Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

How population growth will impact Republicans in the 2024 election – Yahoo Finance

Reliably Republican-voting states like Texas have undergone population changes that could transform the countrys political landscape, according to anew report from the Brookings Institution.

I think people have been waiting for a long time for Texas to turn from red to blue. It could certainly happen. And if it does happen, then Democrats will have three additional seats in Congress, and three additional votes in the Electoral College, says Brookings Institution demographer William Frey.

The fallingbirth rate in the U.S.and increasing number of deathsover the past decade mean that the U.S. had theslowest population growthin history. The projected population growth between 2010 and 2020, is 7.1% even lower than the 7.3% growth during the period of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., holds the gavel as House members vote on article II of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

States such as Vermont, West Virginia, and Illinois are projected to have negative population growth over the past decade. States in the Northeast, including New York, Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, as well as Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa in the Midwest, are projected to see population growth of 0% to 5% from 2010 to 2020.

States seeing the strongest population growth are mainly in the South and West. Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Utah are among the states that have a projected population growth of 15% and above for the past decade, according to Census figures Brookings used in its report. (The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act likely factored in here too: it lowered the cap on state and local tax deductions andaccelerated migration out of high-tax states.)

The Census, taken every 10 years, is meant to help determine how to apportion members of Congress based on each states population. The final numbers will be announced in December 2020. Based on Census projections, Frey estimates that the South and the West will be the big winners in Congressional seats.

Most states in the West are projected to gain seats, except for California which will be losing one seat. Numerous states in the Northeast and Midwest including New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Illinois will be losing one seat in Congress.

Texas is projected to gain three seats, the most of any other state, followed by Florida which will be adding two, and North Carolina with one. Montana, Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado are forecast to add one seat each, according to Brookings.

Graphic by David Foster/Yahoo Finance

Any Congressional reapportionment will surely impact the 2022 midterm elections, as well as the Electoral College and by extension the 2024 presidential elections. (The number of electors for each state is equal to the number of Congressional representatives and senators they have. The District of Columbia is the exception, having three electors.)

The projected change in representation would seem to favor Republicans. Among the states projected to gain seats, five out of seven voted for President Trump in 2016: Texas, Florida, Montana, Arizona, and North Carolina.

Story continues

However, Frey says the reverse might happen: the composition of the population growth in red states like Texas, Florida, or Arizona, could, in fact, favor Democrats and turn those states blue. Part of the reason theyre gaining seats is because the population growth there will be from voting blocs that traditionally dont vote Republican, like Latinos, like African-Americans, like college-educated white women, who might be moving there from bluer states, he says.

But theres a caveat: population changes may also work in favor of Republicans in traditionally blue states that are losing Congressional seats.

States like Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, even in 2016, have turned from a long pattern of voting Democratic to voting Republican, he says adding [Since theyre] not gaining a lot of these new Democratic voters and still retaining a lot of these sort of Republican-leaning voters, [they] may [continue as] Republican voting states. Im not saying that will be the case, but it could be the case based on the demographic shift.

Frey says the 2009 Great Recession curbed domestic migration in the U.S. At the start of the past decade, we were still feeling the aftershocks of the recession and the housing bust, he says.

As the economy gradually began to improve and better job opportunities became available, migration picked up as Americans sought new opportunities in states with lower costs of living. As a result, the population of states like New York and Connecticut shrunk.

For instance, between 2010 and 2013, New York had a population growth ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%. As the economy improved, New York saw negative growth rates from 2015 to 2019.

Meanwhile, states like Texas and North Carolina saw some of the countrys highest influxes over the past year. Texass population grew by 1.3% from July 2018 to July 2019, and North Carolinas grew by 1% over the same time period. Idaho saw 2.1% growth, the highest rate of any state over the past year, according to Brookings.

More from Sibile:

We squandered a major economic recovery: Harvard professor

New Top Gun will be good for Paramount but doesnt change the narrative

Millennials are spending more on almost every vice, survey finds

Wilbur Ross and Ivanka Trump tout womens prison program that teaches coding

Wilbur Ross reveals biggest obstacle for China trade deal

See the article here:
How population growth will impact Republicans in the 2024 election - Yahoo Finance

Devin Nunes: Republicans have ‘active investigation’ into intelligence inspector general – Washington Examiner

House Republicans are investigating Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community inspector general who notified Congress of the whistleblower complaint that sparked an impeachment effort against President Trump.

California Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Sara Carter Show on Monday that Atkinson still faces "serious questions" after his testimony in October, which to this day remains under wraps. Democrats have not released the transcript of that deposition despite mounting pressure by Republicans.

"Everyone needs to see that testimony," Nunes said, adding that the reason it has not been released is "because it's very damaging, not only to the whistleblower but also to Atkinson himself."

Nunes said House Republicans have "an active investigation" open into Atkinson. They have sent a letter to the inspector general, but Nunes said they "gave us a very typical IC response, which is to not answer the question." He also conceded that, as the minority party in the House, Republicans cannot subpoena Atkinson or force him to testify again.

A representative for Atkinson declined to comment for this report.

Atkinson received the complaint from a CIA analyst, whose identity has not yet been confirmed, in August and deemed it to be urgent and credible. The complaint raised concerns about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the Trump pressed for an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden. It also raised concerns about an effort to conceal details of that conversation and others using a highly secure computer system.

Atkinson forwarded the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who did not give the watchdog permission to share it with Congress after seeking guidance from the White House and the Justice Department, but it did allow him to notify them of its existence. After a clash over access with Democratic lawmakers, the complaint was declassified on Sept. 25, the same day the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call was released, and it was made available to the public the next day.

Republicans have complained that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who had a leading role in the House impeachment process, had foreknowledge of the whistleblower's complaint and misled them about what he knew. With some allies of Trump pointing the finger at CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower's lawyers and Democrats have argued that the whistleblower's identity is no longer relevant and that outing the whistleblower would put that person's life in danger.

After testimony by dozens of witnesses, the House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, has been withholding articles of impeachment because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses. The Kentucky Republican said he will not agree in advance to the Democrats' demands.

See the original post here:
Devin Nunes: Republicans have 'active investigation' into intelligence inspector general - Washington Examiner

Will Hurd Wants to Improve the Republican Brand – The New York Times

Representative Will Hurd of Texas occupies a unique position in Republican politics. He is a moderate in a political moment in which moderation is rare. He is also the only black Republican in the House and represents a district Texas border-hugging 23rd that is majority Latino and not Republican. These factors, along with his skill at retail politics and constituent services, have led some observers to point to Hurd as a politician who could help forge a more inclusive future for Republicans. (A few have even speculated about a presidential run in 2024.) Despite his rising-star status, Hurd, who is 42, has already announced that he wont be running for re-election to Congress this fall, choosing instead to find other ways to serve his party. If the Republican Party of America doesnt start looking like America, Hurd said, there wont be a Republican Party in America.

