WTF Community

📝 Must Read Op-Ed and Profiles

General Discussion
#242

Infuriating this automatic pivot to dismantle social safety net services, and most especially ACA, and then blame the opposition :tired_face:

Coming for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Mitch McConnell just revealed the scheme: cut taxes for the billionaires class, create deficits, and then shred the social safety net.

Less than a year ago, Mitch McConnell assured Americans that his $1.5 trillion program of tax cuts for billionaires and multinational corporations would not increase debts and deficits. “I not only don’t think it will increase the deficit, I think it will be beyond revenue neutral,” the Senate majority leader chirped. “In other words, I think it will produce more than enough to fill that gap.”

Even as assessments by groups such as nonpartisan analysts and watchdog groups predicted that McConnell’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would push the federal deficit to $1 trillion and beyond, the Kentucky Republican declared that the measure he and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, steered to passage last December was a “revenue neutral tax reform bill.”

Now, amid reports that the deficit had grown by 17 percent to almost $800 billion in fiscal year 2018, and that it is headed toward—you guessed it—he $1 trillion mark, McConnell says it’s not his fault. Nor, he claims, is it the fault of the billionaires and corporations he and Ryan represent.

“It’s disappointing but it’s not a Republican problem,” the Republican leader said when asked this week about Bloomberg reporting that detailed how “the Treasury Department said the US budget deficit grew to $779 billion in Donald Trump’s first full fiscal year as president, the result of the GOP’s tax cuts, bipartisan spending increases and rising interest payments on the national debt” and noted that this represents “a 77 percent increase from the $439 billion deficit in fiscal 2015, when McConnell became majority leader.”

The blame, said McConnell, lies with “a bipartisan reluctance to tackle entitlement changes because of the popularity of those programs.” While most Republicans try to talk around the issue—for obvious reasons—McConnell admits that “we’re talking about Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.”

The majority leader is lying.

1 Like
#243

Surprise!!! More corruption
and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is being investigated. And these are all big ticket items
a lot of influence peddling.

The quick move to replace his original Inspector General - Kendall has been swiftly stopped by some inquiring Dems. (Link to wtf-has-left-the-trump-admin Zinke’s Inspector General reversal )

Meet the new Pruitt: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. While he may have been in Pruitt’s shadow earlier in the administration**, Zinke has now racked up an impressive number of scandals.** Zinke currently faces at least four inspector general probes, and he has faced more than a dozen investigations from the IG, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Office of Special Counsel. Topics include: thousands of dollars in spending on charter flights, censorship of a National Park Service report on climate change, blocking a casino project after visits from a potential competitor’s lobbyists and a real estate deal involving a foundation he created and developers including Halliburton Chairman David Lesar. Not Trump-family-member questions of corruption, perhaps, but above average for a Trump Cabinet official.




No doubt Zinke feels the multiple investigations interfere with his true calling: fulfilling his promise to “work for” the oil and gas industry. But he seems to have hit upon a new way to stymie an inspector general: Fire her.

The Post reports that Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall, “who had led the office for nine years and served as its deputy since 1999,” will be replaced by Suzanne Israel Tufts, currently an assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Tufts, a political appointee, has no experience in oversight or the environment. But she has at least one qualification that Zinke might like: At HUD, “she replaced a career official who had voiced objections about a redecoration of [HUD Secretary Ben] Carson’s office.” He also might like that Tufts’s background includes “recruiting and training lawyers deployed by the Republican National Lawyers Association to watch the polls on Election Day 2016.” Or perhaps it was enough that Tufts “noted on her resume that she had experience ‘staffing events hosted by President Donald J. Trump for Victory.’”

Give Zinke points for ingenuity: Apparently, no acting inspector general has ever been replaced with another acting inspector general. And because Tufts’s position is ostensibly temporary, she need not be confirmed by the Senate. (Barack Obama nominated Kendall to fill the position formally, but the Senate never voted on her.)

1 Like
#244

Talk about “draining the swamp”!

2 Likes
#245

Two words - bone saw.

That’s all you need to know about anyone’s intentions.

