Trump’s Strange Alliance With Russia

MoveOn.org

Donald J. Trump may be the president, but he’s no longer the leader of the free world. Amy Siskind explains.

Protect the Mueller investigation, we must get to the bottom of this: MoveOn.org/investigation

Trump’s Strange Alliance with Russia

Donald J. Trump may be the president, but he's no longer the leader of the free world. Amy Siskind explains.Protect the Mueller investigation, we must get to the bottom of this: MoveOn.org/investigation

Posted by MoveOn.org on Thursday, November 2, 2017

Trump Administration Moves to End Ban on New Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon

EcoWatch

Trump Administration Moves to End Ban on New Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon

Lorraine Chow     November 2, 2017

https://resize.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F13265719%2Forigin.jpg/1200%2C630/mk9B650kC433pwtD/img.jpgSunrise from Cape Royal, North Rim, Grand Canyon. Dan Miller / Flickr

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service released a recommendation Wednesday to lift former President Obama’s uranium mining ban in the watershed of the Grand Canyon.

The move was made in response to President Trump’s sweeping “energy independence” executive order in March to ease regulatory burdens on energy development.

“This appalling recommendation threatens to destroy one of the world’s most breathtakingly beautiful regions to give free handouts to the mining industry,” said Allison Melton, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Trump administration’s willingness to sacrifice our natural treasures to polluters knows no bounds. But this reckless, shortsighted proposal won’t be allowed to stand.”

Amber Reimondo, Energy Program Director with the Grand Canyon Trust, had similar sentiments.

“The Forest Service should be advocating for a permanent mining ban, not for advancing private mining interests that threaten one of the natural wonders of the world,” Reimondo said. “The Grand Canyon and the people and communities that depend on it cannot be left to bear the risks of unfettered uranium mining, which is what will happen if the moratorium is removed.”

The 20-year ban was issued in 2012 by former Interior Sec. Ken Salazar. It prohibits new claims for mining in the region, which includes more than one million acres of public land adjacent to the Grand Canyon. The ban, however, does not restrict existing mines, four of which continue within just a few miles of the rim of the Colorado River.

Reimondo noted in a blog post that it is currently unclear what part of the ban the Forest Service intends to revise.

“It could mean shrinking the duration of the ban, set to expire in 2032, or reducing the acreage included in the ban, or both,” she wrote.

https://assets.rbl.ms/13265877/980x.jpgGrand Canyon Trust

The Hill reported that the federal government does not get any royalties from uranium mining since it is regulated as hard-rock mining, but Republicans, industry groups and some local leaders have pushed for mining to spur local economic activity.

“Uranium mining would have brought in nearly $29 billion to our local economy over a 42-year period,” the board of supervisors of Arizona’s Mohave County wrote in June to Interior Sec. Ryan Zinke, whose Bureau of Land Management agency owns some of the land. “This ban took away much needed growth and jobs from our area.”

However, the Center for Biological Diversity warned that past uranium mining in the region has polluted soils, washes, aquifers and drinking water. Abandoned uranium mines, including more than 500 on the Navajo Nation, still await clean up.

“This is a dangerous industry that is motivated by profit and greed with a long history of significantly damaging lands and waters. They are now seeking new mines when this industry has yet to clean up the hundreds of existing mines all over the landscape that continue to damage our home. We should learn from the past, not ignore it,” said Havasupai Tribal Chairman Don E. Watahomigie.

“The Kaibab National Forest south of Grand Canyon National Park comprises crucial wildlife habitat for mule deer, cougars, elk and pronghorn,” said Kim Crumbo of Wildlands Network. “Considered sacred by Native Americans, the forest’s ponderosa pine, woodlands and wild creatures are vulnerable to the industrial impacts of mining and increased truck traffic should the mineral withdrawal be revoked.”

Polls show that 80 percent of Arizonans as well as a number of environmental organizations and native tribes support permanent protection of Arizona’s iconic landmark.

“One million acres of public lands around Grand Canyon were protected from destructive uranium mining due to significant public support and recognition of what is at risk—Grand Canyon’s watershed, its wildlife, and so much more,” said Sandy Bahr, director of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter. “Now, the Trump administration wants to stomp all over the public and the public’s lands by rescinding these important protections. Doing so will put at risk Grand Canyon’s waters and wildlife, as well as the economy of northern Arizona, for the short-term profits of foreign mining companies. We must keep these protections in place.”

Dakota Access builder and Corps object to tribal proposal

McClatchy   D.C. Bureau

Dakota Access builder and Corps object to tribal proposal

Associated Press        November 02, 2017  

Bismarck, N.D. The builder of the Dakota Access oil pipeline and the federal agency that permitted the project are objecting to an effort by American Indian tribes to bolster protections for their water supply.

Lawyers for Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners and the Army Corps of Engineers argue separately in documents filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington, D.C., that the proposals by the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux are unnecessary or unwarranted.

“Measures are already in place to achieve the objectives behind each proposed set of conditions,” company attorneys wrote.

The dispute centers around the $3.8 billion pipeline’s crossing of the Missouri River’s LakeOahe reservoir in southern North Dakota.

Both tribes get water from the lake and fear contamination should the pipeline leak. They are among four Dakotas tribes suing to shut down the pipeline that began moving North Dakota oil to a distribution point in Illinois on June 1.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is requiring the Corps to further review the project’s impact on tribal interests, but he’s allowing oil to continue flowing while that work is done over the next several months. In the meantime, the tribes are seeking increased public reporting of pipeline issues such as repairs, and implementation of an emergency spill response plan at the lake crossing with tribal input. The spill response plan will include equipment staging.

ETP said it already has emergency equipment and personnel staged “near” the crossing and has also “taken steps to include the tribes in response planning.” The company said it is willing to continue working with them on a voluntary basis.

Corps attorneys argue that the tribal request is “unnecessary, duplicative and burdensome” and note that “the court has already upheld the Corps’ conclusion that the risk of a spill is low.”

In a separate legal dispute in federal court in North Dakota, landowners who claim ETP deceived and defrauded them while acquiring land easements for the pipeline will appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland in October sided with a subsidiary of ETP and the land acquisition consulting business Contract Land Staff. Both businesses disputed the claims of the 21 landowners who were seeking more than $4 million in damages.