Youre a moderate conservative, but your voting record in the House aligns with President Trumps position about 80 percent of the time. No one would call him a moderate anything. So what does moderate mean to you? I believe that Americans agree on 80 percent of stuff. I try to focus on those things. Thats separate from my voting record. Heres what I know: All the pieces of legislation that Ive introduced under Barack Obama and Donald Trump, theyve supported and ultimately signed. So trying to define a philosophy based on voting record alone is not accurate. Let me step back. What Ive learned, from representing a 50-50 district, is that people care about putting food on the table, having a roof over their head and making sure the people they love are healthy and happy. We focus on those things. If somebody wants to call that moderate, thats up to them.

But how do you define moderate Republicanism? Im a person who believes that the way youll solve problems in the future is the way youve solved them in the past: Empower people, not the government. The way youre going to help people move up the economic ladder is through free markets, not socialism. When it comes to foreign policy, we should be nice with nice guys and tough with tough guys. We should also be making sure that were paying attention to the folks who may not have access to the opportunities that others may have. Thats my governing philosophy. People can use whatever adjective they want to describe that. And can I take a second to clarify your question about the Trump score?

Of course. It oversimplifies votes. The president doesnt write laws; Congress does. Of all the bills Ive put on the presidents desk, he has signed all of them. So the president agrees with me 100 percent of the time. The question also presupposed that all of the presidents positions are wrong. I voted to keep the government open, give disaster relief, for the First Step Act and criminal-justice reform.

When you say that your focus is on the 80 percent of things on which Americans agree, I wonder if that way of looking at things isnt slightly Pollyanna-ish?

I was going to say distorting. Isnt the 20 percent on which people disagree what constitutes the key differences between politicians and the crucial issues for voters? Im not saying the 20 percent is unimportant. But you have a political system in which you win in November by creating contrast. So youre always creating contrast. That is the structural system. The difference with a district like mine is that when you solve problems and work across the aisle, youre rewarded because people on both sides, and independents, ultimately end up voting for someone like me. Thats the kind of system we should have. The only way big things have ever been done in this country is in a bipartisan way.

What have you learned about winning elections in a politically-split community that other Republicans can apply to their own campaigns? Its simple: Dont be a misogynist, dont be a homophobe, dont be a whatever-phobe and show up. You probably have seen the story Ive told about being in Eagle Pass. The first time, I showed up to a party of 700 people, and they were like, Why are you here? My response was, Because I like to drink beer and eat barbecue, too. The second time you show up, theyll shake your hand. The third time you show up, theyll tell you a problem. Ive seen my voting numbers in my community increase, and thats an overwhelmingly Latino, overwhelmingly Democratic district. So winning elections is not some complicated thing. Show up. Listen. Solve problems. Most people probably think, Doesnt every politician do that? The answer is no.

Will Hurd at his victory party in San Antonio after the 2018 midterm elections. Darren Abate/Associated Press

Texas is an increasingly purple state, in part because of the states rising Hispanic population. Is there any concern on your part that your approach the success youve had in connecting with that demographic is undermined by broader divisive Republican rhetoric? Of course. Texas is indeed purple, and when you look at the three largest-growing groups of voters communities of color, women with a college degree who live in the suburbs and people under the age of 35 the Republican brand is not that great. So we have to be able to show those three communities that the Republican Party cares; then we talk about our policies. What often happens is that when one Republican says something crazy, it is taken to apply to all Republicans.

It matters when that one Republican is the president, right? I realize that my megaphone is not as big as others. But the Republican Party is not a monolithic entity.

Im not sure I fully understood the distinction you just made between showing people that the Republican Party cares and its policy. Isnt it possible that Republican branding is not that great among the demographics you identified because the party pursues policies that alienate those voters? No. If people believe that you dont care about them, then theyre not going to listen to your ideas. Even if those ideas are actually helpful. Lets look at economic growth: Unemployment is low. Wages are increasing. I think October was the first time wages increased faster than interest on homes in decades, which is a key indicator. More workers have retirement accounts now than they did before. You could look at those positive actions. But if people believe youre a racist or a misogynist, that is going to get in the way. Have people in my party said racist things? Yes. But that doesnt define the broader party. If you do not think someone cares about your community, its hard for you to evaluate whether theyre doing something thats actually helping you.

But what youre fundamentally talking about is positioning or messaging. Dont you think that, for example, the Republican Partys being the party generally in favor of stricter voter-ID laws laws that have a disproportionately negative effect on communities of color is as much a hindrance to the partys ability to attract voters from those same communities as messaging? Im not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise. Im of the opinion that more people should vote. This notion that we cant be competitive if there are more voters is insane. The more voters, the better off were going to be. Lets fight for every single vote. I was on a panel with a digital director and producer for Dwayne Johnsons studio when Moana came out. She said: If Moana fails at the box office, what are you going to say? Youre going to say it was a crummy movie. By the way, I think Moana was a good movie. Im not implying it was a crummy movie. Then she said, But in politics, if only 30 percent of people come out to vote, we blame the voter. So lets give the voter a better product. Lets make sure everybody has access to that product and can vote. Thats my philosophy.

Does that philosophy have wider traction in the Republican Party? I think its a growing belief. When you have more people voting, thats more work. But there are a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle who dont want increased work. Ill go anywhere. Ill talk to anybody. Ill defend my positions. Ill communicate and listen to communities and say, Hey, how can we be helpful? So its hard for me to say if its a growing perspective or not a growing perspective. Its somewhere between zero and 100 percent.

The other thing that comes up most often when people write about you, besides your being a moderate, is that youre the one black Republican in the House of Representatives. I have two questions about that. The first is whether that fact makes you feel any particular responsibility. The second is how you understand your partys being the same party thats the political home to the Steve Kings and Stephen Millers of the world? Its a statement of fact: I am the only black Republican in the House of Representatives. But I would also say that there have been a number of African-American voters who vote for conservative elected officials. Im also proud that, when you look across the country, there are several dozen African-Americans running for Congress as Republicans. Im pretty sure that number was only three in 2018. Im sure we can sit here and come up with people who identify with the Democratic Party and make the rest of that party cringe when their names are mentioned. I dont think you can define a whole set of people based on outliers.

Its one thing to make somebody cringe. Its another to be credibly accused of espousing white supremacy. This is not something that I monitor. Again, I cant refute or agree with your premise, because I dont track that. I dont follow that.

A big chunk of your district is up against the Mexican border. Whats something happening there that more people should understand? Its a humanitarian crisis. The reason we have this unbelievable pressure at our border is because of violence, lack of economic opportunity and extreme poverty in the Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. If we address their economies and political systems and lack of rule of law, that is going to take away the biggest push factor for what is happening. Also, the country does not treat human smugglers and drug-trafficking organizations the way we treat terrorist organizations. Theyre not considered a national intelligence priority. Why are we not going after the infrastructure that is causing things to be moving illegally back and forth across our borders? I spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the C.I.A. Im the guy who was in the back alleys at 4 oclock in the morning. So I know this is something that we could be solving using more intelligence. And then a third piece is that the technology that were using along the border is super outdated. Theres a program called the innovative tower initiative that uses some of the latest sensor technology so somebody in border patrol can use a smartphone to look at whats over a ridge. Some of that technology exists, but its not pervasive throughout Border Patrol.