Good Opinion piece from NYT Editorial Board.

Opinion
A Saudi Prince’s Fairy Tale

The crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, issues another incredible explanation for the death of Jamal Khashoggi.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

The question now is not whether the Saudis’ latest explanation for Jamal Khashoggi’s death is credible, but whom do they think they’re fooling. In the autocratic world of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, what common people think is irrelevant; what matters is whether throwing his hit men under the bus is enough to satisfy President Trump.

Mr. Trump has been longing for some way to hang on to his soul mate Prince Mohammed and lucrative Saudi arms deals from day one, and he seemed to breathe a sigh of relief over the story the Saudis concocted after more than two weeks of lies and evasions. It was a “good first step” and a “big step,” Mr. Trump said Friday night. Asked whether he found it credible, he replied, “I do.”

He is in a distinct minority. The Saudi story has been widely dismissed as a pathetic attempt to acknowledge what has become undeniable — that a band of 15 Saudi agents flew in to Istanbul on the day Mr. Khashoggi was expected at the Saudi consulate and killed him there. It also insulates Prince Mohammed, the wielder of real power in Saudi Arabia, from any responsibility.

In this narrative, there went out a general order to round up dissidents living abroad, but somehow it got garbled in transmission, so when the Saudis learned of Mr. Khashoggi’s plans, the deputy director of intelligence, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, dispatched a team to pick him up. According to this version of the tale, Mr. Khashoggi put up a fight and got killed, and a local collaborator was given the body to dispose of, perhaps in pieces and in suitcases.

So now the 15 agents, plus a driver and two consular staff — essentially all the witnesses minus the consul-general, who returned to Saudi Arabia and has not been heard from since — have been arrested, while General Assiri and a close aide to the crown prince, Saud al-Qahtani, and a few other intelligence officials, have been fired. Misdeed acknowledged, culprits punished, crown prince cleared, Mr. Trump satisfied.

Uh-huh. Among the many problems with this story is that nobody will seriously accept that a mild, 60-year-old journalist put up such a fight that he had to be killed, and it does not explain why one of the agents sent to Istanbul was carrying a bone saw, or why the Turks said they had evidence that Mr. Khashoggi was tortured and dismembered. Nor does it explain why it took the Saudis more than two weeks to acknowledge even that Mr. Khashoggi was dead.

And even in this narrative, why was Mr. Khashoggi deemed so great a threat that the Saudi security apparatus tried to kidnap him, even if the goal was not to kill him? A well-connected Saudi journalist, he had fled into self-imposed exile in the United States when Prince Mohammed began rounding up critics at home and frequently criticized the prince in his Washington Post columns. That is a deadly threat?

But then the only thing we are asked to believe in this yarn is that Prince Mohammed, the reformer who allowed women to drive, would never condone such violence. No, not the royal strongman who imprisoned many of his cousins to shake them down, kidnapped Lebanon’s prime minister, started a disastrous war in Yemen, broke relations with Canada over a critical tweet, rounded up critics, sentenced a blogger to 1,000 lashes and much more.

Mr. Trump is deluded if he really believes the Saudi cover-up can end the matter. The president seemed to acknowledge a few days ago that the Khashoggi murder is “bad, bad stuff,” but he seems reluctant to understand that so is his (and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s) buddy the crown prince.

Nothing more honest can be expected from Saudi Arabia. If America’s leadership in the world is to retain any credibility, the president must demand a United Nations-backed investigation by respected and independent officials, and he must ask Turkey to provide its tapes and other evidence. He should suspend weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and ask NATO allies to do the same. And, what may be most salutary, he should signal to members of the House of Saud that he believes what so many of them believe, that Mohammed bin Salman has become toxic.

Finally Mr. Trump must ensure that the remains of his American neighbor, an honest Saudi journalist who suffered a barbarous end for simply speaking truth to power, be returned to his family.

3 Likes
#246

Peggy Noonan, conservative speech-writer for Reagan has a wish list of what would happen if


  • both parties tried to clean up their own side of the street and I wish they worried about the country more and Everyone running for office should admit things have gotten too hot, too divided.

