He was going to tear all those terrible trade deals up and negotiate something just terrific. He promised. He was the best negotiator and everyone else sucked eggs. He alone could fix it, along with so many other things like health care.

Last week, the White House tried to make a big show of Donald Trump taking the bull by the horns on trade by signing two new executive orders. He ultimately gave a quick statement then fled the room without signing anything as reporters hurled questions at him about Michael Flynn. He either forgot to sign them or simply found the process of governing so tedious that he bolted. Both scenarios hold greater meaning for Trump's floundering presidency. But where trade is concerned, corporations are starting to call Trump’s bluff, writes Paul Krugman:

Business seems to have decided that Mr. Trump is a paper tiger on trade: The flow of corporate relocations to Mexico, which slowed briefly while C.E.O.s tried to curry favor with the new president, has resumed. Trade policy by tweet, it appears, has run its course.

Investors seem to have reached the same conclusion: The Mexican peso plunged 16 percent after the election, but since Inauguration Day it has recovered almost all the lost ground.

The administration has also been circulating a letter on Capitol Hill detailing new demands on NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) that, far from decimating the deal, was considered “relatively benign.” Not exactly the sea change candidate Trump called for on what he declared the “worst trade deal” ever.

So why has Trump backed off all that tough trade talk? Remember his revelation on health care reform a couple months ago: Nobody knew it could be so complicated. Trump's really been in for some surprises on trade too. 

And now the Trump-Russia connections include notorious Blackwater founder Erik Prince.

The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. [...]

Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

The talks took place in the Seychelles islands about a week before the inauguration, were held over two days, and apparently were meant to explore whether the two sides could come to an arrangement over Iran and Syria. But while in January Prince was giving the impression of being Trump's "unofficial envoy", now that the meeting's come to light his spokesman is angrily revising that notion.

“Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication,” said a spokesman for Prince in a statement. “The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump. Why is the so-called under-resourced intelligence community messing around with surveillance of American citizens when they should be hunting terrorists?”

Well, but that's the thing, Erik. The intelligence community isn't messing around with surveillance of American citizens, they're surveilling suspicious foreign agents and people closely connected to Donald Trump keep freaking popping up in those conversations, over and over, whether it be in Trump Tower or in the Seychelles. You'll have to forgive them if after the dozenth or so time it began to look a little damn odd.

So that's another data point for the Trump-Russia speculation files. And though Prince currently is denying it, the Washington Post’s sources stated that the officials that arranged the meeting with Prince, for their parts, seemed to be under the specific impression that Prince was acting as an unofficial Trump “representative.” Whether Prince was lying to them then, or is lying to the Post now, has yet to be determined.

Jeff Sessions and DHS Secretary John Kelly said in a letter to California’s Supreme Court Chief Justice that ICE agents will continue to trample on public safety by arresting undocumented immigrants at courthouses, despite local law enforcement and legal authorities saying this tactic will do more harm to communities in the long run. So much for this being the “law and order” regime:

The subject of ICE arrests at courthouses has been particularly sensitive in recent weeks between major cities and federal officials, as local jurisdictions have complained that arresting undocumented immigrants in courthouses has a chilling effect on their participation in prosecuting criminals as witnesses and reporting victims.

Los Angeles has said reporting of crimes like sexual assault and domestic violence are down by one-quarter in immigrant communities.

"Our courthouses serve as a vital forum for ensuring access to justice and protecting public safety," [California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani] Cantil-Sakauye wrote in her letter earlier this month. "Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country's immigration laws.”

But DHS has maintained that courthouses are not considered "sensitive locations" and that apprehending individuals in controlled environments is safer than doing so on the street.

Safer for who, exactly? Late last month in Illinois:

A Chicago man was shot and seriously wounded by an Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent during a raid on a home in the city’s Belmont Cragin neighborhood Monday morning, authorities and the victim’s family say.

The circumstances surrounding the ICE raid remain unclear, but the man who was shot, Felix Torres, 53, was not the target of the operation, DNAInfo Chicago reports.

Torres and his wife are legal permanent residents of the United States. Their children are U.S. citizens. Several other people live in the house, but none of them are undocumented, the family says.