The landowners have filed a notice of appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney Peter Zuger declined to discuss their argument until a formal appeal brief is filed in the next couple of months.

ETP spokeswoman Vicki Granado said the company does not comment on pending legal matters.

USA Today

Dakota Access sued over farmland damage in South Dakota

USA Today Network John Hult,       November 2, 2017

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/56cefca4e7d49745c87e93f1df10ae25554a839c/r=540/https/videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove3/29906170001/201706/2691/29906170001_5457451270001_5457431867001-vs.jpgThe oil pipeline at the center of an environmental controversy has started transporting oil. Video provided by Newsy Newslook (Photo: Tom Stromme, AP)

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A Harrisburg-area farm family has sued the Dakota Access pipeline for failure to keep its promise to restore their land after construction.

The lawsuit is the first of its kind in South Dakota state court, and speaks to fears of lost productivity expressed by farmers in the planning stages of the controversial four-state pipeline.

Slack Family Properties LLC is accusing the pipeline company of breach of contract, unauthorized taking of property, fraud and deceit in its lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Lincoln County.

The Slack family says five parcels of its farm ground were disrupted and drain tiles were disconnected by the pipeline’s construction, causing damage to two growing seasons’ worth of corn and soybeans.

The 800 acres saw compacted soils and heavy flooding, and the company has yet to reattach the drain tiles or compensate the family for the damages, which it had promised to cover in its easement deal with the family.

More: Dakota Access pipeline developer sues Greenpeace, others for $1 billion

Previously: Iowa opponents still think they can shut down Dakota Access Pipeline

“It’s just been disgusting to have something said to us — that we’re going to be taken care of — then to have them just pull the pin and say ‘we’re not going to do anything,’” said Greg Slack.

Glenn Boomsma, a Sioux Falls lawyer who represents the Slack family and also represented to several families during the pipeline’s South Dakota permit hearings, said his clients’ experience is evidence the company is unwilling to uphold its responsibilities.

“We got them the Cadillac version of the easement agreement, but in the end, Dakota Access still didn’t follow it,” Boomsma said.

The company’s lawyer and declined to comment on Wednesday. It’s public relations firm did not respond to requests for comment.

Boomsma and Slack have heard similar tales from other South Dakota farmers who signed pipeline easements with the Texas-based company, and that he suspects others are quietly suffering uncompensated losses.

In its easement agreements with landowners, Dakota Access promised to restore all farm land over the pipeline to its previous condition and to compensate farmers for any losses due to the construction of the controversial four-state pipeline.

Landowners testified at the 2015 permit hearing before the PUC of their worries about soil compaction and impacts to crops.

The guarantees of loss compensation were made in both individual easements and through the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which approved construction on the condition that such promises were kept.

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/a615ea3cab58b503aadc3db7eae0271ccea89cda/c=315-0-6103-4352&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2017/03/10/USATODAY/USATODAY/636247487898364041-EPA-USA-PIPELINE-PROTEST.jpgProtestors rally against the Dakota Access pipeline outside the White House in Washington, DC.   Jim Lo Scalzo, European Pressphoto Agency

Watchdogs approved for Dakota Access

When the PUC approved a third-party liaison to resolve disputes between the company and landowners, Commissioner Chris Nelson expressed concerns that the man recommended for the job didn’t have any specific experience with drain tile and soil compaction issues.

Commissioners ultimately approved the liaison, upon further assurances of his commitment to tracking drain tile and soil issues.

The latest quarterly liaison report listed 11 contacts with landowners, most of whom reported agriculture-related problems. Two of the landowners had “chosen to work out issues with DAPL on a civil level with their attorneys.”

The liaison reports don’t offer landowner names or details on the complaints, however.

The Slack lawsuit outlines the Lincoln County family’s troubles far more directly.

Drain tiles, which keep fields from over-saturation that can limit crop growth, were crushed or disconnected during construction in 2016, the complaint said, and soils compacted after being replaced.

Last October, the PUC was alerted to the disconnected drain tile and flooded fields through an informal complaint. Dakota Access told the PUC it had repaired the problem, but the lawsuit said no repairs had taken place.

“Defendant knew this statement and representation was false at the time it was made,” the lawsuit said.

The family notified the company of the continuing troubles on six occasions in 2017, the lawsuit said, but the company did not take action. The family hired a contractor to repair the tiles over the summer.

The drain tilling moves water and nutrients into the soil. Without functioning tile, Slack said, the pools along the pipeline route continued to do damage.

“The longer it sits, the worse the damage gets,” said Slack, who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to install the underground piping system.

Further damage to next year’s crop is likely, because the construction and pooling altered the carefully-managed soil biology.

The lawsuit also says the company built a road to access the construction area that it was not authorized to.

The Slack family has asked for a jury to decide its claims and monetary damages.

Millions Of Q-Tips Are Flushed Down the Toilet

EcoWatch

WATCH and SHARE: This story is proof that collective action works!

Read about plastic pollution: http://bit.ly/2xbb5Xg

via Rob Greenfield City to Sea

WATCH and SHARE: This story is proof that collective action works! Read about plastic pollution: http://bit.ly/2xbb5Xgvia Rob Greenfield City to Sea

Posted by EcoWatch on Thursday, November 2, 2017

Artist Gives New Life to Flint’s Empty Water Bottles by Turning Them Into Clothing

EcoWatch

Artist Gives New Life to Flint’s Empty Water Bottles by Turning Them Into Clothing

Lorraine Chow     October 31, 2017

https://resize.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F13146129%2Forigin.jpg/1200%2C630/Uzd0rynjtdjrrBEh/img.jpgFlint, Michigan water distribution. U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

Flint, Michigan doesn’t just have a water problem—it has a water bottle problem. Ever since the 2014 lead contamination crisis, city residents have had no choice but to turn to bottled water for their daily H2O needs.

The state is required to give each Flint resident 14 bottles daily, and when you multiply that with its population of approximately 97,000, that’s more than 1.3 million bottles that could be handed out in a single day. That’s a lot of plastic—and it’s not always recycled.

