Jared Kushner Keeps Making the Russia Scandal So Much Worse - New York Magazine

Jared Kushner Keeps Making the Russia Scandal So Much Worse

By Margaret Hartmann

In the first few months of the Trump administration, both the president and his political opponents placed much hope on Jared Kushner, a 36-year-old real estate heir with no experience relevant to the job of senior White House adviser. The left hoped that Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump would act as voices of reason, fighting against climate change, attacks on LGBT rights, and Steve Bannon’s general inclination to “blow things up.” Meanwhile, President Trump tasked his son-in-law with just about every thorny issue facing his administration, from rewriting U.S. trade agreements to solving the opioid epidemic to brokering peace in the Middle East.

Kushner has had a few successes (like possibly saving NAFTA) and several major failures (such as failing to prevent Trump from ditching the Paris climate according and bungling a trip to Jerusalem). But for the Trump administration, he’s proven to be a disastrous hire largely due to his inept handling of the Russia scandal.

Back in May, Kushner was reportedly among those urging President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey. That sparked a massive, days-long crisis that culminated in the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Russia’s election meddling and the Trump camp’s potential involvement. The New York Times reported that while White House staffers ultimately decided to respond with a statement saying they welcomed the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Kushner “was one of the few dissenting voices, urging the president to counterattack.”

Later that month, Kushner was at the center of another episode in the ongoing Russia scandal when reports emerged that he tried to establish a secret backchannel between the Trump team and the Russian government in December. Several weeks later, the Washington Post reported that Mueller was looking into Kushner’s “finances and business dealings.”

At this point Kushner can’t do much about his meetings with Russians during the campaign, or his potentially shady business dealings. However, he’s consistently tackled Russia-related issues in a manner that’s created unnecessary problems for his family members and fellow White House staffers.

While Donald Trump Jr. is currently at the eye of the “Category 5 hurricane” surrounding the White House, his emails about a meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer, which Kushner attended, are apparently coming to light now because of his brother-in-law.

When Kushner initially filed his application for a security clearance in January, the foreign contacts section was blank. His lawyers said this was an accident and in May they filed a revised form listing more than 100 meetings with officials from more over 20 countries – but not the meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. The Times reported that the emails from Don Jr. “were discovered in recent weeks by Mr. Kushner’s legal team as it reviewed documents.” The SF-86 form Kushner filed with the FBI was then updated for a third time to disclose the meeting.

CNN fleshed out the timeline on Thursday, reporting that Kushner’s lawyers provided the amended SF-86 on June 21. A few days later, Kushner’s team ignored a reporter’s question about the filing:

On June 26, CNN asked a White House spokesman assigned to Kushner about the additional meeting on the amended security clearance form, including that it was organized by Donald Trump Jr.

But Kushner’s team did not respond. On June 28, Jamie Gorelick, Kushner’s lawyer handling the issue, sent a letter to the FBI to complain about what she believed was an improper leak, according to a person close to the matter.

A source close to Kushner said his team discussed whether they should just go public with the information, but he “told his lawyers he planned to sit down with the president to discuss the meeting and the email that had been discovered.” So, if true, Kushner’s instinct was to get the president more deeply involved in the handling of evidence that may be construed as proof that his campaign colluded with Russia.

The Times reported that Trump’s attorney for Russia-related matters, Marc Kasowitz, is so fed up with Kushner’s behavior that he’s considered resigning, and that sounds like the kind of thing he’s talking about:

Mr. Kasowitz and his colleagues have complained that Mr. Kushner has been whispering in the president’s ear about the Russia investigations and stories while keeping the lawyers out of the loop, according to another person familiar with the legal team. The president’s lawyers view Mr. Kushner as an obstacle and freelancer more concerned about protecting himself than his father-in-law, the person said.

It’s not clear if Kushner actually had a chat with his father-in-law about the meeting, but if so, the president has been lying about it. Trump has repeatedly said he only learned of the emails and the meeting “a couple of days ago.”