The right-wing position on climate change has nothing to do with science. Like everything else, it’s part of a meta-position, one that says business can do no wrong. If business is crippling workers through lack of safety, safety rules are the enemy of the right. If dumping toxins in the water is one cent cheaper than proper disposal, clean water rules are the enemy of the right. If doing anything, anything at all, to address carbon emissions affects the bottom line, then climate change is the enemy of the right. 

Just ask “what generates the greatest profit for existing CEOs of existing corporations without one thought to how it affects workers, the public, or the future” and it’s easy to predict the right’s position on almost any subject. Don’t let thoughts of improving technology, shifting needs, or any trend longer than a week interfere. All that information is discarded.

To disseminate these positions, the right depends on strong leaders to set the guidelines that the rest will follow. On climate change, leadership’s position is clear.

Vladimir Putin has said humans are not to blame for climate change - and that the melting of the ice in the Arctic could be used for Russia's “economic ends”.

Yes, yes, there may be less ice here and there, and winters may be warmer but … that’s a good thing. Certainly not the fault of humans that pump 10 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually. In this position, Putin mirrors Trump. The two define the “humans aren’t to blame” school of climate change, which is now replacing the “there is no climate change” position … because there’s so obviously climate change.

And where there are leaders, there must be followers.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt still doesn’t agree with the vast majority of climate scientists who say humans are the primary cause of climate change.

A full year after Flint, Michigan, made headlines for contaminated drinking water that poisoned the city’s poorest of residents, the city government is now demanding that its citizens pay for their water services—the very same water that poisoned them in the first place. Back in June, Gov. Rick Snyder told residents that city water was safe to drink with a filter. Of course, this was eight months after finally acknowledging there was a problem—which everyone from the EPA to the international press knew by then. But after the city and state decided to make the Flint River the city’s water source which resulted in thousands of children with lead exposure and an outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease that killed at least 12 people since 2014, people just don’t have faith in the government anymore. Imagine that? But trust aside, the unmitigated gall of anyone to ask these victims of neglect, corruption and greed for money to pay for their water is truly astounding!

The warning letters arrived in Flint mailboxes in early March. Their demand, of almost unfathomable audacity, is delivered in red capital letters, underlined for emphasis: pay for your poison or else.

Snyder’s government, which was largely responsible for the water disaster, announced in February that it would stop giving Flint residents subsidies for their water. Mayor Karen Weaver then decided to resume the practice of shutting off the water for people with unpaid bills.

Meanwhile, residents know that no matter how much the government claims to have fixed the pipes or have restored the lead levels, things will never be back to normal (if there ever was such a thing). That’s the reason why they still head to different sites around the city in order to obtain free cases of drinking water.

And while lead levels have fallen below the federal danger threshold, residents know now that no amount of lead is truly safe, they know the city’s work on its pipes poses new contamination risks, and they say the water is still foul-smelling and still making them sick. So they show up at the Eastown Bowl and Flint’s eight other drive-thru distribution sites six days a week, forming water lines rarely seen outside the world’s poorest and most parched nations.

Some of them won’t even do that. Occupational therapist Audrey Muhammad buys her own bottled water, and only in the suburbs. She is suspicious of anything run by the state and city authorities.

Neil Gorsuch must have gotten a promise from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he'll get that Supreme Court seat, even if that means McConnell blows up the filibuster on nominees for the highest court. (You might remember that McConnell declared it was practically the end of the Senate as an institution when Harry Reid and the Democrats pulled the plug on the filibuster for other nominees.) The arrogance and evasiveness that characterized his performance are indicative of his attitude to the whole process—he doesn't feel any need to cooperate in the process. Ultimately, the contempt that this partisan Republican feels toward Democrats, toward the process, shines through.

Gorsuch submitted 76 pages of answers Thursday to written questions senators asked after the conclusion of the nominee's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week, but remained cagey about his personal views of most of the legal questions raised, often repeating boilerplate phrases contending that it would be "improper" and "risk violating my ethical obligations as a judge" to opine on matters that could come before the court.

"Doesn’t surprise me," California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee's top Democrat, told POLITICO of the lack of clarity in Gorsuch's written answers. "That’s all I can say."