But artist Mel Chin has come up with a genius solution for this massive water bottle surplus—the Flint Fit project. He’s teamed up with fashion designer and Detroit native Tracy Reese and the Queens Museum in New York City to turn the bottles into raincoats, swimwear and other clothing items.

According to mlive.com, empty plastic water bottles are currently being gathered from homes, community centers and other locations and will be sent to Greensboro, North Carolina-based processing facility, Unifi Inc. There, the bottles will be transformed into thread and fabric to be used for the clothing.

The thread and fabric will then come back to Flint, where participants of the St. Luke’s N.E.W. Life Center‘s sewing program will put together the patterns designed by Reese.

Chin, who helped spearhead the Fundred Dollar Bill project to eliminate lead poisoning in children, commented about the importance of having Flint residents contribute to the project.

“It’s about something that is empty, like a water bottle, fulfilling the potential of jobs and manufacturing that has also been lost,” he told FOX 66 News, referring to the once-thriving “Vehicle City” that was the original home of General Motors.

“This project would only work with the people in this city,” Chin added. “Having the people finish all of the designs in Flint is what makes this a very amazing opportunity.”

A fashion show of the designs is planned for New York City in April 2018. A show in Flint will follow.

Trump is Leading the Most Corrupt Administration in U.S. History, One of First-Class Kleptocrats

Newsweek    Politics

Trump is Leading the Most Corrupt Administration in U.S. History, One of First-Class Kleptocrats

Alexander Nazaryan, Newsweek      November 2, 2017

He’d promised to build the wall. To make America great again. To lock her up. Now, in the last weeks of his campaign for president, Donald J. Trump needed one more stirring slogan. And since he was badly trailing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, it would have to be a marketing marvel worthy of Mad Men’s Don Draper, one that encapsulated the vague yet compelling promise of his candidacy—its worship of American ideals and its total break from them.

On October 17, 2016, the Trump-Pence campaign released a five-point plan for ethics reform that featured lobbying restrictions that would insulate Trump and his administration from corporate and interests. The plan was called “drain the swamp.”

Trump tried out the phrase that day at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He used it the next day at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado. “We’re going to end the government corruption,” Trump vowed, “and we’re going to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.” He then recited a litany of accusations regarding Clinton and her use of a private email server, calling her “the most corrupt person to ever run for the presidency.”

“Build the wall” had been the raw opening cry of the Trump campaign. “Make America great again” was its chorus. “Drain the swamp” was its closing number. But while talk of a border wall plainly thrilled Trump, he was apparently never too worked up about the festering bog that was the nation’s capital. He said as much in an October 26 rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, in one of his unsettling bouts of honesty: “I said that about a week ago, and I didn’t like it that much, didn’t sound that great. And the whole world picked it up.… Funny how things like that happen.… So ‘drain the swamp,’ I didn’t like it. Now, I love it, right?”

“Drain the swamp” fit perfectly with Trump’s constant complaints about the “rigged system,” thereby excusing what some said was going to be a historic defeat. As the campaign concluded, Trump turned himself into a martyr for the cause of American democracy, waging a principled but doomed campaign.

Donald J. Trump @ realDonaldTrump     I will make our government honest again–believe me. #DrainTheSwamp in D.C.    Twitter

But a funny thing happened on the way to a third Obama term. Winning endowed the things Trump said during the campaign with an import they’d previously lacked. He was, back then, a hopeless renegade, troubling but not threatening. Then, the returns from Florida and Wisconsin came in on the evening of November 8. And while many understood that his “rigged system” was just an excuse, “drain the swamp” sure sounded like a promise.

So as the presidential inauguration approached, anticipation bubbled through the sulfurous nexus of Capitol Hill politicians, special interest groups and their K Street lobbyists, the media, the establishment and just about everyone else who had dismissed Trump and his slogans as a publicity stunt. There was now a question, rather urgently in need of an answer: Was he serious about all that “swamp” stuff?

Not really, revealed former House Speaker and loyal Trump supporter Newt Gingrich, admitting to NPR on December 21 that “drain the swamp” was never a genuine promise. “I’m told he now just disclaims that,” Gingrich said a month before Trump was to assume the Oval Office. “He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore.”

Someone from Trump Tower must have placed an angry call, because the former speaker soon tweeted that he’d overstated the case. But that didn’t kill the story. That same day, Politico wondered if “drain the swamp” would be Trump’s “first broken promise.” It cited the access-peddling lobbying firm of Trump’s first campaign manager, Corey R. Lewandowski, as well as the consulting firm with troubling foreign ties run by his incoming national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. “Trump and his allies have engaged in some of the same practices they accused Hillary Clinton of exploiting and vowed to change,” Politico wrote.

Now, a year after the election—and more than a year after Trump first made that pledge to the American people—many observers believe the swamp has grown into a sinkhole that threatens to swallow the entire Trump administration. The number of White House officials currently facing questions, lawsuits or investigation is astonishing: Trump, being sued for violating the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution by running his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Paul J. Manafort, the second Trump campaign manager, indicted on money laundering charges in late October; Flynn, for undisclosed lobbying work done on behalf of the Turkish government; son-in-law and consigliere Jared Kushner, for failing to disclose $1 billion in loans tied to his real-estate company; and at least six Cabinet heads being investigated for or asked about exorbitant travel expenses, security details or business dealings.

An allegation of corruption is, of course, not proof that corruption took place, but when has the American body politic ever awaited certitude before passing judgment? “The most corrupt presidency and administration we’ve ever had,” says Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University law professor who authored a book titled Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United.

To supporters of the president, charges of corruption are being leveled with undue zeal by anti-Trump forces that will say or do anything to thwart the president’s agenda and lead to his removal from office. “President Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp and is following through on his promises,” White House deputy press secretary Raj S. Shah told me, citing Trump’s executive order on ethics, the elevation to deputy status of ethics lawyers in the White House counsel’s office and “unprecedented steps to rein in waste of taxpayer funds.”

Trump friend Christopher Ruddy, the publisher of conservative outlet Newsmax, laughed off the suggestion that Trump would enter public service to enrich himself, as critics have suggested. At the same time, he added, “I don’t think it’s like they wake up in the morning and say, ‘How can we drain the swamp today?'”

