That’s how many jobs were added in February, while the unemployment rate fell from 4.8 percent to 4.7 percent, the Labor Department reported on Friday. That exceeded analysts’ expectations, and President Donald Trump has already retweeted the Drudge Report attributing these jobs to his young presidency.

But on Thursday, Politico reported that the forthcoming jobs report “will be the first to measure employment gains that occurred entirely under Trump’s presidency,” but “while Trump may claim credit, it’s not clear he will deserve it.”

“One of the most important elements of analyzing labor market reports is that they’re lagging indicators so they tend to be a reflection of what has been happening in the economy in the prior six months to a year,” Frances Donald, senior economist at Manulife Asset Management, told the publication. “The jobs numbers that we’ll see six months from now will probably be a better reflection of the new administration.”

It’s also curious that Trump is now embracing jobs reports, after repeatedly dismissing them last year as fake.

If the president were honest, he’d be saying what all Americans should be saying about this good economic news: Thanks, Obama.

The former head of the U.K. Independence Party spent 40 minutes there yesterday. The most famous resident of the embassy is, of course, the WikiLeaks founder, who permanently resides there to avoid extradition to Sweden to face an outstanding rape accusation. Did Farage visit Assange at the embassy? Asked by BuzzFeed as he was leaving, Farage initially said he couldn’t remember what he did during his visit. Pressed about Assange, Farage said, “I never discuss where I go or who I see.”

The possible meeting between Farage and Assange raises all sorts of questions relating to the last election in the United States. WikiLeaks published a vast trove of hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Farage is Donald Trump’s politically ally, hanging out with the president on numerous occasions over the last year, including recently at Trump’s hotel in D.C. Trump and Assange have also been allies over the issue of whether Russia had been behind the hacked emails. Was Farage acting as a liaison between Trump and Assange? And if so, how long has this been going on? It’s hard not to get conspiratorial when the same three guys keep bumping into each other.

Or maybe it’s simply that the notoriously xenophobic Farage has developed a sudden interest in Ecuadorian culture.

Until today, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency has walked a fine line between accepting and denying climate science. He’s been careful not to explicitly deny that humans cause climate change, claiming only that the debate is “far from settled” (false), and he’s dodged questions about whether he accepts the science. In his confirmation hearing, Pruitt said his “personal opinion” on climate change “is immaterial to the job” of being EPA administrator.

But now that Pruitt’s all settled in at the EPA, he’s getting a little less shy. In a CNBC interview on Thursday morning, Pruitt explicitly said that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact,” Pruitt said. “So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

In every administration dating back to the 1980s—even Republican administrations—the head of the EPA has accepted the scientific truth that our planet is warming because of an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is caused by fossil fuel emissions—in other words, humans. And despite what Pruitt claims, his personal opinion about climate science is indeed material to his position as the head of the agency that’s supposed to protect public health and the environment. The World Health Organization calls global warming “among the greatest health risks of the 21st Century.” How is Pruitt going to protect Americans from that risk if he doesn’t think it exists?

At this point, we should no longer be surprised when politicians of purported integrity come running to join Donald Trump’s administration, even those, like Huntsman, who called on Trump to drop out of the 2016 race after it emerged that the then-candidate had boasted about sexually assaulting women. For Republicans with ambition—and Huntsman might be unsurpassed in this category—the Trump White House is the only game in town. Thus, the news that he has agreed to become Trump’s ambassador to Russia has so far been met with indifference. If eyebrows were raised, it was to acknowledge that Trump had, in uncharacteristic fashion, appointed not only a qualified person to this sensitive government position, but also a former opponent who had publicly tangled with him in the past.

You may recall that Huntsman ran for president in the 2012 Republican primary, as a lonely centrist who had previously served as the ambassador to China for the loathed Barack Obama (he had also been a popular governor of Utah). His clashes with Trump, in hindsight, augured the gale force winds that would blow the GOP’s house down four years later. Trump, then best known as the country’s leading birther, demanded that Huntsman meet him at Trump Tower. Huntsman refused, declaring, “I’m not going to kiss his ring, and I’m not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy.” A wounded and enraged Trump, previewing the petty vindictiveness that would characterize his 2016 run and his young presidency, lashed out, claiming that it was Huntsman who had requested the meeting, not him. “He’s a Mormon, so I’m sure he wouldn’t lie about it,” he sneered, one of several digs he made at Huntsman’s religion.

Mitt Romney, the eventual 2012 GOP nominee, did kiss the Trump ring. Huntsman gained no traction at all with Republican voters, and quickly dropped out of the race. The Huntsman name faded from view until after the election, when it emerged that Huntsman’s father, a stupendously wealthy power-broker in Utah and Mormon political circles, had been the source of Harry Reid’s unsubstantiated yet damaging claims that Romney had paid no income taxes for a decade. (Huntsman Sr. denied the report, though he had previously said, “I feel very badly that Mitt won’t release his taxes and won’t be fair with the American people.”)

In 2013, Huntsman was named one of the leaders of No Labels, a centrist group that presents itself as dedicated to non-ideological problem-solving, but is really a vehicle for those hoary, unempirical obsessions of the Beltway elite, entitlement reform and a balanced budget. It, too, has failed to gain much in the way of popular support, but the sinecure at least allowed Huntsman to burnish his reputation as a centrist. This would presumably serve him well in his new goal: becoming secretary of state. He (reportedly) would have been happy serving as secretary of state for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, who he assumed, as everybody else did, was going to win the 2016 election. Hence his initial support for Trump, then his call for Trump to drop out of the race following the release of the infamous Hollywood Access tape, now his return to Trump.