But sees that T fails because “As to the president, one thought. He will never lead effectively at moments like this because he can’t. It’s not within his emotional range or in his intellectual toolbox.”

Defuse America’s Explosive Politics
Politicians in both parties need to clean up their own side of the street.

By
Peggy Noonan
Updated Oct. 26, 2018 11:41 a.m. ET

The attempted bombing of political figures is domestic terrorism meant to disrupt and intimidate. That it came to light less than two weeks before an election whose outcomes may constitute a national rebuke to—or soft boost of—President Trump’s controversial leadership means that passions are high and will stay so. Things are feeling primal, tribal.

There’s more than enough time before the voting for the gates of hell to open. Let’s try to keep them shut.

What can help? Some things I’d like to see:

A suspect was arrested Friday morning. It‘s good that law enforcement appears to have used every resource available to find the bomber or bombers, which will help in returning an air of order. As the investigation continues, all law enforcement should be extremely, unusually forthcoming about the facts and state probe. We’re all tired of their swanning around after school shootings with their secret information we can’t have. Be as open as possible without injuring the investigation. This may help calm the finger pointing. “It was a left-wing false-flag operation!”

Everyone running for office should admit things have gotten too hot, too divided. Then they should try to cool the atmosphere. Next Tuesday will mark one week before the election. Candidates should devote the day to something different. It would be good to see every one give a speech or statement containing their most generous definition of the aims and meaning of the opposing party. A Democratic nominee might say, “Whether they always succeed or not, Republicans do want to protect the liberties that have allowed this nation become the miracle of the world.” A Republican might say, “At its best and most sincere, the Democratic Party hopes to help those in peril, and to soften disparities of wealth and opportunity.”

The dirty secret of most political professionals is that they do see virtues in the other party. And when you show respect for people, they tend to put down their rocks.

Does this sound dreamy or otherworldly? Yes. But a tender moment isn’t the worst thing that could happen to us right now, and enraged people will find it boring. We want them bored. And actually I don’t mean it as sentimental but reorienting—a reminder for some and an education for others about what it is we’re trying to do here.

Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown, let us hear you on what you know to be admirable in the Republican Party—and in Republicans. Ted Cruz, Martha McSally, the same from you on the Democrats. Show some largeness. We’re dying of smallness.

Both parties could absorb an essential truth of the moment.

Democrats really and sincerely see the threat of violent words and actions as coming from the right. It’s Mr. Trump—he’s hateful and has no respect and it sets a tone. He encourages fights at his rallies; he said the other night that a congressman who pushed around a reporter was his kind of guy. He calls the press the enemy of the people. He widens all divisions, mindlessly yet opportunistically. No surprise his adversaries are being sent bombs.

Republicans and the right truly, deeply see the threat as coming from the left. Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Cory Booker actually told crowds to get in Republicans’ faces; Hillary Clinton says you can’t treat them civilly. Republicans see the screamers and harassers at the Kavanaugh hearings, the groups swarming Republican figures when they dine in public, antifa. A man who wrote “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” on Facebook didn’t insult Rep. Steve Scalise last year; he shot and almost killed him. The intimidation is coming from the left.

Trump supporters don’t take him seriously when he issues his insults. He’s kidding; he doesn’t mean it; he’s Trump. You’re lying when you say he makes you afraid.

But the left finds him, and some of his allies, honestly—honestly—dangerous.

Just as the right finds Ms. Waters and Mr. Booker and Mrs. Clinton and the swarms and the hissers and antifa honestly—honestly—the threat.

Neither side appreciates—neither side credits—the anxiety the other side legitimately feels. They have no sensitivity to it. They had better get some.

When conservatives see a liberal or progressive not condemning Mr. Booker or Ms. Waters, they assume it’s because the liberal agrees with what they say—that intimidation is part of the plan.

There is too much blindness to how the other side is experiencing the situation. It’s in the news media, too. Politicians should have a greater awareness of their own role in the drama.

