We begin today’s roundup with analysis from Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman regarding the Russia investigation:
There are few other publicly known examples of Mr. Mueller using subpoenas. In January, he ordered the president’s former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, to appear before a grand jury. Mr. Mueller dropped the subpoena after Mr. Bannon agreed to be interviewed by investigators.
Mr. Mueller could run afoul of a line the president has warned him not to cross. Though it is not clear how much of the subpoena is related to Mr. Trump’s business outside ties to Russia, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The New York Times in July that the special counsel would be crossing a red line if he looked into his family’s finances beyond any relationship with Russia. The president declined to say how he would respond if he concluded that the special counsel had crossed that line.
The New York Times editorial board says sanctions announced by the Trump administration are a start but aren’t enough:
The sanctions announced on Thursday affect five Russian organizations and 19 individuals cited for spreading disinformation and propaganda to disrupt the election.
While this was Mr. Trump’s most significant anti-Russia move, these are the same entities identified by Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian meddling, in a recent indictment and only add two new senior Russian officials, with ties to military intelligence, to the list Mr. Obama sanctioned in 2016, according to Representative Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The penalties need to go further, subjecting Mr. Putin’s wealthy cronies and their families to sanctions like travel bans and asset freezes that would put even more pressure on the Russian leader.
Still no condemnation from President Trump himself, of course.
Here is analysis by Cristian Farias on the matter:
Unlike a sit-down with Trump, which Mueller is still trying to negotiate with his legal team, subpoenas are nonnegotiable and extremely hard to quash. The Trump Organization has already turned over documents requested by congressional investigators, but Mueller’s request is likely far more focused than those of his counterparts on Capitol Hill, who made theirs back in the summer and are yet to produce anything of substance. Trump has warned that any snooping by the special counsel into his business dealings would cross a red line, but Mueller doesn’t seem to care. He’s going to get the documents he needs whether Trump likes it or not. This is business as usual for him.
Meanwhile:
Two top House Democrats said Thursday that they have proof the Trump administration engaged in an intentional effort to rid the State Department of career officials they suspected of being “disloyal” to President Trump, citing documents a whistleblower gave to the panel. [...] “Over the past year, we have heard many reports of political attacks on career employees at the State Department, but we had not seen evidence of how extensive, blunt, and inappropriate these attacks were until now,” Reps. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) and Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) wrote in the letter.
Christine Emba at The Washington Post:
A memo leaked to HuffPost last week revealed that the housing secretary has plans to change the mission statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, by stripping out the phrase “free from discrimination” and cutting references to “quality homes” and “inclusive communities.” A new, shorter statement will emphasize “self-sufficiency” and “opportunity,” in line with Carson’s stated distaste for desegregation initiatives and intense fear that someone might accidentally feel comfortable in public housing.
It’s not the first such change to take place under the watchful eyes of President Trump’s agency appointees. Last month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services eliminated the phrase “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” from its mission statement; in the new version, CIS is focused on “securing the homeland.” This past summer, officials at the State Department scrubbed the word “democracy” from theirs.
Christine Rampell analyzes the GOP tax scam and the plan to cut taxes for the wealthy even more:
Bafflingly, the party of fiscal conservatism has looked at all these factors and decided: Yup, now is definitely the time to dump even more tax cuts on the federal tab.
The question is: Why? Why gorge on more tax cuts, especially now?
Sure, public perception of the new tax law has improved from the bottom-of-the-barrel ratings it received in December. But approval ratings have leveled off since January, with only about 4 in 10 Americans saying they like it.
On a final note, don’t miss this piece by John Nichols on the need for the party to embrace unions:
Americans of all backgrounds have experienced jarring economic and social shifts—a globalization revolution, a digital revolution, an automation revolution—that are making them feel insecure about their futures. Just as unions addressed the insecurities of the past, they are needed to get address the insecurities of this time.
Conor Lamb recognized this reality, made common cause with the labor movement and won. His fellow Democrats would be wise to do the same.