February 17, 2020

Why is the media ignoring this about Michael Flynn regarding his sentencing guidelines?

Michael Flynn entered into a plea bargain with the FBI. That is not quite the same thing as "only pleading guilty to a single charge." The entire basis of the type of plea deal that Flynn originally struck with the FBI was a reward for cooperating with the prosecution in ongoing investigations into matters that he could bear witness to. And what exactly does that type "reward" entail? It entails going easy on him. Specifically it meant only charging Flynn with a single count of lying to the FBI when they could have thrown the book at him. Michael Flynn had serious criminal exposure across an array of possible charges. The full scope of Flynn's behavior was criminally damning and well documented, and conviction on just half of the potential charges that could have been leveled against Flynn would have resulted in him drawing sentencing guidelines far more severe than the relatively moderate ones that Barr subsequently forced Department of Justice prosecutors to withdraw prior to his pending sentencing.

This is a legal charade that goes far beyond any argument over whether Flynn deserves greater leniency over the single count that he ultimately did plead guilty to. Precisely because Flynn promised to cooperate he was not charged with more serious counts of criminal behavior that could have landed him behind bars for decades. Because Flynn promised to cooperate the sentencing guidelines applied to him today do not reflect the enormity of the crimes that the FBI investigated him for. And it is because of the enormity of those crimes, and the evidence that prosecutors had against him, that Michael Flynn originally agreed to plead guilty of just one count of lying to the FBI, trading promised cooperation for subsequent leniency. And now Barr has the audacity to argue that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh to apply to a man who only stands guilty of one count of lying to the FBI, and after Michael Flynn failed to deliver on his end of the original bargain.

I went back and searched for more information on the potential charges Flynn was facing had he not promised to cooperate with the feds - a promise he failed to make good on. I found this in lawfareblog.com:

"...Reports of Flynn’s bizarre behavior across a wide spectrum of areas began trickling out even before his tenure as national security adviser ended after only 24 days. These behaviors raised a raft of substantial criminal law questions that have been a matter of open speculation and reporting for months. His problems include, among other things, an alleged kidnapping plot, a plan to build nuclear power plants all over the Middle East, alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) involving at least two different countries, and apparent false statements to the FBI. In light of the scope and range of the activity that reputable news organizations have attributed to Flynn, it is no surprise that he has agreed to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for leniency.

The surprising thing about the plea agreement and the stipulated facts underlying it is how narrow they are. There’s no whiff of the alleged Fethullah Gulen kidnapping talks. Flynn has escaped FARA and influence-peddling charges. And he has been allowed to plead to a single count of lying to the FBI. The factual stipulation is also narrow. It involves lies to the FBI on two broad matters and lies on Flynn’s belated FARA filings on another issue. If a tenth of the allegations against Flynn are true and provable, he has gotten a very good deal from Mueller."

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis

So because, on false premises, Flynn negotiated a sweetheart deal with the Feds that confined his conviction to just one relatively minor crime, the Department of Justice, under Barr, now argues that even the standard federal sentencing guidelines for that one crime are too harsh, because the crime itself was minor and his record is otherwise unblemished?

I expect that type of perverted reasoning from this Administration, but why aren't more legal pundits calling them on this?

February 16, 2020

Would a President Bloomberg use his wealth to seek a third term if he wanted it?

Seeking to repeal the 22nd Amendment could be costly. A Congressional and 50 State campaign to do so might run ten, twenty, or potentially thirty billion dollars. If the latter figure proved true that would plummet Michael Bloomberg's personal wealth down to his last thirty billion dollars...

If you think this is a purely abstract concern, take a close look at what happened after Michael Bloomberg secured his only elected office, as Mayor of New York City. Any Democrat who has ever expressed outrage over the effects that the Supreme Court ruling on Citizen's United has had on American politics; Anyone who thinks that the ability the Koch Brothers showed to personally finance local political initiatives on a national scale for far less than a tenth of the above figures, should think long and hard about supporting an attempt by anyone, no matter how well intentioned, to buy his way onto the ballot by tapping obscene amounts of personal cash.