Ruddy thinks Trump can only do so much to fulfill his promise on ethics. “At the end of the day, the swamp rules,” he told me, referencing the enormous class of unelected technocrats that will outlast Trump’s presidency, as well as all the ones that come after.

But according to the presidential historian Robert Dallek, no American leader has acted with more unadulterated self-interest as Trump. Dallek says that in terms of outright corruption, Trump is worse than both Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, presidents who oversaw the most flagrant instances of graft in American political history. Grant’s stellar reputation as a Civil War general is tarnished in part by the Whiskey Ring scandal, in which Treasury Department officials stole taxes from alcohol distillers; members of Harding’s administration plundered oil reserves in Teapot Dome, a rock outcropping in Wyoming that has lent its name to the most notorious example of government corruption in American political history. In both cases, the fault of the president was in his lack of oversight. As far as Dallek is concerned, something more nefarious is at work in the White House of Donald Trump.

“What makes this different,” Dallek says, “is that the president can’t seem to speak the truth about a host of things.” Trump isn’t just allowing corruption, in Dallek’s view, but encouraging it. “The fish rots from the head,” he reminds.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, puts the matter even more bluntly: “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/wcFOHlr_XMTfcFpAAqzjGQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/112353996e2124112e612ee960a97a8aRepublican presidential nominee Donald Trump addresses a campaign rally at the Deltaplex Arena October 31, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. With just eight days until the election, polls show a slight tightening in the race. Chip Somodevilla/Getty

Disgusting Displays of Wealth

On June 29, Secretary of Veterans Affairs David J. Shulkin sent a memorandum to top managers in his department. In the memo, “Essential Employee Travel,” Shulkin outlined a new process by which travel would be approved and documented. “I expect this will result in decreased employee travel and generate savings,” he wrote.

Two weeks later, Shulkin and his wife, Merle Bari, got on a plane and flew from John F. Kennedy International Airport to Copenhagen. With them were three VA staffers and one staffer’s husband. There was also a six-person security detail. “The 10-day trip was not entirely a vacation,” reported The Washington Post. But it wasn’t a three-day conference in Tulsa, either. Shulkin planned the trip so that it began with meetings in Denmark and ended about a week later with meetings in London. In between, there was watching tennis at Wimbledon, visiting medieval castles, touring and shopping. A tourist from Madison, Wisconsin, told the Post she spotted Shulkin and company “whisked to the front of the line” at an attraction in Copenhagen. One of Shulkin’s taxpayer-funded security guards, she said, was hauling a “large number of shopping bags.”

The Post noted that American taxpayers reimbursed Bari for her expenses during the trip, which may have been as high as $3,600 per day. Although some of the other members of the party paid for their travel, taxpayers nevertheless incurred significant costs associated with flights and security. Perhaps it is naïve to expect a Cabinet head to Skype into international gatherings, but the previous VA head, Robert McDonald, had not needed to take a single trip abroad to do his work.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/dk0uOMKqSwrQKEvZK.QwOQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTQ3O2g9NTQ3/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/d125ddc683647534e8c171fcd1cf3f3eSecretary of Veteran Affairs David J. Shulkin Paul Morigi/Getty

Shulkin is one of six Trump Cabinet members being investigated for (or at the very least, being asked uncomfortable questions about) travel or security expenses:

The inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency is investigating its administrator, Scott Pruitt, for what The Washington Post says are “at least four noncommercial and military flights” in the past eight months, these having cost the government more than $58,000. Pruitt has also built himself a $25,000 soundproof booth in his office, for reasons that remain unclear. Pruitt’s personal security detail includes high-ranking EPA investigators who are supposed to be tracking environmental violations.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/aDsidzinG_kqy8fqzXQ2cA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/63f0cba81d5dba48cf45be24732d3ea4Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt Mark Reinstein/Corbis/Getty

Steven T. Mnuchin, the former Goldman Sachs banker who now runs the Treasury Department, is being investigated for commandeering a government jet so that he and his wife, Scottish actress Louise Linton, could see the Great American Eclipse in Lexington, Kentucky. That trip came to light after Linton engaged in a social media spat with an Oregon woman who was disgusted by the couple’s displays of wealth. That same month, Mnuchin took a U.S. Air Force C-37 jet from New York to Washington. The trip cost taxpayers $25,000, and while use of military planes by government officials is common, there are dozens of commercial flights daily that cover the same route. Timothy F. Geithner, who was President Barack Obama’s secretary of the treasury, frequently flew coach when he made that trip.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1eJjuS.otziMKsmYVxJBpw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/823ac6ff9b692b7a2660109599a28896Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty

Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary, is being investigated for travel expenses that include a $12,375 chartered flight to Montana from Las Vegas, where he had attended an event for a hockey team owned by one of his benefactors. Zinke is being investigated for two other chartered flights as well.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/WAkl6MiI2WzEDfL3ERnnQQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/a3b662af874ba87289cafab2224cdfd5Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke Mark Wilson/Getty

Elaine L. Chao, who heads the Transportation Department, has used government planes on at least seven occasions, according to The Washington Post. She is also facing questions about her ownership of stock in Vulcan Materials, a building company that would likely benefit from a $1 trillion infrastructure plan Trump has touted.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/veR2qFD0kwQRaNrcQCsGCg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/5440de7fe73820cb93a28996759f2e9eSecretary of Transportation Elaine Chao Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty

Rick Perry, the energy secretary, took a private plane to visit “a uranium facility in Piketon, Ohio,” in late September, according to Reuters. He once also, the same outlet reported, flew into “a private airport in Kansas that was within a 45-minute drive of Kansas City International Airport.”

