Samantha Vinograd writes that President Donald Trump's warmongering may have fatal consequences -- particularly since his national security team seems ill-equipped to prioritize and develop coherent strategies.
Finally, a deeply conservative member of Congress, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, has put the US Constitution before partisan loyalty to President Donald Trump. The question is -- will this inspire other Republicans to do the same, or will they continue to defend Trump against any claims of wrongdoing arising from Robert Mueller's investigation? If social media is any indication, it's likely they will do the latter -- at least for now.
Some years ago, with the Confederate flag in vogue on state license tags, civic boosters in Alabama's high-tech mecca of Huntsville came up with a more dignified vanity-plate statement -- "First to the Moon," in honor of the Saturn V rocket invented there. (True, the inventors were German, Hitler's missile engineers brought to the United States after the war, but their celebrity leader Wernher von Braun liked to say, "You can see I speak with an accent -- that's because I come from Ahlahbahma.")
The power of Congress to investigate and obtain documents to carry out its legislative powers and oversight of the executive branch is well established. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress' authority to obtain information necessary to conduct oversight and investigations is necessarily broad. In 1975, Chief Justice Warren Burger, reaffirmed that "'the scope of [Congress's] power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution'" and that, ancillary to Congress's oversight and investigative authority, the "[i]ssuance of subpoenas . . . has long been held to be a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate."
On Thursday, Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, became the newest addition to the already overcrowded field of Democratic candidates vying for the chance to take back the White House from Donald Trump in 2020.
If we believe human life is infinitely valuable, then how a pregnancy begins, even through rape or incest, is irrelevant. A preborn human life is at stake, writes Carrie Sheffield. The Alabama law allows exceptions for when the mother's life is at stak--but what it doesn not allow are abortions motivated by inconvenience, sexual carelessness, financial calculations or worse.
The Federal Reserve recently reported that about half of Americans have virtually no wealth at all, with four in 10 unable to afford a $400 emergency expense. That means that if their car breaks down or their child gets sick, they have to charge those expenses to a credit card.
Assuming that he's telling the truth -- and with this President this may be a leap -- Donald Trump made at least $434 million last year before expenses. His newly-released financial disclosure form shows much of this money came in the form of rent payments, asset sales, and golf course operations -- with numerous other income streams coming from as far away as the Philippines and Turkey.
On Wednesday, Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law that would ban nearly all abortion care in my home state of Alabama. Not surprisingly, a media frenzy ensued. #Alabamaabortionban trended on Twitter, an airplane circled the state capitol proclaiming "Abortion is OK" and reporters called me nonstop for comment.
Corporate efforts to gut unions--like a recent attempt by Delta to persuade workers not to unionize--has led to their decline, fueling income inequality, stalled wage growth, and economic mobility, writes Steven Greenhouse. But unions bring those with high school degree into the middle class, raise up communities, schools, and increase wages--for nonunion workers too.
The photos, obtained by CNN, could have been taken at a refugee camp in the Third World. Children sleep in the dirt, some covered only by Mylar blankets. A woman and child sit on rocks, huddled against a building. People mill about outside makeshift tents.
John Bolton, President Trump's national security advisor, seemingly hasn't met a war he doesn't love. His enthusiasm for the muscular use of the military seems out of place in the administration of a President who repeatedly has questioned and sought to end America's wars in the Middle East, writes Peter Bergen.
Not so long ago, the state of Ohio could expect a quadrennial invasion: campaign staffers by the thousands, TV ads and robocalls by the millions would descend as Democrats and Republicans furiously competed for the Buckeye State's 18 electoral votes.
At the White House on Thursday, President Donald Trump announced his principles to solve a huge problem facing our healthcare system: surprise medical bills. Present at the event were victims of outrageously large, surprise bills and their family members.
Joe Lockhart writes that the new White House policy that cracks down on who gets permanent press passes sets a dangerous precedent that opens the door to denying White House press credentials to media outlets that criticize the administration.
The chief justice is facing a choice between letting the court support a lawless Republican administration or trying to achieve his goal of keeping the court from appearing too partisan to most Americans.
Chase Bank fired off a tweet last week staging a hypothetical conversation between one of its customers and her bank account. The customer asks why her account balance is low, and the bank tells her not to go out for food or coffee when she can make it at home instead, or to spend money on a cab when she can just walk. The customer pretends not to listen. "I guess we'll never know," she says, brushing off her low balance and the bank's "advice" on how to manage her money.
Our system of checks and balances is out of balance. Over the past several months, President Donald Trump and the White House have taken a blunt -- but thus far effective -- tack in response to efforts by Congress to exercise its core constitutional oversight authority: You'll get nothing, and you'll like it.
As critics scoop up the facts reported by The New York Times regarding Donald Trump's tax returns in the '80s and '90s, showing the President's monumental debt, the most profound reaction is almost certainly occurring inside Trump's psyche, Michael D'Antonio says.
Julian Zelizer writes that House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler is surely right to declare that we're in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Unless one side blinks, it will be up to the courts, or perhaps the 2020 election, to resolve it.
Boohoo, writes Jill Filipovic. It's hard to be moved by Stephanie Winston Wolkoff's objection to suggestions that she profited excessively from the Trump inaugural and was forced out of her job as a result. She voluntarily worked for a notoriously disloyal and self-dealing family, and turned a blind eye for personal gain, she writes.
Steve Cohen turned up to Thursday's House Judiciary Committee hearing intent on mocking absent Attorney General William Barr by enjoying a helping of Colonel Sanders' finest. The stunt got attention -- but Barr's absence from the hearing should instead have been treated as a serious issue, writes Douglas Heye.
After Joe Biden invoked Charlottesville in kicking off his 2020 bid for the presidency, President Trump doubled down on his notorious "both sides" comments made after the violence. Trump's new claims that he was talking about approaches to Robert E. Lee doesn't hold up, argues historian Nicole Hemmer. She explains why.
There is a debate raging in Washington about the politics of investigations. Some argue the Democrats should aggressively pursue all avenues to hold President Donald Trump accountable for his actions -- including, for example, holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Many even advocate opening up impeachment hearings to further investigate Trump's actions. Others warn that the Democrats can go too far in investigating Trump and could experience a backlash from voters. All sides cite evidence from the impeachment process against President Bill Clinton two decades ago to support their arguments.
Attorney General William Barr's Senate testimony on Wednesday was a master class in obfuscation, backtracking and blame-shifting. This performance would've been pathetic coming from an ordinary witness -- never mind from the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
Shanlon Wu says that Rod Rosenstein's letter of resignation and Robert Mueller's letter expressing concern about Attorney General William Barr's characterizations of the Mueller report show the differences between these pubic servants. More importantly, Barr's response to Mueller's letter speaks volumes about his character.