That disgusting pig, that thieving racist billionaire, is slashing funding for the outreach that helps people sign up for health insurance. He’s deliberately causing poor people to fail to get health insurance out of spite and political revenge.

The Trump administration will significantly scale back Obamacare outreach efforts for the upcoming enrollment season, slashing spending on advertising and funding to community groups deployed to boost enrollment.

Senior HHS officials on Thursday afternoon said the federal government will cut the Obamacare advertising budget from $100 million to $10 million in the upcoming 2018 enrollment season. Funding for so-called navigator organizations that help people enroll will be cut from $63 million last year to roughly $37 million.

The announcement is the latest sign that President Donald Trump, who has vowed to let Obamacare collapse, will significantly diminish Obamacare implementation after the repeal effort in Congress stalled a month ago.

He wants it to fail. It’s not named after him, so he wants it to fail.

Jennifer Rubin explains one line of argument against Trump’s pardon of Arpaio.

Meanwhile, Protect Democracy, an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms, and a group of lawyers have sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits. In their letter obtained by Right Turn, they argue:

While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

It seems compelling, doesn’t it. The Due Process clause exists. People have a right to due process. A court found that Arpaio was violating that right. Trump tore that finding up – meaning the right wasn’t enforced. A right is worthless if an authoritarian chief executive is going to prevent courts from enforcing it.

Those challenging the pardon understand there is no precedent for this — but neither is there a precedent for a pardon of this type. “While many pardons are controversial politically, we are unaware of any past example of a pardon to a public official for criminal contempt of court for violating a court order to stop a systemic practice of violating individuals’ constitutional rights,” Fein says. He posits the example of criminal contempt in the context of desegregation. “In 1962, after the governor and lieutenant governor of Mississippi disobeyed a court order to allow James Meredith to attend the University of Mississippi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the Department of Justice to bring criminal contempt charges, which it then did,” Fein recalls. “Eventually, while the criminal contempt case was pending, the Mississippi officials relented and allowed Meredith (and others) to attend the university. But if the president had pardoned the Mississippi officials from the criminal contempt, it would have sent a clear message to other segregationist officials that court orders could be ignored.”

And that would have been awful.

Benjamin Wittes tweeted a new “BOOM” four minutes ago. NBC News:

Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations’

Well that could certainly be interesting.

Paul Manafort’s notes from a controversial Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign included the word “donations,” near a reference to the Republican National Committee, two sources briefed on the evidence told NBC News.

The references, which have not been previously disclosed, elevated the significance of the June 2016 meeting for congressional investigators, who are focused on determining whether it included any discussion of donations from Russian sources to either the Trump campaign or the Republican Party.

It is illegal for foreigners to donate to American elections. The meeting happened just as Trump had secured the Republican nomination for president, and he was considered a longshot to win. Manafort was the campaign chairman at the time.

It’s almost as if there are actually drawbacks to having a lying cheating thieving gangster running for president.

Manafort’s notes, typed on a smart phone and described by one briefed source as cryptic, were turned over to the House and Senate intelligence committees and to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. They contained the words “donations,” and “RNC” in close proximity, the sources said.

Oh well, maybe he was just fantasizing.

NBC News reported earlier this week that Mueller’s investigators are keenly focused on President Donald Trump’s role in crafting a response to a the New York Times article that first disclosed the meeting.

The sources told NBC News that prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting and whether he sought to conceal its purpose.

The president dictated a statement sent out under the name of his son that was drafted aboard Air Force One, people familiar with the matter have said.

And was a pack of lies.

A person familiar with Mueller’s strategy said that whether or not Trump made a “knowingly false statement” is now of interest to prosecutors.

“Even if Trump is not charged with a crime as a result of the statement, it could be useful to Mueller’s team to show Trump’s conduct to a jury that may be considering other charges,” the person said.

Goes to intent, m’lud.

Rich Lowry at Politico nudges us to look at the implications of Trump’s apparent inability to fire his insubordinate subordinates.