Thursday morning New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was on television, saying words that were meant to be helpful. We’re not Democrats and Republicans really, he** said, we’re Americans; we can’t be divided**. It was good, he clearly meant it. But he spoke as if he had no memory of strikingly divisive words he’d uttered just a few years ago. In January 2014 he said of those who are pro-life, pro-traditional-marriage and pro-gun that they are “extreme conservatives” who have “no place in the state of New York.” No place in the state of New York? That is an extreme and aggressive statement, and it speaks of how too many progressives and liberals feel about conservatives. This kind of thing isn’t new, and it’s contributed to the moment we’re in.

Politicians, don’t lecture us. Clean up your own side of the street.

As to the president, one thought. He will never lead effectively at moments like this because he can’t. It’s not within his emotional range or in his intellectual toolbox. The targets of the would-be bombs have been his antagonists. He’s not believable when he issues pained vows of unity. Everyone assumes his staff told him to do it and in a burst of amiability he did. When he’s obnoxious, people believe he’s speaking his mind.

Mr. Trump has ushered in a new presidential era of verbal roughness. At his rallies he sees himself as being provocative and humorous and teasing. His crowds know he is entertaining them and they have fun back, re-enacting their old 2016 fervor with “Lock her up!” and “Build the wall!” They don’t emerge whipped into a rage; they leave in a good mood, though tired from standing so long because he speaks so long.

The president knows half the country is watching, and dislikes and disdains what it sees. What he doesn’t seem to know is that the unstable are watching, too. They get revved up, ginned up, pro and con. There is danger in this.

Mr. Trump seems to think only about his audience and his foes. He doesn’t seem to proceed with a broad knowledge that there are the unstable among us, and part of your job as president is not to push them over the edge. It can get ugly when you do.

In a funny way he seems to think everything’s more stable than it is, that the veil between safety and surprise is thicker than it is. Maybe you assume everything’s safe when you’ve spent your whole adult life, as he has, with private security and private cars, surrounded by staff. Maybe that makes you careless, or too confident.

But few of our political leaders seem especially sensitive to the precariousness of things. I wish they worried about the country more. That really is dreamy and otherworldly, isn’t it?

3 Likes
#247

Good piece.

1 Like
#248

If you would like more information on Russian money going to GOP and Trump you might want to look at Craig Unger’s latest book “House of Trump, House of Putin”. He really goes into the Russian money at length. He also wrote a good article published in the New Republic (I believe) - something like Trumps Russian Laundromat - July/August 2017. I think there is a follow-up article that is in reference to the book Aug./2018.

2 Likes
#249

OMG, Preach!!

What is wrong with white women? Why do half of them so consistently vote for Republicans, even as the Republican party morphs into a monstrously ugly organization that is increasingly indistinguishable from a hate group? The most likely answer seems to be that white women vote for Republicans for the same reason that white men do: because they are racist. Trump, with his raucous rallies and his bloviating, combative style, has offered his supporters an opportunity to savor the pleasures of being cruel. It is likely that the white women who voted for him in 2016, and who will vote for him again in 2020, find this racist sadism gratifying. It is fun for them.

1 Like
#250

Spot on! :dart:

I know some of these women and men. They play their cards close to their vest, but when you get to know them, at some point they inadvertently tip their hand. And this, I feel, is one of the reasons that polls are so often out of whack. These people hide their racism, along with their support for Trump, and they bury it so deep that they even lie to pollsters, but when they step into that very private voting booth, they vote from the dark recesses of their heart.

3 Likes
#251

OK, are you ready for some really good news?! Trump is doing his best to distract us yet again – and, yes, we must keep an eye on his latest treacheries, but at the same I hope we take a few minutes every day over the next couple weeks to celebrate the Blue Wave – and chalk up the victories we have won.

Democrats flipped seven governorships, six state legislative chambers, and more than 300 state House and Senate seats on election night. The party went a long way to regaining control at the state level after suffering devastating losses throughout the Barack Obama years.

Yeehaw! :boom: :tada: :muscle:

Maine: Medicaid expansion is coming

Janet Mills beat Republican Shawn Moody decisively — 51 percent to 43 — and Democrats flipped the one Maine Senate Seat they needed to take over that chamber. They already controlled the House.

