John Delaney Drops Out

John Delaney, the longest of long shot candidates for the Democratic nomination, has dropped out of the race, three days before the Iowa caucuses. I've updated the list below.

I'm Running Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement:

1. Andrew Yang (11/6/17) 
2. Elizabeth Warren (12/31/18)
3. Tulsi Gabbard (1/11/19)
4. Pete Buttigieg (1/23/19)
5. Amy Klobuchar (2/10/19)
6. Bernie Sanders (2/19/19)
7. Joe Biden (4/25/19)
8. Michael Bennet (5/2/19)
9. Tom Steyer (7/9/19)
10. Deval Patrick (11/13/19)
11. Michael Bloomberg (11/24/19)

I'm Not Running Anymore Declared candidates who have dropped out:

1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
4. Jay Inslee  (8/21/19)
5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19)
7. Howard Schultz (9/6/19) * Ran as an Independent   
8. Bill de Blasio (9/20/19)
9. Tim Ryan (10/24/19)
10. Beto O'Rourke (11/1/19)
11. Wayne Messam (11/20/19)
12. Joe Sestak (12/1/19)
13. Steve Bullock (12/2/19)
14. Kamala Harris (12/3/19)
15. Julián Castro (1/2/20)
16. Marianne Williamson (1/10/20)
17. Cory Booker (1/13/20)
18. John Delaney (1/31/20) 

Days until the election: 276

How Does He Sound To You? - Updated

Holy crap https://t.co/Oi6CUWkAsv

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 29, 2020

In a blog post in November I said that I believe that within a few months, Donald will be almost completely non-functional, and I still believe it. (Read that post here.)

And one more thing. The State of the Union speech is coming up soon. Apparently no one knows when, exactly, the speech will happen: 

Seriously: What the hell is going on?

Trump’s campaign just texted out that the State of the Union address is on Feb 3rd. Last week the White House had it listed as the 5th. Yet Pelosi invited Trump on the 4th.

What is happening!?! pic.twitter.com/RzJBQiI2yj

— Matt Laslo (@MattLaslo) January 27, 2020

... but he'll give it eventually and we'll get an idea of how functional he is in a setting other than a campaign rally. Should be interesting. Click here to read about the drama surrounding last year's SOTU address.

Update on Saturday morning: The SOTU is this Tuesday, February 4, the day after the Iowa caucuses and the day before Donald's expected acquittal in the Senate. 

Dogs!

Dogs do memes too!

View this post on Instagram

Felt cute, might delete later. #dollypartonmemechallenge Since we can’t take you to allllllll my favorite places, this seemed like a good way to highlight a few. Clockwise from top left: @getawayhouse DC is an awesome, dog-friendly cabin getaway; the monuments; Georgetown Waterfront; and a neighborhood field. What are some dog-friendly adventures we should check out in the coming months? #wethedogsdc #dcdogs #dcdogmoms #dcdog #dcdogsofinstagram #dcdogsitter #dcdogwalking #goldendoodlesofdc #georgetown #georgetowndc #monuments

A post shared by We the Dogs DC (@wethedogsdc) on Jan 27, 2020 at 11:32am PST

View this post on Instagram

Because I don’t need to change myself for social media. #dollypartonchallange

A post shared by Zoey 🌹 (@zoeythebachelordoodle) on Jan 23, 2020 at 3:08pm PST

View this post on Instagram

Lewks.

A post shared by Bertie (@sheepadoodlebertie) on Jan 28, 2020 at 10:29am PST

A Watergate Moment

The headline for Jonathan Bernstein's latest column, posted this morning (Here We Have It. The Trump Impeachment Smoking Gun,) doesn't precisely match the point he actually makes in the column. (Headlines are almost always written by an editor or someone else in the organization.) He only notes the "close parallels" to Nixon's Smoking Gun tape. He also points out that it wasn't the tape that doomed Nixon, it was what it revealed about his behavior, and that Donald has done something similar. This is the column in its entirety: 

President Donald Trump’s team opened its impeachment-trial defense in the Senate on Saturday morning. I was wrong about how the president’s lawyers would go about the job. I had suspected that they would use a tantrum to rally Republicans to their side, but it turned out that Republican Senators had their tantrum late Friday night when they chose to be outraged that the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff of California, referred to a (somewhat thinly sourced) news report that someone at the White House had threatened that Trump would have the “head on a pike” of any Republican who opposed him.