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/rICE8fsFlex4LzeN26O.XQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NDk0O2g9NDkz/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/b66f09eab8e11fba8f21fbbd9bfcb574Energy Secretary Rick Perry Alex Wong/Getty

Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, pays for her private flights (she is a billionaire), but she uses security from the U.S. Marshals Service, a highly unusual move that will cost the American taxpayer about $1 million per month. She is the first education secretary to have such extensive protection in recent history.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/T7vQQpezOea7toUQwowfcA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzY1O2g9NzY1/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/fc60d1c6f85415c127eba8d378f93a6fEducation Secretary Betsy DeVos Win McNamee/Getty

Chiding chatter about the Trump administration’s high-flying ways began when Politico reporters Dan Diamond and Rachana Pradhan got a tip that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price was using private planes to jet around the globe, infuriating already-demoralized HHS employees back home with grating dispatches from Switzerland, Liberia and elsewhere. As Diamond and Pradhan wrote, the “notoriously secretive Cabinet secretary” had not been forthcoming about his travel records, in keeping with the Trump administration’s broader aversion to releasing records unless forced to. Their shoe-leather reporting included waiting at the charter terminal at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, hoping to see Price entering or leaving a private jet.

Diamond and Pradhan published their initial story on Price’s private-jet travel on September 19, their details dredged from the very swamp Trump promised to drain: costly chartered flights to Philadelphia, when Amtrak would have sufficed, as well as a trip to the Aspen Ideas Festival, a potent symbol of the elitism Trump had denounced during the campaign.

Trump was furious, and Price resigned at the end of the month, after offering to pay back $52,000 of his travel costs. The total cost of his taxpayer-funded jaunts is estimated to be $1 million.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/h9vpBVmJ3O4._qSeUz4wgw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/54369063c8f67ecfd274c9af19cf04f2Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price Zach Gibson/Getty

This behavior is outrageous—but also puzzling, since Trump’s Cabinet has been estimated to be worth at least $4 billion, making this White House the wealthiest in American history. These were people, we’d been told, who were sacrificing lucrative private-sector posts to work in the service of the American people. Now, those very same “forgotten Americans” were paying for Mnuchin, worth as much as $500 million, because he apparently didn’t want to go through airport security. In his Cabinet are many people who went to Ivy League universities, worked for Fortune 500 corporations. They had to know better. And if they didn’t, how can we trust them?

“Power and stupidity are close companions,” said Teachout when I asked her to explain how so many Cabinet members could make the same mistake, and make it so frequently. “They are actually living in a world in which they can’t see the ways in which they are being corrupted,” she speculated. “You’re so powerful that you don’t even understand that a chartered flight isn’t a right.”

A senior White House noted that it had not been the White House’s job to micromanage Cabinet-level travel plans in prior administrations. Now, those plans need approval from Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. David J. Apol, who heads the Office of Government Ethics, recently wrote a memorandum that had him “deeply concerned that the actions of some in Government leadership have harmed perceptions about the importance of ethics.” (OGE would not make Apol available for an interview with Newsweek.)

But Apol’s dismay, however welcome, is not enough for all those who believe the Trump administration is unwilling to face up to its ethical shortcomings. “You don’t see any shame here,” says E.J. Dionne Jr., the Washington Post columnist and co-author of the new book One Nation After Trump.

“And that’s really disturbing.”

The Great Enabler

On the morning of November 9, Teachout was dealing with a personal political loss: The night before, she had lost to Republican John J. Faso for a House of Representatives seat in the Hudson River Valley, north of New York City. Teachout had run an anti-corruption campaign, while Faso was a fairly conventional Northeastern Republican who never resolved his apparent unease about Trump. Voters apparently did not mind.

Sometime that day, she spoke to a Clinton critic who may have voted for Trump (he only revealed that he hadn’t voted for Clinton). “I just want to put a stick in the stream,” he told her. The vote a small act of defiance, since New York State was safely Democratic. But even a small vote can be telling. By possibly casting a ballot for Trump, the man indicated his profound exasperation with the political system, as well as his conviction that only a wholesale reimagination of what government did—and how—could make Americans believe in government again. Even if it wasn’t clear what Trump meant by “drain the swamp,” the image powerfully evoked a righteous cleansing, a renewal of the tired, infertile land.

“The language of corruption is incredibly powerful,” Teachout says, and Trump’s campaign harnessed that power to great effect. But the transition to governing presented new challenges, foremost among them questions about the inscrutable, transnational Trump Organization, which has included everything from a line of steaks to a new hotel in the heart of D.C., in a building leased from the very federal apparatus he now controls.

On January 11, just days before the presidential inauguration, Trump held a press conference at Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan to address ethics issues surrounding his administration. “I could actually run my business and run the government at the same time,” he boasted. His tax lawyer, Sheri A. Dillon, described a vague arrangement in which Trump would not manage his businesses, but also not disassociate from them. On a table next to Trump were stacks of papers, presumably relating to his finances. A reporter’s photograph suggested the papers were blank, just for show.

“The tone was set by the president when he decided not to divest,” says Walter M. Shaub Jr., who’d been appointed by Trump’s predecessor, Obama, as the head of OGE, and who remained in that post during the transition and first five and a half months of Trump’s tenure. He says this administration “came in unprepared for the rigors” of working within the federal government, “unaware of the fact that there are many requirements and a culture of accountability to the public.”

Shaub blames a lot of the ethical lapses on White House counsel Donald McGahn II, whom he charges with fostering an anything-goes atmosphere by interpreting rules and laws in ways that allowed Trump to skirt them. “He has been the great enabler. And he has been an amplifier of the message that ethics doesn’t matter.” McGahn did not respond to a Newsweek request for comment.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Hb0bckytn4n.EnMNuUsz4w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/c460561f8e45d487d51bd16ba5541748Don McGahn, then general counsel for the Trump transition team, in the lobby at Manhattan’s Trump Tower on November 15, 2016. Now, as White House counsel, McGahn represents the Office of the Presidency, which comprises the chief executive and also the White House staff and the institution as a whole. Drew Angerer/Getty

A senior White House official who was only authorized to speak on background disputed the assertion that the Trump administration has not made ethics a priority. He says the lawyers working on ethics issues in the White House are “not shrinking violets” and points to the elevation of their office to deputy status, presumably giving those lawyers greater sway. The office is headed by Stefan C. Passantino, deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president, who, upon his appointment, was praised by Howard Dean, a former Democratic primary candidate for the presidency and governor of Vermont. “I have a lot of confidence that he will be clear about what the ethical and legal boundaries are in his advice to the White House,” Dean said at the time.