Hurd at a news conference outside the Capitol in December, urging the House to pass a new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Are there politically feasible solutions to those push factors you mentioned? Sure. Right now we shouldnt be decreasing aid to those countries. We should be increasing it. USAID and the State Department support a number of initiatives, and one that I think is super effective is that in Honduras and Guatemala, theyve basically purged the local police, then hired new people and taught them community policing. Guess what happened when they did that? You saw violence decrease, and you saw a decrease in the number of people who are leaving those countries to come to the United States illegally. Weve got to be able to grow those kinds of programs. I also believe that we should have a Marshall Plan for that region to address some of these structural issues within its economy and political system. The International Development Bank needs to be involved. The Organization of American States needs to be involved.

Another area youre involved with is cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. How worried are you about the degree of foreign interference in the 2020 elections? Its happening! But whats different about what the Russians and other countries are trying to do in our elections is that disinformation is not technically part of cybersecurity. As a former C.I.A. officer, I categorize disinformation as part of covert action, and counter-covert action is the responsibility of the C.I.A. But the National Security Act of 1947 says the C.I.A. cannot do counter-covert action here in the United States of America. So the entity that is best prepared to deal with countering covert action cant do it. Whose responsibility is it, then? My frustration is that we havent been having enough conversations in Congress to talk about who is focused on this. Defending digital infrastructure is one thing. When it comes to protecting the vote-counting machines, the Department of Homeland Security has been focused on that. Defending against disinformation is very different. Someone says something crazy about somebody else how do you take that idea out of their head? How do you inoculate a community from a message? Its hard.

Given your intelligence and overseas background, what did you take away from the way impeachment witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had their integrity questioned by the president and Fox News? I was in the unit that ultimately prosecuted the war in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. If you would have told me on Sept. 12 that there would not be another major attack on our homeland for 18 years, I would have said youre crazy. The reason there hasnt been is because of the men and women in our military, federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps. Having served alongside these amazing men and women, I know what they do for our country, and the American people got to see the quality of some of our diplomats.

But the question was more about the presidents response to the testimony of those diplomats. Did you think it was fair? Theres no need to criticize these people who are actually going out there and working hard. You dont have to agree with them all the time, but to allow some of the discrediting that went on no, thats crazy. That shouldnt have happened. But the men and women in the diplomatic corps and the intelligence services are doing their job regardless.

Hurd questioning a witness in November during the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Samuel Corum/Pool, via Reuters

What goes through your head when you hear your colleagues refer to the Russia hoax? Im not defending anybody, but I will say this: I do not know a Republican in Congress who does not believe the Russians tried to influence our elections. Everybody agrees with that. When people are saying the Russia hoax, its that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. You know, the intelligence community refers to the Russian activity in our elections as Grizzly Step. That is going to go down in the history of Mother Russia as the greatest covert-action campaign ever. Why? Because we are still debating this issue, even though it is clear that Republicans and Democrats alike believe what was outlined in the first section of Robert Muellers report: that the Russians took extensive measures to try to influence our elections. Both sides need to use better language to articulate this, so that were not contributing to the Russian goals. The Russians want the press to criticize Congress for doing oversight. They want the Congress and the executive branch to be fighting. They want us all to be questioning the value of the news media. When were doing this, guess what were not doing? Talking about how to kick the Russians out of Ukraine because they invaded that country. Or how to prevent the Russians from buying the Venezuelan oil companies and continuing to prop up Nicols Maduro. Or preventing the Russians from going farther into Syria and becoming a real dealmaker in the Middle East. When were fighting one another, were playing into the Russians hands.

Do you believe that bipartisan political consensus and civility is still a real possibility? Its easy for people to be cynical about that. Of course people are cynical. But why does a black Republican continue to get elected in a 71 percent Latino district? Because I reach across the aisle and try to solve problems. There are other examples of that. Has anyone ever clicked on a headline that said Congress Worked? No. Even though the last Congress, under Paul Ryan, signed 990 bills or so into law, and all but 13 were done in a bipartisan way. When I look at the relationships in Congress between members that cross the aisle trying to get things done the people that do that, their voices need to be amplified. When that kind of behavior is rewarded, youre going to see more of it.

Youve been discussed as a possible presidential candidate in 2024. What will the nature of the Republican Party look like then? Or to put it another way, is President Trump a transient anomaly or a transformative figure for the G.O.P.? There was a Republican Party before him; theres going to be a Republican Party after him. When you look at the largest-growing groups of voters, if were not resonating with those communities, its going to be hard for Republicans to be successful in the future. But I also believe that our principles and theories can resonate everywhere. I think we should be going to California. We should be going to New England. We should be engaged in a competition of ideas, and we have to focus on what unites us, not what divides us. When we do that, were going to make sure that our countrys best days are still ahead of us.

That didnt quite answer my question. Surely we can say that there have been transformative figures in the Republican Party, people like Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. Is President Trump one of those figures? He has obviously had an impact on the Republican Party. But I also believe that in this day and age, there are all kinds of folks who identify with the party. Is he the main person to define the party right now? Yes, hes the titular head. But I think a better way of defining the party is based on the people who are voting on behalf of individual politicians. That is what drives the definition of the party: the people who actually vote for the politicians.

David Marchese is a staff writer and the Talk columnist for the magazine.

This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations.

Read the original post:
Will Hurd Wants to Improve the Republican Brand - The New York Times

Three Senate Republicans could decide the rules of the impeachment trial – Vox.com

Four votes. Thats how many Senate Republicans the Democrats have to sway if they want to pass rules for an impeachment trial they consider to be more equitable.

Approving these rules is the first order of business for a Senate trial, though Democrats and Republicans currently remain at an impasse over what theyd like to see. The ongoing fight about these procedures, which will govern things like the daily timing of the trial for President Donald Trump, whether witnesses are called, and other process questions, is set to continue when lawmakers are back from recess on January 3.

Were the 47-member Democratic caucus to stick together, they would still have to convince a handful of their GOP counterparts to buck their party in order to hit the 51 votes required to approve the Senate rules. Similarly, Republicans couldnt afford to lose more than two members of their 53-person conference. According to a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, any resolution that gets a 50-50 tie vote would fail.

Thus far, there are three obvious Republican contenders. Sens. Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins each signaled some willingness to break from the GOP when they didnt sign a resolution condemning the House impeachment inquiry earlier this year and theyre widely viewed as being among the only Republicans whod be willing to do so again.

A fourth, Sen. Lamar Alexander, has also been floated by Democrats, according to Politico. And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is bullish that there are a handful of others who have private reservations about conducting a trial thats pushed through along partisan lines. The universe is larger than you think, he told reporters in December.

