Trump's Unethical And Illegal Actions In Just The Last Week

 

Trump seems to realize he may be running out of time, as it seems he's increasing his illegal and unethical actions. Here are the actions in just the last week (from Matt Labash):

Trump commutes certified congressional conman George Santos’s sentence because he’s a Trump supporter…..Trump pardons crypto billionaire Changpeng Zhao, the convicted founder of the Binance cryptocurrency exchange, Binance having ties to Trump’s sons World Liberty Financial……Trump is building a masked, shadow police force (ICE) who is accountable to no one…….Colombia’s President accuses Trump of killing innocent fishermen who he is accusing of being drug runners….Trump’s Homeland Security czar, Kristi Noem, has two private jets bought for her, totaling $172 million, while the government is shut down for a third straight week, with no end in sight, as tens of thousands of federal workers go without paychecks…..Donald Trump destroys one-third of the White House, despite formerly promising not to, while completely demolishing the East Wing without permission or comment from appropriate authorities or the public, in order to make way for his $300 million narcissism gymnasium, where he can work out his sociopathic ego (his ballroom, which will also be accented in gold, and the cost of which keeps moving northward)…..Trump is asking for $230 million from his own Justice Department (headed by his own personal lawyers) for the “crime” of investigating him for his perpetually skeevy/unlawful behavior……Trump’s supposedly not racist, but his new refugee plan includes accepting 7,000 white Afrikaners from former-apartheid state South Africa, and virtually nobody else.....a Trump-pardoned January 6th rioter was just re-arrested for threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, even as Trump is still considering pardoning serial sex-criminal, P. Diddy…..A Trump pick for a top watchdog position had to withdraw himself for lack of congressional-confirmation support after his Nazi sympathies were revealed, even if he’s still employed by the administration…… …..Trump posts an AI video of himself wearing a crown in a fighter jet, dumping a payload of literal shit on the American people protesting him in the “No Kings” protest……Trump’s spokespeople reply “Your Mother” to inquiring reporters who ask who is responsible for Trump’s iffy choices……A Don Jr.-linked drone company wins another Pentagon contract…..

And on and on it goes. 

Colleges/Universities Must Unite And Stand Up To Trump

The following is just part of an excellent article by Erwin Chemerinsky (dean of the law school at the University of California - Berkeley) in The New York Times:

On Wednesday, the Trump administration sent letters to nine major universities proposing a “compact.” As The Times reports, the agreement would, among other things, require these universities to freeze tuition rates for five years, limit the enrollment of foreign students and be bound to specific definitions of gender. It would also require them to prohibit anything that would “punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

In exchange, these universities would receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” The schools were warned that they were free to go a different route if any of them “elects to forgo federal benefits.” A senior White House adviser indicated that the administration wants to extend this compact to all institutions of higher education.

This is extortion, plain and simple.

It is not hyperbole to say that the future of higher education in America requires that every university reject it. If any schools capitulate, the pressure will be enormous on all to fold. The only solution is solidarity and collective action against this effort at federal control over higher education.

President Trump is trying to circumvent the legislative and judicial branches of our government by presenting this as a deal with schools. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law authorizes the president to do this unilaterally. The Supreme Court has been clearthat Congress can set conditions on federal funds so long as the requirements are constitutional, clearly stated, related to the purpose of the program and not unduly coercive. Mr. Trump’s compact fails every part of that test.

There is a basic principle of constitutional law — the unconstitutional conditions doctrine — that the government cannot condition a benefit on a recipient having to give up a constitutional right. But that is exactly what the compact would do. When it calls for universities to effectively ban anything deemed to punish or belittle conservative ideas, it tramples the right to freedom of speech.

The core of the First Amendment is that the government cannot use its power to discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint expressed. But this provision would do just that in treating conservative ideas differently from liberal ones. And any restriction on belittling an idea is obviously unconstitutional; there always is a right to disagree with an idea, even in strong language. (As with “belittle,” the meaning of “conservative” is vague, leaving the definition up to the whims of members of the administration.)

