• President Donald Trump, furious over the Michael Cohen raids and surrounded by few moderating voices to control his instincts, appears to be on the cusp of firing deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.
• Trump has been simmering at Rosenstein for months, but he reportedly viewed the FBI’s raid of his longtime lawyer as a personal affront and a politically motivated hit job.
• The president’s fury is compounded by his decision to surround himself with those who cater to his most rash impulses.

President Donald Trump has come unhinged after the FBI raided the offices and home of his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen.

The next person to likely face the chopping block: deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.

The president’s frustration with Rosenstein, attorney general Jeff Sessions, and other top Department of Justice officials is not new. But his animosity toward Rosenstein, in particular, has taken on a new significance as Trump relies increasingly on loyalists, like the conservative firebrands Sean Hannity and Joseph diGenova, and shuns others who may guard against his worst instincts.

Trump was reportedly enraged after it surfaced that FBI agents working for the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York raided Cohen’s property Monday morning, seizing electronic devices, personal financial records, and attorney-client communications between Trump and Cohen.

The Southern District of New York reportedly initiated the Cohen raids upon receiving a referral from the special counsel Robert Mueller after he likely uncovered evidence of potential wrongdoing related to Cohen that fell outside the purview of his investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US election and the Trump campaign’s possible involvement.

Cohen has been referred to at different times as Trump’s fixer, “pit bull,” and consigliere. In addition to facing legal scrutiny for possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations, Cohen is a subject of interest in at least four investigative threads related to Trump. As the president’s right-hand man, Cohen also has intimate knowledge of Trump’s most closely guarded secret: his personal finances.

Trump reacted to news of the raids on Monday by lashing out at top DOJ and FBI officials and described the investigations as a “TOTAL WITCH HUNT” in an early-morning tweet on Tuesday. In addition to publicly fuming about the news, Trump also privately began wondering whether he should fire Rosenstein, The New York Times reported.

The president’s fury ratcheted up another notch when it emerged that Rosenstein had personally signed off on the FBI’s decision to raid Cohen’s office.

“He takes the Russia stuff as a political hit job,” one source close to Trump told Axios. The Cohen raid “was a personal affront. This was the red line,” they added.

Some of Trump’s legal advisers have also argued that they have a strong case to support Rosenstein’s firing, CNN reported.

They apparently believe they can successfully prove Rosenstein has overstepped his authority and that he is conflicted because he is also a witness in the Russia investigation, given that he recommended Trump fire FBI director James Comey last year, per the report.

‘I’ve never seen him like this before’

The already delicate atmosphere in the West Wing is complicated by the fact that many of the voices who previously served as bulwarks against Trump’s worst impulses have either left or been forced out of his orbit.

H.R. McMaster, the former national security adviser and a moderating influence in the White House, was ousted last month and replaced by former UN ambassador John Bolton.

Following reports that Bolton planned to “clean house” on the National Security Council, the White House homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, was forced out Tuesday.

John Dowd, the seasoned defense attorney who was leading Trump’s communications with Mueller’s office, resigned from his legal team last month, reportedly frustrated that Trump was not following his advice. Trump’s personal defense team is now spearheaded by Jay Sekulow, who has appeared frequently on Fox News and has little experience with high-profile criminal defense cases.

Trump is also said to be growing increasingly frustrated with the White House counsel Don McGahn, Axios reported on Wednesday. McGahn was critical in convincing Trump not to fire Mueller last year — according to The Times, Trump ordered McGahn to dismiss the special counsel last July but backed off when McGahn threatened to resign.

Perhaps the most consequential departure was that of Hope Hicks, the former communications director who left the administration last month after facing increased scrutiny over her role in the scandal surrounding former staff secretary Rob Porter.

Hicks has been described as the person Trump was closest to and most comfortable with outside of his family, and she was often able to help him control his anger when controversies hit.

The Cohen raid was “the first crisis post-Hope Hicks,” one source told Axios. “This was different: I’ve never seen him like this before.”

Leaning on more audacious voices

In addition to moving away from moderating forces, the president is also seeking the company of individuals who cater to his moods.

The Daily Beast reported that Trump dined with the Fox News pundit Jesse Watters and the controversial former White House aide Sebastian Gorka at the White House last month.

In recent weeks, Trump has also met or spoken with figures like former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and the Fox News host and ardent Trump defender Sean Hannity.