First, it was chief economic adviser Cohn saying in an interview that the administration—i.e., Donald J. Trump—must do a better job denouncing hate groups. Then, it was Secretary of State Tillerson suggesting in a stunning interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News that the rest of the government speaks for American values, but not necessarily the president. Finally, Secretary of Defense Mattis contradicted without a moment’s hesitation a Trump tweet saying we are done talking with North Korea.

In a more normal time, in a more normal administration, any of these would be a firing offense (although, in Mattis’ defense, he more accurately stated official U.S. policy than the president did). Tillerson, in particular, should have been told before he was off the set of Fox News on Sunday that he was only going to be allowed to return to the seventh floor of the State Department to clean out his desk.

The fact that this hasn’t happened is an advertisement of Trump’s precarious standing, broadcast by officials he himself selected for positions of significant power and prestige.

Well, yes. Mind you it’s also a sign of how awful he is. His own people are disavowing him, because he’s even more awful than they thought.

Trump, of course, largely brought this on himself. He is reaping the rewards of his foolish public spat with Jeff Sessions and of his woeful Charlottesville remarks.

By publicly humiliating his own attorney general, Trump seemed to want to make him quit. When Sessions stayed put, Trump didn’t take the next logical step of firing him because he didn’t want to deal with the fallout. In the implicit showdown, Sessions had won. Not only had Trump shown he was all bark and no bite, he had demonstrated his lack of loyalty to those working for him.

So all his people now know two things: he’ll trash them in public any time he feels like it, and he won’t do anything about it if they trash him back.

Sounds like a fun place to work.

Mattis and Co. obviously consider themselves the president’s minders more than his underlings. But the least they could do is not air this patronizing attitude. They are impressive and accomplished people, but no one elected any of them president of the United States. They don’t do the country any favors by highlighting Trump’s weakness and by making it obvious that the American government doesn’t speak with one voice.

Oh I don’t agree with that at all. They do the country the favor of making Trump’s removal more likely. The less support he has from his own side, the more likely it is that Congress will act.

Mexico offered to help with the response to Harvey, and Trump’s administration responded with “We’ll call you if we need you.” Apparently that’s where it remains: Mexico offered help and the administration didn’t accept it.

They helped with Katrina, and Bush wasn’t such a shit that he said no thank you.

The U.S. government and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to Katrina was widely criticized, but Americans came together to offer housing, clothing, meals and monetary help to the affected. President George W. Bush even accepted a huge offer of aid from Mexico.

The aid Mexico sent was no small thing — it was an extraordinary gesture, and it may have saved many lives. Marking the first time that Mexican troops had set foot on U.S. soil since the Mexican-American War in 1846, President Vicente Fox sent an army convoy and a naval vessel laden with food, water and medicine. By the end of their three-week operation in Louisiana and Mississippi, the Mexicans had served 170,000 meals, helped distribute more than 184,000 tons of supplies and conducted more than 500 medical consultations.

On Sunday, as Harvey was drowning Houston and environs, Trump was busy tweeting about The Wall.

With Mexico being one of the highest crime Nations in the world, we must have THE WALL. Mexico will pay for it through reimbursement/other.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 27, 2017

Late on Sunday, Mexico’s foreign ministry issued a statement responding to Trump’s tweets, as well as offering assistance, though without any specifics. The statement reiterates the Mexican government’s long-held position that it will not pay for a border wall “under any circumstances,” and that drug trafficking and related crime are a “shared problem.”

Then it moves on to Harvey. “The Mexican government takes this opportunity to express its full solidarity with the people and government of the United States for the damages caused by Hurricane Harvey in Texas, and express that we have offered the US government help and cooperation to be provided by different Mexican government agencies to deal with the impacts of this natural disaster — as good neighbors should always do in difficult times.”

Did Trump put the needs of people in Texas ahead of his own stupid fight-picking with Mexico? Of course he didn’t.

The offer would put Trump in a bind. Should he accept the generosity, which, to some of his supporters, might ring of hypocrisy and weakness? Or should he deny it, while Texans cope with a nightmare?

For now, the U.S. government is deferring that decision, essentially saying, “If we need you, we’ll call.”

In a statement emailed to The Washington Post late Sunday, a State Department spokesman said, “It is common during hurricanes and other significant weather events for the U.S. Government to be in close contact with our neighbors and partners in the region to share data and cooperate as needed and appropriate. If a need for assistance does arise, we will work with our partners, including Mexico, to determine the best way forward.”