These swing votes are expected to be pivotal, given Democrats and Republicans competing demands for the trial rules.

As of now, Democrats are interested in approving rules from the get-go that would include the testimony of at least four witnesses such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton. Republicans, meanwhile, would prefer to punt the question on witnesses until later in the trial, a move that could mean they wouldnt have to deal with the issue at all if theyre successful at pushing through a hasty acquittal.

A vote on these rules effectively kicks off the impeachment trial and offers a glimpse of how partisan these proceedings will continue to be. During former President Bill Clintons trial, the initial rules on procedure were adopted unanimously, though a later motion about witness testimony only passed along party lines.

Whether any Republican lawmakers actually break with their party is an open question. In the House, not a single Republican defected to vote in favor of the articles of impeachment, and the Senate could well see a similar dynamic.

The Senate trial rules have historically been approved at least in part as the impeachment trial is getting underway, and they lay out process specifics.

These details include the amount of time that will be allocated for opening arguments during the trial, the procedure senators must follow to ask questions, and the protocol for calling witnesses. During Clintons trial, lawmakers opted to approve a resolution that tackled the procedural questions first, and only passed a motion dealing with witness testimony once the trial was underway because it was considered more contentious.

This time around, Democrats are interested in approving one resolution before the start of the trial that outlines both topics. So interested, in fact, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wont send the Senate the articles of impeachment the House passed at the end of last year until she sees evidence the trial will meet Democrats definition of fair.

To have a trial with no witnesses and no documents is a sham trial, Schumer said in December. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has told Fox News the GOP wont rule out such testimony, though thats about as far as hes gone.

Democrats worries about fairness have most recently stemmed from comments by McConnell, whos said hes working in total coordination with the White House when it comes to trial protocol. McConnell has also emphasized that hes interested in a quick trial that pretty much gets things over with.

Republicans argue that lawmakers should follow the same process that was used during Clintons impeachment, which involved considering a set of rules on timing first and witnesses later.

My friend the Democratic Leader continues to demand a new and different set of rules for President Trump, McConnell said in December.

Murkowski, Romney, and Collins set themselves apart on the issue of impeachment when they refused to sign on to a resolution that condemned the procedure behind the House inquiry last year. Of the 53 members of the Republican caucus, they were the only three who declined to back it.

Additionally, theyve been among the most vocal in expressing concerns about Trumps conduct with Ukraine and the way that Republican leadership has talked about the impeachment trial.

Over the holidays, Murkowski said she was disturbed about McConnells comments about working with the White House on the trial process, and Collins, too, added that she was open to witness testimony. Romney has refrained from taking a more definitive stance about the trial so far, though hes previously issued some of the strongest GOP condemnations of Trumps behavior.

It remains to be seen if any of this strongly worded criticism becomes anything more than that. Even moderate House Republicans who found Trumps conduct troubling for example, Texas Rep. Will Hurd ultimately determined that there wasnt sufficient evidence for them to break with their party on the subject.

All three senators are also in slightly different politically positions: Neither Romney nor Murkowski faces an immediate reelection fight, while Collins is trying to hang onto her seat in Maine.

Additionally, while this trio is seen as the lawmakers most likely to flip, Democrats need at least one more Republican to swing their way if they want to guarantee a successful rules vote. Although Alexander, a more moderate Republican whos retiring next year, is seen as a contender, hes publicly been more circumspect in his statements on the subject.

The coming week, especially, is expected to reveal more about where lawmakers stand and set the tone for the upcoming trial itself.

View original post here:
Three Senate Republicans could decide the rules of the impeachment trial - Vox.com

What Will Happen to The Trump Toadies? – New York Magazine

This article was featured in One Great Story, New Yorks reading recommendation newsletter. Sign up here to get it nightly.

Irony, declared dead after 9/11, is alive and kicking in Trumps America. Its the concepts of truth and shame that are on life support. The definition of facts has been so thoroughly vandalized that Americans can no longer agree on what one is, and our president has barreled through so many crimes and misdemeanors with so few consequences that its impossible to gainsay his claim that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Donald Trump proves daily that there is no longer any penalty for doing wrong as long as you deny everything, never say youre sorry, and have co-conspirators stashed in powerful places to put the fix in.

No wonder so many fear that Trump will escape his current predicament scot-free, with a foregone acquittal at his impeachment trial in the GOP-controlled Senate and a pull-from-behind victory in November, buoyed by a booming economy, fractious Democrats, and a stacked Electoral College. The enablers and apologists who have facilitated his triumph over the rule of law happily agree. John Kennedy, the Louisiana senator who parrots Vladimir Putins talking points in his supine defense of Trump, acts as if there will never be a reckoning. While he has no relation to the president whose name he incongruously bears, his every craven statement bespeaks a confidence that history will count him among the knights of the buffet table in the gilded Mar-a-Lago renovation of Camelot. He is far from alone.

If we can extricate ourselves even briefly from our fatalistic fog, however, we might give some credence to a wider view. For all the damage inflicted since Inauguration Day 2017, America is still standing, a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump, and the laws of gravity, if not those of the nation, remain in full force. Moral gravity may well reassert its pull, too, with time. Rather than being the end of American history as we know it, the Trump presidency may prove merely a notorious chapter in that history. Heedless lapdogs like Kennedy, Devin Nunes, and Lindsey Graham are acting now as if there is no tomorrow, but tomorrow will come eventually, whatever happens in the near future, and Judgment Day could arrive sooner than they think. That judgment will be rendered by an ever-more demographically diverse America unlikely to be magnanimous toward cynical politicians who prioritized pandering to Trumps dwindling all-white base over the common good.

All cults come to an end, often abruptly, and Trumps Republican Party is nothing if not a cult. While cult leaders are generally incapable of remorse whether they be totalitarian rulers, sexual Svengalis, or the self-declared messiahs of crackpot religions their followers almost always pay a human and reputational price once the leader is toppled. We dont know how and when Donald Trump will exit, but under any scenario it wont be later than January 20, 2025. Even were he to be gone tomorrow, the legacy of his most powerful and servile collaborators is already indelibly bound to his.

Whether these enablers joined his administration in earnest, or aided and abetted it from elite perches in politics, Congress, the media, or the private sector, they will be remembered for cheering on a leader whose record in government (thus far) includes splitting up immigrant families and incarcerating their children in cages; encouraging a spike in racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic vigilantes; leveraging American power to promote ethnic cleansing abroad and punish political opponents at home; actively inciting climate change and environmental wreckage; and surrendering Americas national security to an international rogues gallery of despots.

