The majority of American voters think President Trump may have been compromised by a foreign power, a new poll suggests.
In the latest survey from Politico/Morning Consult, 57 percent of registered voters said it is either "very" or "somewhat" likely that Russia has compromising information on Trump. A plurality, 36 percent, said it's "very" likely, while another 21 percent said it's "somewhat" likely. This is compared to 31 percent who said it's either not very likely or not likely at all, and 13 percent who weren't sure.
Additionally, 43 percent of voters believe Trump's presidential campaign worked with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 race, while 38 percent said they don't think the campaign did so, and 19 percent weren't sure. Even more voters, 49 percent, said they believe Trump has tried to "impede or obstruct" the investigation into Russian interference in the election.
These findings come on a catastrophically bad polling day for Trump, whose disapproval rating in this survey has reached a new high of 57 percent. The poll also shows that 72 percent of voters oppose funding the president's proposed border wall if it's the only way to end the government shutdown. Another poll from CBS released Wednesday, in which Trump's disapproval rating is also at its all-time high, shows that 71 percent of Americans believe the border wall is not worth the shutdown fight.
The Politico/Morning Consult poll was conducted from Jan. 18-22 by speaking to 1,996 registered voters. The margin of error is 2 percentage points. Read more results at Politico. Brendan Morrow
The Women's March revealed Monday that three founding board members who have been accused of anti-Semitism, financial mismanagement, and other detrimental behavior are being replaced by 16 new board members from across the U.S. The original members — Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, and Linda Sarsour — actually stepped down July 15, The Washington Post reports, though they were still listed as co-chairs through Monday. Bland and Mallory will be formally replaced as co-presidents when the new board meets this month and elects new leaders.
The Women's March told CNN in a statement that it "has not cut ties with the three departing board members; their terms have ended." The incoming board members — who include three Jewish women, two religious leaders, a member of the Lakota nation, and a transgender woman — "represent a truly diverse swath of women who have fought and will continue to fight tirelessly for women's equal rights," the statement added.
Most of the charges of anti-Semitism stem from the board members' associations with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The original Women's March, the day after President Trump's inauguration in 2017, was one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, and the organization has continued to organize demonstrations, including one against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh planned for early October. But the anti-Semitism allegations, a contentious and unsuccessful battle to trademark "Women's March," and other issues have led to rival groups splintering off and the withdrawal of supporting organizations. Peter Weber
"Saudi Arabia is once again a radioactive political football in the U.S., and President Donald Trump can't resist grabbing it," Politico reports. Trump's implication Sunday that Saudi Arabia would dictate the U.S. military response to Saturday's aerial attack on a Saudi oil facility "prompted fury in Washington, where the Saudis have faced an increasingly hostile climate in recent years," in fact "almost as politically charged as in the years immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when it was revealed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis."
Trump administration officials have said Iran is behind the attack on the major oil facility, though Trump and Saudi Arabia are publicly less definitive on the culprit. In a telephone briefing Monday, Brian Hook, Trump's special representative to Iran, told congressional staffers that Saudi Arabia views the attack as "their 9/11," CNN and The Washington Post report, citing two people familiar with the call.
The comparison to the Saudi-linked terrorist attacks, less than a week after the 18th anniversary of 9/11, "rankled several staffers," the Post reports. People also felt the comment was inappropriate, CNN reports, "because there have been no reported deaths as a result of the Saudi oil field strikes yet nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in New York, Washington, and outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in the 9/11 attacks." An official used the same 9/11 comparison on Trump during a briefing on the Saudi oil explosions, a source tells The Daily Beast, and Trump appeared "unmoved."
"From an American perspective, it seems like a trivialization of the tragedy of 9/11, and perhaps offensively so," Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, explains to The Daily Beast, "but from a Saudi point of view it is a way of explaining their shock to Americans." Peter Weber