As if the need for assistance were some distant contingency as opposed to what was happening right then.

PBS has a useful compilation of Trump on race. There are a few wild cards but mostly it’s what you’d expect…and there’s a lot of it.

To understand this side of the president, especially after his remarks about the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, we combed the archives (and Internet) for more of Trump’s words and actions on race. We found nearly 100 critical moments.

1973

Discrimination charge. Donald and Fred Trump are accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against potential minority renters. They insist they are innocent and fight the sweeping charges.

1975

DOJ settlement. The Trumps settle with the Department of Justice over housing discrimination charges, agreeing to meet certain standards while not admitting any wrongdoing.

1978

Renewed discrimination charge. The Department of Justice accuses the Trumps of continuing to discriminate in spite of their settlement.

1983

Report: disproportionately white tenants. The New York Times reports that two Trump properties have populations that are 95 percent white.

1989

Central Park Five Ads. After five young men of color — known as The Central Park Five — are arrested for a brutal attack on a jogger, Donald Trump buys full-page newspaper ads stressing law and order and urging return of the the death penalty. He writes that white, black, Hispanic and Asian families have lost a sense of security in their neighborhoods. (The five men, who[m] Trump called “crazed misfits,” were exonerated 13 years later.)

…

1993

“They don’t look like Indians to me,” Trump says during a Congressional hearing when talking about Native American casino officials, accusing them of working with organized crime. He adds that political correctness have given Native American status to some people who don’t “look like Indians.”

But then one of the wild cards.

1995

Opens racially-inclusive club. Trump turns his Mar-a-Lago resort into a private club open to Jews, African-Americans and all races, breaking with many other local elite clubs in Palm Beach, Florida.

Jumping to 2011.

FEB. 10, 2011

First publicly doubts Obama. Trump tells conservative CPAC that President Barack Obama’s classmates never saw him at school. Politifact rated this statement “pants on fire.”

MARCH 23, 2011

Birtherism begins. Trump goes on “The View,” says that President Obama must show his birth certificate.

APRIL 21, 2011

Questions Obama’s place at Harvard. In an interview with the Associated Press, Trump questions how President Obama got into Columbia and Harvard. Later, he tells reporters Obama should “get off the basketball court.”

That stupid illiterate pig of a man questioned how Obama got into Columbia and Harvard.

APRIL 24, 2013

Calls Jon Stewart by his Jewish birth name. Trump tweets that he’s smarter than “Jonathan Leibowitz – I mean Jon Stewart …”

As if Stewart were secretive about being Jewish.

The most recent item:

AUG. 22, 2017

“I love all the people” and Confederate statues are “our heritage.” Speaking at a rally in Phoenix, Trump lashed out at coverage of his remarks about Charlottesville, Virginia, saying he loves “all the people of our country” and repeating that “racism is evil.” He called the white nationalist driver who killed a protester in Charlottesville “a murderer.” Minutes later, Trump defended Confederate statues, charging that those who want to remove them “are trying to take our history and our heritage away.”

Trump this morning.

After reading the false reporting and even ferocious anger in some dying magazines, it makes me wonder, WHY? All I want to do is #MAGA!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2017

Oh please.

The life history of cheating and exploitation? The 1973 lawsuit for systematically discriminating against black people in housing rentals? Tricking people out of large sums of money for “tuition” at Trump “University”?

The Central Park 5? The birtherism?

The filth of the campaign – including a great deal of “ferocious anger”? Mexicans are rapists?

The constant name-calling? The bullying? The insults? The lies?

The conceit, the vanity, the self-importance, the self-obsession? The grotesque hubris of feeling qualified to be president?

“You can grab them by the pussy”?

The many allegations of sexual assault?

The endless crazed tweets? The lie about Obama’s wiretapping? The lie about Mika Brzezinski’s face lift? The personal attacks on countless people?

Pushing Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn? Firing Comey? That private meeting with the Russians with no US press allowed? Slandering Comey to the Russians?

“On many sides, on many sides?” That press conference three days later? Saying there were many good people among the white supremacists?