That selective short list doesnt take into account any new White House felonies still to come, any future repercussions here and abroad of Trumps actions to date, or any previous foul deeds that have so far eluded public exposure. For all the technological quickening of the media pulse in this century, Trumps collaborators will one day be viewed through the long lens of history like Nixons collaborators before them and the various fools, opportunists, and cowards who tried to appease Hitler in America, England, and France before that. Once Trump has vacated the Oval Office, and possibly for decades thereafter, his government, like any other deposed strongmans, will be subjected to a forensic colonoscopy to root out buried crimes, whether against humanity or the rule of law or both. With time, everything will come out it always does. With time, the ultimate fates of those brutalized immigrant and refugee families will emerge in full. And Trumps collaborators, our Vichy Republicans, will own all of it whether they were active participants in the wrongdoing like Jared Kushner, Stephen Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mike Pompeo, and William Barr, or the so-called adults in the room who stood idly by rather than sound public alarms for the good of the Republic (e.g., Gary Cohn, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson), or those elite allies beyond the White House gates who pretended not to notice administration criminality and moral atrocities in exchange for favors like tax cuts and judicial appointments (from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr.).

Such Trump collaborators are kidding themselves if they think that post-Trump image-laundering through good works or sheer historical amnesia will cleanse their names of the Trump taint as easily as his residential complexes in Manhattan have shed their Trump signage. A century of history and not just American history says otherwise.

To take two examples from the Nixon era, the White House criminals Charles Colson and Jeb Stuart Magruder both found God and dedicated themselves to ministries after doing time for Watergate-related crimes. (They were among 69 charged and 25 imprisoned.) But you wont find their ostentatious efforts at spiritual redemption at the top of their Wikipedia entries or referenced more than fleetingly in the vast Nixon-Watergate literature. Nixon lackeys who did nothing illegal generally fared no better: The New Jersey congressman Charles Sandman, a House Judiciary Committee impeachment holdout until a few days before Nixons resignation, lost a seat he had held since 1966 in the subsequent 1974 midterms (48 other GOP members of Congress were wiped out as well) and would wind up the decade dishing out steamed crabs at a joint on the Jersey shore and losing a jury trial on the charge of slandering a police officer. When a Senate counterpart, Ed Gurney of Florida, a vocal Nixon defender on Sam Ervins Watergate Committee, died in 1996, his family tried to keep his death a secret, presumably to avoid renewed attention to his past.

Some Nixon loyalists on Capitol Hill escaped oblivion most notably the Mississippi congressman Trent Lott, from a district that had voted 87 percent for Nixon in 1972 (Nixons strongest in the nation). So did some White House flacks well removed from Watergate like Pat Buchanan and Diane Sawyer. Others, prefiguring Sean Spicers debasement onDancing With the Stars,landed B-list (and lower) media gigs: The Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy appeared on televisionsMiami ViceandMacGyver,and a ditzy Jesuit speechwriter prominent in the White House spin offensive, John McLaughlin, found a secular throne for himself at an odious Beltway chatfest,The McLaughlin Group,after abandoning the priesthood. Like their Trump counterparts, countless Watergate principals wrote tell-all books, many of them best sellers, running the gamut from H.R. HaldemansThe Ends of Powerto John EhrlichmansWitness to Power.

But there arent any die-hard Nixon supporters in either chamber of Congress who are now remembered as patriots, no matter what else they did with their careers before, during, or after his presidency. The figures who live on are those like Ervin and Judge Sirica, who brought Nixon to justice, and, as the historian David Greenberg has noted, those loyalists who abandoned Nixon early, when it mattered.

HuffPost reported in 2017 that the Trump Justice Department took down the portrait of one of the few heroes who stood up to Nixons abuses of power from within his administration, Attorney General Elliot Richardson. Whether Richardsons deaccession was an act of denial, gallows humor, or a conscious or subconscious admission of guilt, it was an impotent gesture not least because Watergate has with time proved an inadequate analogy for Trumps metastasizing scandals. The stench of disrepute that will cling to Trumps collaborators is likely to exceed the posthumous punishment of Nixons dead-enders for the simple reason that Nixons White House horrors werent in the same league.

In both cases, impeachment was driven by the revelations of illegal efforts to sabotage a rival presidential candidate and the ensuing cover-ups. But the gravity of the specifics differ by several orders of magnitude. The cash that Nixon & Co.tapped to fund the break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters (and the subsequent hush money to the burglars) came from his own donors; Trump, by contrast, sought to bankroll his effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens by appropriating nearly $400 million in Congress-mandated foreign aid paid for by taxpayers. And while the Nixon White House hired freelance bumblers to spy on the Democrats, Trump commandeered a cabal of Cabinet officers, diplomats, and Rudy Giulianirecruited thugs to try to muscle the head of state of a foreign ally into doing his bidding.

The disproportionality between Trumps history and Nixons hardly ends there. Trump is not Hitler, but some of his actions, starting with his repeated, barely coded endorsements of white supremacists, suggest its not for want of trying. Nixon and his vice-president, Spiro Agnew, exploited racial resentments and backlash to the civil-rights movement to attract bigots to the GOP through a new southern strategy. Ugly as that was (and is), it pales next to Trump and his campaigns explicit alignment with those fine people who stir hate, bullying, and incendiary alt-right conspiracy theories into an inflammatory dark-web brew. However much Trumps courtiers try to compartmentalize, they cant separate themselves from his flirtations with neo-Nazis.

Nor can Trumps enablers escape the stain of his alliances with murderous neo-Hitlers and neo-Stalins in Russia, Syria, Turkey, Hungary, Brazil, and North Korea. Whatever else is to be said about Nixon, not for a second would he have favored the worldview and national interests of a strongman like Putin over that of America and its allies, or taken Putins word as a former KGB agent over that of Americas own intelligence agencies. Its this aspect of Trumpian rule that sinks to depths previously unfathomable for an American president and makes Trumps collaborators look less like the corrupt government bureaucrats and hacks ofAll the Presidents Menand more like the traitorous elites who wittingly or idiotically enabled Hitler in the 1930s.

The notion of Vichy Republicans is hardly hyperbole. Christopher R. Browning, an American historian of the Holocaust and World War IIera Europe,wrote in theNew York Review of Booksin 2018 that those who rationalized their original support for Trump on the grounds of Better Trump than Hillary and are now reupping for 2020 are channeling those on the right who proclaimed Better Hitler than Blum in France in the 1930s. Such Frenchmen, Browning writes, went so far as to empower their countrys traditional national enemy across the Rhine and its Nazi dictator rather than reelect the sitting prime minister, Lon Blum, a Jewish socialist who would have preserved French democracy. (In defeat, Blum would become an opponent of Vichy and end up in Buchenwald.)

Make no mistake: The current Better Trump than Warren (or Sanders) crowd is repeating this history. Their credo might as well be Better Putin, Erdogan, and Assad than Warren, for Trump is serving as an unabashed proxy for our present-day mini-Hitlers while simultaneously trying to transform American democracy into an Ultimate Fighting Championship ring of chaos, corruption, and dysfunction. Prominent Trump supporters like Kennedy, of course, fiercely deny that they are pro-Putin (even though the president himself never has), but that doesnt vitiate the real-world consequence that by standing with Trump, they are advancing the interests of Russia even as it conducts cyberwar against their own country and threatens some of the same American allies Hitler did.