I’ve seen a copy of the compact and note that it would violate the First Amendment in another way: requiring universities to have policies prohibiting “all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives,” to abstain from “actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.” It would be hard to come up with a more explicit attempt to restrict freedom of speech. . . .

We all learned long ago on the playground that trying to appease a bully only makes things worse. It’s equally hard to imagine how higher education will recover if colleges and universities begin conceding to Mr. Trump’s illegal compact.

Appeals Court Rules Most Trump Tariffs Are Illegal

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. D.C. has ruled that most Trump tariffs are illegal. Economist Paul Krugman explains: 

An appeals court, backing up the Court of International Trade, has just ruled the majority of Trump’s tariffs illegal. We kind of knew this was coming, but the reality still comes as a shock.

It’s important to be clear what just happened. The court didn’t say that tariffs per se are illegal. It said that the procedure Trump used to impose tariffs — declaring an economic emergency, then setting tariff rates without so much as consulting Congress, let alone passing legislation — is illegal. If Trump wants to pass a tariff bill, the same way he passed his One Big Beautiful Bill, OK. (I mean, terrible policy, but legal.)

But just saying “I am the Tariff Man, and here are my tariffs” isn’t OK.

True, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act gives the president substantial room to set tariffs during an, um, economic emergency. But Trump himself keeps saying that the economy is in wonderful shape, booming without inflation, and any claims to the contrary are fake news. So how can things both be terrific and an emergency calling for drastic action?

I have no idea what happens next. The Supreme Court is utterly craven, and may well rule that Trump gets to do whatever he wants. But maybe even they will balk.

One crucial thing to understand is that Trump is facing a completely self-inflicted disaster here. He probably could have gotten Republicans in Congress to vote for insane trade policy. But he was impatient, and wanted to start ruling as a dictator right away.

I see that Scott Bessent is saying that ruling that Trump’s illegal tariffs are, in fact, illegal will embarrass the United States. I’m not a lawyer, but last I heard you weren’t allowed to act illegally if obeying the law would be embarrassing. Anyway, let’s be clear: It won’t embarrass America. It will embarrass Trump and Bessent. If anything, it might reassure the rest of the world that some vestige of rule of law yet remains in this nation.

Corporations Are Using Illegal Tactics To Bust Unions (& Getting Away With It)

This is from the Economic Policy Institute.

 

53% Says Trump Broke The Law In New ABC News Poll

This chart reflects the result of a new ABC News / Ipsos Poll -- done on April 6th and 7th of a nationwide sample of 566 adults, with a 4.4 point margin of error.

79% Say Trump Has Acted Illegally Or Unethically

This chart is from the CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between July 22nd and 24th of a nationwide sample of 1,002 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

The Easiest Country To Illegally Hide Money? - THE U.S.!

The following is by Kristopher J Brooks at CBS News:

The U.S. is the top destination for stashing money illegally, according to a new report from a pro-tax advocacy group. 

This year marks the first time the U.S. placed No. 1 on FACT Coalition's Financial Secrecy Index, said the D.C.-based organization Tuesday. The U.S. ranked above traditional tax havens Singapore, Switzerland and Luxembourg, which rounded out the top four nations. The Cayman Islands, which many Americans associate with offshore bank accounts, ranks No. 14 on the group's list. 

"The U.S. often says 'We're No. 1' but this is one thing we don't want to be No.1 in," said Ian Gary, FACT Coalition's executive director. 

The findings come as the U.S. cracks down on Russian oligarch wealth following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. has imposed financial sanctions on some oligarchs, including billionaires Alisher Usmanov and Igor Shuvalov, but that task has been made more difficult by the fact that much of that wealth is hidden within an intricate web of real estate assets, private investment accounts and anonymous shell companies, Quartz reported. 

The Department of Justice has created a new KleptoCapture task force aimed specifically at finding the hidden Russian wealth.

The FACT coalition examined financial rules from about 100 countries, including laws that make it easier for criminals to hide and launder money. The main reason the U.S. jumped to the top of the list, according to experts: a lack of funding for the Treasury Department to enforce a new anti-money laundering law.