That appalling “rally” in Phoenix?

Pardoning Arpaio?

The complete incompetence along with the complete lazy indifference along with the corruption and dishonesty in the office?

To name just a few.

That’s WHY. Wonder no more.

Jane Chong and Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare say it’s time.

The evidence of criminality on Trump’s part is little clearer today than it was a day, a week, or a month ago. But no conscientious member of the House of Representatives can at this stage fail to share McConnell’s doubts about Trump’s fundamental fitness for office. As the Trump presidency enters its eighth month, those members of Congress who are serious about their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution” must confront a question. It’s not, in the first instance, whether the President should be removed from office, or even whether he should be impeached. It is merely this: whether given everything Trump has done, said, tweeted and indeed been since his inauguration, the House has a duty, as a body, to think about its obligations under the impeachment clauses of the Constitution—that is, whether the House needs to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open a formal inquiry into possible impeachment.

It’s not a hard question. Indeed, merely to ask it plainly is also to answer it.

I keep thinking it’s surprising that Republicans aren’t more eager to get rid of him than anyone else, for the same sort of reason that I especially hate him as an American. So much that’s wrong with Trump has little to do with political views but is instead mostly about what he is as a person. I say “little” as opposed to “nothing” because I think some of his terrible qualities are more compatible with being a Republican, but that’s a minor point. The major point is that I think his hideous moral character should be repulsive to anyone who holds public office. I would think Republicans would want to dump him as soon as possible because he’s ruining the brand.

In our view, Congress should be evaluating at least three baskets of possible impeachable offenses. There is a good deal of overlap between these classes of misconduct, but they are sufficiently distinct to warrant individual attention:

• his abuses of power, most obviously exemplified by his conduct with respect to the investigations into his campaign’s collusion with Russia;
• his failures of moral leadership; and
• his abandonment of the basic duties of his office.

At the extreme, each type of misconduct not only denigrates the presidency but also fundamentally undermines the security of the United States.

The security and so much else – the reputation, the standing, the credit. We dented the bejezus out of all of those during the Cold War, overthrowing lefty governments and installing right-wing dictators all over the place, but we still had some.

They go over a lot more detail, and then get to the issue of just plain not doing the job.

The most obvious kind of abandonment boils down to failure to make appointments, a task critical to ensuring the executive branch’s efficacy and accountability. To date, most key executive branch positions remain empty and their nominees unnamed seven months into the Trump presidency, including those he is legally obligated to fill; to date, 62 percent of the almost 600 positions that require Senate confirmation lack a nominee. Even while threatening “fire and fury” against nuclear North Korea and threatening military action in Venezuela, Trump has deliberately gutted the State Department, leaving the country rudderless on the world stage.

Count us as skeptical that delays in making appointments could become a stand-alone basis for impeachment, except in the most egregious cases of blatant refusal, and the macro numbers in any event indicate Trump, while behind, is not wildly out of range of his modern predecessors. There is a far more ominous form of delinquency Congress must consider, and that is abandonment as an outgrowth of Trump’s extreme incompetence. He is sufficiently deficient in judgment and discretion that he requires perpetual, and very public, babysitting; in many respects, he appears to have relinquished the job, but his advisers also live in constant fear of what will happen if he shows up to do it. Political scientist Dan Drezner has even been keeping a tally of times Trump’s advisers are quoted talking about him as though he were a toddler.  In fact, the only way to mitigate the damage Trump has proven capable of doing, particularly in the foreign policy arena—whether by way of an improvised threat to North Korea, Venezuela or Mexico or an an indefensible tweet at odds with his own administration’s diplomatic objectives—is for his advisers to counteract him, either by downplaying him or flat-out contradicting him. The result is not a president but a poltergeist, who does little more than make noise and threaten damage. He has all but abandoned the office for purpose of substantive leadership and governance, but is sufficiently present to make a mess. At some point, surely that amounts to more than “maladministration” but to the “gross and wanton neglect of duty” that Black described.

One would hope.

Jennifer Rubin argues that it’s time to impeach Trump.

President Richard Nixon faced impeachment not for any crime but, under the first article of impeachment, because, “in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.”

