It’s all about the GDP. Markets are anxiously awaiting this morning’s GDP report, hoping for 4.2% quarterly growth. If it happens, it’ll be a good indicator that the economy continues to rise at a rapid rate, even after the rapid growth from last year. It would also make the argument against Trump’s tax reform even weaker.
Speaking of tax reform, Elizabeth Warren bumbled through an interview when she was asked what tax rate is too high. The poor CNBC journalist tried to help her out. “Do you feel…that it’s wrong for more than half of somebody’s marginal income to be taken?” “Is 50 percent obviously too high?” Finally, as Warren continued to indicate that 50 percent may actually be too low, John Harwood went for the moon. “…obviously ‘no, 90 percent, that’s ridiculous'”. Warren finally capitulated.
Warren has the blessing of many Democrats to be the top 2020 DNC Presidential contender. But they will have to figure out how to deal with her ignorance about what taxes do to families and how the economy works. When Ocasio-Cortez ignorantly claimed that unemployment was low because people were working two jobs, Warren doubled down on the erroneous claim by saying it was actually because people were working as many as four jobs. Hopefully she can get some help on the economic front. When it comes to the economy, Trump is definitely winning.
Warren suggests hypothetical 50% tax rate is too low
On the legal side for Trump, it’s a mixed bag. While rumors from unnamed sources about the Mueller investigation have turned out to be mostly blowing smoke, there’s a new one out today saying Mueller is going to be looking at Trump’s tweets to see if he obstructed justice. That would be a stretch. As Guiliani pointed out, people don’t generally obstruct justice in public for millions to see. This appears to be grasping for straws. They would have to prove that Trump was somehow giving instructions to witnesses or intimidating people through Twitter. That would also mean Mueller would have to take Trump’s 3am Twitter persona more seriously than Peter Strzok’s texts to his mistress.
Even if Trump did try to obstruct justice on Twitter, the Bill Clinton precedent on obstruction would make it very hard to successfully argue for consequences. Clinton secretly intimidated witnesses, instructed them to lie, matched up stories, then committed perjury himself. The Senate failed to reach a two thirds majority and ended up acquitting him.