Whether the president chooses to fight or fold in both cases could shape the next two years of his presidency and dictate the terms of a 2020 reelection battle.

After a quiet stretch leading into the midterms, there have been several key developments just this week in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and whether Trump campaign aides had improper links to the Kremlin. And the president must decide whether to take a dramatic stand to secure $5 billion in funding for the border wall before Democrats take control of the House, perhaps shutting down the government in the process.

AD

AD

Trump seems determined to fight these two wars — at least for the time being:

A mandate:"I don't think he wants to run for reelection without making major progress in achieving that,” the Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore told us, referring to the wall fight. “Do I think he's staking his whole presidency on the wall? No. But I think he thinks it's fundamentally one of his most important promises.”

Trump has been threatening not to sign a spending bill by Dec. 7 that doesn't continue the $5 billion he wants for the barrier between the United States and Mexico. But he needs Senate Democrats (and 60 Senate votes) to sign on for that to happen — and the minority party has only agreed to $1.6 billion in funding. And it is far from clear that congressional Republicans — many of whom are on the way out after a bruising election — have the stomach for a shutdown fight.

It's on the Senate: “The House really isn't a problem at this point but it's whatever we can get” a senior GOP aide told us. “We've shown we have the votes for this but it's going to come down to what the president can negotiate with [Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] . . . the burden is on Trump to get to YES and that will take working with the Senate.”

Ready to go: “A lot of our guys are sort of — especially the ones that lost — are ready to get the rest of the government funded and move on,” the aide added, saying that people are eager to get the realistic wins rather than long shot ones.

Alas, it's up to Trump: “I think he appreciates members' opinions but also understand that he's a disrupter to this city," said another GOP aide. "And if everyone is saying not to do one thing, he's a bit of a contrarian and he could just be like, I'm going to do it.”

As for Schumer, he made it clear during a news conference on Tuesday that Democrats will stick to the $1.6 billion they've agreed to. “We believe it is the right way to go . . . if there's any shutdown, it's on President Trump's back,” he said.

AD

AD

Schumer added that Trump hasn't even “spent a penny of the $1.3 billion they requested in last year's budget” on border security.

It's not just Schumer and Democrats: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters she hadn't seen justification for the $5 billion figure and believes that current funds dedicated to the border “addresses so many of the issues that we have with border security.”

“I haven't heard anything other than that's what the president wants,” Murkowski said of the $5 billion price tag.

Unpredictability: Trump said two different things on the wall in a pair of interviews with The Post and Politico on Tuesday: to my colleagues he suggested he was open to Plan B if Congress rejects the $5 billion figure; and after that to Politico, the president vowed he was "firm" and "totally willing" to shut the government down in the fight.

Trump to The Post: “Now, if we don’t get it, will I get it done another way? I might get it done another way. There are other potential ways that I can do it. You saw what we did with the military, just coming in with the barbed wire and the fencing, and various other things.” “Now, if we don’t get it, will I get it done another way? I might get it done another way. There are other potential ways that I can do it. You saw what we did with the military, just coming in with the barbed wire and the fencing, and various other things.”

Trump to Politico: “His insistence on $5 billion for the wall — “I am firm,” he said — does suggest a real risk of a partial government shutdown.” “His insistence on $5 billion for the wall — “I am firm,” he said — does suggest a real risk of a partial government shutdown.”

You are reading the Power Up newsletter. Not a regular subscriber? Sign up

Mueller Mania: There has been a lot of news (leaks) out of the Mueller probe — and its participants — this week that could be quite significant. Trump is preparing for battle, judging from the stepped-up vitriol against Mueller and the probe coming from his Twitter feed over the past few days.

AD

AD

“So much happening with the now discredited Witch Hunt. This total Hoax will be studied for years!” Trump tweeted late last night.

The key developments from this week that have Trump fuming — publicly and privately:

Trump and Stone: The Post scooped last night that “nocturnal chats and other contacts between the man who now occupies the Oval Office and an infamous political trickster [Roger Stone] have come under intensifying scrutiny as [Mueller's] investigation bores into whether Stone served as a bridge between Trump and WikiLeaks as the group was publishing Democratic hacked emails.” Stone and WikiLeaks have denied collaborating with each other and Trump told his lawyers that “Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks's upcoming release and that he had no prior knowledge of it …” Manafort, meanwhile: Mueller accused Trump’s former campaign chair was accused of lying to prosecutors, according to a court filing, leading to termination of his plea agreement. Mueller accused Trump’s former campaign chair was accused of lying to prosecutors, according to a court filing, leading to termination of his plea agreement. The Wall Street Journal’s Aruna Viswanatha and Rebecca Balhaus reported that Manafort’s “alleged misstatements to [Mueller’s] investigators include comments about his personal business dealings and about his contacts with a former associate in Ukraine, say people familiar with the matter.” Uh-oh: The New York Times reported that Manafort’s lawyer “repeatedly briefed Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after [Manafort] agreed to cooperate with the special counsel . . . the arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with the special counsel’s office when prosecutors discovered it after Manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. Some legal experts speculated that it was a bid by [Manafort] for a presidential pardon even as he worked with the special counsel … in hopes of a lighter sentence.” A pardon for Paul?: The New York Post reported yesterday Trump hadn't specifically discussed a pardon for Manafort, “but I wouldn’t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?” the president told reporters in an interview.

