President Trump is willing, under duress, to briefly and begrudgingly admit that Russian “meddling” took place in 2016 before reverting to calling it a “big hoax.” But he always maintains that the plot against America had no impact; he describes it as a “Democrat excuse for losing the ’16 Election.” Faithfully echoing the president, other Republicans, such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), say it’s “clear” that the Russian interference “didn’t have a material effect on our elections.” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders even claims that the U.S. intelligence community reached that conclusion.....

While the intelligence agencies are silent on the impact of Russia’s attack, outside experts who have examined the Kremlin campaign — which included stealing and sharing Democratic Party emails, spreading propaganda online and hacking state voter rolls — have concluded that it did affect an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, writes in his recent book, “Messing with the Enemy,” that “Russia absolutely influenced the U.S. presidential election,” especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump’s winning margin was less than 1 percent in each state.....

Little wonder that Trump said “I love WikiLeaks” and mentioned its revelations 164 times in the last month of the campaign. “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said on Oct. 12. Eight days later, he marveled, “Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?”

Now, by contrast, Trump and his apologists pretend that the Russian intervention — including the WikiLeaks revelations — was no big deal. That beggars belief. Even if the Russians had failed, they still attacked our democracy. Yet they didn’t fail: Trump won. Russian disinformation wasn’t the only factor in the outcome and was probably less important in the end than FBI Director James B. Comey’s announcement 11 days before the election that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation. But Watts concludes: “Without the Russian influence effort, I believe Trump would not have even been within striking distance of Clinton on Election Day.” That is the inconvenient truth the Putin Republicans won’t admit.

Cruz strategist Jeff Roe sent a letter Wednesday to O'Rourke, an El Paso congressman, proposing the following debate schedule:

Aug. 31 in Dallas on "Jobs/Taxes/Federal Regulations/National Economy"
Sept. 14 in McAllen on "Immigration/Border Security/Criminal Justice/Supreme Court"
Sept. 21 in San Antonio on "Foreign Policy/National Security"
Oct. 5 in Houston on "Energy/Trade/Texas Economy"
Oct. 12 in Lubbock on "Healthcare/Obamacare"
Ted Cruz proposes five debates with Beto O’Rourke in U.S. Senate race

Voters have to identify themselves with a political party, and that identification isn’t stable; it ebbs and flows with events and circumstances. Trump might win high marks from most Republicans, but the pool of Republican voters might be smaller than in the past. Far from standing tall over the entire GOP, Trump’s base may have eroded significantly from where it was at the beginning of his administration.

According to the Pew Research Center, Republican Party identification fell 3 points, to 26 percent, from 2016 to the end of 2017. The number of self-identified independents increased at the same time, from 34 percent to 37 percent, while the number of Democrats remained steady. Gallup shows a similar change: From November 2016 to November 2017, there was a 5-point drop in the number of people who called themselves Republicans, from 42 percent to 37 percent. Democratic self-identification remained unchanged at 44 percent.

The sheer size of the United States makes it easy to find vocal support for anyone and anything, and Donald Trump has his vocal supporters. But their staunch commitment overshadows the reality: a shrinking base for a president who won by the skin of his teeth, reliant on a small group of voters in just a handful of states. His scandals and outrages—controversies and improprieties—have had an effect. Even rank-and-file GOP reactions to Helsinki are revealing; according to CBS, 21 percent of Republican voters disapproved of the president, a striking number given typical partisan loyalty.

A smaller base is still a base, and depending on their locations and constituencies, Trump-skeptic Republican lawmakers may see a backlash if they challenge the president. John McCain’s anti-Trump defiance has earned him real anger from Arizona voters, even as he prepares to leave office.

Gov. Bruce Rauner, who’s campaigning as an anti-corruption crusader, today found himself fending off attacks on his own ethics after attending an event where a political ally handed out $300,000 in cash.

The cash giveaway happened after the Republican governor spoke to a church on Chicago’s South Side on Sunday along with Willie Wilson, a onetime presidential candidate and 2019 challenger to Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Both Rauner and Wilson, political allies, addressed the congregation with the governor stating: “We’re honored to help you pay your property taxes. Happy to do it.” It was a reference, his campaign later explained, to Rauner’s work with Wilson’s private foundation.

Wilson then stood inside the church holding stacks of cash and handed out bills to passersby.

Wilson told POLITICO that the money was from his Gov. Bruce Rauner, who’s campaigning as an anti-corruption crusader, today found himself fending off attacks on his own ethics after attending an event where a political ally handed out $300,000 in cash.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the leftist star who is already beginning to grate on some of her entrenched, will-be Democratic colleagues, offered a theory in a recent interview for how the most progressive Democrats in Congress could flex their strength if the party retakes the House in November: Emulate the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

“Even if you can carve out a subportion, a subcaucus, of the Progressive Caucus, even a smaller bloc but one that operates as a bloc, you can generate real power,” she said on Jacobin’s the Dig podcast. Depending on the margin, a bloc of 10 or 30 members, she suggested, could have what the Freedom Caucus has, and is rarely shy to use: effective veto power over leadership on partisan legislation.

The reaction to this idea from Progressive Caucus members I spoke with on Tuesday, though—at least those who were even willing to comment on it—could best be described as hesitant.

“Isn’t that what the Progressive Caucus is?” Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, a vice chair of the 76-member caucus, said. “I think we kind of tend to do that right now with the Progressive Caucus, so I don’t understand what she would be doing that wouldn’t be duplicative.” Gallego said there is already a “hardcore” group of about 40 Progressive Caucus members who tend to stick closer together than the group at large.