That Huntsman would end up kissing Trumps’s ring is no surprise, even if Trump is ambivalent about entitlement reform, inflames the worst tendencies of the right wing, wants to boost military spending (which Huntsman once opposed), has threatened to launch a trade war with China (which Huntsman once opposed), and wants to build a wall on the Mexican border (which Huntsman once opposed). In a country defined by polarized, passionate, ideological politics, Huntsman can have no substantial following, and the easiest way to build his political career is through appointment. But his trajectory over the past six years is a kind of parable for American centrism. It is not a coherent ideology. It is barely even a worldview. It is mere positioning.

If this were a normal time—if a crazy person weren’t president of the United States—the Wikileaks document dump would be the biggest story in the country right now. The documents, which were published on Tuesday, are part of the largest leak in CIA history and detail the agency’s techniques for breaking into cell phones, computers, and televisions. According to The New York Times:

The initial release, which WikiLeaks said was only the first installment in a larger collection of secret C.I.A. material, included 7,818 web pages with 943 attachments, many of them partly redacted by WikiLeaks editors to avoid disclosing the actual code for cyberweapons. The entire archive of C.I.A. material consists of several hundred million lines of computer code, the group claimed.

In one revelation that may especially trouble the tech world if confirmed, WikiLeaks said that the C.I.A. and allied intelligence services have managed to compromise both Apple and Android smartphones, allowing their officers to bypass the encryption on popular services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate smartphones and collect “audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.”

The leaks have been described as being “Snowden 2.0” and “bigger than Snowden.” Ordinarily you’d expect blanket condemnation from the commander-in-chief, but Trump is not an ordinary commander-in-chief. There are two reasons why he may be holding his tongue.

The first is that the leak largely tracks with his argument that the intelligence agencies are bad and should not be trusted. Trump believes this not because he’s opposed to surveillance per se, but because he is furious about leaks to the press that he believes have come from the intelligence agencies. It’s not farfetched to imagine Trump tweeting: “Don’t believe that CIA is leaking all this FAKE NEWS about me? They broke into your phones and TVs!”

The second would be preposterous for any president who wasn’t Trump. But Wikileaks has also alleged that among the programs used by the CIA is one called “Umbrage.” Umbrage supposedly “collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation,” WikiLeaks says. With this program, the CIA can conduct hacks itself, while making it look like they were conducted by Russia and others.

This is a mischaracterization of the program and the malware used to hack the Democratic National Committee isn’t included. But you can see where this is going. The story is already on the front page of Brietbart and the message is clear. It wasn’t Russia that hacked the DNC and John Podesta, it was the CIA—who did it to blame Russia and discredit Trump. This is incredibly convoluted. For one, why would they do this? But it’s going to be trotted out as evidence by every conspiracy-leaning Putin and Trump apologist out there—and no one is a bigger conspiracy-leaning Putin and Trump apologist than Trump himself.

The FBI director was reportedly flabbergasted when President Trump alleged that Barack Obama had ordered Trump’s “wires tapped” in the weeks before the election, and is restlessly waiting for the Department of Justice to refute Trump’s claims. 

One course of action Comey might consider is refuting Trump himself, with a reminder that the FBI spent most of October not wiretapping Trump, but investigating and leaking about Hillary Clinton, before Comey himself landed her campaign a fatal blow, and handed his new tormentor the presidency. 

This chart comes from Brad Fay of Engagement Labs, who says Comey’s infamous letter to Congress announcing the FBI had uncovered a new cache Clinton emails, (which turned out to be nothing, but could have been the smoking gun which proved she did Benghazi) was decisive in the election.

[T]here was a sudden change in the net sentiment results that followed immediately after FBI Director James Comey released his Oct. 28 letter to Congress about a renewed investigation of Clinton emails. Immediately afterwards, there was a 17-point drop in net sentiment for Clinton, and an 11-point rise for Trump, enough for the two candidates to switch places in the rankings, with Clinton in more negative territory than Trump. At a time when opinion polling showed perhaps a 2-point decline in the margin for Clinton, this conversation data suggests a 28-point change in the word of mouth “standings.” The change in word of mouth favorability metric was stunning, and much greater than the traditional opinion polling revealed. Based on this finding, it is our conclusion that the Comey letter, 11 days before the election, was the precipitating event behind Clinton’s loss, despite the letter being effectively retracted less than a week later.

Comey can’t unfoul this bed. But when his Trump-Russian inquiries have run their course he owes the world an accounting. Just for starters. 

One of Trump’s signature issues has been his promise to get tough with trading partners like China, which he alleges takes unfair advantage of the United States. It looks like Trump has succeeded in his promise to get China to open up to American trade, at least on a personal level. According to a report from the Associated Press, the Chinese government has moved swiftly to grant those requested trademarks, which in addition to the escort service include hotels. (The escort service is likely a defensive move to protect against someone starting Trump Escorts in China.)

The granting of so many trademarks so quickly does raise the possibility that the Chinese government is trying to curry favor with the president, which might violate the Emolument Clause of the Constitution. Richard Painter, former ethics advisor to George W. Bush, notes, “A routine trademark, patent, or copyright from a foreign government is likely not an unconstitutional emolument, but with so many trademarks being granted over such a short time period, the question arises as to whether there is an accommodation in at least some of them.”

If Congress does ever decide to exercise its constitutional duty to check Trump, these trademarks could easily be evidence against the president.