IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Trump Has Made Us Helpless to Fight the Pandemic

5/24/2020

Donald Trump is colossally unfit to lead a response to the coronavirus pandemic, one of the most lethal and demanding situations to challenge the United States in 100 years. He is corrupt, unable to apply rigorous thinking to problems, selfish, and lacking in empathy for others. Not only is he incapable of managing an adequate response to this pandemic, he prevents other parts of both the federal and state government from mounting acceptable national response. Trump’s previous conduct, as a businessman, candidate, and President, show the intractability of his detrimental influence. Relieving the effects of pandemic must first start with removing Trump.

Trump’s Corruption
Trump’s corruption has been evident in both his business practices and his presidency. He has broken the law and engaged in unethical behavior while avoiding significant legal sanctions. But as President, his corruption has undermined the rule of law and threatens democracy.

Throughout Trump’s business career credible press reports linked him to organized crime, money laundering, and other illicit schemes. Trump’s association with Russian mobsters, most of whom had Russian government connections, was part of the impetus for the FBI investigation of his Presidential campaign. The details of these associations are detailed in the Mueller Report. In addition, Trump has been sanctioned or found legally liable for running a fraudulent real estate school and violating laws associated with running a charitable foundation. Also, an exhaustive investigation by the New York Times uncovered evidence of Trump’s federal and state tax fraud. The state of New York is currently investigating these allegations while the Congressional Democrats attempt to obtain Trump’s tax records.

One of Trump’s first acts as President was a florid example of Trump’s criminality. To stop two of his former girlfriends, a porn star and a Playboy bunny, from revealing these relationships, Trump had authorized payments to these women and then reimbursed his attorney with checks written in the Oval Office. The money for these payments, however, represented campaign contributions and were illegal. Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to two campaign finance charges and is currently serving a three-year sentence (now by house-arrest). Trump, as a sitting President, could not be indicted, but remains an unindicted co-conspirator.

In Memoriam
Mary Scott 1922- 2020
Richard L Scott 1923 - 2020

A lovely couple, married over 70 years. Proud parents and grandparents. COVID-19 overtook them in the same week.

Coronavirus

3/17/2020

All of us should expect to become infected with coronavirus. There are only two ways to avoid this disease. First, if scientists eventually develop an effective vaccine against coronavirus to which we have access, it could provide us with immunity. U.S. scientists estimate that the soonest they can develop a vaccine is a year. Second, if none of the people with whom we come into contact transmit the disease to us. This will happen if they are not yet infected, if they have recovered and are immune, or if they have been vaccinated. We can also escape infection through shear luck if we are exposed, but transmission just does not happen.

Most of us who contract the disease and are young and healthy will recover from coronavirus, perhaps with some over-the-counter symptom relief. Others of us may not be as fortunate as the young and healthy. We may have preexisting medical conditions, or be over the age of 65, or suffer from both preexisting conditions and are over the age of 65. If we have these risks and become infected withcoronavirus, we are more likely to die than those who are young and healthy. Nonetheless, a few of us who are young and healthy will also, quite mysteriously, do poorly or die.

Even if we are old and have health problems, we may recover from severe disease if we have access to the right medical treatment. As more and more people become ill from the coronavirus, the resources to treat them will become depleted. Hospitals may not be able to provide access to those sick with coronavirus because of shortages in intensive care units, ventilators, medical personnel, and personal protective equipment. In turn, hospitals may not be able to provide medical services for all of those suffering from heart attacks, strokes, overdoses, and other medical emergencies.

The authorities are calling for us to practice social distancing, limiting the number of people with whom we are in contact, to avoid this shortage of medical resources. Authorities are closing schools, limiting gatherings of over ten people, and closing nonessential businesses to enforce social distancing. But social distance maynot protect us from coronavirus. It will increase the time it takes for us to contract coronavirus. If the time it takes for all of us to become ill is increased, then perhaps our medical resources will not be swamped.