Trump’s been doing that from the beginning. That first surprise dinner with Comey? That was a week after the inauguration.

Now The Post reports:

A top executive from Donald Trump’s real estate company emailed Vladi­mir Putin’s personal spokesman during the U.S. presidential campaign last year to ask for help advancing a stalled Trump Tower development project in Moscow, according to documents submitted to Congress Monday.

Michael Cohen, a Trump attorney and executive vice president for the Trump Organization, sent the email in January 2016 to Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s top press aide.

So Trump was taking a soft line on Russia at the time his personal attorney was asking Putin for help. Perhaps “collusion” is too kind a word for trading favors with an enemy of the United States.

She goes through the list – the contacts, the lies about the contacts, the meeting, the encouragement of hacking, the pressuring of Comey, the firing of Comey.

That is a pattern of behavior that goes to the core of his oath of office and his obligation to faithfully enforce the laws. He is using the powers of government for selfish, personal ends in an attempt to prevent scrutiny of his own affairs and conduct. Certainly special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will add to the portrait, filling in with illustrative detail. However, the contours of the case for impeachment are already there.

…

When we consider the myriad other ways in which Trump has used and misused the presidency — e.g. praising police abuses, insulting federal (“so-called”) judges, pardoning someone who defied a court order, enriching himself while in office, putting unqualified relatives in office, refusing to reveal his financial dealings or to free himself of conflicts of interest — it becomes clear that Trump is not fulfilling his oath or faithfully executing the law; he’s enriching himself, deflecting inquiry and undermining the rule of law. How could impeachment not be on the table?

The short answer is: Republicans.

Speaking of Ivanka Trump’s pretensions to being a supporter of women’s “empowerment” and a legitimate senior adviser to a head of state – she endorses Trump’s intervention on the equal pay front.

The Trump administration, with the backing of first daughter Ivanka, has suspended a policy proposed by President Obama that would have made it easier for women and people of color to identify whether they were being paid less than white male counterparts at work.

Under the scheme, private employers with over 100 workers would have had to disclose pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on top of information on gender, race, and ethnicity already provided to the agency.

The policy was intended to help close the pernicious gender wage gap, which sees women and people of color paid far less than white men for the same jobs.

Ivanka Trump, who has built a brand off the claim that she supports working women, issued a statement supporting the move by the Office of Management and Budget.

“Ultimately, while I believe the intention was good and agree that pay transparency is important, the proposed policy would not yield the intended results,” said the first daughter, who recently published a book called ‘Women Who Work’ and markets a clothing and accessories line to working women.

How the hell does she know? Who is she to make that claim? What is the source of her expertise?

Activists who focus on pay equality have blasted this decision, with the executive director of Make It Work, a nonprofit aimed at improving women’s economic lives, calling it “a blatant attack on women.”

“To suspend a crucial Obama-era initiative aimed at increasing pay transparency and reducing the gender and racial pay gap is an unacceptable and deliberate attack on women in the workplace, especially black and Hispanic women who are currently paid only 63 cents and 54 cents to the dollar white men are paid, respectively,” said Tracy Sturdivant, who cofounded the Make It Work campaign.

But Ivanka Trump knows better because…what?

Oh wait, I know – it’s because she’s an employer and a purchaser. She doesn’t want to pay her employees more and she doesn’t want to pay more for the merch she sells. It’s not that she actually thinks it wouldn’t work; she’s lying just like Daddy about that – it’s that she thinks it will cost her money.

The CEO of the nonprofit National Women’s Law Center called the decision to halt the pay data disclosure initiative a “tremendous setback.”

“What they have said is that they thought this was ‘burdensome,'” said Fatima Goss Graves, who leads the organization aimed at advancing women’s equality. “That language has been used to halt all progress on civil rights — it’s not a new term.”

Goss Graves added that Ivanka Trump’s support of the administration’s move “entirely blows up the notion that she’s a champion of women’s issues.”

To put it mildly.

Even going to the scene of the disaster can’t take Trump’s mind off Trump.

As rescuers continued their exhausting and heartbreaking work in southeastern Texas on Tuesday afternoon, as the rain continued to fall and a reservoir near Houston spilled over, President Trump grabbed a microphone to address hundreds of supporters who had gathered outside a firehouse near Corpus Christi and were chanting: “USA! USA! USA!”