First and foremost, the Democratic takeover means the end of Maine’s Medicaid expansion drama. Maine voters overwhelmingly approved the expansion in a ballot initiative last year, but archconservative LePage used every legal and procedural quirk in the book to slow it down


Kansas: time for some centrism and some tax fights

One of the most satisfying wins of the night for Democrats was Laura Kelly toppling Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach — an immigration hardliner and former leader of Trump’s voter fraud commission — to become Kansas’s next governor


Nevada: Harry Reid’s machine gives Democrats free rein on their agenda

Democratic Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak defeated Republican Secretary of State — no doubt thanks in part to the political machine of Harry Reid — and Democrats held on to both chambers in the legislature to form another new trifecta


Etc., etc. Check out the article for much more good news in other states.

One big take away for me was something I hadn’t considered before. In states where we have flipped the governor’s office to Blue, but the legislature remains Red, that’s still a huge step forward because the governor’s veto will now hang over the legislature – they must drastically rein in their Trumpian agendas. :smile:

3 Likes
#252

What we know so far about Trump’s new Acting AG, Matt Whitaker

trump%20and%20whitaker%20(Small)
trump%20and%20whitaker%20(Small)724×480 71.4 KB

(I’ve tried to include a link to at least one reputable news source to support each of these bullets.)

5 Likes
Mentionable News
#253

@Keaton_James

Nice profile! Very helpful!

4 Likes
#254

I suspect there is some truth to that. Many T supporters I know hated O primarily because he was black and they believed what Fox News told them and what FB posts from friends said about O. [quote=“Pet_Proletariat, post:249, topic:965”]
bloviating
[/quote]

#255

Intriguing new opinion three part video series from The NY Times on Russia’s disinformation campaigns in the US and abroad.

A must watch series!!

1 Like
#256

Top notch reporting from Esquire – a very detailed look at Whitaker’s background. It’s just staggering that this low-level political hack and grifter is now head of our Department of Justice. The reason is transparent – he strongly opposes the Mueller investigation.

5 Likes
#257

Yet again our President is obstructing justice in plain sight – but still congressional Republicans remain silent – and thus complicit.

Esquire provides some good insight into Trump’s transparent motives for appointing Whitaker and includes supporting quotations from Trump’s recent interview with The Daily Caller.

THE DAILY CALLER: Sure. Could you tell us where your thinking is currently on the attorney general position? I know you’re happy with Matthew Whitaker, do you have any names? Chris Christie —

POTUS: Matthew Whitaker is a very respected man. He’s — and he’s, very importantly, he’s respected within DOJ. I heard he got a very good decision, I haven’t seen it. Kellyanne, did I hear that?

WHITE HOUSE ADVISER KELLYANNE CONWAY: 20 pages.

POTUS: A 20-page?

THE DAILY CALLER: It just came out right before this, sir.

POTUS: Well, I heard it was a very strong opinion. Uh, which is good. But [Whitaker] is just somebody that’s very respected.

I knew him only as he pertained, you know, as he was with Jeff Sessions. And, you know, look, as far as I’m concerned this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had.

It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation.

This exchange begins when the interviewer asks a question about who Trump might be considering as a permanent AG pick; he did not ask anything about Mueller or anything about why Trump chose Whitaker as the Acting AG. But Trump launches into a justification for his appointment of Whitaker and it’s because the Mueller investigation “should never have been brought” and is “an illegal investigation.”

This admission is consistent with what Trump confessed to Lester Holt in 2017 about his firing of Comey: “In fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.” Now Trump is telling us that he installed an Acting AG who is anti-Mueller because Mueller’s investigation is “illegal.” This is straight up obstruction of justice that Trump is not even attempting to hide.

It galls me to provide a link to The Daily Caller, but in the interest of transparency so anyone can confirm that the above quotation is not taken out of context, here’s the full transcript of the interview.

BTW, this is the same interview in which Trump, with no supporting evidence, made the absurd claim that voters are putting on disguises so they can vote more than once:

POTUS: The Republicans don’t win and that’s because of potentially illegal votes, which is what I’ve been saying for a long time. I have no doubt about it. And I’ve seen it, I’ve had friends talk about it when people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again.