Flattening the curve refers to the process of prolonging the onset of thecoronavirus for as many people as possible so that health services will not be swamped. It is important to note that the flattening curve slows the rate of transmission. That is, it slows the number who have the disease at a given point in time; it does not affect the total number of people who contractcoronavirus. Flattening the curve is essential for helping to ensure that medical resources are not swamped. If the curve is not flattened, then access to medical care may have to be rationed or care quality compromised for all. (In Fig. 1, the number of people seeking help when it must be rationed is represented by C.)
Physicians need to test symptomatic patients to make a diagnosis, institute isolation, and report to public health for focused responses. Testing for the presence of coronavirus, like social distancing, is necessary but has been woefully inadequate. Testing, however, will not prevent us from contracting coronavirus. And adequate testing would help identify those who have the disease but are asymptomatic. Those who have coronavirus must be isolated in order to avoid its spread. Testing can also help identify those who are immune because they have been infected and recovered.
The prediction for the future is ominous. Because early testing was not done, it looks like more and more of us will be in the C part of the curve. And although testing has increased, we will never be able to catch the lost time and opportunity. At some point we should determine why we were so disadvantaged.

Is It What Bernie Said?

3/15/2020

Bernie Sanders - March 11, 2020. CNN

Four years ago, black voters definitively voted more for Hillary Clinton to crush Senator Bernie Sanders' quest for the Democratic nomination. In the intervening years, Senator Sanders made a concerted effort to increase his share of the black vote in key primary states like South Carolina. Yet, he failed.

The media and various observers floated four explanations for this failure. First, they argued that Bernie was too radical for South Carolina's pragmatic black voters. Second, they accused Bernie of downplaying the importance of race relative to relative to economics in his messaging. Third, they suggested that Bernie was not beloved by black voters as much as former Vice-President, Joe Biden. Fourth, the media did not think that the South Carolina black community believed Bernie was as electable as Biden.

These explanations assume that the black community is unanimous in its policy preferences. The black community exhibits diverse policy preferences. For example, many policies advocated by Senator Sanders, like Medicare for All and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage, would benefit the black community. Sanders' primary emphasis on economics rather than race may not sit well with the "woke" generation. But for older blacks, the focus on economics is consistent with the politics of the post-civil rights period. And, of course, some older blacks have long been attracted to the prosperity gospel movement. Thus, the backdrop against which many blacks must view Sanders' emphasis on economics is understandable.

Some pundits have stressed former Vice-President Joe Biden's loyalty and close relationship to Barack Obama as the reason black voters will not support Sanders. They cite House Whip James Clyburn's endorsement of Biden as a signal to South Carolina's black voters that Biden had earned their trust. Biden South Carolina victory resulted in a string of landslides victories for Biden on Super Tuesday. These victories are propelling Biden to the Democratic nomination.

Besides, pundits and Democratic moderates argue that Biden is the most likely candidate to defeat Donald Trump in November. They claim that Sanders' self-description as a social Democrat has set him up for such an onslaught of Republican attacks, he is unelectable as President. Bernie may or may not be less electable than Biden. And black voters certainly are united in their determination to defeat Trump.

Nonetheless, after a four-year effort to woo the black community, Sanders was unable to increase his margin of the black vote. Indeed, his margin dropped from 26 percent in 2016 to less than 20 percent in 2020. Another explanation for Sanders' poor performance with black voters is his tendency to rely on impersonal and indirect relationships. Relationships based on formal values and beliefs guided by economic self-interests may not be valued. Instead, black voters may value relationships centered on emotional ties, sentiments, and a sense of moral obligation to others. Sanders has not established an emotional bond with the black community in the four years he has been trying.

If this explanation is correct, it explains why Bernie could not increase his share of the black vote. Also, it acts as a warning to Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. If they intend to run for the Democratic nomination again, they should plan on spending a lot of time in South Carolina.

What Did We Learn from Trump’s Impeachment

2/13/2020

Lead House manager Adam Schiff speaks to the press at the US Capitol on January 22, 2020. (Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

Contrary to what some pundits say, Donald John Trump's acquittal did not unhinge him. He has been emboldened, at least, since William Barr became his Attorney General and "fixer." The decision by Nancy Pelosi and her caucus to impeach Trump was required by Trump's blatant corruption, even though there was never much chance of the Senate convicting him.