‘Thank you, everybody,” the president said, sporting one of the white “USA” caps that are being sold on his campaign website for $40. “I just want to say: We love you. You are special. . . . What a crowd. What a turnout.”

Yet again, Trump managed to turn attention on himself. His responses to the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey have been more focused on the power of the storm and his administration’s response than on the millions of Texans whose lives have been dramatically altered by the floodwaters.

He has talked favorably about the higher television ratings that come with hurricane coverage, predicted that he will soon be congratulating himself and used 16 exclamation points in 22 often breathless tweets about the storm. But as of late Tuesday afternoon, the president had yet to mention those killed, call on other Americans to help or directly encourage donations to relief organizations.

He could probably watch people struggling in the water right in front of him and still not give a damn.

https://youtu.be/O24vxjf9q1E

Since Harvey slammed into the Texas coast Friday night, the president has made his awe of the powerful storm clear and used almost admiring terms to describe it — as if he were describing a sporting match or an action movie instead of a natural disaster.

“125 MPH winds!” the president tweeted Friday as the hurricane made landfall.

“Record setting rainfall,” he noted the next day, along with telling his FEMA director, “The world is watching!”

“Wow — Now experts are calling #Harvey a once in 500 year flood!” he tweeted on Sunday, following tweets promoting a book written by a conservative sheriff and announcing a Wednesday trip to Missouri, a state that “I won by a lot in ’16.”

At a news conference Monday, Trump continued to gush over the storm. “I’ve heard the words, ‘epic.’ I’ve heard ‘historic.’ That’s what it is,” he said, adding that the hurricane will make Texas stronger and the rebuilding effort “will be something very special.”

By focusing on the historic epicness of the hurricane, Trump has repeatedly turned attention to his role in confronting the disaster — a message reinforced by comments and tweets praising members of his administration.

Not to mention wearing self-advertising headgear throughout.

While Trump’s top aides gathered with Vice President Pence at the White House over the weekend, Trump videoconferenced in. On Saturday, he wore a white campaign hat. On Sunday, he opted for a red version. As of Tuesday evening, both hats — which feature “USA” on the front, “45” on a side and “Trump” in the back — were being sold on Trump’s campaign website, prompting ethics watchdogs to accuse the president of trying to profit off the crisis.

I’m trying to imagine Obama doing that. Can’t.

Trump wore one of the hats on his trip to Texas, too. I bet he sold quite a few. Congratulations, Mr President!

On the ground in Corpus Christi, Trump and his entourage traveled to a firehouse for a brief meeting with local and national officials, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and the state’s two senators, Republicans Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. He praised everyone for working together so well and referred to his FEMA director, Brock Long, as “a man who’s really become very famous on television over the last couple of days.”

What a stroke of luck this hurricane has been for Brock Long! Isn’t it exciting?!

“It’s a real team, and we want to do it better than ever before. We want to be looked at in five years and 10 years from now as this is the way to do it,” Trump said. “This was of epic proportions. Nobody’s ever seen anything like this. And I just want to say that working with the governor and his entire team has been an honor for us.”

He then thanked the governor and added: “And we won’t say congratulations. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to congratulate. We’ll congratulate each other when it’s all finished.”

Won’t that be exciting??

The president’s comments, which lasted mere minutes, angered many of those who served in President Barack Obama’s administration and could not imagine their former boss ever acting like this.

“It’s not a time for showboating,” said Alyssa Mastromonaco, a former deputy chief of staff for Obama. “It’s not a time for crowing about crowds. This weather event isn’t even over yet.”

Before Trump traveled to Austin for another briefing, Trump addressed supporters gathered outside, climbing a ladder positioned between two firetrucks and behind a black SUV. With his wife at his side, he sounded as if he were addressing a political rally instead of a state struggling to start to recover — but it was a tone that matched the screaming crowd. Some there carried pro-Trump signs and flags.

“I will tell you, this is historic — it’s epic, what happened,” Trump told them. “But you know what? It happened in Texas, and Texas can handle anything.”

Also, Texas has really become very famous over the last few days. It’s terrific!!