Following news of the Cohen raids on Monday, Hannity led his show with: “This is now officially an all-hands-on-deck effort to totally malign and, if possible, impeach the president of the United States.”

“Mueller and Rosenstein have declared what is a legal war on the president,” he added.

Meanwhile, Joseph diGenova, the controversial former federal prosecutor who was under consideration to join Trump’s legal team, told Fox News on Monday that Congress should move to impeach Rosenstein and FBI director Christopher Wray.

The next day, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes told the conservative commentator Laura Ingraham he was prepared to impeach Rosenstein and Wray if they did not hand over documents he was seeking related to the Russia probe.

Trump picked up the thread Wednesday morning.

“No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!” he tweeted.

The president added that the US’s deteriorating relationship with Russia was caused by the Russia probe, “headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for [former President Barack] Obama.”

Trump then slammed Mueller for being the “most conflicted of all.”

The only person more conflicted than Mueller, the president said, was Rosenstein.

For at least a year, the biggest page on Facebook purporting to be part of the Black Lives Matter movement was a scam with ties to a middle-aged white man in Australia, a review of the page and associated accounts and websites conducted by CNN shows.

The page, titled simply “Black Lives Matter,” had almost 700,000 followers on Facebook, more than twice as many as the official Black Lives Matter page. It was tied to online fundraisers that brought in at least $100,000 that supposedly went to Black Lives Matter causes in the U.S. At least some of the money, however, was transferred to Australian bank accounts, CNN has learned.

Fundraising campaigns associated with the Facebook page were suspended by PayPal and Patreon after CNN contacted each of the companies for comment. Donorbox and Classy had already removed the campaigns.

The discovery raises new questions about the integrity of Facebook’s platform and the content hosted there. In the run-up to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress this week, Facebook has announced plans to make the people running large pages verify their identity and location. But it’s not clear that the change would affect this page: Facebook has not said what information about page owners it will disclose to the public — and, presented with CNN’s findings, Facebook initially said the page didn’t violate its “Community Standards.”

Only after almost a week of emails and calls between CNN and Facebook about this story did Facebook suspend the page, and then only because it had suspended a user account that administrated the page.

The discovery also raises questions about Facebook’s commitment to change, and to policing its platform, even in the midst of its PR offensive leading up to Zuckerberg’s testimony. Not for the first time, Facebook took action against a major bad actor on its site not on its own but because journalists made inquiries.

Indeed, Facebook was told of concerns about the page some time ago. Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, told CNN that Black Lives Matter had, suspecting the page was a scam, contacted Facebook about removing it a few months ago.

The Facebook page was — separate from Facebook’s suspension of it — apparently taken down by a person who administrated the page shortly after CNN contacted one of the Australian men who may be associated with it. “Black Lives Matter” appears to have been set up some time in 2016.

The people behind the page also ran a hugely popular Facebook Group also titled “Black Lives Matter.” With almost 40,000 members, it appears to be the biggest group on the platform professing to be supporting Black Lives Matter. Facebook Groups are similar to traditional discussion forums, and unlike pages, people normally need to request to join.

Related: Facebook’s new rules for Pages are a big deal, but there are major questions

The page consistently linked to websites tied to Ian Mackay, a National Union of Workers official in Australia. The union represents thousands of workers across various industries.

A spokesperson for the National Union of Workers said Tuesday that it has suspended Mackay and one other official while it investigates the situation.

The union “is not involved in and has not authorized any activities with reference to claims made in CNN’s story,” National Secretary Tim Kennedy said in a statement.

Mackay has registered dozens of websites, many on issues tied to black rights. In April 2015, Mackay registered blackpowerfist.com. Mackay’s name, email address, phone number and other details appeared in the registration records for the site until July 2015, when the website enabled a feature that allows site owners to hide their identities and contact information.

The Facebook page continually drove traffic to websites associated with blackpowerfist.com, which was eventually turned into a Reddit-like discussion forum. One of the websites included blacklivesmatter.media, for which Mackay is listed as the administrative and technical contact in at least one archived internet record.

A few days after Mackay registered blackpowerfist.com, an anonymous Facebook profile under the name “BP Parker” shared a link to the website. This same profile was an administrator of the “Black Lives Matter” Facebook page until the page was suspended, a Facebook spokesperson has told CNN.

Another anonymous account, under the name “Steve Parks,” linked to another site first registered by Mackay — again, just a few days after internet records indicate he registered it.