One individual who worked with Passantino in the early days of the Trump administration described him as courteous and eager about toiling in the federal government’s employ, a welcome contrast to the surly attitudes of some other high-ranking Trump officials. At the same time, this individual says Passantino was diligently figuring out how to dismantle regulations. He notes that among Passantino’s previous legal clients is Gingrich, who was sanctioned by the House of Representatives over ethical violations.

A telling episode took place on February 9, when senior administration counselor Kellyanne Conway went on Fox & Friends to defend Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and one of his most trusted advisers. Ivanka also runs a fashion business, but Nordstrom’s had recently dropped her line after protests by liberal activists who sought to have the department store sever all affiliations with the Trump family. Conway defended Ivanka, speaking on live television from the White House: “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would tell you.… I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody.”

This seemed a flagrant violation of ethics rules, which prohibit elected officials from endorsing a commercial enterprise. Shaub sent a letter to Passantino, informing him that “there is strong reason to believe that Ms. Conway has violated the Standards of Conduct and that disciplinary action is warranted.” Passantino wrote back that Conway “made the statement in question in a light, off-hand manner while attempting to stand up for a person she believed had been unfairly treated and did so without nefarious motive or intent to benefit personally.” In a footnote, Passantino interpreted federal rules to conclude that Shaub’s office, OGE, did not have oversight over the executive office of the president, meaning that he could not sanction Conway over the endorsement.

Shaub was stunned. “The assertion is incorrect, and the letter cites no legal basis for it,” he wrote Passantino. To him, this was evidence that the Trump administration sought not only to disregard ethics rules, but to actively dismantle them. He quit OGE on July 6 and deemed the administration he was leaving behind “pretty close to a laughingstock.” He has been making similarly withering critiques on social media and CNN, which he joined as a contributor in September.

Shaub’s migration to cable news has annoyed supporters of President Trump. Another CNN regular is Richard W. Painter, who was the chief ethics lawyer for George W. Bush and is vice chair of the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, suing Trump over the emoluments clause. Another CREW member, its chair and sometime CNN commentator, is Norman L. Eisen, who occupied the same position in the White House of President Obama. The White House senior official I spoke to expressed dismay at this “machinery” of outrage, calibrated perfectly to a liberal viewing audience.

When I raised these concerns to Shaub, he laughed them off as “deeply cynical.” He knew that the White House thought of him. He wasn’t bothered by it.

It’s a Swamp Thing; You Wouldn’t Understand

The most significant action by Trump to drain the swamp was taken a week into his presidency. On January 28, he signed Executive Order 13770, titled “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees.” All such appointees had to pledge that they would not lobby the agency to which they were appointed for five years after leaving it; they would abide by restrictions regarding contact with agency officials; would not lobby foreign governments after working for the administration; would not accept gifts from lobbyists; and would follow other regulations.

Shah calls it “the most sweeping Executive Order in U.S. history to end the revolving door” between 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the lobbying firms of K Street, singling out the injunction against foreign lobbying in particular. In some ways, the order is not dissimilar from what was in place during the Obama administration.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/1BbY51K4p3NcmeOqHMHQAg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/f97be172002c2eb992f4ed12cb4e5340US President Donald Trump signs an executive order on ethics commitments by the executive branch appointees in the Oval Office of the White House on January 28, 2017, in Washington, DC MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty

But Eisen thinks the widespread granting of ethics waivers by the administration—that is, permits to violate the new rules—completely undermine the executive order. “They’ve made a mockery of the executive order and of ethics in general,” he cried out when I called him, claiming that the Trump administration has “virtually no standard” on how such waivers are granted. Fourteen such waivers had been granted as of May 31.

While Trump officials have described the executive order as being not much different from the one that guided the Obama administration, Eisen finds that assertion preposterous: “It’s an ethics calamity of a kind we have never seen in modern presidential history.” In June, a liberal super PAC called American Bridge 21st Century found 74 lobbyists working in the administration, 49 of them in agencies they once lobbied on behalf of clients. The new deputy administrator of the EPA, for example, is former coal lobbyist Andrew R. Wheeler.

“This will not take away one vote,” says Sam Nunberg, a longtime Trump associate who was fired from the presidential campaign in 2015.

That may be the case. It may also be shortsighted. Painter, the former Bush lawyer, is a Republican “Never Trumper” who endorsed Clinton in the general election. He thinks Trump isn’t just eviscerating ethics laws but destroying the conservative movement that, for decades, preached moral responsibility and fiscal prudence. “This,” he laments, “could be the end of the Republican Party.”

Cummings, the Democrat from Maryland, has begun to investigate the travel habits of Trump administration cabinet members. Yet he believes that Republicans will ultimately protect the president himself. “They’ve come to basically accept his conduct,” Cummings told me.”The things he is doing, he could not do without the Republicans in Congress aiding and abetting.” It is not clear what they will get in return. If Painter is right, it won’t be much.

As for the “drain the swamp” plan, with its vision of purified Washington? I managed to find the link to the original press release and, feeding it into my browser, was transported to those late October days when pundits mused about whether Clinton would take Arizona and whether Trump would start a television network of his own.

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/cy6CQtxsdAE68hYMswY.dw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzUwO2g9NjAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/8e78fe3ce184813901f50c6f79685cbc

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

More from Newsweek

Illinois Republican Governor Rauner Trashes Illinois, But Forgets About Governor Dayton’s Record in Minnesota.

Illinois Working Together

 

Rauner Trashes Illinois But Forgets Minnesota

We don't have to join the race to the bottom to move Illinois to the top.

Posted by Illinois Working Together on Tuesday, October 31, 2017

We don’t have to join the race to the bottom to move Illinois to the top.

“You Can’t Go Any Lower”: Inside the West Wing, Trump Is Apoplectic as Allies Fear Impeachment

Vanity Fair    Trump White House

“You Can’t Go Any Lower”: Inside the West Wing, Trump Is Apoplectic as Allies Fear Impeachment

After Monday’s indictments, the president blamed Jared Kushner in a call to Steve Bannon, while others are urging him to take off the gloves with Robert Mueller.