In December 2020, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires anyone who forms a shell company in the U.S. to list an owner's name. Under the act, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, is in charge of enforcing the rules. 

But experts said FinCEN needs additional funding, staff and technology to take on this new task and investigate who's illegally stashing money. Biden administration officials are asking Congress to send $210 million to FinCEN under the U.S. government's proposed 2023 budget, which marks a roughly 30% increase from its current funding. 

FACT concluded that nearly every developed nation should pass stricter financial laws, particularly around the ownership of shell companies. Not doing so allows terrorism groups to secretly fund their operations and oligarchs to evade taxation, coalition officials said.

It's unclear how much money is illegally stashed within U.S. borders, experts in anti-money laundering say. But the U.S. Treasury Department has previously pegged the figure around 2% of the nation's GDP, which today would amount to $480 billion. 

U.S. officials have long been aware of money laundering activities within the U.S. More recently, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in December that "the best place to hide and launder ill-gotten gains is actually the United States."

It takes less effort to set up a shell corporation in the U.S. than it does to get a library card, said Lakshmi Kumar, a terrorist-financing expert at Washington think tank Global Financial Integrity. That's because an applicant must verify their identification to use the library, but that's not the case for a shell corporation, he said.

Trump's Legal Problems Are Not Over

The following is a rundown of Trump's legal problems from The Washington Post: 

Trump business practices, Manhattan DA’s criminal probe

Return to menu

What is it: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is investigating Trump’s business practices, particularly allegations that he misrepresented the value of his assets to lenders and tax authorities to secure loans and get breaks on his taxes. The probe started in 2019 under then-District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. (D) and continued under his successor, Alvin Bragg (D). It is being assisted by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), who is also leading a parallel, civil inquiry of the Trump Organization and its executives.

Where it stands: Though Bragg insists the investigation is ongoing, it appears to be circling the drain. In February, two prosecutors leading the probe resigned; people familiar with the matter said they were frustrated that Bragg appeared uninterested in pursuing a case. He has since asked Susan Hoffinger, his investigations chief, to oversee the matter, and he said in a statement in April that his office was “exploring evidence not previously explored.” But the current grand jury has been inactive and was slated to disband at the end of April.

In July, prosecutors charged longtime Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselbergand the company with conducting a 15-year tax avoidance scheme involving compensation to executives, including apartments, cars and other unreported benefits. That case could be tried later this year. So far, Weisselberg has shown no sign that he will cooperate against Trump.

Trump business practices, New York AG’s civil probe

Return to menu

What is it: James, the New York attorney general, is investigating whether to bring a civil lawsuit against Trump, his family or the Trump Organization for allegedly manipulating the value of assets to secure better loan rates and tax benefits.

Where it stands: James is moving aggressively, and her probe has produced some consequences for Trump. In April, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron held Trump in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order to turn over records to James’s office by March 31, and agreed to fine the former president $10,000 a day until he complies. Trump’s lawyer has said the former president’s team will appeal. Engoron has also ordered Trump and two of his children to sit for depositions, though they have appealed that order, too.

Georgia election results investigation

Return to menu

What is it: Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D), an elected prosecutor in the Atlanta area, is investigating efforts to overturn Trump’s loss in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election. Trump pressuredGeorgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to “find” enough votes to reverse Biden’s victory. He also called the top Georgia state elections investigator and urged her to identify wrongdoing in the state’s vote. Prosecutors are scrutinizing Trump’s calls, as well as the circumstances around the sudden resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta, according to an official familiar with the probe.

Where it stands: In January, judges granted Willis a special-purpose grand jury to aid her investigation. Willis said the grand jury, which can continue for up to 12 months, was needed because a “significant number of witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate with the investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony.”

The Jan. 6 select committee’s investigation

Return to menu

What is it: A House committee is investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol and what many see as the related campaign by Trump and others to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Where it stands: The committee is talking to witnesses and examining voluminous text messages and other documents. It has said it will hold public hearings to air some of its findings, probably starting in June, and issue a public report in coming months. The committee also has asked the Justice Department to pursue criminal contempt charges against former Trump aides who have bucked subpoenas.