Trump’s lawyers began with a misstep, rehashing their flimsy claim that there’s some kind of significance to the fact that Schiff paraphrased, instead of directly quoting, the words Trump used in the July 25 phone call in which he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to participate in a smear of a leading Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

But they didn’t rely on emotion in their presentation. Instead, they did what defense attorneys do. They floated alternative interpretations of the evidence the House managers, serving as prosecutors in the Senate trial, had presented in support of the articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his power by trying to coerce that country’s interference on his behalf in his 2020 re-election effort. They pointed out that some of the witnesses who testified on the House side were not entirely reliable on some questions. And they added a bunch of mostly irrelevant points, such as the administration’s overall support for Ukraine (which in fact only makes Trump’s decisions to pause congressionally approved military aid and refuse to schedule an Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy harder to understand as anything but elements of a pressure campaign) and the fact that previous presidents had also put foreign aid on hold (which no one denies, but the question is why it happened this time).

I’m not sure I’d call the first few hours of their presentation strong, but then again if they are constrained by their client to pretend that the Zelenskiy call was “perfect,” they have a difficult hand to play. It could have been worse.

And then, Sunday night, it fell apart. The New York Times reported that former National Security Adviser John Bolton has written in his upcoming book that Trump made explicit the quid pro quo that his lawyers are denying: that Trump told him directly that he wanted to keep the military aid frozen until the Ukrainian government agreed to help with investigations of Democrats. Not only that, but apparently the White House has had Bolton’s manuscript all month. Trump’s team knew this was coming.

While I certainly don’t expect the president’s support in Congress to collapse, it’s impossible not to see close parallels to the “smoking gun” tape that ended Richard Nixon’s presidency in 1974. That tape, proving that Nixon ordered his staff to have the Central Intelligence Agency block the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inquiry into the Watergate scandal and released to Congress and the public after the House Judiciary Committee had passed articles of impeachment, was so devastating for Nixon not so much because it was proof of his crimes; plenty of proof of plenty of crimes had long since been placed in the record. Instead, it became the moment when conservative Republicans realized that Nixon had deliberately set them up with false arguments even though Nixon knew that the evidence, if released, would undermine those arguments and make them look like liars and fools.

That is exactly what appears to have happened with the Bolton book. Trump knew that Bolton’s testimony and supporting notes, if they ever surfaced, would undermine the claims of his supporters. In some ways, it’s not quite as strong as Nixon’s smoking gun, since there’s no tape (as far as we know!) furnishing absolute proof of what Trump said to Bolton. But in some ways, it’s worse. Nixon knew what was on the tapes, but until the Supreme Court ruled against him he might at least have hoped that he could keep them secret. Apparently in the Trump case, at least some people in the White House have known for weeks that Bolton was going to release this book, and yet they still encouraged their allies to say things that were about to be shown to be false.

So far, it appears that Republican politicians would rather look like liars and fools — following ever-less-plausible White House lines, perhaps hoping that no one notices — than dare to oppose Trump and his still-loyal allies in the Republican-aligned media. Maybe they’ll all stay on message, even after this episode. Some of them, I’m sure, are either such blind partisans or so far inside the conservative information feedback loop that they may not even notice. But I have to believe that, whatever they do about it, a lot of Republican politicians are feeling more uncomfortable than ever.

This Day In History, 1945: The Liberation of Auschwitz

View this post on Instagram

On #HolocaustMemorialDay, we come together to learn more about the past and take action to create a safer future. At @nordenfarm in Maidenhead, The Earl of Wessex met the son of Sir Nicholas Winton and one of ‘Nicky’s Children’, John Fieldsend. Sir Nicholas rescued 669 children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in the nine months before war broke out in 1939, ensuring their safe passage to Britain and finding them homes. John Fieldsend, one of Nicky’s children, was saved by Sir Nicholas before the start of the war. He was only seven years old when he said goodbye to his family and escaped to England with his brother. The story only became known to the public in 1988 when it featured on ‘That’s Life’, a BBC TV programme hosted by Esther Rantzen. In 2003, Sir Nicholas received a Knighthood from The Queen for services to humanity. Visit our story to see the moment Sir Nicholas was reunited with some of the children he saved. Nicholas Winton was born on 19 May 1909 and passed away in 2015 aged 106. Film © ‘Nicky’s Children’ by Matej Minac.

