Twitter is "toast" as a company and the stock is not even worth $10, according to a research note published Tuesday, following the departure of another top executive at the social media service.

The microblogging platform's chief technology officer, Adam Messinger, tweeted that he would leave the company and "take some time off", while Josh McFarland, vice president of product at Twitter, also said he was exiting the company. Both executives announced their departure on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, last month, Adam Bain stepped down as chief operating officer last month to be replaced by chief financial officer Anthony Noto, who has yet to be replaced. Twitter has also lost leaders from business development, media and commerce, media partnerships, human resources, and engineering this year.

The departures prompted Trip Chowdhry, the managing director of equity research at Global Equities Research, and a noted "uber-bear" on tech stocks, to issue a note on Tuesday claiming Twitter is "toast" and "not even a $10 stock".

"Many investors were foolishly building (an) investment thesis based on complete stupidity," Chowdhry wrote.

Twitter's share price closed at $17.92 on Tuesday. A $10 price tag would represent a more than 44 percent decline in the U.S. technology company's shares on Tuesday's closing price. It's not the first time that Chowdhry has said that Twitter could fall to $10. In October, the analyst said that next year, the fall is likely to take place.

The analyst said that Twitter's data quality is "horrible". Chowdhry said that many pollsters used Twitter data to predict a Hillary Clinton win in the U.S. election but the fact that Donald Trump won shows that data quality is poor. One reason for this is too many fake users on the platform, Chowdhry claims.

"If data quality is bad, ad targeting is bad, and if ad targeting is bad, advertisers are not happy, and hence monetization will remain challenging for Twitter," Chowdhry said.


Live video potential

Chowdhry's call is a particularly bearish voice amid a chorus of cautious investors. Twitter's stock currently has 25 hold ratings, six sells and two strong sells, according to Reuters data. Only six analysts have a buy or strong buy rating, while the average price target for the stock is $17.02.

The social media service has struggled to grow its users but its latest quarterly results could give investors some hope. Twitter's average monthly active users for the third quarter increased to 317 million, up 4 million from its second quarter, while earnings beat market expectations. The U.S. social media giant also announced plans to lay off about 350 people, or 9 percent of its global workforce.

Twitter was courted by a number of potential acquirers earlier this year, including Salesforce, but talks ended without a deal. While some still think Twitter should be acquired, the company has to go it alone and try to boost users.

One focus has been on live video. Twitter live-streams Thursday night NFL games, and on Tuesday announced plans to live-stream the Golden Globes pre-show.

Analysts see this as a potential driver of growth if it takes off. Trefis, a platform that uses data to look at how stocks are valued and where they could move, predicts the number of timeline views per U.S. monthly active user for Twitter will increase gradually from around 200,000 in 2016 to 209,000 by the end of 2019. Live video could boost that number and if the number of timeline reaches nearly 300,000 by the end of 2019, Twitter's stock could see 20 percent upside to Trefis' current price estimate of $22.28.

Still the company faces stiff competition from the likes of Facebook and Snapchat, both of which focus heavily on video.

Neil Doshi, an analyst at Mizuho Securities, wrote in a note last month that other social media rivals would continue to take ad revenue and user share from Twitter, while he continued to "remain concerned" about the business due to continued management departures.

At the end of October, Donald Trump spoke in Gettysburg, Pa., and released a plan for his first 100 days in office.

The plan (below) outlines three main areas of focus: cleaning up Washington, including by imposing term limits on Congress; protecting American workers; and restoring rule of law. He also laid out his plan for working with Congress to introduce 10 pieces of legislation that would repeal Obamacare, fund the construction of a wall at the Southern border (with a provision that Mexico would reimburse the U.S.), encourage infrastructure investment, rebuild military bases, promote school choice and more.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. On Trump's proposal to impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate." McConnell has been a long-standing opponent of term limits, as NPR's Susan Davis reports. "I would say we have term limits now — they're called elections."

McConnell also threw some cold water on Trump's infrastructure plans, calling it not a top priority.

McConnell did say repealing Obamacare is a "pretty high item on our agenda" along with comprehensive tax reform and achieving border security "in whatever way is the most effective." But he also declined to discuss the Senate's immigration agenda further.