You dont have to be a card-carrying fascist to collaborate with fascists and help them seize power; you just have to be morally bankrupt and self-serving. As the authoritative American historian of Vichy France, Robert O. Paxton, has pointed out, it was only a rather small minority of Frances wartime collaborators who were motivated by an actual ideological sympathy with Nazism and Fascism to go along with the Nazi puppet regime fronted by Marshal Philippe Ptain in Vichy. A more widespread incentive was personal gain. Others rationalized their complicity by persuading themselves they were acting in the national interest. It would be no surprise if that distribution of motivations persists among Trump collaborators today. Such backers as the financier Stephen Schwarzman and New York real-estate titans like Stephen Ross of Hudson Yards no doubt congratulate themselves on acting in the national interest while pocketing personal gains measured in either political influence or on a profit-and-loss statement.

In France, such ostensible moral distinctions among collaborators were rendered moot in the long-delayed and gruesome postwar reckoning. All roads led to the same destination: Starting in 1942, Vichy shipped some 76,000 Jews in mass deportations to their doom. The exiled were mostly foreign refugees, Paxton writes, who had previously relied upon traditional French hospitality. Their blood was on every collaborators hands. The collaborators common postwar defense that things would have been far worse if they had not been working on the inside was repurposed by the Trump official responsible for the brutal treatment of immigrants who had relied upon traditional American humanity. John F. Kelly Says His Tenure As Trumps Chief of Staff Is Best Measured by What the President Did Not Do read the headline of the exit interview he gave the Los Angeles Times. Good luck with that in the long-term court of public opinion. France wrestled with Vichys legacy for decades before 1995, when the French president Jacques Chirac abjured denial and officially confirmed his nations complicity in the wholesale deportation of Jews.

If you look backat the elite figures who lent their clout and prestige to clearing Hitlers path before or during World War II, its striking how such folly and inhumanity remains immutable across national boundaries and centuries. The amalgam of nationalism, isolationism, and nativism embraced by Trump shares its DNA not just with the Ptainists of France but Neville Chamberlains appeasement cohort in England and America First, the movement whose name Trump appropriated without (of course) knowing what it was. America First, though originating as a campus-centric peace campaign, was hijacked by a rancid mob of Hitler acolytes and peace-at-any-price dupes that included, most famously, Charles Lindbergh. Many of these Hitler enablers had elaborate rationalizations for their actions that mirror those of Trumps highest-profile shills today. Robert Taft, the hard-right isolationist senator from Ohio, wrote the script for Better Trump than Hillaryism nearly a century ago: America should not go to war with Germany, he argued, because there is a good deal more danger of the infiltration of totalitarian ideas from the New Deal circles in Washington than there will ever be from the activities of the Nazis.

Another parallel is exemplified by the Trump collaborator and donor Gordon Sondland, even now, somehow, still the ambassador to the European Union. Hes a zhlubby discount-rack answer to Joseph Kennedy, a far more successful and clever mogul who served as Franklin Roosevelts ambassador to the U.K. from 1937 to 1940. Until FDR shut him down, Kennedy tried to conduct a rogue foreign policy to advance Chamberlains appeasement efforts to the point of counseling the Nazis that they could get away with brutalizing Jews if they would just do so with less loud clamor. Much as Sondland, Trump, and Giuliani thought nothing of leaving Ukraine vulnerable to Putins aggression by holding back military aid, so Kennedy thought that Hitler should be free to conquer expendable smaller countries in Eastern Europe. I cant for the life of me understand why anybody would want to go to war to save the Czechs, he wrote in a draft of a speech before the White House nixed it. As went the Czechs then, so have gone the Ukrainians and Kurds today.

The antecedents for Trumpist enablers from the tycoon sector both within and outside the White House Cohn, Schwarzman, Steven Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, et al. can be found in those now-vilified captains of 1930s American industry who were prime movers in various back-channel schemes to appease Hitler. The America First Committees members included Henry Ford, an unabashed anti-Semite who was name-checked admiringly inMein Kampf,and Avery Brundage, an Illinois construction magnate and president of the U.S. Olympic Committee who bent to Hitlers will by yanking the only two Jewish competitors on an American team in the 1936 Summer Games in Berlin. James Mooney, the General Motors overseas president in charge of its European operations and another America First committeeman, took it upon himself to do his own Giuliani-Sondland-like shadow diplomacy by securing face-to-face meetings with Hermann Gring as well as Hitler. He claimed to be seeking peace, but had he succeeded, he would have facilitated Germanys conquest of Europe much as Trump and his supplicants have been green-lighting the imperial designs of Russia and Turkey.

These businessmens machinations did not bring about peace in their time but did bring financial quid pro quos that fattened their bottom lines. Hitlers regime gave Brundages company the commission to build its new embassy in Washington. More than a half-century after V-E Day, researchers confirmed that Ford and GMs German operations had manufactured armaments for the Nazi war machine, sometimes with slave labor. Alfred P. Sloan, the longtime GM chairman, explained his philosophy: An international business operating throughout the world should conduct its operations in strictly business terms, without regard to the political beliefs of its management, or the political beliefs of the countries in which it is operating. Surely Jared Kushner, Mnuchin, and Schwarzman couldnt have put it any better as they cavorted with Mohammed bin Salman at his investment conference in Riyadh in October, a year after the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi. As with Ford, Brundage, Mooney, and the rest, any loot they accrued in exchange for their pact with the Devil will be unearthed in good time.

While some Hitler appeasers faced swift retribution FDR shut down Joseph Kennedys personal political ambitions for good others would get their due later. In 1998, nearly four decades after his death, Mooney would at last face an accounting: Newly discovered documents, triggered in part by litigation on behalf of Holocaust survivors, would show, as the WashingtonPostput it, that in consultation with Gring, he was involved in the partial conversion of the principal GM automobile plant at Rsselsheim to production of engines and other parts for the Junker Wunderbomber, a key weapon in the German air force.

One imagines that high-toned Trump collaborators deplore Khashoggis murder (though not when in Saudi Arabia). And they may (privately) roll their eyes at Trumps palling around with bigots. For heavens sake, some of them are Jewish themselves, and so is the First Daughter! But America First also claimed to be foursquare against anti-Semitism, despite the fact that Lindbergh, Ford, and Mooney all received medals of appreciation from the Third Reich before the war. Like the Trump White House, the America First Committee deployed token Jews to try to deflect critics, including Florence Kahn, a former Republican congresswoman from California; it even hired a Jew as the first publicity director of its New York chapter. But such disingenuous stunts, like Trumps soporific teleprompter-scripted condemnation of racism, bigotry and white supremacy after mass shootings, didnt deter American Nazi wannabes from flocking to the organizations ranks, among them the followers of the unabashedly anti-Semitic radio priest Father Coughlin. Ivanka Trumps observance of the Sabbath has not stopped her father from retweeting anti-Semitic memes or prevented Jews Will Not Replace Us thugs from rallying around #MAGA.