Pardoning Manafort, who has been convicted by a jury on eight counts of tax and bank fraud, seems like a bad idea, according to the president's own allies.

Just say no: “The political cost would be high and the benefits would be nonexistent,” Harvard Law School and professor and frequent Trump defender Alan Dershowitz told Power Up.

No dice: “It’s unusual and I think it ended up coming back to bite him in the rear end,” Dershowitz said of information sharing between the Manafort and Trump teams. “Manafort was trying to play both sides against the middle . . . and wanted to not be anybody’s witness but just a witness. But if you’re going to be a cooperating witness you have to be a fully cooperating witness.”

Another prominent white-collar defense lawyer had this to say about Rudy Giuliani's public musings on the shared defense strategy: “It’s really just bizarre,” the lawyer said. “Every experienced intelligent white-collar criminal lawyer in the world understands that joint defense agreements are like fight club and the first rule of fight club is not to talk about it.” “It’s really just bizarre,” the lawyer said. “Every experienced intelligent white-collar criminal lawyer in the world understands that joint defense agreements are like fight club and the first rule of fight club is not to talk about it.”

Some aggressive self-expression: The president retweeted yesterday meme of various public figures including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein behind prison bars. He told the New York Post, “He should have never picked a Special Counsel.” He also tweeted yesterday comparing the Mueller prosecutions to the “Joseph McCarthy Era!," The Post's John Wagner writes.

On The Hill

In the more problems for Trump category, the Senate “delivered a historic rebuke of the fallout over Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi’s killing last month, as a decisive majority voted to advance a measure to end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen,” reported The Post's Karoun Demirjian, Carol Morello and John Hudson. More from their story:

AD

AD

An empty chair : “Frustration peaked shortly before Wednesday’s vote, when senators met behind closed doors to discuss Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi and Yemen with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — but not CIA Director Gina Haspel, who did not attend the briefing.”

Graham digs in : Haspel's absence “so incensed lawmakers that one of the president’s closest congressional allies threatened not only to vote for the Yemen resolution but also to withhold his support from 'any key vote' — including a government funding bill — until Haspel was sent to Capitol Hill for a briefing. 'I am not going to blow past this,' said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). 'Anything that you need me for to get out of town — I ain’t doing it until we hear from the CIA.' ”

Your move: “The pressure is now squarely on Trump not just to dispatch Haspel to the Hill but also to take concerted steps to hold [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman] accountable before the Senate makes its next move, which is likely to come next week.”

PELOSI PREVAILS — FOR NOW: House Democrats nominated a trio of old guard, veteran leaders — all in their 70s — to lead them come January. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was unopposed in her bid for the speakership, while Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.) and James E. Clyburn (S.C.) were elected majority leader and whip, respectively.

It's not over yet : Pelosi “still has to persuade about half of the 32 Democrats who opposed her nomination to support her in a planned Jan. 3 floor vote in which she must win a majority of the entire House, not just Democrats.”

Looking ahead : “But Democrats also injected new blood into the lower tier of the party leadership, picking Rep. Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), 46, for the No. 4 position of assistant Democratic leader and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), 48, as Democratic caucus chairman, the No. 5 position. Both are now front-runners to succeed Pelosi as the top House Democrat.”

A key quote: “'The baby boomers, I think they had four, five presidents of the United States?' said Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Tex.), a Jeffries ally. 'A lot of people are saying it’s our time to have that opportunity to also be in these leadership posts and be able to take the Democratic Party to that next level.'”

Global Power

BACK TO THE BORDER — A DISPATCH: Amid fresh conflict along the southern border and a deal the Trump administration struck with the new Mexican government that allows those seeking asylum in the to wait in Mexico while U.S. officials process their claims, Power Up touched base with Joshua Partlow, The Post’s Mexico City bureau chief. Here’s Josh from Mexico City and Tijuana:

Why Mexican officials made the deal : “They want to avoid chaos at the border — like : “They want to avoid chaos at the border — like the tear gas and port of entry closure we saw in California this weekend — and the further deployment of U.S. troops. Mexican officials say they have 100,000 job permits they are willing to make available for Central Americans.”

A short-term solution : Officials say the policy is a “building block toward their preferred way of dealing with migration, which is to get the U.S. to commit to a Central American development plan. Many details remain unresolved and the talks over this issue will continue particularly once the new Mexican president is sworn in this Saturday.”

Asylum seekers in ‘refugee camp conditions’ : “More than 5,000 people are camped out in tents at a baseball field near the border. They sleep on the ground. They shower outside. They hang their laundry on chain link fences. They wait in lines for donated food. Lots of people have gotten sick, there are plenty of children there. People are frustrated and they want to be able to apply for asylum but the U.S. is processing fewer than 100 people per day in Tijuana, so it means long waits and the possibility that migrants will try to look for other ways to cross the border.”

Why caravans happen: People often misjudge the motivations behind migrants joining caravans — as if they are a media creation or involve hidden political maneuvers. Central American migration to the U.S. is a massive force and caravans represent just a small and particularly visible slice.”

In the Media