A post shared by The Royal Family (@theroyalfamily) on Jan 27, 2020 at 5:04am PST

Lawlessness

A longer than usual post from political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, writing at Bloomberg. It was published yesterday morning at 7.00 a.m.:

Title: The Unspoken Charge That Should Doom Trump: Lawlessness

Subtitle: Senators are entitled to render their judgment based on more than the specific impeachment case that the House put before them.

For three days, the House managers serving as prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump set out the details of his effort to strong-arm Ukraine into aiding his 2020 re-election, and then argued that those details constitute reason to remove him from office. They made a strong case. Using the power of the presidency to push a foreign power to smear a political opponent is an abuse of that power, a “high crime and misdemeanor” in the constitutional phrase setting forth the standard for removal.

What of the case made by law professor Josh Blackman in the New York Times on Thursday: that presidents often pursue policies in hopes of improving their political prospects? It is true, of course, that presidents consider domestic politics, including electoral politics, in everything they do. There’s nothing wrong with that. Presidents should act to increase their influence, and that includes taking actions with their professional reputation and personal popularity in mind.

So what’s different about Ukraine?

For one thing, as Representative Adam Schiff and the other House managers explained, Trump’s actions weren’t taken with politics as one consideration. They were taken, as Schiff said, with electoral concerns as the primary goal.

But that’s not enough to make it impeachable. Trump ordered a hold on congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine last summer, according to high-ranking officials who testified in the House impeachment investigation, as the president and his allies were ratcheting up the pressure on the Ukrainian government to announce a criminal investigation of a leading Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, along with another investigation into a bizarre, evidence-free theory about Ukraine and the 2016 election.

The aid freeze wasn’t part of a legitimate reconsideration of U.S. policy towards Ukraine, which Trump would have been free to initiate. Instead, it was an effort to undermine the consensus plan to support Ukraine as he squeezed that country’s government to help him get re-elected. The president certainly has the right to change his policies and to work to get the rest of the government to go along. It’s much less legitimate to attempt to subvert the official policy. And given that it appears the freeze on aid to Ukraine was illegal, Trump’s scheme wasn’t legitimate at all.

Blackman’s analysis is also wrong because it matters how a president uses policy for political advantage. Trump is accused of soliciting foreign election interference! Unlike maneuvering to get a Supreme Court justice to resign, or even deploying troops, Trump tried to get a foreign nation to influence an election. That’s not just a likely violation of U.S. law; it’s contrary to his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So: Could a president legitimately base Cuba policy in part to win the support of a key group of voters in a swing state? Absolutely. Even if national security experts think the resulting policy would be a bad one. But could a president base Ukraine policy on whether or not the Ukrainian government gets involved in U.S. domestic politics? No. Because that involves something which is itself both illegal and a violation of the president’s oath of office. It is, indeed, an abuse of power — the use of his formal powers to do something illegal and unconstitutional.

The truth is, however, that for all of the strength of the House managers’ case, what really clinches it is something they didn’t say, and which isn’t part of the two articles of impeachment that the Senate is considering: Trump’s overall lawlessness.

The articles make only a glancing mention of Trump’s obstruction of justice, as laid out in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. They don’t say that Trump is probably violating the Constitution’s emoluments clauses when foreign and domestic governments spend money at his hotels and resorts. They say nothing about his threats against the media or his threats to prosecute political opponents. If impeachment was purely a legal matter, those things would therefore be irrelevant and jurors would be directed to ignore them.