Nonetheless, the House Managers who prosecuted the case in the Senate were exceptionally effective, especially lead Manager, Adam Schiff. Although the Republicans prevented the presentation of witnesses or evidence, the Managers made a compelling case against Trump. Besides the satisfaction of fulfilling their duty, the Democrats did achieve some worthwhile objectives.

First, the truth about Trump's' behavior became clear to everyone, including some Senate Republicans despite the refusal of most Republicans to face the evidence against Trump. Except for two Republican Senators, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, the Republicans voted against hearing from any witnesses. According to press reports, one potential witness, former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, would have testified that Trump told him to hold military aid to the Ukraine until the Ukraine had agreed to announce an investigation of Trump’s key political opponent, former Vice President, Joe Biden.

After voting to acquit Trump, two Republican Senators, Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander admitted that the House Managers had proven that their case against Trump. They then claimed that extorting the Ukrainian government to investigate one of his political opponents did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Alexander went on to argue that he had voted against hearing witnesses because it clear that Trump had extorted the Ukrainians. But he did not explain why he did not want to hear evidence from witnesses that may have shown Trump’s conduct to be impeachable.

Second, everyone, including Democrats, realized how in thrall Republican politicians are to Trump. Many observers attribute their sycophancy to fear of losing their political offices. But some of these Republicans, like Senator Alexander, are retiring. While even retirees might lose some rewards if they antagonize Trump, another explanation must be considered. Some of these Republicans, like Attorney General Barr, have flirted with authoritarianism for years. They renamed their version of authoritarianism the unitary executive. Regardless of the name, its purpose was to reduce or eliminate the power held by other branches of the government because it was easier for them to capture the Presidency than the entirety of federal government.

Third, the only issue now is whether the Democrats can effectively use the corruption uncovered in the impeachment, as well as the Mueller Report, to convince the public that Trump is unfit to be President. Trump has been investigated and impeached. The evidence uncovered is proof that Trump is unfit to be President or even unconfined. With Fox News and Facebook providing lies and propaganda, it is not clear how many voters will be exposed to the truth. If the Democrats are unable to get the word out, then the investigations and impeachment may have been for nothing.

Democrats and Winning in 2020

1/20/2020

The Democratic nominee for President will have a difficult time defeating Donald Trump. Incumbent Presidents have several advantages seeking re-election, especially when the economy is strong. Voters almost always weigh their economic interests more than candidates’ policy positions. Nonetheless, voters do have general impressions of candidates and their parties. Trump cultivated an aura of a successful businessman, joined a party reputed to be patriotic, and inherited a good economy. Trump is helped because voters’ economic interests, candidate impressions, and party image are aligned.

Also, the Democrats may not be able to settle on their nominee until the summer. If none of the candidates garner a majority of the delegates before the summer, then the nominee may be chosen in July at the convention. Until Democrats select their nominee, Trump can attack Democrats without fear of focused retaliation from the nominee. And, except for the two billionaire contenders, Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, Trump, as the Republican nominee, is advantaged in his ability to raise money.
Besides these structural advantages incumbent Presidents enjoy, the four leading Democrats have deficiencies, like all candidates. Joe Biden is gaff-prone and does not seem to understand the polarization between Republicans and Democrats fully. His support is strong among moderates and older blacks but soft among the young and progressives.

Thoughts on Trump's Impeachment

12/26/2019

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, gavels Impeachment. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Impeaching Donald Trump was inevitable. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former political strategist, predicted that Trump had a one in three chance of completing his term without being impeached. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to avoid impeachment, fearing a voter backlash could erode the Democratic majority.
When the Democrats and the media discovered Trump’s scheme to extort a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 presidential election, they had no choice. Trump planned to withhold Congressionally earmarked funds from the Ukrainian unless it announced starting a corruption investigation of his anticipated opponent, Joe Biden.

Pelosi believes that the failure to curtail Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.

Many progressives in the Democratic caucus had been calling for Trump’s impeachment since, at least, the Mueller Report was issued. But, newly elected Democrats from predominantly Republican districts were reluctant to risk their seats. But, the moderate Democrats, especially those with foreign policy expertise, joined the call for impeachment, Pelosi was then forced to lead her caucus to impeach Trump.