"We look forward to working with him," McConnell said. "I think most of the things that he's likely to advocate we're going to be enthusiastically for."

Below is the 100-day plan Trump's campaign released in October, called "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter.

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

2. End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.

5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.

6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.

8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values

10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

Social conservatives. Libertarians. Country-club conservatives. Tea party conservatives. Everybody in politics knows that those sets of people who usually vote Republican cannot be arrayed in a continuum from moderately conservative to extremely conservative. They are on different political planes. They usually have just enough in common to vote for the same candidate.

Why then do we still talk about the left in terms of a continuum from moderately liberal to extremely liberal? Divisions have been occurring on the left that mirror the divisions on the right. Different segments of the left are now on different planes.

A few weeks ago, I was thrown into a situation where I shared drinks and dinner with two men who have held high positions in Democratic administrations. Both men are lifelong liberals. There's nothing "moderate" about their liberalism. But as the pleasant evening wore on (we knew that there was no point in trying to change anyone's opinion on anything), I was struck by how little their politics have to do with other elements of the left.

Their liberalism has nothing in common with the political mind-set that wants right-of-center speakers kept off college campuses, rationalizes the forced resignation of a CEO who opposes gay marriage, or thinks George F. Will should be fired for writing a column disagreeable to that mind-set. It has nothing to do with executive orders unilaterally disregarding large chunks of legislation signed into law or with using the IRS as a political weapon. My companions are on a different political plane from those on the left with that outlook—the progressive mind-set.

Wait, doesn't "progressive" today reflect the spirit of the Progressive Era a century ago, when the country benefited from the righteous efforts of muckrakers and others who fought big-city political bosses, attacked business monopolies and promoted Good Government?
The era was partly about that. But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy ( Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration ( Woodrow Wilson's open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.

That's not a description that Woodrow Wilson or the other leading progressive intellectuals would have argued with. They openly said it themselves.

It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today's America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I'm saying, read Jonah Goldberg's 2008 book "Liberal Fascism," an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate.

Here, I want to make a simple point about millions of people—like my liberal-minded dinner companions—who regularly vote Democratic and who are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Along with its intellectual legacy, the Progressive Era had a political legacy that corresponds to the liberalism of these millions of Democrats. They think that an activist federal government is a force for good, approve of the growing welfare state and hate the idea of publicly agreeing with a Republican about anything. But they also don't like the idea of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.

They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization's absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I'm not happy that they like the idea of a "living Constitution"—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president's duty to execute the laws faithfully.

These Democrats should get exclusive possession of the word "liberal."

As a libertarian, I am reluctant to give up the word "liberal." It used to refer to laissez-faire economics and limited government. But since libertarians aren't ever going to be able to retrieve its original meaning, we should start using "liberal" to designate the good guys on the left, reserving "progressive" for those who are enthusiastic about an unrestrained regulatory state, who think it's just fine to subordinate the interests of individuals to large social projects, who cheer the president's abuse of executive power and who have no problem rationalizing the stifling of dissent.

Making a clear distinction between liberals and progressives will help break down a Manichaean view of politics that afflicts the nation. Too many of us see those on the other side as not just misguided but evil. The solution is not a generalized "Can't we all just get along" non-judgmentalism. Some political differences are too great for that.

But liberalism as I want to use the term encompasses a set of views that can be held by people who care as much about America's exceptional heritage as I do. Conservatives' philosophical separation from that kind of liberalism is not much wider than the philosophical separation among the various elements of the right. If people from different political planes on the right can talk to each other, as they do all the time, so should they be able to talk to people on the liberal left, if we start making a distinction between liberalism and progressivism. To make that distinction is not semantic, but a way of realistically segmenting the alterations to the political landscape that the past half-century has brought us.

DONALD TRUMP HAS deep ties to India’s right-wing, anti-Muslim Bharatiya Janata Party.

Trump has praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the nationalist BJP leader who gained international infamy for his role in stoking anti-Muslim riots in 2002 that reportedly killed nearly 2,000 people. The New York Times wrote that Hindu mobs skewered mothers “on swords as their children watched” while young women were raped in broad daylight, “then doused with kerosene and set on fire.”

