The Trump Storm

For Signal readers who don’t obsessively track every new development in Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump, here’s an update on the week’s news.


Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight felony charges that could send him to prison for life, unless he cooperates with Mueller. Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to felony charges that implicate Trump, and Cohen’s lawyer says Cohen would like to talk with Mueller.

Given the latest developments, it’s time to lay down some scenarios. Let’s imagine how the Mueller drama might play out, and the risks it could create for US relations with other countries. We don’t know when, but unless Trump finds a way to fire him, Mueller will issue a report of his findings to Congress.

Here are the three scenarios and what they might mean:

Scenario 1  Trump Vindication. The report argues Trump is guilty mainly of surrounding himself with untrustworthy people. It reveals no compelling evidence that the president knew about, much less approved, criminal offenses.

In this case, Mueller’s report would strengthen Trump and demoralize his critics. Trump would remain the unquestioned leader of his party, and Democrats would scramble for a single coherent message to use against him in 2020.

Scenario 2 — Hard Evidence.  The report finds Trump committed high crimes against the United States. In particular, it reveals documentary evidence, supported by credible witness testimony, that Trump personally agreed to design policies to help other governments in exchange for their help in winning the 2016 election and/or financial benefit for his businesses.

In this case, the charge would essentially be treason. It would be hard, both politically and morally, for Republican lawmakers to allow Trump to remain in office. If he were forced out, Mike Pence would become president, and the question of a Gerald Ford-style pardon for Trump would immediately dominate Washington.

Scenario 3 — A Mueller Mess. The report relies on testimony of untrustworthy Trump associates and inconclusive documentary evidence to build a case against Trump that Democrats claim is airtight and Republicans dismiss as circumstantial.

In this case, the fight has only just begun.

For now, it’s impossible to know which scenario is most likely, but the second and third options come with two sets of worries. If Trump faces impeachment and a trial in the Senate, his policies could remain in limbo until his fate is resolved—even if this process drags on for months.

The larger foreign-policy risk might come from the president’s frustration. Donald Trump is a punch-thrower. It’s his defining characteristic. He’ll throw punches at Mueller, at Democrats, at Republicans who refuse to defend him, and at the media.

Backed into a corner, he might also be tempted to escalate sharply with China or Europe on the trade front. He could throw military punches at a North Korea that’s not denuclearizing fast enough, or an Iran he says is making trouble.

The bottom line: When the leader of the world’s sole superpower—one who prides himself on toughness and unapologetic defiance—faces this much trouble, there’s plenty of risk to go around.

Paper was originally made from rags until the introduction of cellulose in 1800. Since then, it has transformed into a "circular" industry, with 55% of paper produced in Italy recovered. It no longer just comes from trees, either. Some companies produce paper with scraps from the processing of other products like wool and walnuts.

Learn more about this rags to riches story in Eni's new Energy Superfacts series.

Donald Trump can still win re-election in November, but foreign governments read the same polls we do. They know that Joe Biden heads into the homestretch with a sizeable polling lead — both nationally and in the states most likely to decide the outcome. Naturally, they're thinking ahead to what a Biden foreign policy might look like.

They're probably glad that Biden gives them a half-century track record to study. (He was first elected to local office in 1970 and to the US Senate in 1972.) The six years he spent as ranking member, then chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, his term as co-chairman of the Senate's NATO Observer Group, and his eight years as Barack Obama's vice president tell them that he's essentially a "liberal internationalist," a person who believes that America must lead a global advance of democracy and freedom — and that close cooperation with allies is essential for success.

More Show less

Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, and Vladimir Putin gather via Zoom for a meeting of the Pandemic Presidents. But who's the top Corona King of them all? #PUPPETREGIME

On the latest episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, explains why, in her view, Cold War analogies fall short as tensions between the US and China rise. Unlike the former Soviet Union, China is an economic powerhouse and a trade partner and technology provider to nations around the world. Simply cutting off ties with China seems untenable, but, as she asks, "How can you safely continue that integration, continue that interaction, with a country whose ideology you absolutely don't share, and that you fundamentally don't trust." The full episode of GZERO World begins airing on US public television on Friday, July 31, 2020. Check local listings.

Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, discusses technology industry news today:


What happened at the antitrust hearings this week?

Well, CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook testified in front of the Subcommittee in Antitrust of the House Judiciary Committee for five hours. There's a fair amount of nonsense and conspiracy talk, but mostly it was a pretty good hearing where the House members dug into questions about whether four companies abused their market positions to their advantage? Whether they used predatory pricing to drive competitors out of the market? Whether they used inside information from their services to identify and then copy and kill competitors? And the evidence that was presented, if I were to sum it up quickly, is, yes, they did do that. They did abuse their market power. But what wasn't presented was clear evidence of consumer harm. We know they acted in ways that distorted capitalism, but were people really hurt? That's a big question. I look forward to their report.