Gabriel Sherman         November 1, 2017

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59f9dec9f212136c0b484a98/master/w_1800,c_limit/GettyImages-861990530.jpgUS-POLITICS-TRUMP-hive.jpg      US President Donald Trump speaks alongside his daughter, Ivanka Trump (L) and her husband, Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner (R) during a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC, October 16, 2017.  By SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images.

Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. He’s fucked.”

The first charges in the Mueller probe have kindled talk of what the endgame for Trump looks like, according to conversations with a half-dozen advisers and friends of the president. For the first time since the investigation began, the prospect of impeachment is being considered as a realistic outcome and not just a liberal fever dream. According to a source, advisers in the West Wing are on edge and doing whatever they can not to be ensnared. One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.

The consensus among the advisers I spoke to is that Trump faces few good options to thwart Mueller. For one, firing Mueller would cross a red line, analogous to Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during Watergate, pushing establishment Republicans to entertain the possibility of impeachment. “His options are limited, and his instinct is to come out swinging, which won’t help things,” said a prominent Republican close to the White House.

Trump, meanwhile, has reacted to the deteriorating situation by lashing out on Twitter and venting in private to friends. He’s frustrated that the investigation seems to have no end in sight. “Trump wants to be critical of Mueller,” one person who’s been briefed on Trump’s thinking says. “He thinks it’s unfair criticism. Clinton hasn’t gotten anything like this. And what about Tony Podesta? Trump is like, When is that going to end?

According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call.

When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation. “Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg said. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.” (The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment by deadline.)

As Mueller moves to interview West Wing aides in the coming days, advisers are lobbying for Trump to consider a range of stratagems to neutralize Mueller, from conciliation to a declaration of all-out war. One Republican explained Trump’s best chance for survival is to get his poll numbers up. Trump’s lawyer Ty Cobb has been advocating the view that playing ball will lead to a quick resolution (Cobb did not respond to a request for comment).

But these soft-power approaches are being criticized by Trump allies including Steve Bannon and Roger Stone, who both believe establishment Republicans are waiting for a chance to impeach Trump. “The establishment has proven time and time again they will fuck Trump over,” a Bannon ally told me.

In a series of phone calls with Trump on Monday and Tuesday, Bannon told the president to shake up the legal team by installing an aggressive lawyer above Cobb, according to two sources briefed on the call. Bannon has also discussed ways to pressure Congress to defund Mueller’s investigation or limit its scope. “Mueller shouldn’t be allowed to be a clean shot on goal,” a Bannon confidant told me. “He must be contested and checked. Right now he has unchecked power.”

Bannon’s sense of urgency is being fueled by his belief that Trump’s hold on power is slipping. The collapse of Obamacare repeal, and the dimming chances that tax reform will pass soon—many Trump allies are deeply pessimistic about its prospects—have created the political climate for establishment Republicans to turn on Trump. Two weeks ago, according to a source, Bannon did a spitball analysis of the Cabinet to see which members would remain loyal to Trump in the event the 25th Amendment were invoked, thereby triggering a vote to remove the president from office. Bannon recently told people he’s not sure if Trump would survive such a vote. “One thing Steve wants Trump to do is take this more seriously,” the Bannon confidant told me. “Stop joking around. Stop tweeting.”

Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the controversial Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled a large subset of the uranium in the United States). It’s a bit of a bank shot, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”

We need new fairy stories and folk tales to guide us out of today’s dark woods

The Guardian

We need new fairy stories and folk tales to guide us out of today’s dark woods

Andrew Simms            November 1, 2017

In these perilous times, progressives must create narratives that shine a light on crises such as climate change and the plight of refugee

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ee9ab3e38e1073dc8fe16a3aac4a1f03bf983798/0_0_3477_2587/master/3477.jpg?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=b4a80ad19383768a09360f0aa1df59aaIllustration from a Brothers Grimm Snow White fairy-tale, circa 1900 ‘Our daily lives seems to have become as dark and disturbing as anything dreamed up by the brothers Grimm.’ Photograph: INTERFOTO / Alamy/Alamy

With natural forces running amok and wolves prowling in the shady woods of our workplaces, reality seems stranger than a folk tale or fairy story. Our daily lives seem to have become as dark and disturbing as anything dreamed up by the brothers Grimm, or written down by Charles Perrault, the great 17th-century chronicler of folk and fairytales.

Folk tales emerge in times of upheaval, and from societies’ grimmest moments. They enable us to process and assimilate extreme experience, and deal with our fears. They also, typically, communicate powerful and uncompromising moral narratives. It’s not hard to draw a map of current major global problems with reference to them.

The most powerful kingdom in the world, for example, falls into the hands of a ruler who is equal parts the insatiable, comfortless greed of Midas, and the vanity of Narcissus, who disdains those who love him, and the self-delusions of the naked emperor. Remind you of anyone?

And just as it may be the season of flamboyant, escapist horror, it can be frightening when we discover that places we thought, or trusted to be safe, turn out to be concealing predators. Almost daily at the moment, another male impresario or figure with other power is revealed as the wolf that befriends with an ulterior motive the young and vulnerable, or perhaps the charming vampire seeking to satisfy its lust.

This, of course, is one of the other functions of folk tales – they are cautionary and teach us to identify risks. Across cultures you will find stories designed to keep us away from danger, with many applicable to a warming world.

The kelpies of Scottish folklore carried children to watery graves, while the Inuit told tales of the Qallupilluit, who lived beneath the ice and would steal children through its melting cracks.

One of our greatest contemporary threats is our wholesale abuse of the natural world. Seas are polluted with plastic and acidifying, the atmosphere loaded with more carbon dioxide than human civilization has ever experienced, and a mass extinction event underway, visible recently in the large-scale die-off of insect life. Folk tales are a guide to the consequences of such short-sighted self-centeredness.

King Canute was the monarch who vainly tried to command the seas not to rise. In fact Canute was demonstrating the opposite to his courtiers, the ultimate limits of kingly power and humankind’s attempts to command nature.

And the story of killing the goose that lays the golden egg in order to extract its riches, and finding nothing, stands as a parable for how we over-exploit the environment everywhere from our seas, to our forests, farms, fossil fuel extraction and more.

