the White House tweeting would certainly make it a holiday to remember, but not necessarily in a good way. And the thought of having to return thousands of dollars to angry ticket holders probably doesn't fill him with holiday cheer. Finally, Trump loves dramatic gestures. He could probably leave the White House on Marine One at 8 p.m., transfer to Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, and arrive at Mar-a-Lago at the stroke of midnight (shades of Phileas Fogg in "Around the World in Eighty Days"). Tomorrow we will know. But for all of our loyal readers, wherever you spend tonight, here's wishing you a happy and interesting 2019. (V & Z)

Monday Q&A

A nice variety for the last Q&A of the calendar year.

In your opinion, are there any accusations that could realistically emerge from either the Mueller investigation or investigations conducted by the new Democratic House that would convince at least 67 Senators to convict Donald Trump after the House had impeached? Assuming, of course, the evidence presented at the Senate trial of alleged crimes was conclusive. Trump famously quipped "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters." Does that quote extend to Republican Senators as well? S.W., Fort Worth, TX

The short answer: Yes. And now, for the longer answer. Bear with us, because there are a lot of moving parts.

The first issue, as you observe, is political. Something would have to happen to turn a sizable portion of the base against Trump, and thus to give a sizable number of Republican senators cover to vote for conviction. There is some evidence that Trump's support is weakening, and our guess is that if his base jumps ship in large numbers, it will happen fairly quickly. That is what happened with Richard Nixon, who went from "safe" to "dead in the water" in about three months in 1974.

Assuming that the political will to impeach and remove Trump emerges, then comes the question of actually doing the deed. The basis for removal, "high crimes and misdemeanors," is somewhat vague. This could work to Trump's advantage, but also to his detriment, depending on the circumstances. What it definitely means is that the Congress would have to agree on a relevant crime, and that they would have to be able to prove Trump's guilt in a trial.

There are some issues that would pass one of these tests, but not the other. For example, we would guess that Trump is guilty of financial crimes like money laundering, and that they would be fairly easy to prove in a trial. However, it is likely that the members of Congress would deem pre-presidential crimes, unrelated to Trump's political career, to be off limits. That's not certain, mind you. If it somehow turned out he was a serial murderer or a child molester as a teenager, and there was proof, they would very quickly decide that those counted as "high crimes and misdemeanors," even if they happened long before he ran for president.

Alternatively, there is little question that conspiring with the Russians would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. However, our guess is that it would be hard to prove Trump's complicity. We don't have access to all the information that Robert Mueller has, but it's probable that the people around Trump did just enough to give him plausible deniability. And so, Trump Jr. might get nailed for this, but Trump Sr. is probably in the clear.

The double whammy for Trump, based on the information at hand, is obstruction of justice. That's definitely a high crime and/or misdemeanor; it was the charge Nixon would have gone up for if he hadn't resigned. And even if we limit ourselves to the things that are publicly known, Trump is badly exposed on this front.

The executive summary: We think it's possible that Trump's support falters to the point that the Congress takes action, and we think he's got serious enough obstruction issues that he could be impeached and convicted. We are not predicting this will happen, especially since there is still so much that is unknown. We are merely saying that it's plausible.

---

The reporting on CNN and MSNBC appears to be almost exclusively about the President. I don't remember it always being this way. Are they contributing to our current tribal problem? B.H., Seattle, WA

Let's start with the caveat that you might be suffering from some confirmation bias here, and it's possible that your sense of the news balance is not quite correct. Maybe you didn't take note of how many presidential stories there were five years ago, or maybe you're not taking note of the non-presidential stories now. We don't particularly watch those channels, as one of us lives in the Netherlands, and the other prefers reading over watching. So, we can neither confirm nor deny your observation.

That said, it is true that the news media has a strong bias towards sensationalism. Hence the old saying: "'Dog bites' man is not a story, but 'man bites dog' is." At the same time, those outlets (and all the others) have to cover the big stories of the day. And since nearly everything that any president does is "news," and since nearly everything that the current president does is meant to stoke the flames of tribalism, what are they gonna do? Put another way, we think that the division of Americans into two hostile factions is largely the work of the politicians, with one party, and one particular member of that party, getting an extra share of the responsibility. And the media is just an accomplice, and a somewhat minor one. Or, if you prefer, an unindicted co-conspirator.

---

If California loses a house seat—as you mentioned a few days ago—they presumably have to pick a district to elimate. Do you think the Democrats (assuming they have the ability to under CA law) may use this as a chance to eliminate Devin Nunes' district (or specifically target another district for better political reasons)? H.G., Orlando, FL

Undoubtedly, there are many Democrats, and many Californians, who would see that as taking lemons and making lemonade out of them. "Yes, we lost a seat, but it was just Nunes' seat," they would say. However, it's not going to happen like that.

The problem, regardless of the state, is that the people in the former district still have to be represented in Congress. And it's not legal to just divvy them up among the other nearby districts, because then the citizens of the state would not be equally represented; some Representatives would have more constituents than others. So, anytime a state loses (or gains) seats, it is necessary to redraw the boundaries of all the state's districts.

And, at this point, we run into the issue that is particular to California (and a few other states). As of 2010, the state's district maps are drawn by a commission made up of an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and independents. And so, while there are some states where the loss of a seat (or two, or three) represents an opportunity to boot an unpopular member of the minority party out of Congress, California is not one of them.