To a series of written, follow-up questions from Democrats, Gorsuch had a litany of answers running the gamut from "it would not be proper for a nominee to express views that touch on or could be perceived as touching on claims made in pending or impending litigation" to "I do not recall which specific programs or when I was read into them." That last response was to questions from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) who was attempting to get clarification on just how involved Gorsuch was in programs related to the Bush regime's torture program. Despite Gorsuch's opacity, a spokesman for Gorsuch, Ron Bonjean, said he has given senators "unprecedented access and transparency."

Tell that to Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), all Democrats and all women of color who Gorsuch has been either unwilling or unable to schedule courtesy meetings with. That's how little respect for the Senate Gorsuch has displayed.

But he's only shown disrespect and contempt for the Democrats of the Senate, and they don't count as far as the majority is concerned. That's why McConnell and team will have no problem ignoring it and blowing up the Senate to confirm him.

This should be fun. Coming off the healthcare debacle, popular vote loser Donald Trump is still searching for his first big win as pr*sident. Next up is tax reform and Team Trump isn't gonna make the mistake of letting the House steer its fortunes again. Politico writes:

The White House is eager to move on and hopes a more hands-on approach will avert another legislative failure — even if the details of the tax plan are far from figured out.

Just on Thursday, President Donald Trump huddled with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, senior strategist Steve Bannon, son-in-law and consigliere Jared Kushner and staffers from the National Economic Council and Treasury to delve into the various policy trade-offs and ways to structure a plan.

The key takeaway: The White House is not outsourcing these details to anyone, including the speaker of the House.

Absolutely. What the legislative process really needs is the slow, steady hand of the Donald—the guy who threatened to "fight" the Freedom Caucus last Thursday, name checked specific caucus members later that day, then turned around Sunday and hailed the "love and strength" of the Republican party.

Trump can't decide from one hour to the next whether he wants to cast aside the House maniacs and woo Democrats to notch some legislative wins, or whether making nicey nice with the House maniacs is the key to success. Maybe he can't even remember which tack he’s decided to take from one hour to the next.

But one thing is perfectly clear: He’s far better at making war on the many many enemies he imagines surround him at any given moment than he is at building bridges. Sure enough, Trump's paranoia-inspired erraticism has legislative success written all over it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the supposedly iconoclastic libertarian is pretty easily bought off. All it took was a round of golf with popular vote loser Donald Trump, the guy he voted for while holding his breath and only because "I signed a document, not under duress, but I signed a document saying […] I will support the nominee." But the really absurd part of this is the idea that the two of them figured out Trumpcare.

"We had a great day with the President. Played some golf, and we talked and we talked about a little bit of health care. I continue to be very optimistic that we are getting closer and closer to an agreement on repealing Obamacare," Paul told White House pool reporters on Sunday afternoon.

Because everybody in the Senate listens to what Rand Paul has to say. That's going to work.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is voting Monday whether to approve popular vote loser Donald Trump's nominee of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and while the outcome is clear—he'll be passed out of committee—Democrats took the opportunity to lay out a detailed, principled case for not only opposing his confirmation, but filibustering it. Two senior senators—Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT)—with a great deal of influence used the opportunity to announce that they are off the fence and will filibuster. With the addition of Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Chris Coons (D-DE), that gives Democrats the necessary 41 votes to oppose cloture.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein called out Gorsuch for his failure to answer the simplest of questions during the hearings. She continued "Our job is to assess whether the nominee will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans and whether the nominee recognizes the humanity and justice required when evaluating the cases before him. Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch's record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate, and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who has never been much of a supporter of changing Senate rules, as the Dean of the Senate now, recognizes that this nomination is too much, and that even if it means Republicans go nuclear, Democrats must block it.