Impeachment isn’t a judicial procedure. U.S. senators are not mere jurors. Impeachment and removal or acquittal is a political act, even when expressed in judicial language. I don’t mean “political” here only in terms of elections and ordinary partisanship, although those are necessarily part of it, but as the broader idea of politics as the way a polity collectively governs itself. As political scientist Julia Azari has written: “There is no nonpartisan, apolitical mechanism to evaluate abuses of power and remove a president from office. Our Constitution places this responsibility with the people’s elected representatives (and senators, to be precise).” And that’s because the framers thought that politics at its best was very much a good thing — that neither elites who were not ultimately responsible to the people nor any kind of automatic formula was as good as purposeful self-government.

Therefore, it is appropriate that members of the House take into account what they know about the president’s fitness for office and his compliance with his oath of office when deciding whether to impeach or not. Senators can — and should — take all of that into account when deciding whether to vote to remove or acquit.

To be clear: That doesn’t mean that senators should vote based on whether they like the president or not. Nor should they vote to remove him based on ordinary policy differences, such as disagreements over taxation or abortion or gun control, or to leave him in office because they agree with his positions on such things. They should, indeed, resist their natural urge to vote based on their strongly held policy ideas.

If impeachment and conviction should not rest only on the specific articles, why bother having any specific articles of impeachment at all? One reason is that it’s traditional to do so, although note that in the case of the first presidential impeachment trial, of Andrew Johnson in 1868, the House impeached first and drew up the articles later. But it’s a good idea anyway, because it grounds the debate in specific actions. And the need for concrete articles based on particular episodes is a healthy practice in that it probably deters the House majority from simply impeaching presidents they don’t like or have merely ordinary differences with. Just as it is probably healthy that impeachment in practice has become a political procedure expressed in judicial language, by custom if not by constitutional mandate. That, too, deters removing the president merely for policy or partisan differences.

And so while Democrats did talk on the Senate floor about Trump’s threat to American democracy given his invitation to other nations to interfere with U.S. elections, they did not talk about Trump’s general lawlessness. The closest Democrats have gotten to that larger idea is to point out that Trump’s various public statements amount to claims that he will repeat this particular offense again — that he asked Russia for help during the 2016 campaign, pressured Ukraine for help in 2019, and publicly asked China for help when the Ukraine scheme went public.

But all the senators know that there is more to it than even that — that the president has repeatedly displayed his willingness to flout the law in a variety of serious ways. And they’re entitled to take that knowledge of his unfitness for office into account when deciding what to do about the two accusations before them. (This is the column in its entirety.) 

The Guessing Game - Updated/Kobe Bryant

What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses, not in order of importance or likelihood:

Pamela Anderson: Married Jon Peters
Michelle Obama: Her book, Becoming, is up for a Grammy award for Best Spoken Word Album. If she wins, she's on her way to joining the EGOT club.
Modern Family: After 11 seasons, the final episode airs April 8
Ozzy Osbourne: A Parkinson's diagnosis
Thomas Markle: A new interview/documentary with Meghan's father, who admits to lying and says "the royals owe me"
Kristin Smart: College woman who disappeared in 1996, there may be news, read more here
Terry Jones: The Monty Python founder died
Tyler Gwozdz: Appeared on Hannah Brown's season of The Bachelorette, he has now died at age 29, apparently of a drug overdose. Read more about Tyler here
Taylor Swift: Says she had an eating disorder
J Lo and/or Shakira: Performing at the Super Bowl
Chris Watts: Lifetime has a new movie called Chris Watts: Confessions of a Killer
Annabella Sciorra: Testified at Harvey Weinstein's trial that he raped her, Rose Perez backed her story
Jeff Bezos and/or Lauren Sanchez: There's reporting that she gave text messages from Bezos to her brother, who then gave (or more likely, sold) them to the National Enquirer

Stories that appear on the cover of the new issue will be highlighted in green.