---

Is it possible that Robert Mueller is pretty much done with his investigation but just waiting to release his report until he can be sure that Congress won't just sweep it under the rug? H.P., Fletcher, NC

Anything is possible, but this is not terribly likely, for a number of reasons. First, there has been a steady stream of Mueller-related business working its way through the court system this month. That includes the mystery company that is trying to avoid a subpoena, which we have talked about, and the mysterious nude selfie, which we've avoided. This is not the profile of an investigation that is at its end.

Second, Mueller clearly has not gotten everything he wants out of Donald Trump. Unless the back-and-forth over this matter is 100% theatrical on the special counsel's part, then that is another major aspect of the investigation that is not complete. And theater for theater's sake is most certainly not Mueller's style.

Third, and finally, it is not Congress that would sweep the report under the rug, it's the attorney general, because that is who will receive Mueller's findings. To the extent that a Democratic House is relevant, it is as an insurance policy against that outcome. And that insurance policy has been in place since Election Day. So if Mueller really is finished, circumstances are not going to get any better (or worse) until November 3, 2020, at the earliest, and he might as well issue his report(s).

---

Is Donald Trump still getting a federal paycheck during the shutdown? D.G., New York, NY

If he wants to, he is.

The payment of the president (and of Supreme Court judges, and members of Congress) is specifically mandated by the Constitution. And that payment is governed by laws passed in accordance with that Constitutional authority, and independent of the annual appropriations bills. To be more specific, presidential pay is mandated by Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, and the details are spelled out in Title 3 of the United States Code, last updated in 2015.

Whenever there is a shutdown, some of the politicians decline their paychecks for political/symbolic purposes. For example, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) refused pay during the last shutdown, and has said she will do so again this time. Trump could theoretically do the same, if he so chose, but it would be entirely of his own volition.

Don't expect that to happen, however. For his first few paychecks as president, Trump made a big show of donating them to various causes. This was consistent with his "I'm so successful, I don't need a piddling five-figure paycheck" image, but was inconsistent with his tight-fisted nature. There haven't been too many stories like that this year, so maybe he's not donating his checks anymore. But if that is true, then turning down his pay would be tantamount to announcing that fact and would, once again, run contrary to his tight-fisted nature. The upshot is that whatever is happening with his pay these days—he's donating it or he's keeping it—he's going to get a paycheck on payday, and he's not likely to decline it.

There has often been talk of changing the law, so that presidents and members of Congress get no pay when they shut the government down. However, as we've pointed out a couple of times recently, these discussions never seem to go anywhere, for some mysterious reason.

---

When talking about the effect of Donald Trump on the markets, you often use the movement in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) to illustrate the gains/losses in the market. It is widely understood that the DJIA is not a particularly good indicator to understand what is happening in the stock market. Why do you still use it? S.C., Sydney, Australia

We are going to start our answer here with something unexpected: Body mass index (BMI). BMI, as you probably know, is used to judge whether or someone is overweight to an unhealthy extent. Doctors use it, insurance companies use it, nutritionists use it. It's ubiquitous.

BMI is not a modern invention. In fact, it was developed in the 1830s by a man named Adolphe Quetelet. That is an era when doctors were still using leeches and bleeding, had no knowledge of germs, and were decades from developing anesthesia. And Quetelet wasn't even a physician, he was a mathematician.

If your doctor were to give you some medicine today, and to tell you that it comes highly recommended by Napoleon's staff astronomer, you would not be too likely to take it. And yet, BMI lives on, nearly 200 years later. This despite the fact that it is deeply flawed, and is not correct in sizable number of cases. For example, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was at the height of his physical powers, and was winning Mr. Universe titles annually, he was "morbidly obese" as far as BMI is concerned.

BMI survives, despite its weaknesses, because it is a metric that everyone is used to and is familiar with. It's also a metric that vast numbers of studies have been built upon, and vast amounts of scientific literature has been based upon. In that way, it's like Fahrenheit temperatures, English units of measurement, RBIs in baseball, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Sometimes, familiar but imprecise is better that unfamiliar and dead-on accurate.

---

When a president visits a foreign country, must he show a passport? F.R.B., Westmoreland, TN

Yes. However, those of us who make up the teeming masses travel under a standard passport (which is identifiable by its blue cover). The president, by contrast, is one of the 100,000 or so Americans who is entitled to travel under a diplomatic passport (black cover). The most obvious benefit of a diplomatic passport (albeit a minor one) is that the holder doesn't have to pay a fee to the U.S. government to get it. It can also be used by a holder to prove diplomatic status (in the event that they are invoking, for example, diplomatic immunity). And, at some airports, diplomatic passport holders get their own customs line.

President Trump does not particularly benefit from any of these special privileges. Unless his cash flow is far worse than anyone knows, skipping the $145 fee for a regular passport (which he already paid as a private citizen, anyhow) doesn't matter. Should he need to request diplomatic immunity/asylum (not impossible, we guess), then he presumably does not need to prove his identity. And the task of showing his passport to foreign customs, while required for even the President of the United States, is handled by staffers. That said, presidents get to keep their diplomatic passport after leaving office, so Trump might benefit from one of these things after he's done.

You didn't ask, but the most prominent example of a person who does not require a passport is Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Because British passports are issued in her name, such a document would be redundant. She does not require a driver's license for the exact same reason. If and when she does need to travel outside the commonwealth, she does so under visas granted by the state department of the country to which she's traveling.

It is also claimed sometimes that Pope Francis travels without a passport, but this is not true. He has a Holy See passport, which (unlike a British passport) is not issued in his name, so it's not redundant. And he often travels under his Argentine passport, which he keeps up to date.

---

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