These are extraordinary times, and this is an extraordinary nomination. Last year this Committee forever tarnished its reputation and 100 years of bipartisan tradition to do the Majority Leader and Donald Trump's partisan bidding. Senate Republicans held a Supreme Court vacancy and an eminently qualified nominee hostage with the sole and express intent to deny President Obama an appointment to the Supreme Court. Since taking office, President Trump has focused his attention on targeting the very communities that are most at risk by his choice for the Supreme Court—a nominee who, the White House tells us, shares his agenda. This nominee has since refused to address any substantive issues during his testimony. He has left this Committee and the American people with only unresolved concerns. The Majority Leader is now promising to rush this nominee toward confirmation, depriving Senators of a full debate on the Senate floor. And the Majority Leader has promised to use whatever tactic is necessary to get his way—that Donald Trump's nominee is confirmed, even if that means forever damaging the Senate.

I respect this institution as much as anyone. For over 42 years I have devoted myself to the good that it can accomplish. But I cannot vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hardworking Americans are at risk. I fear the Senate I would be defending no longer exists. I have often said that the Senate, at its best, can be the conscience of the Nation. I must now vote my conscience, both today and later this week. My conscience will not allow me to ratify the Majority Leader's actions—not last year and not this year. I will not support advancing this nomination.

Colorado's Michael Bennet, never a profile in courage, joined Joe Manchin (WV), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and Joe Donnelly (IN) in saying he'd vote for cloture. Now the ball is in Mitch McConnell’s court. He will make the decision to go nuclear on the filibuster and his Republicans will follow. To their ultimate detriment.

Forget that testimony from FBI director James Comey, Donald Trump knows who has the real skinny about his Russia dealings:

Good ol’ Fox News! What a surprise.

Let’s step back a moment and forget about the idiocy of Trump opening yet another week with the surveillance narrative that has totally crippled his administration for the past month. Let’s also set aside the fact that James Comey testified he had “no information” to support the notion that President Obama wiretapped Trump.

If, in fact, the thing Trump is so eager to prove actually occurred, it could implicate him or members of his entourage in wrongdoing because a judge has to approve surveillance done on U.S. soil. Targeted surveillance of U.S. persons isn’t approved unless there’s probable cause to believe there’s some form of wrongdoing by the subject being targeted.

Even House Intelligence chair Devin Nunes—who has been doing Trump’s bidding—hasn’t been able to bring himself to suggest that some form of illegal surveillance took place. Nunes claimed any information about team Trump might have been obtained through “incidental collection,” or data collected while intelligence agencies were surveilling agents of a foreign government. In other words, the target of the surveillance wasn’t necessarily the Trump orbit itself.

One thing Trump is correct about: This is indeed unprecedented. If there was probable cause for Trump and his associates to be directly surveilled, that would be unprecedented. It’s also unprecedented that the possible subject of that surveillance is rooting for the allegation to be both kept in the spotlight and proven. Please proceed, Trump.

The immigration lawyer shortage is “nearing crisis,” as a combination of Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant executive orders and an unfair, outdated immigration system have caused the demand for legal help to skyrocket:

Lewis & Clark law professor Juliet Stumpf says supply of immigration lawyers, however, has remained level, and non-profit organizations and advocacy groups are already overwhelmed or overextended.

Stumpf says it's unfair to point the finger only at the White House. She says Congress has not significantly updated immigration laws since the 1990s.

"In 1996, Congress passed some of the harshest immigration legislation," Stumpf said. "It took away some of the ways that we have always just historically allowed people as a nation to regularize their status."

Immigration lawyers provide more services than only representing clients who are seeking permanent residency. Stumpf says lawyers help those who need to change their immigration status for employment or humanitarian reasons and offer basic immigration advice.

"Immigration law is really focused on family unity," she said. "It's not broken, it's just... like any other infrastructure... the legal infrastructure needs an update."

In the case of the recent detainment of an Iranian woman trying to fly into Portland, Oregon, with a valid tourist visa, criminal defense attorneys came to her aid because “finding an immigration lawyer on such short notice was tough”:

The Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association sent a mass email asking attorneys to go to the airport to help represent the family.

Attorney Rob Crow was one of about a dozen who went to the airport.

"We're basically shooting from the hip, trying to figure out what can we accomplish," Crow told KATU Wednesday. "I'm at the end of what I can do to help, I think."

Crow specializes in criminal defense and DUII cases and is not considered an expert in immigration law. However, he succeeded in preventing federal agents from immediately deporting Ghandi.