And Shalabh “Shalli” Kumar, known as a close Modi ally and the BJP’s consigliere in U.S. politics, has emerged as a prominent backer of Trump’s candidacy. Kumar has organized multiple fundraising efforts within the Indian American community for Trump and donated $898,800 to Trump Victory, the joint fundraising committee formed to support his presidential campaign.

Trump is also in business with a prominent BJP politician, having signed a licensing deal in 2014 to construct the Trump Tower Mumbai with Mangal Prabhat Lodha, a real estate mogul and BJP state legislator. The 75-story building is now under construction, scheduled to be completed in 2018.

In many ways the partnership could not be more perfect. Like Trump, the BJP rose to power nationally two years ago by playing on sectarian anger against Muslims.

And Trump and Lodha have some things in common. Lodha is known for building golf courses and planning a gold façade at the building he is constructing. Lodha even sports a similar catchphrase, declaring on his political website his plans for “Making Mumbai Great Again.”

But Trump’s partnership with Lodha may present political complications. Lodha, like many BJP politicians, has not only antagonized Muslims, but has also repeatedly played to local anti-Christian hostility and sponsored legislation that Christian leaders say is designed to single them out for discrimination.

Neither Trump’s campaign nor Lodha’s firm responded to a request for comment.

In 2014, announcing the Trump Tower Mumbai deal, Trump praised his partner, calling the Mumbai-based firm “a truly fantastic team of professionals.” Lodha’s son, the managing director of the Lodha Group, told the New York Times that the branded approach to real estate has helped him sell condominiums; units in Trump Tower Mumbai have already sold for as much as $2 million.

Lodha came to political power in Mumbai in 1994 as Hindu activists protested over claims that Christian missionaries were entering slums and converting low-caste Hindus. In one incident, BJP activists attacked Christian converts over a dispute in Dharavi, a Mumbai slum. In another local incident, Hindus attacked a Catholic convent after accusing the school of converting a Hindu student to Christianity. Skirmishes between Christians and Muslims led to BJP activists taking to the streets to demand anti-conversion laws.

In response, Lodha has over the past two decades repeatedly pushed for anti-conversion legislation, called the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, that would criminalize certain types of proselytizing.

Claiming that minority religious groups have preyed upon Hindus, Lodha’s bill deems the “threat of divine displeasure” or “social excommunication” as types of coercive proselytizing that could be punishable with a year or more of jail time. The legislation has also called for any individual seeking to change their religion to first gain approval from the District Collector, a state administrative office.

When Lodha first proposed his anti-conversion legislation, the Catholic community viewed it as a direct attack. “The Christian community is worried and concerned by the suggestion of jailing people for efforts at conversion,” the late Cardinal Simon Pimenta of Bombay wrote in 1997 in a widely circulated letter raising concerns with the legislation.

In 2013, Lodha proposed the bill again, for the fourth time, again enraging Catholics. The introduction of “such legislation will not only be an anti-minority act but will increase the persecution of the minorities,” Dolphy Dsouza, the former vice president of the All India Catholic Union and president of the Bombay Catholic Sabha, told the Hindustan Times. “Minorities such as Christians are already being harassed by authorities on false accusations of forceful conversions,” Dsouza added, “this will become another tool for harassment.”

In more recent years, Lodha has echoed claims by national BJP leaders and claimed that Muslims are waging a “Love Jihad,” marrying Hindu and Jain women so they can be converted and sold off to Islamic countries in the Middle East. “There should be one committee for each district that should work in cooperation with local police and people, and it may strictly check occurrences of ‘Love Jihad’ in their respective areas,” Lodha said.

Lodha has also enraged local Muslims by blocking cattle from being brought into Mumbai for Eid for slaughter and calling for a ban on loudspeakers over mosques. Three years ago, he led a group of 100 demonstrators who rallied at the local police station, calling for the confiscation of healthy cattle used for Eid sacrifice. Lodha has also proposed a complete ban on cattle slaughter in the entire state of Maharashtra, a state of 112 million people.