Criminal probes of Jan. 6

Return to menu

What is it: The Justice Department is investigating the Jan. 6 riot and has charged hundreds of people who breached the Capitol that day with trespassing, trying to obstruct the vote certification and attacking police officers. Prosecutors also have alleged intricate conspiracies, including those involving the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, and recently expanded their examination to include the preparations for the rally that preceded the riot.

The Mar-a-Lago boxes investigation

Return to menu

What is it: The Justice Department is investigating how 15 boxes of White House records — including some highly classified material — made their way to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. Officials with the National Archives and Records Administration asked the Justice Department to investigate after finding materials clearly marked as classified in the boxes, which they had asked Trump to turn over to their agency. The House Oversight Committee is also looking into the matter.

Trump's Unemployment Order Won't Work And Isn't Legal

Last Saturday, Donald Trump tried to position himself as the savior of workers in this recession. He did it by signing an executive order, which he said would provide unemployed workers with an additional $400 a week in benefits.

Unfortunately, it was nothing more than political theater -- designed to help him get reelected. The order itself is probably illegal, would not work, and has already been dismissed by governors in both parties.

One might suspect that this would make Trump angry. I doubt it does. He never really intended to help workers. He just wanted to do something that he hoped would make himself look good, and would be able to blame governors when it failed.

Here's part of how Catherine Rampell, in The Washington Post, describes Trump's pathetic bit of theater concerning workers:

Then there’s the unemployment benefit supplement. What. A. Mess.

With passage of the Cares Act pandemic relief in March, Congress created a $600 federal supplement to state unemployment benefits. This was a lifeline to millions of families. The supplement expired July 31, though, because members of Congress couldn’t come to terms on an extension. Republicans insisted the supplement was so generous that it discouraged work. (Five studies find otherwise.)

So Trump decided to supplement unemployment benefits by executive fiat, allegedly providing an additional $400 per week. The administration said it would take $44 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, earmarked for natural disasters, to fund a new $300 weekly payment per worker. But states would get the money only if they kicked in $100 for each worker from their own coffers, on top of whatever benefits they had already been distributing.

States would also have to build an information technology system from scratch to administer this $400, because they cannot legally use their existing unemployment insurance infrastructure to pay out benefits that haven’t been authorized by Congress.

Now, bear in mind that states are broke.

Actually, not just broke; they’re $555 billion in the hole, thanks to lower tax revenues and higher expenses related to covid-19. Nonetheless, they’re being asked to pony up an additional $100 per week per worker, plus spend precious resources on a separate IT system when their existing unemployment IT systems are crumbling. The IT build could take weeks or months, while the $300 federal benefit that this not-yet constructed system would distribute is expected to last only about six weeks.

Additionally, the parallel unemployment benefit system might not survive a legal challenge, given that Trump may not have statutory authority to redirect congressionally appropriated funds this way.

If you were a governor, would you opt into this program under these conditions?

In a TV interview Sunday, the director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, acknowledged that the White House had … not asked states this question. Soon, though, it got an answer: Governors from both parties declared the program administratively unworkable. The bipartisan National Governors Association expressed concern “about the significant administrative burdens and costs this latest action would place on the states” and asked for congressionally appropriated funds instead.

So, Trump and high-level officials kept changing the details, apparently in an attempt to make the plan more appealing to states.

Sometimes the White House said maybe the feds would provide the entire $400 without requiring states to kick in 25 percent. Sometimes aides said other money the states were already spending would count as a sort of artificial 25 percent funding match, meaning each worker would get an additional $300, not the $400 advertised. Sometimes this phony match could be achieved by tallying what each individual worker currently receives from their state; sometimes by what a state spent overall on benefits, across all workers.

By Tuesday evening, at least five contradictory versions of this parallel benefit system had been communicated by various Trump officials, according to a running tally from Georgetown law professor David Super. And if the original design was in a statutory gray area, Super says, the revised versions waiving additional state contributions are “not remotely legal.”