The Democrats’ impeachment of Trump was the principled response to Trump’s criminal behavior.   Trump’s invitation to a foreign government to intervene in an American election violated federal law. It is illegal to solicit something of value for a campaign. Moreover, one of the founding fathers’ leading fears was of a president who conspired with a foreign government. For the founding fathers, this example of Trump’s behavior would probably come closer to representing an original sin than any other.

Nevertheless, some of us feel disquiet about the Democrats’ decision to impeach. The House has impeached Trump, but that decision seems not to have been a part of a broader strategy. Some Congressional Democrats have argued that impeachment was necessary to inhibit Trump’s unlawful interference in the 2020 election. But it is nearly inconceivable that twenty Republicans -- along with the forty-seven Democrats, the number needed to convict Trump – will flip. Too many Senate, Republicans, believe that both their election and the survival of the Republican Party is at stake if they condemn Trump.

Is there anything Democrats can do to increase the likelihood of a conviction? Or, at least, to increase the number of Republican Senators who vote to convict Trump. If even one Republican Senator votes to remove Trump, he or she will undermine the charge of Democratic hostility.
If Trump is not convicted, he will claim exoneration. Democrats were thus reluctant to impeach Trump. According to some reports, Trump is already planning a celebration tour, after his Senate acquittal.

More important than the impact of Trump's “exoneration message,” however, is the potential for his further interference in the 2020 election. Trump solicited Russian intervention to help win in 2016. He seems to be continuing to pull dirty tricks in Ukraine. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who spearheaded the extortion in Ukraine, just returned from another trip to Ukraine last week. Giuliani boasted of having unearthed “more incriminating evidence against the Bidens.”

Although Democrats have limited power, they can try to shape the outcome Senate trial. Pelosi has already announced that she is withholding the impeachment referral from the Senate until Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agrees to hold a fair trial. McConnell and other Republican Senators have publicly announced that they have already decided to acquit Trump without calling additional witnesses or presenting further evidence.

Mitch McConnell claims that he is happy with Pelosi’s tactic of withholding the impeachment referral because he does not want to have the Senate vote on it. Thus, McConnell argues that Pelosi does have any bargaining power. But McConnell does not have as much control over this trial as he usually has over Senate proceedings.

If public opinion indicates that people expect a fair trial with witnesses and evidence, then Trump can only be exonerated by a “fair trial.” A trial without witnesses and other evidence, ending with a summary vote by Senators who have already announced their intention to acquit Trump cannot vindicate him. If Trump wants vindication, he must accede to Pelosi’s demand. And McConnell will have no choice other than to have a fair trial.

The pundits who see Trump’s impeachment as just another part of the Washington game may not recognize how important Pelosi considers the threat posed by Trump. Pelosi believes that the failure to curtail Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Pelosi could delay referring the impeachment to the Senate until after March when the tempo of primaries has slowed. Considering the significance Pelosi sees as the stakes riding on a fair impeachment trial, Pelosi may need to hold the referral to the Senate as an appropriate solution to match the extremely grave threat.

Democratic Presidential Debate - Take 5

11/30/2019

The fifth Democratic debate continued the decline in viewership that started begun with the second debate. Viewership of the fifth debate declined to 6.6 million from 15.3 million in the first debate (57 percent). These debates are not serving viewers. The networks that have hosted the debates tied the structure to the number of candidates. There were ten on the stage for the fifth debate. But the networks did not change their format to accommodate the number of candidates. With two hours and ten candidates, MSNBC could only allot each candidate no more than 12 minutes. MSNBC might have considered reducing the number of topics covered. Instead MSNBC decided to ask questions about 23 issues. Thus, MSNBC would have had to cut the time they allotted to each candidate to about 30 seconds for each topic. Rather than limiting the number of issues, MSNBC chose to ignore some of the candidates. Warren spoke for 13.4 minutes; Buttigieg and Biden spoke for 12.8 minutes and 12.6 minutes, respectively. Sanders, Booker, and Harris each spoke for about 11.5 minutes. Klobuchar spoke for more than 10 minutes while Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang each spoke for less than 10 minutes. (This added up to about 110 minutes due to commercial breaks and moderator comments.) This distribution of time-limited the number of topics each candidate had. And since the number of issues a candidate was asked roughly approximate at their standing in the polls, the debate did not change the ranking in the polls. More importantly, debate structured as these are do not provide the viewers with enough information to make a comparative decision about candidates.