Lodha’s political party, the BJP, has used similar tactics to win elections across India. In 2014, party leader Modi decried “Muslim appeasement,” and fielded candidates in high-profile races known for stoking violence against Muslims.

A federal judge denied a Native American tribe's request to temporarily block construction of the four-state Dakota Access oil pipeline, which has sparked heated protests. But the U.S. Justice Department responded to the ruling by announcing steps to protect — for now — a lake along the construction route.

Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., decided that there is not enough evidence to support the argument that building the pipeline would harm the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which sued to stop the pipeline's construction.

Boasberg's ruling showed sympathy for the tribe's history but disagreed with the lawsuit's contention that the Army Corps of Engineers erred in its granting permits for the pipeline.

"Aware of the indignities visited upon the tribe over the last centuries, the court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care," Boasberg wrote. "Having done so, the court must nonetheless conclude that the tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here." A status conference for the case is scheduled for Sept. 16.

The Departments of Justice, the Interior and the Army weighed in immediately after the ruling's release with an announcement that the Corps will at least temporarily halt authorization for construction of the pipeline around Lake Oahe while it reviews its decisions regarding the large reservoir. The government requested that Dakota Access, the Texas-based company building the pipeline, voluntarily pause construction within 20 miles of Lake Oahe.

The federal government also announced that the case highlights the need to consider "nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes' views on these types of infrastructure projects."

A representative for Dakota Access declined requests for comment on the ruling and the government's announcement.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe welcomed the government's announcement, calling it a "game changer."

"The federal court ruled against the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe today, but in a stunning move, three federal agencies have blocked the pipeline at Lake Oahe, pending a thorough review and reconsideration of the process," the tribe said in a statement on its Facebook page

"This federal statement is a game changer for the tribe, and we are acting immediately on our legal options, including filing an appeal and a temporary injunction to force [Dakota Access] to stop construction," the statement continued.

Lake Oahe is environmentally and culturally important to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and the pipeline would cross under the lake, which is just upstream from the tribe's reservation, according to the tribe's complaint in the lawsuit.

"The tribe relies on the waters of Lake Oahe for drinking water, irrigation, fishing and recreation and to carry out cultural and religious practices. The public water supply for the tribe, which provides drinking water for thousands of people, is located a few miles downstream of the proposed pipeline crossing route."

"Additionally, the cultural and religious significance of these waters cannot be overstated," the tribe states in its court complaint. "Construction of the pipeline ... and building and burying the pipeline would destroy burial grounds, sacred sites and historically significant areas on either side of Lake Oahe," the complaint states.

The planned 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline will run from North Dakota and South Dakota into Iowa and Illinois.

The tribe argues in its lawsuit that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to adequately consult it before granting permits that allowed construction of the pipeline, which began earlier this summer about a half-mile north of the tribe's reservation in North Dakota.

The pipeline company and the Corps argue in court documents that they followed a standard review process.

Conflict over the pipeline escalated last weekend when private security workers for Dakota Access and protesters against the project clashed at a North Dakota construction site.

Before the announcement of the ruling, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman David Archambault II said that no matter the outcome, opponents of the pipeline should remain peaceful.

"We call upon all water protectors to greet any decision with peace and order. Even if the outcome of the court’s ruling is not in our favor, we will continue to explore every lawful option and fight against the construction of the pipeline," Archambault said.

"Any act of violence hurts our cause and is not welcome here," he said.

In anticipation of possible protests after the ruling, North Dakota's governor called on the state's National Guard to help law enforcement, it said in a statement today.

"Personnel from the North Dakota National Guard have been called upon by the governor to support law enforcement and augment public safety efforts, in light of recent activity with the Dakota Access pipeline protest," the statement said. "The guard members will serve in administrative capacities and assist in providing security at traffic information points. The guardsmen will not be going to the actual protest site."

Dakota Access says on its website that it expects the pipeline to transport about 470,000 barrels of crude oil every day from production areas in North Dakota’s Bakken and Three Forks production areas through South Dakota, Iowa and into Illinois, as well as create thousands of construction jobs and generate millions of dollars in tax revenue for those states.

(CNN)Donald Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort has resigned from his position on the campaign, the Republican presidential nominee said in a statement Friday.