That’s because the 25 percent ($100) state funding match included in Trump’s executive action wasn’t there just for kicks. It was there because it’s required under the law Trump cited as giving him authority to create this benefit program: the Stafford Act. Counting existing state spending on jobless benefits, rather than new spending, to meet the state-match requirement would also violate Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.

Given the whipsawing design of the program, which may not be legal, plus the fact that the Trump administration has already changed the rules midstream for other covid-19 unemployment benefits programs, opting into this would be extremely risky for states.

“It’s not a matter of whether states are willing to sign on the dotted line,” Super told me. “It’s: What are you actually asking me to sign up for?"

Even if no one challenges the policy in court, states might still reasonably fear that the Trump administration would renege on the deal to reimburse them for $300 in weekly benefits, once administration attorneys and budget officials belatedly remember the Stafford Act’s requirements. In which case states might be on the hook for the entire cost of the plussed-up benefits. If a state couldn’t come up with a quarter of this money, footing the whole bill seems impossible.

Meanwhile, the White House is declaring victory, with outside adviser Stephen Moore proclaiming Trump’s toothless, legally dubious actions “a masterstroke.” Premature victory laps on administrative actions are par for the course with this administration, which has lost 90 percent of all legal challenges to its regulatory policies. . . .

But in declaring that he’s solved all these problems, President I-Alone-Can-Fix-It hasn’t hastened advanced legislative negotiations — he’s made a deal less likely to happen. And America’s unemployed will pay the price.

The American Public Is Unhappy With Ivanka Trump For Using Private E-Mails For Government Business

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump blasted Hillary Clinton for using a private e-mail server for government business while Secretary of State. One would have thought that, at least, would not be a mistake that anyone in the Trump administration would make.

However, it seems that Ivanka Trump was not listening to any of her father's campaign speeches or reading his tweets. She has done the exact same thing. After becoming a member of her father's administration, she used a private e-mail account to do government business.

The public is not happy about it. They think it presents a problem by a 54 point margin, believe it was illegal by a 28 point margin, and thinks it was unethical by a 42 point margin. Majorities think it was a problem (72%) and unethical (58%). A plurality of 46% knew it was illegal.

These charts reflect the results of the new Politico / Morning Consult Poll -- done on December 4th of a national sample of 1,975 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

Trump And NRA Illegally Coordinated Campaign Spending

Just one more example of how the Trump campaign flouted election laws in the 2016 campaign. The following is just a small part of an excellent expose by Mike Spies in Mother Jones:

The National Rifle Association spent $30 million to help elect Donald Trump—more than any other independent conservative group. Most of that sum went toward television advertising, but a political message loses its power if it fails to reach the right audience at the right time. For the complex and consequential task of placing ads in key markets across the nation in 2016, the NRA turned to a media strategy firm called Red Eagle Media.

One element of Red Eagle’s work for the NRA involved purchasing a slate of 52 ad slots on WVEC, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Virginia, in late October 2016. The ads targeted adults aged 35 to 64, and aired on local news programs and syndicated shows like Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune. In paperwork filed with the Federal Communications Commission, Red Eagle described them as “anti-Hillary” and “pro-Trump.”

The Trump campaign pursued a strikingly similar advertising strategy. Shortly after the Red Eagle purchase, as Election Day loomed, it bought 33 adson the same station, set to air during the same week. The ads, which the campaign purchased through a firm called American Media & Advocacy Group (AMAG), were aimed at precisely the same demographic as the NRA spots, and often ran during the same shows, bombarding Norfolk viewers with complementary messages.

The two purchases may have looked coincidental; Red Eagle and AMAG appear at first glance to be separate firms. But each is closely connected to a major conservative media-consulting firm called National Media Research, Planning and Placement. In fact, the three outfits are so intertwined that both the NRA’s and the Trump campaign’s ad buys were authorized by the same person: National Media’s chief financial officer, Jon Ferrell.

“This is very strong evidence, if not proof, of illegal coordination,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. “This is the heat of the general election, and the same person is acting as an agent for the NRA and the Trump campaign.”