Despite deficiencies in the debate structure, we did learn some things about the candidates.

Warren

Compared to the last debate, Warren escaped attacks for her advocacy of Medicare for All. The moderators asked a few questions about her paying for and transitioning to Medicare for All, but let Warren gracefully spin away from the topic. Warren’s release of her plan for implementing Medicare for All was either satisfactory or unanticipated enough to forego further questions.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that voters’ concerns about healthcare and Bernie Sanders’ emphasis on Medicare for All stampeded several candidates into endorsing Medicare for All. This endorsement did them a disservice because Medicare for All raises several thorny questions. Medicare for All has many advantages, including complete coverage at the lowest possible cost. But in the same way that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) had to be understood before it could grow on voters, Medicare for All will require voter education. And before voters understand it, Democrats can expect to suffer during several elections, just as they did with Obama Care.

Sanders

Bernie Sanders had a good night. He was forceful and had several memorable lines. Perhaps his best was his expression of agreement with Barack Obama’s quip. Obama had opined that voters “don’t want to tear down the system and remake it. Sanders first claimed to agree with Obama, but then went on to show why Obama was wrong.

Biden

Joe Biden, as expected, used his time to declare his electability. Following Donald Trump’s disastrous foreign policy ventures in Syria and Ukraine, Biden also pointed to his decades of foreign-policy experience. For Biden, a more meaningful indicator of his weakness was his failure to answer a moderator’s question about his son’s seat on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, Barismo. Biden should have been expecting the issue because of the Republican attacks on him and his son Hunter.

Biden’s failure to respond effectively to this question suggests that he does not fully understand the ferocity of the attacks that Trump and the Russian bots will mount against him should he become the nominee. Biden needs to prepare an answer to this question that will shut down questions about his son’s behavior in Ukraine. If not, Trump and the Russians will use the same tactics against him that he and the Russians used against Hillary Clinton.

Buttigieg and Klobuchar

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, having just moved up in the polls to the top four, seem comfortable with his rising numbers and thus refrained from launching any attacks as he did in the previous debate. Mayor Pete was, however, able to turn an attack by Tulsi Gabbard against him with rather devastating effects.

Amy Klobuchar had perhaps her best debate night. She was witty and able to get in several zingers to support her positions. Nonetheless, it seems that it may be too late for Sen. Klobuchar. It may be that she focuses too much on getting small pieces of legislation passed with the help of Republicans. Democratic voters may be wondering if Republicans would sign on any bill that made a difference in their lives.

Harris and Booker

Senators Harris and Booker, separately, but perhaps feeling the same frustration at not being able to break into the top tier of contenders, reminded everyone that the primary and general election winner would need black support. Biden rushed in to tell everyone of his black support and made the faux pas of the evening. He claimed that the only black female Senator supported him. Senator Harris quickly reminded him, and everyone else, that she did not help him. It seemed he was referring to Senator Carole Mosley Braun. Braun, a one-term Senator, was elected in 1993.

Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang

Representative Tulsi Gabbard stands out in this trio because primarily because of the persistent rumors that the Russians view her as an asset to divert votes from the Democrats. But no observer gives any of the three more than a slim chance of winning the nomination.

Conclusion
These debates, as structured, are not going to have a significant impact on the candidate rankings. Unless something happens other than the debates, there may be a contested convention. More importantly, it may be that none of the candidates will emerge to create and ignite the kind of coalition needed to defeat Trump.