Update: Jade Roper Tolbert. There was great excitement in Bachelor Nation a few weeks ago when Jade won the DraftKing Millionaire Maker contest for the NFL's wild card round. Then accusations of cheating bubbled up and there was an investigation; now DraftKings has announced that they have updated the standings and the 2nd place finisher has been moved up to first. (Read more here.) If you don't remember Jade, a quick refresher: She appeared on Chris Soules's season, which filmed in the Fall of 2014 and aired January through March, 2015. Jade made it to the final four, then was eliminated after Hometown dates. She had a bit of a racy past, having appeared in some Playboy videos, which producers forced her to show not just to Chris but also to viewers. I wrote about her here and here. After appearing on The Bachelor, Jade went to Bachelor in Paradise, where she met Tanner Tolbert from Kaityn's season of The Bachelorette. They got engaged and were the first BIP couple to marry, with a big ceremony televised (and paid for) by ABC. They're now one of the most successful Bach Nation couples, able to support themselves via Instagram ads and personal appearances. Will this incident tarnish their brand? Stay tuned.

Update #2 on Sunday morning: Brandon Jenner. He and his girlfriend got married
The Grammys: The show is tonight; there's been controversy recently, including the former CEO filing a discrimination lawsuit

Update #3: Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna. Killed in a helicopter crash near Los Angeles, along with seven non-famous people. This is a huge story, with the media currently in full howling Dead Celebrity mode; People's editors are almost certainly scrambling to replace whatever cover was planned.

Update #4 on Monday morning. Michelle Obama won the Grammy. Vogue magazine had the same thought I had above:

.@MichelleObama just got one step closer to an EGOT! https://t.co/0Ul8GUjtoe

— Vogue Magazine (@voguemagazine) January 27, 2020

Update #5 on Tuesday morning. People posts the new cover a day early and
no surprise, it's a "Tribute" cover for Kobe Bryant and his daughter: 

Issue dated February 10, 2020: Kobe and Gianna Bryant




Last year at this time: Issue dated February 11, 2019

presidentpence.com - Updated

Yes, the url in the title of this post is a real website. Is it somehow connected to Mike Pence? Possibly. (And possibly not. Slogans like "Pence, Well I Guess He'll Do," "Pence, It Could Be Worse," and "Pence, It's An Improvement," are not exactly ringing endorsements. They actually rhyme with what I've said here before, which is that while anyone, anyone, would be better than Donald, in the case of Mike Pence, not by much. Check out the website here.) I've said here before that Pence is publicly loyal to Donald while privately salivating over the possibility that he'll be removed from office. I've also noted that any vice president, no matter how loyal, has more to gain from a presidential removal than anybody else. Is Mike Pence, behind the scenes, pushing for Donald's removal by reminding people that if Donald is removed, it's not Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi who moves up? It wouldn't surprise me.

Hey, Mr. @VP: You and your staff say it quietly, worried that @realDonaldTrump will hear. We proclaim it loudly:
"It's time for President Pence."
A new video from your friends at Defending Democracy Together (@democracydefend).
More info at https://t.co/oAJfCNnBmN. pic.twitter.com/MjKcThOB0i

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 23, 2020

Pence effusively praises Trump on a “hot mic” in obvious attempt to distract Trump from Pence’s tacit endorsement of https://t.co/lAVuDcYJEg. https://t.co/pesxGxSTCB

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 23, 2020

Wow. Worried about the spontaneous surge of excitement for Pence 2020. https://t.co/lAVuDcYJEg https://t.co/gAmeEaCRK1

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 23, 2020

All it would take: 20 Republican senators quietly collude for the sake of the country. A snap vote of guilty as charged. President Pence.https://t.co/lAVuDcYJEg

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 24, 2020

Trying VERY hard to reassure @realDonaldTrump of his total, unqualified, and absolute loyalty, @VP chooses to quote, to characterize the Holocaust, not a famous poet or philosopher or resistance fighter or soldier or survivor, but...@realDonaldTrump. Sad. https://t.co/9pMWiFScf2

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 24, 2020

Click here to read my previous posts about Mike Pence. 

Update on Saturday afternoon: 

This is the man to whom the Republican Party bends the knee and bows the head. https://t.co/uMyLXX2G5H

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 25, 2020

Update #2 on Tuesday afternoon. Bill Kristol and his friends are still trying to get Mike Pence promoted (or possibly just trying to drive Donald crazy):

Today a mobile billboard truck promoting https://t.co/w1NlNjH9zL will be driving around DC stopping near the Capitol, White House, and Trump Hotel. Republicans for the Rule of Law want to remind Republicans that if Trump is removed, we'll have Pence. It could be worse. It is now. pic.twitter.com/4mCFzNQipS

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 28, 2020

Timeline

10 days until the Iowa caucuses.