Reporting by The Trace, which has teamed up with Mother Jonesto investigate the NRA’s political activity, shows that the NRA and the Trump campaign employed the same operation—at times, the exact same people—to craft and execute their advertising strategies for the 2016 presidential election. The investigation, which involved a review of more than 1,000 pages of Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission documents, found multiple instances in which National Media, through its affiliates Red Eagle and AMAG, executed ad buys for Trump and the NRA that seemed coordinated to enhance each other.

Individuals working for National Media or its affiliated companies either signed or were named in FCC documents, demonstrating that they had knowledge of both the NRA and the Trump campaign’s advertising plans.

Experts say the arrangement appears to violate campaign finance laws.

Most Believe Trump Committed Unethical Or Illegal Actions

These charts are from the Gallup Poll -- done between August 27th and September 2nd of a national sample of 1,511 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

It shows that a majority of the U.S. public thinks Donald Trump did something illegal (29%) or unethical (27%) in his dealings with Russia in 2016. That's a total of 56%, while only 35% don't believe he did anything illegal or unethical.

The numbers are similar for his hush money payments to women he had a sexual affair with. About 68% think he did something illegal (31%) or unethical (37%), while only 23% don't believe that.

Delaware Outlaws Child Marriage (& The Other 49 Should)

(Image is from meandmysuitcase.com.)

Should children (those under the age of 18) get married? I think most Americans would say no. And most think child marriage is a problem in some foreign country. That is true, but it is also a problem in the United States. Believe it or not, until just a few days ago, child marriage was allowed in every state in the Union.

Last week, one state broke that abominable tradition. Delaware outlawed the marriage of anyone under the age of 18. Those marriages can't legally happen, even with the permission of parents or a judge. Delaware Representative Kim Williams said:

Children under 18 have no legal standing–they cannot file for divorce, utilize a domestic violence shelter, apply for a loan or open a credit card. They cannot enter any legal contract, but until this bill was signed they could be married as a child without any way of escaping an abusive marriage.

That makes a lot of sense. We consider those under 18 to be too young to purchase or use alcohol, too young to vote, too young to buy tobacco (or marijuana in states where it's legal), and too young to buy a firearm. Why then, would we think they are old enough to enter into a marriage? Marriage comes with many inherent problems -- problems it is difficult enough for adults.

Some might ask -- What about a pregnancy? That sounds to me like a failure of parents and schools, who should have provided the teens with adequate information about effective contraception. That aside, if abortion or adoption is not being considered, there is still no need to force or allow a child marriage. Both young people must assume responsibility for the financial well-being of the child, but no marriage is needed for that. And marriage could be a bad thing for children not ready for the responsibilities that come with it.

Others may ask -- What about "true love"? Bullshit! Most adults can't understand what constitutes "true love", and most teens confuse acceptance, intimacy, and sex as evidence of love. It isn't. And if it does happen to be "true love", it will still be that when both of the young people turn 18.

Delaware is not the only state that has attempted to outlaw child marriages. Tennessee and Kentucky tried, but their efforts were blocked by right-wing Republicans who said it violated their religious freedom as christians. These are the same people who claim to be guardians of "family values", but I fail to see how allowing or forcing children to marry has any value at all -- religious or otherwise.

There is no legitimate excuse for child marriage. A civilized country should know that.

Public Now Believes Trump Campaign Had Improper And Illegal Dealings With Russian Officials During 2016 Election

It looks like the constant drip of revelations about dealings between the Trump campaign and Russian officials is having an effect on the public's view of people in the Trump administration.

A plurality of Americans think Donald Trump had improper dealings with the Russians (44%), and had illegal dealings with them (39%). It's even worse for other members of the administration.

A majority say Flynn, Kushner, Manafort, Sessions, and Donald Trump Jr. had both improper and illegal dealings with the Russians -- and about half believe Eric Trump did also.

These charts use information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 15th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,273 registered voters), with a margin of error of 3 points.

The Trump administration is in deep trouble.