Looking Back at Fourth Democratic Debate - Looking Forward to Fifth

11/18/2019

The fourth debate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, on October 15, was disappointing. Viewership was down 46 percent from the first debate (15.3 to 8.3 million viewers). CNN’s Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper and New York Times reporter Marc Lacey moderated the debate. Their performances may have been suspect but do not seem to be the reason for the debate’s dullness. The second debate, moderated by CNN’s Dana Bash, Don Lemon, and Jake Tapper, was viewed by 10.7 million. And the third debate, hosted by ABC’s Linsey Davis, David Muir, and George Stephanopoulos and Univision’s Jorge Ramos, had 9 million viewers. Contrary to expectations, as the debates get closer to elections, fewer people are interested in them.

Some pundits explain the declining interest in the debate by pointing to a large number of candidates on the stage. In the first two debates, the 20 candidates the networks involved randomly split the candidates between two nights. In the third debate, only ten candidates met the criteria of 130,00 unique contributors and a threshold of 2 percent in four eligible polls. By the fourth debate, there were 12 Democratic competitors (Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang) on the stage. Having ten or twelve candidates on stage complicates debate logistics.

From the first four debates, it is clear voters are finding fault with how these debates are serving them. Now the fifth debate, scheduled for November 20th, will include ten candidates. (It should be noted that besides the six candidates who did not qualify for this debate – Julian Castro, Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock, John Delaney, Joe Sestek, and Marianne Williamson – two additional candidates – Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick – have become candidates.) MSNBC, which will host this debate, is going to have to find a way to maintain audience interest. They plan on dropping the formula for having both men and women as moderators. Sensing they couldn’t have all men – went with all women: Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell, Kristin Welker, and Ashley Parker (Washington Post).

Like some of the other approaches networks have tried, this one may not work. In the previous four debates, for example, the moderators asked about Medicare for All (M4A). The moderators allotted more for this topic than any other. But the moderators questioned the candidates about one hot button aspect of M4A after another. In the fourth debate, they asked Warren and Sanders whether tax increases would be necessary to finance it. They did not try to ask questions that would inform the audience about the fine points of the candidates’ programs. They did not ask what benefits the additional costs of M4A would provide, what issues would their healthcare program address, and how the various M4A programs differed from one another and other healthcare programs. A distinct area they failed to address was how M4A would differ from a public option.

But failing to present a complete picture of healthcare was not an innocuous gimmick. It hinders the audience’s understanding of the various healthcare systems. The presumed cost of M4A does not undercut it. Estimates of M4A’s cost could be less than what is spent now on U.S. healthcare. The current cost of healthcare, however, is not the reason for advocating M4A. Without M4A, which would include and cover all citizens, there is no way to control costs. Medicare for all can control costs because it provides access to all patients. When insurers include only some patients they can pay some providers more for their services than others. The insurers must then raise their rates to cover those costs.

On the other hand, public option plans could attract the sickest and poorest patients. These unfortunate could raise the costs for public option plans and make them untenable. Several states that have tried versions of public option plans have found this to be true. Additionally, public option plans could reduce the number of patients buying policies through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). As the number of these patients select the public option, insurers might well drop out of Obamacare exchanges because of too few customers.

Prompting guests to move from one question to the next quickly is a staple for generating interest, although it does not necessarily inform the audience. In the fourth debate, moderators took turns asking questions for no apparent reason other than ensuring they did not bore the audience. As the moderators changed, they addressed different content areas. Presumably, all the candidates were expected to respond to at least one question. This inability to fully develop a line of questioning is reminiscent of Congressional hearings. Each member only has five minutes to ask questions, and the audience cannot understand an intelligible theme. The time constraints of each moderator precluded any meaningful follow-up questions. The moderators could better manage time if they allotted it by candidate. Allocating time by candidate would also have allowed each of them to introduce themselves and their positions to the audience. Giving each candidate a block of time might have curtailed candidates’ efforts to say or do something memorable. And, having one topic per debate would also allow a fuller discussion of the issues surrounding that topic.

