University Medical Center spokesman: We share the shock and disappointment of many who have viewed the video. In the end we clearly failed to fulfill our mission with this patient."

By LIz Sly @ WashingtonPost.com, Jan. 9

BEIRUT — A series of mysterious attacks against the main Russian military base in Syria, including one conducted by a swarm of armed miniature drones, has exposed Russia’s continued vulnerability in the country despite recent claims of victory by President Vladimir Putin.

The attacks have also spurred a flurry of questions over who may be responsible for what amounts to the biggest military challenge yet to Russia’s role in Syria, just when Moscow is seeking to wind its presence down.

In the most recent and unusual of the attacks, more than a dozen armed drones descended from an unknown location onto Russia’s vast Hmeimim air base in northwestern Latakia province, the headquarters of Russia’s military operations in Syria, and on the nearby Russian naval base at Tartus [....]

By David Sirota @ International Business Times, Jan. 9

The Trump administration has waived part of the punishment for five megabanks whose affiliates were convicted and fined for manipulating global interest rates. One of the Trump administration waivers was granted to Deutsche Bank — which is owed at least $130 million by President Donald Trump and his business empire, and has also been fined for its role in a Russian money laundering scheme.

The waivers were issued in a little-noticed announcement published in the Federal Register during the Christmas holiday week. They come less than two years after then-candidate Trump promised “I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder.” [....]

For half a century, Romney and his family have existed near the center of the Republican Party. Now it isn’t obvious that he fits in at all.

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells @ NewsDesk @ NewYorker.com, Jan. 9

The most romantic vision of Romney—that he might arrive in Washington as the de-facto leader of an anti-Trump faction—seems unlikely....

....

If you want to fight Trump effectively, you have to learn to think like they do and give up the prospect that scandal will one day undo him.

....

Normal politicians collapse in the face of scandal because it shows them dozing on the job or falling short of their promises. To get elected, they offer a bargain: “Vote for me. I will make you richer/fight for your rights/assure your progress.” Scandals reveal that they can’t do that, and thus, they tumble. However, like all populists, Trump offered a much different deal: “Vote for me. I will destroy your enemies. They are the reason you are not rich/have fewer rights/America is not great anymore.” Scandal is the populist’s natural element for the same reason that demolishing buildings makes more noise than constructing them. His supporters didn’t vote for silence. They voted for a bang

.....

If dwelling on scandal too much can be counterproductive, then the focus must be elsewhere. I believe it should rest on understanding and empathizing with the grievances that brought Trump to power (wage stagnation, cultural isolation, a depleted countryside, the opioid crisis). Trump’s solutions may be imaginary, but the problems are very real. Populism is and has always been the daughter of political despair. Showing concern is the only way to break the rhetorical polarization.

This writer seems to share the asymmetrical view of Josh that maintains that the sexual abuse revelations would not have negative voter impact on Trump and on GOP electeds or candidates because their voters simply don't care about these issues.  [To what degree does an analysis of Alabama Senate race data support that view?] Or perhaps some do to some degree, but, to the above writer's point, to a greater degree they view Trump and GOP electeds as sharing enemies with themselves.

The Iron Triangle which right now plagues us consists of Trump, his voters, and his big donors and dark money supporters.  If, hypothetically, his favorability ratings were to descend further--not at all clear this will happen--in the coming months, could this impact the behavior of enough key Republicans in Congress to change the basic stonewalling/ride it out dynamic?  Or is the behavior of Republican elected officials essentially dictated by their big donors' wishes, no matter how low his approval ratings go?  To what extent do the dark money donors view Trump's political survival as important for the continuation and extension of their policy agenda?  Optional?  Counter-productive at a certain point?  If the latter, at what point?

At what point does a Republican elected official in Congress conclude that holding on to the donor money and other support just will not be enough to survive politically in the next election in the face of the unpopularity of the agenda being pursued by the GOP Congress and the President going along for that ride (so long as there is enough in it for him personally)? 

And if reaching such conclusion, what then?  Stick with the donors' policy agenda wishes in implicit or explicit exchange for the post-election defeat sinecure, if dark money proves unable to buy re-election?  Fully break with Trump with the hope/belief it's not too late?  Try to have it both ways by verbally putting some distance between themselves and Trump while not coming close to breaking with him or with the big donors' agenda?  

Is there any development or event, short of abandoning the substantive policy agenda reflected in the tax legislation, which might impact continued big donor support, through marching orders to the GOP Congress and attempts at media narrative influence which have been flailing badly this past year, for Trump prior to 2020?

Lots of questions.  Answers TBD.  

In a binding ruling, the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have boosted coal and nuclear energy over natural gas and renewables in competitive electricity markets.

By Steven Mufson @ WashingtonPost.com, Jan. 8

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power plants struggling in competitive electricity markets.

The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding.

At the same time, the commission said that it shared Perry’s stated goal of strengthening the “resilience” of the electricity grid and directed regional transmission operators to provide information to help the commission examine the matter “holistically.” The operators have 60 days to submit materials. At that time, the agency can issue another order [.....]

Trump's days in the Oval Office are relatively short – from around 11am to 6pm, then he's back to the residence. During that time he usually has a meeting or two, but spends a good deal of time making phone calls and watching cable news in the dining room adjoining the Oval. Then he's back to the residence for more phone calls and more TV.