InHitler in Los Angeles,his groundbreaking recent history of wartime Nazism in California, Steven J. Ross might as well have been writing about Charlottesville when he observes that America First enabled previously disreputable hate groups to move from the margins to the mainstream of American life and politics. The anti-Semitic dog whistles of Lindbergh and his prominent peers gave a pass to violent extremist groups of that time like the American Rangers and the Royal Order of American Defenders. The Trump GOP has revived the tradition: Not only did House members meet with Chuck Johnson, a Holocaust denier who raises money for the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, but Floridas irrepressible freshman congressman Matt Gaetz invited him to cheer Trump at the 2018 State of the Union.

No one can predictposteritys judgments, but if the past is any guide at all, this is not going to end well for Trumps collaborators. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Unification Church cult leader who was welcomed into the Oval Office by Nixon and whose brainwashed Moonies gathered en masse on the Capitol steps to pray and fast for three days during impeachment, may have found his farcical descendants in Trumps Christian stooges. Witness the offspring of Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell the Donald Trump Jr.s, if you will, of Americas pagan Evangelical racket. Franklin Graham has preached an Old Testament parallel between Trump and David, while Jerry Jr. is now fending off inquiries into his and his wifes antics, business or otherwise, with a pool boy they befriended at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach. (For his part, Moon was eventually engulfed by repeated post-Watergate scandals, including a conviction for tax fraud and obstruction of justice that sent him to prison in 1982.) The rhetoric of Nixons and Trumps mad-dog defenders can be interchangeable, too. Theres more than a little of the degraded Lindsey Graham in the legendaryTodayshow appearance by Earl Landgrebe, a die-hard anti-impeachment vote on the House Judiciary Committee, the day before Nixon resigned in August 1974. Dont confuse me with the facts. Ive got a closed mind, he said. I will not vote for impeachment. Im going to stick with my president even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot. (The voters shot him soon enough; he received only 39 percent of the vote in his safe Indiana district three months later.)

But such similarities understate the case. The stakes are much higher when an American president is putting the nation, and its Constitution, in jeopardy by abusing his power to aid Americas foreign foes. Someone like Graham is less likely to be remembered as another Landgrebe than as another Burton Wheeler, a senator from Montana who began his career as a conventional New Deal Democrat and morphed into an America First Nazi appeaser. As Graham countenanced Trumps empowering of Putin and his assault on Ukraine, so Wheeler opposed aid to England and other American allies when war broke out in Europe. He is best known now and may be in perpetuity as the fascist vice-president to Lindberghs president in Philip Roths World War II counter-history,The Plot Against America.(David Simon is soon to bring out a television version.)

Mitch McConnell has led another, even graver reenactment of the Hitler-appeasers playbook by slow-walking or ignoring intelligence-agency alarms about Russian interference in our elections past, present, and future. His congressional antecedents did the same when Germany tried to sabotage the election of 1940. As the story is told by Susan Dunn, a historian at Williams College, in her 2013 book1940,the charg daffaires at the German Embassy in Washington, Hans Thomsen, wielded money, a cohort of isolationist congressmen, senators, and authors, and a bag of dirty tricks, hoping to realize goals tantamount to Putins ambitions: to convince Americans that fascist aggression posed no danger to them, to discourage them from pouring billions of dollars into national defense and military aid for the Allies, and, finally, to engineer Roosevelts defeat in 1940.

Even without social media in his arsenal, Thomsens dirty tricks uncannily anticipated Russias 21st-century disinformation tactics. He funneled financial aid to an isolationist Make Europe Pay War Debts Committee to rile up Americans against European allies, lent aid to ostensibly grassroots organizations with names like Paul Reveres Sentinels rallying against American entry into war with Germany, and clandestinely underwrote newspaper ads lobbying for the same. With a secret subsidy, he paid an isolationist congressman, Hamilton Fish of New York, to corral anti-interventionist colleagues before a GOP convention platform committee to push a resolution unequivocally opposing any American involvement in the war in Europe. Thomsen even helped engineer a fake news stunt worthy of Russias propaganda schemes on Facebook by using the isolationist Montana representative Jacob Thorkelson to slip a counterfeit Hitler interview into theCongressional Record.It had Hitler telling a reporter that American fears of him were flattering but grotesque and calling the idea of a German invasion of the United States stupid and fantastic.

Any historical parallels, alas, end there. Germanys attempted election sabotage failed in 1940. The Republicans nominated Wendell Willkie, an interventionist, as their presidential candidate, rather than an isolationist favored by the Nazis, and the reelected FDR led America to war. By contrast, Russia may have succeeded in moving the electoral needle in 2016, and may again in 2020, with the blessings of the Putin-admiring American president and his quisling of a secretary of State Pompeo, not to mention the pliant Moscow Mitch, the double-dealing Barr, and the rest of their collaborators in the executive branch and Congress.

Those who continue with Trump on this path, if they have any shred of conscience or patriotism left, would be advised to look at their historical predecessors of the appeasement era, not the more forgiving template of Watergate, if they wish to game out their future and that of family members who bear their names. They might recall that Lindbergh was among the most popular figures, if not the most popular, in the nation before lending his voice to America First. He had won the cheers of the world after piloting the first nonstop solo flight over the Atlantic and then its sympathy after his 20-month-old son was murdered in a sensational kidnapping case. More than a decade after V-E Day, when Hollywood decided it was at last safe to profitably resurrect that heroic young Lindbergh in an adulatory 1957 biopic,The Spirit of St. Louis,some theaters refused to book it despite the added halo of the most unimpeachable all-American star, Jimmy Stewart ofMr. Smith Goes to Washington.Jack Warner reputedly called it the most disastrous failure in the history of Warner Bros. In the following decade, Lindbergh inched back into the spotlight as a philanthropist campaigning for the World Wildlife Fund. I dont want history to record my generation as being responsible for the extermination of any form of life, he declared, prompting the popular syndicated columnist Max Lerner to respond, Where the hell was he when Hitler was trying to exterminate an entire race of human beings?

Some of Lindberghs fellow isolationists sought to reclaim their reputations after the war, too, but as the historian Geoffrey Perret wrote, they would generally be regarded for years to come as stupid, vicious, pro-Nazi reactionaries, or at least as people blind to the realities of a new day and a menace to their countrys safety. Taft, the rigidly isolationist senator who bore a White House lineage (William Howard Taft was his father), failed in two subsequent presidential runs after his first attempt imploded as France fell to the Germans in 1940. Once known as the towering Mr. Republican, he now is barely remembered even by Republicans.