The President of our nation is now officially in “tinfoil hat” territory.

Let’s parse this quotation a little. When alleging that voters are dressing up in disguises, he first says “I’ve seen it.” But this is a lie. He hasn’t seen it as he makes clear in the very next sentence; he says it’s his friends that have told him about it: “I’ve had friends talk to me about it.” So have his friends actually seen it? Or have they also just “heard” about it? Which friends? Where did they see it or where did they hear about it? This is the same M.O. that Trump uses over and over. Instead of quoting a legitimate, verifiable source, he just tosses out phrases like, “people tell me” or “everybody’s saying it” – this appears to be sufficient “evidence” for Trump’s base.

5 Likes
#258

Like this guy?

image
image1121×787 78.7 KB

6 Likes
#259

Beto writes about running on Medium :grin:

3 Likes
#260

Read this Op-Ed piece by Max Boot on why we need to get Whitaker out of the acting Attorney General position. Whitaker more likely than not has spilled out details to T about the Mueller investigation which many feel is the reason behind the truly unhinged Twitter behavior Thursday.

T is going for every ‘legal’ strategy to circumvent any legal jeopardy that Mueller poses. We all see T’s panic and we all want justice to prevail.

T unhinged and cornered is a super scary proposition. :clown_face:

There is already cause for concern that Whitaker may have tipped off the White House. On Thursday, Trump tweeted, “The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation.” Trump has never used the phrase “inner workings” before. Maybe he was just spouting off. Maybe he was reacting to information shared with him by witnesses Mueller has interrogated. Or maybe he has suddenly gained a vantage point on the “inner workings of the Mueller investigation” that he did not have before Whitaker’s appointment.

In this hour of peril for our democracy, it is imperative that Congress rush to the ramparts. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refuses to move legislation that would protect Mueller. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has belatedly said he would refuse to support judicial confirmations until that legislation is brought to the floor, but his threat will not be effective unless he is joined by at least one other Republican. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) actually introduced legislation to protect Mueller, but now he doesn’t see the need for it and even says Whitaker doesn’t need to recuse himself.

We are seeing a slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre, and the lack of pushback from Congress, so far, gives Trump a green light to continue his assault on the rule of law. Every day that Whitaker remains in office is a day that our democracy is being undermined.

2 Likes
#261

Another Op-Ed piece from the NYT’s Editorial Board on why we don’t need Matthew Whitaker. Seems to ring true to many of us, doesn’t it?!

The reason Mr. Trump replaced Mr. Sessions with Mr. Whitaker seems clear. When The Daily Caller, a conservative news website, asked Mr. Trump last week for his thoughts about the man now running the Justice Department, the president volunteered, “As far as I’m concerned, this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had. It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation.”

Mr. Whitaker is an avowed antagonist of Mr. Mueller — he has called the investigation a witch hunt, said Mr. Mueller’s team should not investigate Mr. Trump’s finances and suggested that an attorney general could slash the special counsel’s budget.

As if concerns about the Constitution, the law and Mr. Whitaker’s judgment weren’t enough, the broader picture that has emerged about Mr. Whitaker is even more disturbing. He has expressed skepticism toward Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that established the concept of judicial review; he would support the confirmation of federal judges who hold “a biblical view of justice”; he may have prosecuted a political opponent for improper reasons when he was a federal prosecutor in Iowa; and then there’s the fiasco of his business involvement with a company accused of scamming customers that is being investigated by the F.B.I.

Justice Department regulations governing the day-to-day operations of the special counsel’s office allow for Mr. Whitaker to be read in on many of its inner workings, including that the acting attorney general be given “an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step” that Mr. Mueller decides to take. So there is nothing to keep Mr. Whitaker from being the president’s eyes and ears inside the most closely guarded investigation in the history of American politics.

On Thursday morning, the president rage-tweeted that Mr. Mueller was a “highly conflicted” person, leading a legal team that is “a total mess.” “They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want,” Mr. Trump wrote.

2 Likes