As recently as last month, both BP Parker and Steve Parks were listed as administrators on the Black Lives Matter Facebook group tied to the Facebook page.

The people behind the websites and the Facebook page also encouraged people to donate through various online fundraising platforms, including Donorbox.

“Our mission is to raise awareness about racism, bigotry, police brutality and hate crimes by exposing through social media locally and internationally stories that mainstream media don’t,” a message on the group’s Donorbox page read.

“We have built a following through hard work, dedication and the generosity of supporters like you that pitch in a what they can to help us promote or share our page and also pay to boost the stories the mainstream media try to suppress through paid ads,” it added.

Facebook did not comment when asked if ads were purchased to boost the page on its platform.

Related: What Mark Zuckerberg will tell Congress

Another fundraiser removed by Donorbox, which the company confirmed was run by the same people, billed itself as an “Education And Training Portal Sponsorship Fund” that promised “online courses that educate people about the struggle of civil rights leaders and activists.”

Fundraisers also ran on PayPal, Patreon, and Classy.

A source familiar with some of the payments processed said at least one of the accounts was tied to an Australian IP address and bank account. At least one fundraising account was tied to Ian Mackay by name, according to the source.

Another source also familiar with some of the payments processed told CNN that the group had raised around $100,000 that they were aware of. The source also said the fundraisers were linked to Australia.

Both sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because their companies’ policies prohibit the sharing of some information about fundraisers.

The websites associated with the group are currently registered using common features that keep the identity and contact information for the people behind the website private.

CNN reached out to Mackay last month to ask about his involvement with the “Black Lives Matter,” Facebook page. He denied running it. “I once bought the domain name only and sold it,” he told CNN when asked about a Black Lives Matter website that was once registered to his name.

Within a few hours, the Facebook page had been deactivated.

It wasn’t the first time the Facebook page changed after Mackay was asked about his involvement in it.

In December, after a freelance investigator, Jeremy Massler, who was the first person to publicly note Mackay’s apparent links to the page, wrote a blog post about Mackay, the page was taken down for a brief period before re-emerging.

Massler reached out to CNN about the Facebook page following CNN’s reporting on fake Black Lives Matter pages run by a Russian government-linked troll group. Massler pointed CNN to the internet records for websites linked to by the page.

After an investigation of its own, CNN presented its findings to Facebook last week. Despite CNN outlining the page’s links to fundraising accounts that had by then been suspended on other platforms, Facebook initially said its investigation into the page “didn’t show anything that violated our Community Standards.”

On Monday morning, Facebook disabled the BP Parker profile for violating its community standards. The company disabled the page as a result, a spokesperson told CNN.

The campaign’s accounts on Donorbox, PayPal, Classy, and Patreon have all been suspended.

Donorbox told CNN in an email, “This is an organization that we banned months ago. They signed up as the operator of a popular FB page and a BLM social news platform.”

“We banned the account after a couple of donors complained that they thought they donated to the grassroots organization.”

The company added that most of the donations came from people clicking links on Facebook and on websites run by the people behind the campaign.

One of the Donorbox campaigns that was active as recently as February of this year included an email address for Black Lives Matter Memphis. P. Moses, a spokesperson for Black Lives Matter Memphis, said her group had nothing to do with the fundraiser. Donorbox removed the campaign, the company told CNN.

Patreon and PayPal suspended the accounts after CNN asked the companies about them. Classy had already suspended the account on its platform as it didn’t make it through its approval process.

PayPal and Donorbox would not specify how much money was raised using their platforms. Patreon said only $194 was raised through their site.

Classy said that the campaign did not make it through its final approval process and no money raised was transferred to the people behind the campaign.

Mackay did not provide answers to multiple questions from CNN about his apparent links to the scheme. “My domain name buying and selling is a personal hobby,” he told CNN.

He declined multiple opportunities to clarify his role. “What is the point in speaking to you given that you are going to run your story either way,” he wrote in one message to CNN.

Cullors said she found CNN’s findings disturbing. She said fake fundraisers diminish the real work the movement does. “We rely on donors who believe in our work and our cause and that money will be used in a way that is respectful,” Cullors said.

“It’s important to remember the movement was organic and no organizations started the protests that spread across the country,” DeRay Mckesson, a prominent black activist, told CNN. “The consequences of that is it hasn’t been easy to think about authenticity in the digital space.”