A comparable figure in England was Lord Londonderry, n Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, a former Tory British air minister whose entanglement with Nazi leaders and push for Anglo-German friendship in the 1930s mirrors Trump, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and their posses infatuated courtship of Putins Russia. As the English Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw writes inMaking Friends With Hitler,Londonderry spent his later years in a relentless, but fruitless, campaign for vindication. Was he, as his detractors claimed, a genuine Nazi sympathizer a Nazi Englishman as he was dubbed? Or was he merely a gullible, nave and misguided fellow-traveler of the Right? Though Londonderry had no truck with the fanatical fascists, or the wide-eyed cranks and mystics who fell for Hitler lock, stock and barrel, Kershaw concludes, in the end it didnt matter.His actions worked to Hitlers advantage, and his reputation was ruined. His fitting permanent memorial is Lord Darlington, the fictional English aristocrat whose outreach to the Nazis and ensuing downfall are observed with a certain sorrow and pity by his butler, Stevens, in Kazuo Ishiguros classic novelThe Remains of the Day.

No less a sage than Ted Cruz told friends while preparing his 2016 convention speech that history isnt kind to the man who holds Mussolinis jacket, according to the Politico journalist Tim Albertas account inAmerican Carnage.But so harsh was the bases blowback after he refused to endorse Trump in that address that he has been holding Mussolinis jacket ever since.

What are Cruz and all his peers afraid of? Every member of the French Resistance faced the strong possibility of torture, deportation, and death, wrote Charles Kaiser, whose bookThe Cost of Couragetells of one Resistance family during Vichy. The most a Republican senator risks from opposing a corrupt and racist president is a loss at the polls. And even at that, there can be rewards down the road. Larry Hogan, the current Republican governor of Maryland,recently reminisced to the New YorkTimesabout his father, Lawrence Hogan, who was the first Republican on the House Judiciary Committee to come out in favor of impeaching Nixon in 1974. He lost friends in Congress, the younger Hogan recalled. He lost the support of his constituents and he angered the White House. But history was kind to him. He was known as a courageous guy. I think its the thing he is most remembered for and the thing Im most proud of him for.

Trumps enablers and collaborators are more Londonderry than Hogan. It is too late for them to save their reputations. We must hope that it is not too late to save the country they have betrayed.

Annotation

Some of Trumps most loyal supporters in Congress despise him in private. Veteran GOP strategist and early Never Trumper Rick Wilson has become a keeper of their secrets.

Illustration: Zohar Lazar

Trumps supporters in Congress call you to vent about how much they hate him. What are they hiding? Right after Trump was elected, there were a lot of guys who had this shocking moment. A friend of mine, a member of Congress, went home to a town-hall meeting, and a guy asks him, Are you going to be with Mr. Trump 100 percent of the time? And he goes, Well, look, I support Donald Trump and I want to help him, and we agree on many things. But I represent this district. If theres something the president wants to do and its good for us, were absolutely going to do it. If its something thats bad for our district, Im going to oppose it.

That, by the way, is the big tell. The people who call him Mr. Trump, you know theyre going to be a problem.

By the time he left the stage, his wife had death threats. His kids had death threats. Because he wouldnt say, Ill be with Trump no matter what. He called me two days later, and he said, I dont know what to do. Eventually he goes, Im going to keep my seat. He still privately bitches and moans, but hes still in Congress.

How do they express their fear to you? A few months ago, there was a Republican elected official at a party at my home. He gets there, and theres a conservative-leaning reporter. And the official absolutely loses his shit with me. Hes like, Oh my God, Im so fucked! Hes going to write about it.

I told him, No, these parties are always off the record. You know that. He goes, But theyre going to know they find out. If Im seen with you, the National Republican Congressional Committee will kill me.

And it just struck me, This is how they live every day? This fear that theyre going to get caught not even saying anything bad about the president but with somebody, or at a party at somebodys house, who is critical of the president.

What is it about Trump specifically that theyre upset by? Theres a good degree of it that is just the vulgar nature of Trump that hes not of a conservative mien or affect. The belittling of people, the way he goes after people that he perceives are inferior or vulnerable. The comments about John McCain actually affected a lot more Republicans than they let on. But theres also contempt that Trump doesnt understand any of this. He doesnt have any understanding of conservative economics or philosophy, but he is really great at playing the cop.

There were a lot of people around the time of the Charlottesville shooting who were generally appalled. When Trump doubled down and just kept digging, there was a moment where a lot of folks were like, Oh, now what do we do? We thought hed learn a lesson, or that he would take something from that disaster. But it didnt change anything. That was one of the peak moments of What the fuck do we do? among the party guys.

Theres also a general frustration about a lot of the things that conservatives would like to do on the policy side, in terms of entitlement reform and deregulation. The nut Ive tried hardest to crack is getting even the retired guys to go on the record.

How often are you having these conversations? Its dropped off since the midterms, but I still talk to somebody at least once a week. I spoke with someone who was at a White House event this spring, and this person stood there, did the whole stand behind the president, clap about his great accomplishments and was literally on the phone with me in the car on the way out.

Do you ever suggest that their silence is enabling Trump? Of course. And you know what they say? Youre absolutely right.

Photo credit (top): Mark Wilson/Getty (Mick Mulvaney); The Washington Post /Getty (Lindsay Graham); OLIVIER DOULIERY/Getty (William Barr); Win McNamee/Getty (David Nunes);Ethan Miller/Getty (Jerry Falwell Jr.); SOPA Images/Getty (Tom Cotton); JIM WATSON/Getty (Stephen Schwartzman); The Washington Post/Getty (Mark Meadows); Samuel Corum/Getty (Matt Gaetz); Bloomberg/Getty (Sarah Huckabee Sanders); Peter Summers/Getty (Mike Pence); Scott Olson/Getty (Rand Paul); Pacific Press/Getty (Nikki Haley); Anadolu Agency/Getty (Rick Perry); Noam Galai/Getty (Rudy Giuliani); Roy Rochlin/Getty (Tucker Carlson); Taylor Hill/Getty (Sean Hannity)Mark Wilson/Getty (Mick Mulvaney); The Washington Post /Getty (Lindsay Graham); OLIVIER DOULIERY/Getty (William Barr); Win McNamee/Getty (David Nunes);Ethan Miller/Getty (Jerry Falwell Jr.); SOPA Images/Getty (Tom Cotton); JIM WATSON/Getty (Stephen Schwartzman); The Washington Post/Getty (Mark Meadows); Samuel Corum/Getty (Matt Gaetz); Bloomberg/Getty (Sarah Huckabee Sanders); Peter Summers/Getty (Mike Pence); Scott Olson/Getty (Rand Paul); Pacific Press/Getty (Nikki Haley); Anadolu Agency/Getty (Rick Perry); Noam Galai/Getty (Rudy Giuliani); Roy Rochlin/Getty (Tucker Carlson); Taylor Hill/Getty (Sean Hannity)

*This article appears in the January 6, 2020, issue ofNew York Magazine. Subscribe Now!

The one story you shouldn't miss today, selected byNew York's editors.

See more here:
What Will Happen to The Trump Toadies? - New York Magazine