Another gimmick the moderators often use is to foster as much conflict as possible. In the fourth debate, for example, the moderators showed their intent to promote conflict by asking initiating their healthcare discussion with questions about the cost of M4A. The moderate candidates attacked Sanders and Warren’s advocacy of M4A based on its cost. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Castro, O’Rourke, were only too happy to join that attack on Warren. Polls at the time of the debate showing Warren leading the pack, along with Biden and Sanders, set her up as the target. The essence of the attack on Warren was that she would not say whether middle-class tax increases would be necessary to pay for M4A. This question was especially salient because Sanders acknowledged that he would have to raise middle-class taxes. Sanders, like Warren, claimed that savings in health care costs would more than offset the tax increases.

While we can hope the MSNBC moderators do a better job than the CNN moderators, we must be somewhat suspicious. Most of the approaches and gimmicks used are not limited to one network. We can, however, look back at how networks used to cover debates for guidance. Analysts of the first televised Presidential debates in 1960 (Kennedy versus Nixon in 1960), believed increasing voters’ knowledge about the candidates was the primary purpose of the debates. They did not worry about intimidating the audience by presenting full-blown discussions of the issues. Driving ratings or showcasing the moderators was not the primary purpose of the first debates. Maybe it is time to “make debates great again” by encouraging candidates to present fuller explanations about their plans. It might make good reality television to see people bicker, but we are interviewing for a position that was once considered complex and serious. We expect our next president to show knowledge, wisdom and judgment. We can’t learn about these skills by conducting interviews that call for rehearsed zingers, barbs at each other, and dramatic sound bites.

Criminalizing Our Intelligence Agencies

10/26/2019

Opening criminal investigation into the origin of the Mueller investigation is more than a salve for
Donald Trump’s ego. I believe it ties in neatly to Helsinki. Recall Trump’s body language standing next to Vladimir Putin. It seems clear Putin told Trump something that he did not want to hear. I guess he told Trump that he would not be receiving any more help unless he got the sanctions lifted.

Now Trump, facing an uphill re-election bid, needs help from Putin if he has any chance of
Winning in 2020. And if he loses, he will have even more need of the billions he surely has been promised for lifting sanctions. Remember, the Exxon deal, worth $500 billion to Russia, is being held up because of sanctions.

Part of Trump’s Ukraine “deal,” besides demanding a rigged investigation of Biden, was to absolve Russia of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s email and interfering in the 2016 election. The only purpose of this part of the Ukraine deal was to get the sanctions lifted. But now any narrative about election interference coming out of Ukraine will lack the credibility to change public opinion. So, with the Ukraine whitewash blown-up, Trump is running the same disinformation play with Attorney General, Bill Barr, and the Department of Justice that he tried run in Ukraine.

Trump is desperate to remove the reasons for sanctions on Russia. To that end, Trump had Barr appoint John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, to lead an investigation into the origins of the investigation into Russia’s role in rigging the 2016 election. While Durham may be an honorable public servant, we know Barr is not. Barr may be playing the part of the cook who puts a frog in a pot of water to cook. By the time the frog realizes that the heat is being turned up and the water is boiling, it’s too late for the frog. The tale tells us that the frog will be surprised, but it does not tell us if the cook’s assistant is also surprised. In a few months, Barr may fire or remove Durham – especially if he finds corrupt motives underlying the investigation - and replace him with someone like Trump sycophant Matt Whittaker.

And, one should not think (1) that this criminal investigation is only to provide a talking point for Trump or (2) that there will be no indictments or convictions. Donald Trump would not be the first leader who achieved authoritarian power by using trumped-up charges against his political opponents. Some pundits believe that opening a criminal investigation is an attempted diversion from House’s impending impeachment of Trump. It is undoubtedly true that Trump has used distractions in the past. But, Trump’s disregard for the European alliance, abandonment of the Kurds in Syria, and attempt to use his office to increase profits at his properties are not diversions. We make a mistake to assume that everything he does is a diversion from something else. He is unrelenting and powerful, with a strong desire to avenge perceived harm. Why would we doubt his motive for vengeance or tyranny?

Summary
We should not exaggerate Trump’s desire to divert attention from his impending impeachment. A desire to be a tyrant also motivates him. And, one of the first steps many tyrants have used on the road to authoritarianism is to bring false charges against their political enemies. Trump demonstrates his evil over and over.