Yahoo reported on Thursday that attorneys representing the president and the Trump Organization were informed of the emails right after they were discovered by Kushner’s legal team. It’s possible that the attorneys didn’t update the president, but Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, said he found that idea “weird” and “unbelievable.” “You have a professional obligation to inform the client about information that he needs to make informed decisions,” he said.

Even if Trump wasn’t personally informed, Kushner and a number of other people in his orbit were aware of the issue for weeks – yet the White House appeared caught off guard when the Times broke the story on July 8. Trump Jr.’s initial response – which required multiple follow ups – was reportedly drafted by top Trump advisers on Air Force One as they returned from a trip to Europe.

White House staffers who didn’t inherit billions have been hesitant to get involved in Russia-related matters because they can’t afford to hire a high-priced lawyer should they be pulled into the Mueller probe. But CNN noted on Thursday that those aides may have exposed themselves to special counsel scrutiny when they scrambled to craft Trump Jr.’s response.

Nevertheless, Kushner is reportedly pushing White House staffers to get even more involved, and mount a more vigorous defense. According to Politico, his argument is that the meeting impacts Trump’s presidency, so the White House should deal with it. But some people on the communication team, including press secretary Sean Spicer, say the issue should be left to the lawyers who were hired to handle the scandal.

Sources said Kushner was angry that the White House communications team wasn’t immediately putting surrogates on TV, issuing talking points, and calling up cable news outlets to complain about their chyrons.

“Jared wanted to get surrogates, he wanted an op-ed in the [Wall Street] Journal and the [New York] Times, and we said, ‘Wait, we have to talk through how that will play out. Who is going to say it, who is going to put their name on the op-ed and what baggage do they have?’” said an outside adviser.

Some of the turmoil, CNN reports, stems from the feeling among White House aides that the PR strategy is designed to protect Kushner, the only person mentioned in the emails who works in the White House. “Who do you have to protect? You have to protect the guy who filled out the form saying I never took this meeting,” one source said.

But according to Axios, Kushner’s view is that the Trump administration can squash the whole controversy over Trump Jr.’s emails with a bit of good PR – and peace in the Middle East.

The view in Kushner’s orbit is that the brutal new revelations are more P.R. problems than legal problems. And if he makes progress with his Middle East peace efforts, perceptions would be very different.

So far he’s been wrong about firing Comey, ignoring legal advice, failing to prepare a coherent response, and creating new questions about who knew what, and when they knew it. But hey, he’s Jared Kushner. If he can’t make this Russia scandal blow over, nobody can.

Congress have officially filed for Donald Trump's impeachment - here's what happens next - Independent

Congress have officially filed for Donald Trump's impeachment - here's what happens next

On Wednesday, two congressmen submitted 'Articles of Impeachment' for consideration by the US House of Representatives.

Under the US constitution the President of the United States can be removed from office by articles of impeachment, and also tried in a court of law if they have been charged with a crime.

'Articles' are essentially charges of wrongdoing or even criminality. Impeachable offences outlined in the US Constitution for Presidents include 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours'.

Speaking on the floor of the House on Wednesday, Al Green and Brad Sherman submitted House-Resolution 438.

It charged Trump with 'Obstruction of Justice', and committing 'high crimes and misdemeanours'.

Specifically; they claim the President interfered with the investigations into Russian election tampering with the 2016 presidential election.

In a statement on his website, Representative Sherman cites the abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey, as cause for concern.

The articles were submitted days after it was revealed Donald Trump Junior had made met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer alluding to information on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

What is impeachment?

Impeachment is a mechanism built into the US Constitution that allows Congress to remove federal officials from power.

Its roots lie in the senate of Ancient Rome, which for many of the America's Founding Fathers was their inspiration when they drafted the Constitution in 1789.

There are two stages to impeachment.

Articles of impeachment are submitted to the House of Representative. The House acts as a district attorney, deciding whether or not there is a case. They 'approve' articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote of all those present and voting.