"This morning Paul Manafort offered, and I accepted, his resignation from the campaign," Trump said. "I am very appreciative for his great work in helping to get us where we are today, and in particular his work guiding us through the delegate and convention process. Paul is a true professional and I wish him the greatest success."
With just under three months to go until Election Day, Manafort's departure reflects the shifting power centers on the Trump campaign: After consolidating influence and discarding with Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, Manafort has now found himself on the outs after Trump elevated two different aides to senior positions on Tuesday: Breitbart News chief Steve Bannon as campaign CEO and Kellyanne Conway as campaign manager.
It's the second high profile departure from the top of Trump's campaign structure after campaign manager Corey Lewandowski left the operation earlier this summer. A new campaign manager and executive were named earlier this week.
Campaign reboot: Trump expresses regret for saying 'the wrong thing,' doesn't specify
A Trump source said Manafort told Trump he was becoming a distraction and he wanted to end that. A senior Trump campaign aide added later Friday that Trump lost faith in Manafort a couple of weeks ago, feeling like Manafort wasn't quick enough with answers to his questions, instead offering to look into an issue or get him a report on it. Trump doesn't want people around him who he thinks are moving too slowly, the aide said.
"Trump and he don't have chemistry," the aide said.
The departure also comes as Manafort is defending himself from investigations into his extensive lobbying history overseas, particularly in the Ukraine, where he represented pro-Russian interests. Manafort has been beating back reports from multiple media outlets in recent days over his ethics, which have been egged on by a Clinton campaign eager to highlight Trump's ties to the Kremlin.

A pair of Republican congressman have also called for investigations into Manafort's business past.
"I want to know what money he got from a pro-Russian organization in the Ukraine," Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.
"I think Donald Trump ought to really investigate this and where his chief adviser, what his association with the Russians are," Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois told CNN's Jake Tapper earlier this week.
Trump and his running mate Mike Pence were in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Friday morning, touring flood damage and meeting with residents there.
Manafort, a longtime Washington fixture, was originally brought on in the spring to save Trump from a defeat at the Republican convention should Trump have failed to win enough delegates to clinch a first-ballot nomination. Yet his role grew to serve as Trump's connection to the GOP establishment, telling Republican elders that their presidential nominee would run a traditional campaign that would not imperil down-ballot candidates.
RELATED: Donald Trump's shakeup gamble
After warring behind the scenes for months with Lewandowski, who had little regard for Manafort, Lewandoswki was fired earlier this summer. That decision by Trump seemed to be an embrace of Manafort's strategy.
Manafort installed many of his associates in the upper echelons of the campaign, signaled his support for an allied super PAC and crushed attempts to embarrass Trump at the Republican convention in Cleveland.
Yet as his poll numbers tumbled, Trump decisively reversed course, installing a media provacateur -- Bannon -- as his campaign's CEO. Manafort's role had been diminished, and Bannon is expected to encourage Trump to embrace the hyper-aggressive attitude that won him the primary.
The Trump campaign said Friday that Rick Gates, Manafort's deputy, would now serve as its liaison to the Republican National Committee.
The Clinton campaign looked to use Manafort's resignation to tie Trump and Vladimir Putin together.
"Paul Manafort's resignation is a clear admission that the disturbing connections between Donald Trump's team and pro-Kremlin elements in Russia and Ukraine are untenable," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement. "You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin."
Trump's son Eric said Friday that while Manafort had been instrumental in steering the campaign through the GOP convention, the former chairman's business past had begun to detract from his father's messages.

"I think my father didn't want to be, you know, distracted by whatever things Paul was dealing with," Eric Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo. "You know, Paul was amazing. But again, my father just didn't want to have the distraction looming over the campaign and quite frankly looming over all the issues that Hillary's facing right now."
Lewandowski said Friday that he had nothing to do with the change, but said it marked a much-needed course correction before Labor Day.
"Well, look it's obviously a difficult thing for anybody when they change jobs and have a position that they've been so invested in for a long time and really put their heart and soul into something, to not be part of it, particularly when you're this close," Lewandowski told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour." "But what the most important thing is is this is a reminder to me and the American public that Donald Trump will do anything it takes to win."