Impeachment Timing

10/15/2019

Nancy Pelosi - October 15, 2019. Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Summary

Delay in the impeachment process of Donald Trump advantages Democrats. The longer impeachment process lingers, the more likely public opinion will turn against Trump. There are serious allegations against Trump and an impeachment process will make voters aware of them. Trump’s re-election bid is likely to be unsuccessful considering the negative information uncovered during an impeachment process. Democrats should not rush impeachment; they should concentrate on turning public opinion against Trump.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, long resisted opening an impeachment inquiry. For at least four months, Pelosi steadfastly refused because public opinion ran counter to impeachment. She did not feel the House Democrats had or could gain support from the public. Swing voters, especially in districts Trump won, could lead a backlash against Democrats and potentially wipe out their 2018 electoral gains in the House.

The political calculus changed following a leaked story of Donald Trump offering arms for dirt. A whistleblower accused Trump of withholding a Congressionally-mandated shipment of arms to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian President initiated an investigation of Joe Biden. Trump believed Biden would be his strongest Democratic challenger.

Attempting to counter this story, Trump released the notes of his phone call with the Ukrainian President. Those notes showed that Trump tried to extort the Ukrainian President to dig up political dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter in return for releasing the arms. Specifically, the notes indicate that when the Ukrainian President asked to purchase weapons, Trump responded by stating he would require a favor: the investigation of Biden and his son Hunter.

Pelosi and the House Democrats reversed themselves. On Tuesday, September 24, Pelosi announced that the House would begin an impeachment investigation. The following week the House Intelligence Committee started an ambitious schedule of hearings and depositions. Trump ended this string of proceedings by exerting a dubious claim of executive privilege. This claim, nonetheless, prevented Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to European Union, from being deposed or complying with subpoenas.

In the three weeks since Pelosi’s announcement, public opinion has shifted against Trump. In the lead up to Pelosi’s decision, only 37 to 41 percent of adults favored starting an impeachment proceeding. After the announcement 58 percent favor beginning impeachment proceedings. This increase in the percentage of people advocating impeachment proceedings is good news for the Democrats. But Trump’s declaration that he is not required to cooperate with the Congress’ impeachment proceedings raises concerns about whether Congress can obtain needed witnesses and documents.

Trump’s refusal to cooperate in this impeachment inquiry is concerning. The Trump administration undermined a planned investigation of the Mueller Report by refusing to cooperate. To counter Trump’s anticipated obstruction, Democrats changed their approach. Previously, Democrats, as part of the investigative function of Congress, issued subpoenas and sought the courts to enforce them. The result has been the inevitable delays in court disputes.

Trump views any delay as a victory because the closer we get to the 2020 election, the less likely it is that the Democrats will start impeachment proceedings. And, if the Democrats do start impeachment proceedings close to the election, then Trump will be able to claim they are politically motivated. The Democrats are also suspicious of impeachment proceedings running into the election. Democrats do not want their presidential nominee’s election message to compete with the House’s impeachment message. Trump’s efforts to block witnesses from testifying, derailed the Mueller Report's impeachment investigation.

For the Ukrainian investigation, the Democrats have availed themselves of two additional tactics besides court-enforced subpoenas. First, Democrats will infer an adverse finding of obstruction of Congress if witnesses fail to testify or provide documents. Of course, this may not deter Trump; he may believe that Pelosi will be able to pass articles of impeachment regardless of the number of few adverse findings. Second, Democrats will overcome Trump’s claims of executive privilege for those currently working for the administration by hearing testimony from witnesses who formerly worked for Trump.

Other witnesses who are in the administration, such as the whistleblowers and members of the civil service, may also be willing to testify. Regardless of how effective Democrats are at obtaining witness testimony, they should start accusing Trump of using obstruction to delay the process. Democrats should not rush a vote on articles of impeachment. Assuming voters do not blame Democrats for delays, the longer an impeachment inquiry takes, the better it is for them. Based on the Watergate impeachment hearing, the longer the impeachment hearings run, the worse it will be for the President. And, while the Democratic candidate’s messaging may be distracted by an impeachment, Trump’s re-election bid is more likely to disintegrated by a substantive impeachment hearing.

Pop-up Window