It is then the job of US Senate to conduct the actual trial, and decide the verdict. A super majority of the Senate (at least 67 votes) is required to convict a President and remove them from power.

What happens next?

At the moment, this is the very first step of the impeachment process.

Writing on his website, Representative Sherman stated:

Introducing Articles of Impeachment will have two possible outcomes. First, I have slight hope it will inspire an ‘intervention’ in the White House. If Impeachment is real, if they actually see Articles, perhaps we will see incompetency replaced by care. Perhaps uncontrollable impulses will be controlled. And perhaps the danger our nation faces will be ameliorated.

Second, and more likely, filing Articles of Impeachment is the first step on a very long road. But if the impulsive incompetency continues, then eventually—many, many months from now—Republicans will join the impeachment effort.

It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on the same day it was submitted.

The committee will consider the articles of impeachment, and then make a recommendation to the entire House (435 members) whether they are enough to impeach.

The House will decide whether or to 'approve' it and send it up to the Senate.

There, the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump could theoretically take place, presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States.

If he is found guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' he could be removed from power.

1. Removal from office

When a President is convicted of impeachable offences, the office is filled by the next person in the line of succession, which at present is Vice President Mike Pence.

Articles of impeachment have been brought against three presidents in history: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.

In all three cases the Presidents were not removed from office. Johnson was 'acquitted' in the Senate because they fell short by one vote of conviction.

Conviction can also mean a President will serve possible prison time, and the removal of the benefits of their office such as a full pension.

2. Resignation

Resignation would allow a President to avoid jail time, and keep their pension.

This was the case for Richard Nixon in 1974 who resigned after the House Judiciary Committee had recommended approving the articles of impeachment, but before the House could vote on them, or send them to the Senate.

To date Richard Nixon is the only President in US history of resign. He was then granted a pardon for 'any crimes' he 'may have committed as President' by his successor Gerald Ford.

3. Nothing

Democrats such as Green and Sherman wanting to impeach Trump will need to get cross party support, as the Republicans have a 46 seat advantage in the House.

Similarly, the Judiciary Committee which will make its recommendations is chaired by a Republican, and the party has control over 24 of the committee's 41 total - the Democrats have 17.

In short, the tide has to turn heavily against President Trump in his own party for impeachment proceedings to get beyond this first stage.

His reputation would be tarnished if the vote reached the Senate, and often the process of impeachment hearings is more damaging politically even if the President is later acquitted.

The proceedings can act as a distraction, and investigating committees can use them as cover to look into other actions by a President of which they disapprove.

HT The Hill, BBC, House of Representatives

The First Attempt to Impeach Donald Trump Just Got Underway - TIME

The First Attempt to Impeach Donald Trump Just Got Underway

Stephen Ohlemacher / AP

10:48 PM ET

(WASHINGTON) — A California Democrat filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump Wednesday in a longshot bid to remove the president from office.

Rep. Brad Sherman accuses Trump of obstructing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, in part by firing former FBI Director James Comey.

Sherman acknowledges that filing the article is "the first step on a very long road."

"But if the impulsive incompetency continues, then eventually — many, many months from now — Republicans will join the impeachment effort," Sherman said in a statement.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sherman's resolution was "utterly and completely ridiculous" and "a political game at its worst."

Sherman's effort has little chance of success in the Republican-led House. Sherman doesn't even have the backing of many fellow Democrats.

Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from the efforts to impeach Trump, believing it serves only to energize the president's supporters. Sherman's resolution has one co-sponsor, fellow Democrat Al Green of Texas.

Sherman filed the article a day after the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., acknowledged that he met with a Russian lawyer during the campaign. An intermediary for the lawyer promised damaging information from the Russian government about Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. said he received no information about Clinton at the meeting.

The president has questioned his own intelligence agencies and whether the Russians actually interfered in the election. However, federal authorities say they have definitive evidence that the Kremlin meddled in the U.S. presidential election.