Folk tales and myths are especially strong on hubris, with the tale of Icarus and Daedalus sharply dividing Icarus, who fails to accept the limits of the material world, overreaches and crashes, from the wiser Daedalus, who still manages to fly, but not too near the sun. Icarus strikes a Richard Branson-like figure, or the head of an oil company still exploring for oil we cannot afford to burn. Daedalus is the smart entrepreneur switching to wind and solar power.

So much accumulated wisdom in tales mocks our multiple current follies. But that is partly because, in campaigning for change, the art of storytelling has been too often replaced with reliance on a deluge of facts and polices.

Progressives have learned the hard way in an age of Brexit and Trump that it is messages that resonate with mythologies – such as “making America great again” tapping the former frontier optimism of nation-builders, or “taking back control” for the brave, resilient island – are impervious to fact and rational argument. In both you might also glimpse the village whipped up by the charismatic trickster who appears in its midst, into a fury of self-destructive suspicion and isolation. If you want change to happen, you have to change deeply embedded cultural narratives.

Progressive politics needs better stories as much as it needs facts and policies. Without them it will flail and flounder. That’s why a group of leading scientists, economists and ecologists recently put facts momentarily to one side, and wrote modern folk tales for troubling times in an experiment to communicate issues of concern more compellingly.

In Knock Twice, the resulting collection, one of the world’s leading authorities on climate and geo-hazards, Bill McGuire, weaves a story of refugees from rising sea levels slipping through immigration controls. Jayati Ghosh, one of India’s leading economists, who has written about women’s extreme inequality in the labor market, spins a tale about a young woman, Chitrangada, who rejects the role assigned for her. Bluebeard & Partners by Anthea Lawson, a leading authority on corporate corruption, exposes a world of tax avoiding shell companies. They are joined by the former head of a cabinet office inquiry into public services, with an unusual re-reading of Puss-in-Boots, and the head of a UN inquiry into designing a sustainable financial system imagining an all-powerful phone app.

Most tales, at some level, present a rite of passage through difficulty to maturity, awareness or resolution. Now, more than ever, it feels like we need new tales to lead us through our troubling times.

Andrew Simms is the editor of Knock Twice: 25 Modern Folk Tales for Troubling Times.

The Plot Against America

The New York Times

The Plot Against America

Michelle Goldberg            October 30, 2017

Photohttps://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/10/31/opinion/31goldbergWeb/31goldbergWeb-master768.jpgPaul Manafort appeared in the Federal District Court in Washington on Monday. Credit Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

On Monday morning, after America learned that Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Manafort’s lobbying partner, Rick Gates, had been indicted and turned themselves in to federal authorities, the president tried to distance himself from the unfolding scandal. “Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign,” the president wrote in one tweet. A few minutes later, he added, in another, “Also, there is NO COLLUSION!”

At almost the exact same time, news broke suggesting that the F.B.I. has evidence of collusion. We learned that one of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy aides, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his attempts to solicit compromising information on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. Despite Trump’s hysterical denials and attempts at diversion, the question is no longer whether there was cooperation between Trump’s campaign and Russia, but how extensive it was.

In truth, that’s been clear for a while. If it’s sometimes hard to grasp the Trump campaign’s conspiracy against our democracy, it’s due less to lack of proof than to the impudent improbability of its B-movie plotline. Monday’s indictments offer evidence of things that Washington already knows but pretends to forget. Trump, more gangster than entrepreneur, has long surrounded himself with bottom-feeding scum, and for all his nationalist bluster, his campaign was a vehicle for Russian subversion.

We already knew that Manafort offered private briefings about the campaign to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The indictment accuses him of having been an unregistered foreign agent for another Putin-aligned oligarch, the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. Trump wasn’t paying Manafort, who reportedly sold himself to the candidate by offering to work free. But he intended to profit from his connection with the campaign, emailing an associate, “How do we use to get whole?” If there were no other evidence against Trump, we could conclude that he was grotesquely irresponsible in opening his campaign up to corrupt foreign infiltration.

But of course there is other evidence against Trump. His campaign was told that Russia wanted to help it, and it welcomed such help. On June 3, remember, the music publicist Rob Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr. to broker a Trump Tower meeting at which a Russian source would deliver “very high level and sensitive information” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. responded with delight: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

The guilty plea by Papadopoulos indicates what information Trump Jr. might have been expecting. An obscure figure in foreign policy circles, Papadopoulos was one of five people who Trump listed as foreign policy advisers during a Washington Post editorial board meeting last year. A court filing, whose truth Papadopoulos affirms, says that in April 2016, he met with a professor who he “understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials.” The professor told him that Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, including “thousands of emails.” (The Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta had been hacked in March.)

In the following months, Papadopoulos and his supervisors emailed back and forth about plans for a campaign trip to Russia. According to the court filing, one campaign official emailed another, “We need someone to communicate that D.T. is not doing these trips.” D.T. clearly stood for Donald Trump. The email continued, “It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

Thanks to an August Washington Post story, we know that this email was sent by Manafort. Some have interpreted the exchange to mean that Manafort wanted a low-level person to decline the invitation, not to go to Russia. But the court filing also cites a “campaign supervisor” encouraging Papadopoulos and “another foreign policy adviser” to make the trip. Papadopoulos never went to Russia, but the foreign policy adviser Carter Page did.

So here’s where we are. Trump put Manafort, an accused money-launderer and unregistered foreign agent, in charge of his campaign. Under Manafort’s watch, the campaign made at least two attempts to get compromising information about Clinton from Russia. Russia, in turn, provided hacked Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.

Russia also ran a giant disinformation campaign against Clinton on social media and attempted to hack voting systems in at least 21 states. In response to Russia’s election meddling, Barack Obama’s administration imposed sanctions. Upon taking office, Trump reportedly made secret efforts to lift them. He fired the F.B.I. director James Comey to stop his investigation into “this Russia thing,” as he told Lester Holt. The day after the firing, he met with Russia’s foreign minister and its ambassador to America, and told them: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

We’ve had a year of recriminations over the Clinton campaign’s failings, but Trump clawed out his minority victory only with the aid of a foreign intelligence service. On Monday we finally got indictments, but it’s been obvious for a year that this presidency is a crime.