— Carly Walsh contributed to this report.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Donorbox and Classy removed the fundraising accounts after CNN brought them to their attention. In fact, the accounts were removed before CNN brought them to the companies’ attention. Additionally, an earlier version of this story misidentified the person who answered questions about the fundraiser purporting to support Black Lives Matter Memphis. P. Moses spoke to CNN on behalf of Black Lives Matter Memphis, but is not its spokesperson.

Monday night marked the television return of Fox News host Laura Ingraham after she mocked David Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor, and then took a week-long vacation. In her monologue on The Ingraham Angle, the host suggested that conservative opinions are facing censorship in the United States. Because of this, Ingraham suggested, those who hold these opinions are facing a host of consequences, including being fired or being “boycotted.” Ingraham’s comment regarding boycotting appeared to make veiled reference to advertisers’ decisions to boycott her show after she mocked Hogg last month.

On March 28, Ingraham tweeted an article reporting that Hogg had been rejected from four colleges to which he had applied. Ingraham commented on the article, “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.).”

In response, Hogg tweeted a list of Ingraham’s top 12 advertisers, requesting that people contact them to complain about Ingraham’s comments. Later that day, Ingraham apologized to Hogg, saying on Twitter, “Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111. On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.” The host also decided to take a pre-planned one week vacation.

USA Today reported that Hogg’s appeal to advertisers was quite effective — and Ingraham lost around half of her show’s advertisers following the Twitter exchange. When she returned to the air on Monday, Ingraham did not directly address the issue with Hogg or the boycott. However, she did express that she felt like conservative voices were being suppressed in the United States.

As the Hollywood Reporter noted, on her show Ingraham repeatedly chastised the “the bullies on the left aiming to silence conservatives.” She also accused progressives of being hypocritical, saying, “For all their talk of inclusion, the left doesn’t invite more voices to enter the public discussion … Instead, they drive out any dissenting voice …”

The Reporter did indicate that Ingraham did not specifically say she represented a conservative individual whose voice is being suppressed. However, her comments appeared to give the impression that she was at least in part referring to her recent feud with Hogg and her advertisers’ withdrawal.

Indeed, at one point in her monologue, Ingraham asserted,

Toward the end of her monologue, Ingraham announced that she will be featuring a new segment on her show called “Defending the First,” which will explore what she believes are threats to the First Amendment. As the host noted, she plans to use her show to expose “the perpetrators [of First Amendment threats], their tactics, their major players, and their funders.” She also did not mince words when characterizing how she believes some progressives are threatening free speech, saying, “Their efforts are Stalinist, pure and simple. Their objective is a total transformation of American society, not through rational discourse and open debate, but through personal demonization and silencing.”

Overall, while Ingraham’s monologue did not mention her Twitter exchange with Hogg or her advertisers’ exits, she certainly indicated that she strongly believes that conservative voices are being unfairly suppressed, including through boycotts. Time will tell whether Ingraham ever mentions her issues with Hogg and her advertisers on her show, particularly on her new First Amendment analysis segment.

• Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify about the Cambridge Analytica data leak before congressional committees beginning on Tuesday.
• His appearance comes amid growing calls for new regulations to protect consumer privacy and limit the power and influence of Facebook and other tech giants.
• The hearings offer an opportunity for policymakers to get a sense of Facebook’s privacy problems — and what can and should be done about them.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional appearances this week at hearings delving into the Cambridge Analytica scandal mark a crucial moment for the company, its users, and the broader public — and it’s important that members of Congress use it wisely.

It’s become increasingly clear that new regulations are essential to constrain the power of Facebook and the other giant tech firms and to prevent the societal damage that abuse of their services can cause. In particular, the Cambridge Analytica debacle has highlighted the lack of, and need for, basic online and data privacy protections in the US.

But in order for policymakers to come up with new laws and rules, they need to better understand the scope of the problem. And to gain the momentum they need to push such rules through, they need to start making the case for them.

In both cases, Zuckerberg’s appearance can help.

Here are some of the things members of Congress should ask him about as they’re trying to understand Facebook’s privacy problems and building the case for new privacy legislation:

How many other Cambridge Analyticas are out there? Cambridge Analytica was able to get access to data on millions of Facebook users via an app designed by a university researcher. But that app was just one of thousands — perhaps even millions — that had access to users’ data. It’s clear from the app that leaked data to Cambridge Analytica that Facebook didn’t keep close tabs on what developers did with that data once they gleaned it from the social network.

