We begin today’s roundup with The New York Times and its editorial calling for answers in the apparent murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi:
At issue here is not only Mr. Khashoggi, however terrible his fate. It is that an absolute monarchy with a dismal record on human rights and justice seems to believe that its vast oil wealth and friends in the White House allow it to act with impunity against critics and perceived foes. The Saudi-led slaughter in Yemen should have stopped American arms sales some time ago; now, unless the Saudis come up with a credible explanation for Mr. Khashoggi’s fate, which is tragically unlikely, business as usual is not an option, however high the cost.
At The Washington Post, Dana Milbank highlights Jared Kushner’s ties to the Saudi regime through a tale:
But for all Prince Jared possessed, he did not have what he wanted most dearly: Saudi money. With envy, Jared saw how the Saudis spent millions at his father-in-law’s hotels. Could he not obtain their money, too? “Please, father,” Jared beseeched the king. “Take me to that wonderful land.” [...]
Older and wiser courtiers in the House of Orange — the Marquis of Mad Dog and the Earl of Exxon — cautioned Jared against his romancing of [Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman], but Jared was charmed. Prince Charming had found his Prince Charming. Or so he thought!
Paul Krugman focuses his column on the “deadly deniers” who still refuse to acknowledge climate change:
[T]he very multiplicity of climate-denial arguments — the deniers’ story keeps changing, but the bottom line that we should do nothing remains the same — is a sign that the opponents of climate action are arguing in bad faith. They aren’t seriously trying to engage with the reality of climate change or the economics of reduced emissions; their goal is to keep polluters free to pollute as long as possible, and they’ll grab onto anything serving that goal. [...]
[A]bout the cost of climate policy: I’ve noted in the past how strange it is that conservatives have total faith in the power and flexibility of market economies, but claim that these economies will be completely destroyed if the government creates incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Apocalyptic claims about the cost of reducing emissions are especially strange given tremendous technological progress in renewable energy: The costs of wind and solar power have plummeted. Meanwhile, coal-fired power plants have become so uncompetitive that the Trump administration wants to subsidize them at the expense of cleaner energy.
At The Week, Ryan Cooper calls for the IRS to do more to go after the tax-cheating elites:
It's highly, highly likely that many of the financial vampires heading to Saudi Arabia aren't paying what they owe. Staffing up the IRS with aggressive analysts and auditors and siccing them specifically on the top 1 percent is likely to cut income inequality substantially and rake in a tidy sum for Uncle Sam. [...] Republicans have steadily strangled the budget and workforce of the IRS, more-or-less explicitly because that powerfully enables right-wing politics. The more tax that wealthy donors can dodge, the more that is available for campaign contributions and wingnut welfare "think tanks." But the converse of that reality is that simply forcing the rich to pay taxes is a powerful engine of egalitarian politics. (Given all the recent Republican tax cuts, today that would require increasing statutory tax rates as well.) It's a safe bet that would also take a sizable bite out of the Saudi lobbying industry, as laundering foreign bribes is one of the most common tax crimes committed nowadays (witness, again, Paul Manafort).
Jeffrey Toobin analyzes the Harvard admissions lawsuit at The New Yorker:
[A]t its core, the lawsuit reflects the American conservative movement’s legal and political assault on people of color, which has been endorsed and abetted by President Trump. The Trump Administration has sought to limit voting rights, backing voter-suppression efforts; it has demonized immigrants; the President himself has repeatedly targeted prominent African-Americans for abuse. The Trump Administration is also supporting the Harvard lawsuit.
Don’t miss this Atlantic piece by McKay Coppins on the vile career and politics of Newt Gingrich:
There’s something about Newt Gingrich that seems to capture the spirit of America circa 2018. With his immense head and white mop of hair; his cold, boyish grin; and his high, raspy voice, he has the air of a late-empire Roman senator—a walking bundle of appetites and excesses and hubris and wit. In conversation, he toggles unnervingly between grandiose pronouncements about “Western civilization” and partisan cheap shots that seem tailored for cable news. It’s a combination of self-righteousness and smallness, of pomposity and pettiness, that personifies the decadence of this era.
On a final note, Eugene Robinson explains how Donald Trump’s relentless lying is hurting our democracy:
President Trump’s constant, relentless, remorseless lying is a central feature of his presidency, an unprecedented threat to our democracy and — in my view — an impeachable offense. [...] And yes, undisputed facts do exist and can be ascertained. I am not talking about subtle matters of interpretation; I’m taking about knowing falsehoods, commonly known as lies. [...]
When Trump insists on his own invented “facts,” he makes reality-based political dialogue impossible. His utter disregard for truth is a subversion of our democracy and a dereliction of his duty as president. The founders considered themselves men of honor whose word was their bond. They left us the vague, encompassing phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” for just such an emergency.