Trump’s crusade against Qatar isn’t about terrorism – it’s revenge for a failed business deal - Independent

Trump’s crusade against Qatar isn’t about terrorism – it’s revenge for a failed business deal 

Was Qatar singled out for punishment because it cosies up to Iran and is the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism? Or was it because it failed to back The Family?

• Anthony Harwood 
• Wednesday 12 July 2017 10:43 BST
• Another day, another story about one of The Trump Family being up to no good.

First it was a meeting between the President’s oldest son, Donald Jnr, with a pro-Kremlin lawyer who said she had damaging information on Hillary Clinton before the election.

Reports claimed that he was specifically told that Natalia Veselnitskaya had material from the Russian government which could help his father’s candidacy.

But he let his visitor into Trump Tower anyway

Donald Snr was not in the room but his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was at the meeting which took place after Trump secured the Republican nomination last year.

Which brings us to Meeting No 2.

A year earlier Kushner was not just in the room but chairing a series of meetings with one of the world’s richest men to re-finance one of his ailing New York properties to the tune of $500m.

And where was the man with the magic mountain of money from? Qatar.

Unlike the meetings with Natalia which, it’s said by the White House, were over in a day when it became clear she had nothing to offer, these talks went on for about two years.

With their immense wealth the Qataris had an awful lot to offer and talks continued beyond the election before coming to an abrupt end in March when Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani walked away.

The reason? Kushner was unable to come up with any co-funding as stipulated by the Qataris from the outset.

The Republican healthcare plan has a formidable foe: economics - Guardian

The Republican healthcare plan has a formidable foe: economics

Joe McLean

Tuesday 11 July 2017 22.54 AEST

Having sworn for six years to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, Senate Republicans, unable to pass a plan before their summer recess, recently got their first taste of how the homefolks feel about it. While many ducked those messy town-hall meetings, they couldn’t avoid hearing the angry voices during Fourth of July parades, picnics and fireworks.

Why are regular people so angry, even in deep Red States? Because voters instinctively understand the irreconcilable conflict between political rhetoric, conservative dogma and the hard reality of economics.

On one hand, the devotees of Ayn Rand, (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc.) are on the talk shows explaining that laissez faire capitalism and free-market competition are the answers for better care and lower costs – plus tax cuts for the rich of course.

On the other hand, Republican moderates recognize the disastrous impact of kicking tens of millions of Americans off their health insurance and rightly fear voters’ backlash. But both camps have chosen to ignore some pretty basic facts they should have learned in “Economics-101.”

This is not a new problem. We’re in this mess because politicians’ historically “kick the can” down the road. In 1986 President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, (Emtala) mandating emergency services regardless of the ability to pay. Back then, Republicans and Democrats overwhelming agreed that nobody should be left to die because they couldn’t afford to go to the doctor – but unsurprisingly, no one ever dealt with how to pay for it.

Ever since, there has been a bitter, ongoing political fight about who deserves what care and who pays. Progressives and Democrats think health care should be a basic human right. Republicans, and Atlas Shrugged conservatives say everybody should pay their own way. We all want better care and lower prices. But the Republicans now controlling our entire government can’t craft a workable plan because they ignore at least four immutable economic principles.

First, health care markets don’t obey Adam Smith “invisible hand” of supply and demand. As any economist will tell you, certain sectors of a capitalist economy, such as agriculture and health care, are “price-inelastic.” “Inelasticity” is just a fancy term meaning the demand for a good or service does not go down when the price goes up.

Why is this so? Because everybody wants their sick child to get well, and they expect modern medicine to do whatever it takes and damn the expense. This “price-inelasticity of demand,” is what makes health costs so hard to control

To deal with the effects of price-inelasticity in our everyday lives, we use on health insurance. Insurance works because not everybody gets sick at the same time. So if everyone buys insurance policies, the risk and the costs are spread out over time, and the price is affordable for everybody.