As one example, Facebook over the weekend suspended data analytics firm CubeYou for allegedly the same thing that happened in the Cambridge Analytica scandal — illegitimately passing along data gleaned from a Facebook app to a third party without the permission of users. But it only took that action after being notified about CubeYou by CNBC.

In a statement on his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg said the company is now going back and investigating apps that had access to “large amounts” of user data and plans to do an audit of any app connected to “suspicious activity.” Members of Congress should press Zuckerberg on what the company has found so far. If he demurs by saying that the investigation is only in its early stages, legislators should give him a deadline for disclosing what Facebook has found — the sooner the better.

But they should also try to get a better sense of the potential scope of the problem with Facebook apps. They ask Zuckerberg how many apps were created before 2014, when its rules changed; what kind of data they had access to; and how many users could potentially have had their data misused by them.

How much data has been exfiltrated from Facebook? The Cambridge Analytica data leak affected up to 87 million Facebook users. But Zuckerberg last week revealed an even bigger data leak, at least in terms of numbers of people affected — malicious actors were able to use a search tool to download the public profile information of more than half of all Facebook users.

Congress should press Zuckerberg on how many people are affected by these and other potential data leaks. They also should get him to disclose what kinds of information was leaked about users.

How could the data extracted from Facebook — whether by legitimate developers or malicious actors — be used? Facebook users almost certainly had no idea that the information gleaned about them and their friends through a personality quiz app could be used to try to influence an election, as was reportedly the case in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But Facebook and Zuckerberg almost certainly have an excellent idea of the value of the information the company has collected on its users — and how that data could be used, at least in concept.

The company has spent more than a decade collecting information on its users. It’s also conducted experiments on its users to see how it can use what it knows about them to influence their thoughts or behaviors. It’s spent years honing tools that allow its clients to finely target advertising messages to users. It’s also been investigating how its services were abused by Russian-linked actors to spread propaganda during the 2016 US presidential election.

Members of Congress should press Zuckerberg on how the data collected about its users is already being used to target and influence them. And it should get him to talk about how that data could potentially be used in malicious ways.

How will US Facebook users be affected by Europe’s new privacy regulations? The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) takes effect in May. Many privacy advocates look at the GDPR as a model for the kind of baseline privacy law the US sorely needs. The new law requires companies to protect consumer data and to get explicit and specific permission for all kinds of data-collection activities.

Facebook has said it will apply the rules globally, but said there will be some variation in how it adopts them in each country. Lawmakers should press Zuckerberg on what that means for US customers. They should get him to list the parts of GDPR Facebook won’t honor for the US and explain why it won’t.

What is Zuckerberg’s privacy red line? Zuckerberg and Facebook’s mantra is that the company is on a mission to connect the world. But the company’s mission really has been to collect as much data as possible on users — and encourage them to share ever more information with their friends and, in turn, the company. The company monitors users’ locations, keeps track of who they call or text, and monitors the content of their messages.

It would be interesting — and potentially eye-opening — to know if Zuckerberg thinks there is a bright line beyond which the company shouldn’t go in its quest to profile users. Legislators should press him on whether there’s any data that Facebook has declared off-limits, that it’s barred its systems from collecting, or, on its own, has deleted from its systems. And they should ask why it has or hasn’t set those limits.

Is there any way for Facebook as it exists today to be privacy friendly? Facebook’s value to advertisers is that it allows them to aim their messages at users with a great deal of precision and accuracy. Marketers can target based on all kinds of information — users’ location, interests, political beliefs and more. The more data Facebook collects, the more finely marketers can target their messages — and the more valuable its service.

Facebook and Zuckerberg have said this micro-targeting is part of the bargain they offer consumers; it allows the company to offer its service for free. They also portray it as a benefit to consumers; users see ads that are tailored just for them, rather ones that are meaningless to them. But it’s not at all clear that consumers understand exactly what kinds of information Facebook has about them, what can be done with it — or who would have consented to that data-collection if they did.

The company has a new privacy page that’s supposed to give users a better idea of the data it’s collecting and what it’s doing with it. But lawmakers should ask Zuckerberg for his definition of informed consent. They should also press him on what he thinks a privacy-friendly Facebook would look like — and how adherence to international privacy norms might affect its business model.