18 days until the New Hampshire primary.

29 days until the Nevada caucuses.

36 days until the South Carolina primary.

39 days until Super Tuesday.https://t.co/KM6LEdCwPQ pic.twitter.com/QLfD1s5ywL

— Josh Putnam (@FHQ) January 24, 2020

Days until the election: 283

This Day In History: Inauguration Day

January 20, in the year following a presidential election, is Inauguration Day, meaning that 3 years ago, Donald became president, eleven years ago Barack Obama became president, 19 years ago George W. Bush became president and so on, all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt's 2nd inauguration in 1937. Prior to that, Inauguration Day was in March. Why the change? Primarily to shorten the Lame Duck period between the election and the start of the next presidency. (Read more about that here.)

The next presidential inauguration is now 366 days away and I fervently hope that on that day, one of these people will be standing on the steps of the Capitol preparing to raise her or his right hand:

This is 2020. pic.twitter.com/bckfm5pJNt

— Travis | Text FIGHT to 24477 (@travisakers) January 20, 2020

Here's the same scene from a different angle:

View this post on Instagram

It was just 56 years ago when Dr. King told us about his dream. One where Americans would finally rise up and fulfill the meaning of our creed. Some days it feels like we’re letting that dream slip. But I’m still more optimistic than ever that Dr. King’s dream is within reach.

A post shared by Joe Biden (@joebiden) on Jan 20, 2020 at 1:10pm PST

Today is also Martin Luther King Day, of course, and in the spirit of the day, Donald sent out this heartfelt tribute:

It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017,  that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2020

Donald and the Vice President also made an unscheduled visit to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the National Mall. They stayed for about a minute:

 
photo credit: CNN

The Year In People Covers (2019)

It's back! At the end of 2018 I did a year-in-review post with all of that year's People covers (see it here,) and I liked it so much I decided to do it again. (Yes, I'm obsessed. Not sure why.)

Anyway, the biggest category of cover stories this year was, once again and no surprise, the British royal family, with 12 main cover stories. (Four with Meghan alone, two of her with Harry, one with Kate, one of Kate alone, one of William and Kate, two with the "Fab Four" and one with the four royal children.) The next category was true crime, driven by the college admissions scandal. Felicity Huffman was featured once and Lori Loughlin was the main cover story three times. Reality TV was next, with one cover each for Bachelor Colton Underwood and Bachelorette Hannah Brown, as well as three HGTV covers, one each for Chip and Joanna Gaines, plus one of them together. There were two Dead Celebrity covers, one present (Luke Perry) and one past (JFK Jr.,) two illness covers (Alex Trebek and Selma Blair,) one Celebrity Wedding (Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth) and four Celebrity Baby covers (Andy Cohen, Harry & Meghan, Hoda Kotb and Tamron Hall.) Heartbreak was also a theme, with "heartbreaking lies" and "heartbreaking letter to Dad" (Meghan,) "Love After Heartbreak" (Reba McEntire, although Reba and her boyfriend had broken up before the end of the year,) "from Heartbreak to Happiness" (Tamron Hall,) "bouncing back from heartbreak" (Carrie Underwood) and "Happy After Heartbreak" (Adele.) Note that all of the above refers to main cover stories only. Note further that there were only two small sidebar headlines about women named Kardashian and not a single story, main or sidebar, about anyone named Trump.

Here are the 2019 covers: 

January 7



January 14



January 21



January 28



February 4



February 11



February 18



February 25



March 4



March 11



March 18



March 25



April 1



April 8



April 15



April 22



April 29



May 6



May 13



May 20



May 27



June 3



June 10



June 17



June 24



July 1



July 8



July 15



July 22



July 29



August 5



August 12



August 19



August 26



September 2



September 9



September 16



September 23



September 30




October 7



October 14



October 21



October 28



November 4



November 11



November 18



November 25



December 2



December 9



December 16 (Note: Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Aniston and Taylor Swift were also featured as People of the Year; see those covers here)



December 23



December 30