Here’s where Republicans ignore the concept of “homo economicus” or “economic man.” By definition, homo economicus makes consistently rational and self-interested decisions. Millions of working families choose to pay for food, shelter, clothing, school and transportation before they pay for health insurance. They reason that the risk is worth the savings. For many young and healthy folks this makes good economic sense.

Behavioral economists call this the “free-rider” phenomenon, and it’s the third economic principal conservatives tend to misinterpret. But when free-riders inevitably get sick or old, the law (and simple decency) demand we take care of them. So who gets stuck with their bills? You do. When hospitals and doctors can’t collect from the free-riders, they pass those costs along to the rest of us, and our insurance premiums go up.

Conservatives say it’s wrong to force people to pay for something they don’t want, and that’s a compelling argument. But the flip-side of that coin is, “Why should I have to pay for the free-riders? I’m homo economicus too!”

Finally, health care isn’t even a true free market. On the supply side there are huge barriers to entry - exhaustive educational requirements and strict state and federal exams and license regulations – as there should be.

Who wants an ignorant, negligent doctor? On the demand side, most consumers don’t have the medical knowledge or judgment to make the kind of “free and informed” decisions required in a truly free market. Besides, when you get sick, you don’t really have a choice. Going to the hospital is not like deciding to buy a new smart phone is it?

Obamacare was designed to deal with all of these economic realities. The law addresses price-inelasticity by paying doctors for making you feel better, not just for doing a lot of stuff. That’s called “outcome-based pricing.”

Obamacare covers annual physicals and preventive care, so the need for exorbitantly expensive emergency room visits is dramatically reduced. The law requires that doctors and hospitals publish outcome statistics so consumers have quality-of-care information for comparison shopping.

Taking a carrot-and-stick approach to homo economicus, the law gives subsidies to working families who can’t afford expensive individual premiums, and levies penalties on free-riders.

All these are pretty solid, conservative, market-based, Republican ideas. In fact, the plan which became Obamacare was conceived by economists at the conservative Heritage Foundation. It was a free-market response to the Democrats’ proposals for universal single-payer, or “Medicare for All.”

Obama may have co-opted the plan, but it’s chock full of traditional conservative dogma. The only reason I can think of that Republicans didn’t embrace their own plan was because Obama proposed it.

But now, having campaigned for six years on “repeal and replace,” Republicans find themselves hoist by their own petard. To disguise their lack of a workable plan, they willfully ignore the laws of economics and pontificate on the virtues of free market capitalism as the cure for all ills.

Paeans to American capitalism might sound great in political speeches, but 20 million-plus people will lose their health insurance in order to give 1% another big tax cut. Real people will die. Homo economicus understands this all too well - and that’s why Republican lawmakers will continue getting an earful from the folks back home, including Republican base voters.

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

High quality journalism is essential intellectual nourishment. The generosity of providing such a service without a paywall deserves recognition and support

Giacomo P, Italy

I’ve been enjoying the Guardian’s top-quality journalism for several years now. Today, when so much seems to be going wrong in the world, the Guardian is working hard to confront and challenge those in power. I want to support that

Robb H, Canada

I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means still have access to information.

Thomasine F-R

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.

Donald Trump Jr was told that material on Hillary Clinton offered by a Russian lawyer was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's election - BBC NEWS

Donald Trump Jr was told that material on Hillary Clinton offered by a Russian lawyer was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's election campaign, the New York Times has said.

Publicist Rob Goldstone, who arranged the June 2016 meeting with the lawyer, stated this in an email, it reported.

Mr Trump Jr has defended attending the meeting, saying the promised damaging information did not materialise.

US officials are investigating alleged Russian meddling in the US election.

What is in the latest New York Times article?

The paper reports that three people with knowledge of the Goldstone email said it indicated the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information on Mrs Clinton.

But the paper says there was no mention in the email of any wider effort by the Russian government to interfere in the election, nor was there any indication of a link to the hacking attack on the Democratic Party that was first reported a week after the meeting.

Mr Goldstone has previously denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government.

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC that the New York Times report was "a very serious development".

"It all warrants thorough investigation. Everyone who was in that meeting ought to come before our committee."

Mr Trump Jr's statement on the matter on Sunday did not indicate he had been told of any Russian government involvement.

Lawyer Alan Futerfas, hired by Mr Trump Jr to represent him in the Russia-related investigations, described reports of the meeting as "much ado about nothing" and said his client had done nothing wrong.

The president's son said he was "happy to work with the committee to pass on what I know".

When was the meeting and how did it come to light?

It took place on 9 June 2016 at New York's Trump Tower, just two weeks after Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination.

It is thought to be the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of President Trump's inner circle.

Jared KushnerImage copyrightREUTERS

Image caption

The president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also at the meeting

The president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and then-campaign head, Paul J Manafort, also attended.

After the New York Times first reported the meeting on Saturday, Mr Trump Jr released a statement which confirmed that it had taken place but did not mention whether it was related to the presidential campaign.

Who's who in the Trump clan

Jared Kushner's dizzying array of portfolios

Russia: The cloud over the White House

However, another Times report, on Sunday, said Mr Trump Jr had agreed to the meeting after being offered information that would prove detrimental to Mrs Clinton.

In his statement on Sunday, Mr Trump Jr said he had been asked to meet "an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign".

What was discussed at the meeting?

Mr Trump Jr's statement continues: "The woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs Clinton.

Donald Trump, Jr places a hand on the shoulder of his father, Donald Trump, during a rally on the final night of the 2016 US presidential electionImage copyrightAFP/GETTY IMAGES

Image caption

Mr Trump Jr has denied issuing conflicting statements on the matter

"Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information."

Is this a smoking gun, and other Trump Jr questions

WATCH: Did Russian meddle? No-one knows, says Trump

Mr Trump Jr said the lawyer then changed subject to the Magnitsky Act and "it became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along".

Adopted by Congress in 2012, the Magnitsky Act allows the US to withhold visas and freeze financial assets of Russian officials thought to have been involved in human rights violations.

Ms Veselnitskaya is married to a Moscow government official and her clients include companies and individuals said to be close to the Kremlin. She has been at the forefront of a campaign - backed by the Russian state - to overturn the act.

But she has denied ever working for the Kremlin and on Saturday said that "nothing at all was discussed about the presidential campaign" at the meeting.

Trump-Russia scandal: How did we get here?

In an interview on Monday, Mr Goldstone backed Mr Trump Jr's version of the meeting, saying Ms Veselnitskaya offered "just a vague, generic statement about the campaign's funding" which was "the most inane nonsense I've ever heard".

On Monday, Mr Trump Jr tweeted sarcastically: "Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent..." He also denied issuing conflicting statements.

And he linked to a piece in the New York Post headlined "The Times 'exposé' on Donald Trump Jr is a big yawn".

A spokesman for President Trump's legal team said the president was "not aware of and did not attend" the meeting.

Analysis: A grim situation for Trump Jr

Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

Whether by plan or happenstance, Donald Trump Jr is stumbling into an increasingly dire situation.

The pattern has been set. The New York Times runs a story, Trump Jr issues his response, then the noose tightens.

First he said the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was about adoption issues. Then the Times reports that Trump Jr thought he would learn damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

The presidential son says he was conducting routine opposition research. Then the Times reports that he was told it was the Russian government itself that was coming to his father's aid.

In a traditional campaign, a foreign government's attempt to offer incriminating information about an opponent - or even the hint of such an overture - would set off all kinds of alarms. The FBI would have been notified. Senior staff would have insulated themselves from incrimination.

The Trump team was not a conventional campaign. And time and time again, it made novice mistakes or, more ominously, took unprecedented risks.

Its candidate prevailed, but it has led to countless political headaches. Now it appears the president's own family, and his presidency itself, could be in peril. They have only themselves to blame.