February 15, 2020

This can happen when a political party nominates an unelectable candidate

TRUMP IS “UNELECTABLE”….. 63 Percent of Americans Say They’ll ‘Definitely, DEFINITELY Not’ Vote for Trump….
April 9, 2016
http://www.papamiket.com/trump-is-unelectable-63-percent-of-americans-say-theyll-definitely-definitely-not-vote-for-trump/

"Former 2016 GOP candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, joins Morning Joe to discuss why he endorsed Jeb Bush, why Donald Trump is the most unelectable Republican candidate of his lifetime"

"In a presentation Wednesday night at Carleton College about the 2016 presidential campaign, University of Minnesota political scientist Larry Jacobs poured quite a bit of cold water on the widespread belief in some Democratic Party circles that presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is unelectable"
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2016/05/larry-jacobs-questions-belief-donald-trump-unelectable/

Mar 15, 2016 Cokie Roberts, NPR and the impossibility of objectivity. ... She and her husband argue that Trump is unelectable, that his ideas are half-baked, and that he lacks character.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/15/cokie-roberts-npr-and-the-impossibility-of-objectivity/

Aug 25, 2015 It's now harder to see an end to the Trump-Fox war soon. As I reported this week, Trump's poll numbers remain strong and he's building a robust campaign operation, which is a threat to Ailes's political project: "Roger says Trump is unelectable. His goal here is to save the country," a source close to Ailes told me.
(can't link to this one, it is a right wing source)

"Those Republican leaders who fear that Trump is unelectable in a general election — and there are many — publicly suggest they have until mid-March to coalesce behind a viable alternative."
https://news.yahoo.com/rattling-the-establishment-win-for-trump-sends-110107036.html

February 14, 2020

Corruption and good intentions are not mutually exclusive.

The concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands directly corrupts politics in a Democracy. We all know this people. This is a bedrock principle. Think the Koch Brothers who bought State Legislatures all across the nation. Think Sheldon Adelson who personally dictated U.S. policy toward Israel. And when a political leader gets to redirect public tax payer funds to bribe potential adversaries to instead become his allies, that is the exact same corruption, just flowing via a different route. Think Chris Christie lining up support from elected Democrats all across New Jersey prior to his reelecton campaign for Governor. The power of the purse corrupted is just as toxic to democracy as is vast personal wealth.

Fathomless wealth is the black hole of politics, with a corrupting gravitational field that sucks in those who come into close proximity with it. Sometimes it is blatant, sometimes it is subtle. Sometimes those who fall into that hole know full well that they have sold their soul in the bargain. Other times they take comfort in any one of dozens of rationalizations offered to them, ranging from "this is probably what I would have ended up backing anyway, but I can be so much more effective now with access to these funds" to "what real choice do I have anyway? With so much money in play the outcome is predetermined, might as well be part of the winning team to be able to retain some influence."

And the thing is that the vast concentration of wealth controlled by any individual employed toward a political end is corrosive to the institutions of democracy no matter how benign the intentions of the person who controls it might be. And yes, I am talking about Mike Bloomberg. Yes I am: The Republican Mayor who distributed large sums of money far and wide to noble causes backed by Democrats throughout NYC, on the eve of his seeking a change in the City Charter that would allow him to run for a third term in office that otherwise would have been prohibited. If I were, for example, the Mayor of any city big or small in America tasked to deal with daunting inner city issues, I would like to pop up on Mike Bloomberg's personal map. I would like to win his positive attention, if I could figure out some way to do so. Just sayin'.

February 13, 2020

Sorry fellow Democrats, but there is no "Safe" Presidential candidate for 2020

Once upon a time, though long after dragons and unicorns allegedly walked the earth, there may have been one: a former two term Vice President who served under America's first and very popular African American President. That is how Joe Biden was presented to us, or to be more precise, how he presented himself to the Democratic electorate: A safe bet as the one man who could take it to Trump convincingly, unifying the party while he did so.

There was nothing obviously wrong with that thesis, that case certainly could be and has been made. The evidence to prove it however has so far come up sorely lacking. Yes, Joe Biden might possibly regroup and regain some lost footing as the primary contest moves south. He could in fact still win the Democratic nomination, but Biden's aura of near invincibility has been erased. Now Joe Biden is just one of several candidates with relative strengths and weaknesses for voters to weigh. Though no doubt still ready and extremely able to take on the duties of the Presidency, much of that fizz has left the bottle on the primary trail, and his campaigning has gone flat. Electable? Maybe, but Biden has some serious losing to account for first.

Then there is an up and coming fresh new face with a sharp command of his words and a good grasp on the issues, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He embraces both his youth and his identity, is at ease while talking about religion, and has served our nation honorably in war. With Mid Western roots, and a capacity to relate to Americans in the center, Pete argues he is most electable. Perhaps, but a safe bet? Seriously? An openly gay man has never previously run for President on a major party ticket. Almost by definition his electability is not a "safe" bet, it involves core unknowns. How far, and how deeply has America changed since gay marriages were outlawed? How ready is the American electorate to hand the leadership of our nation over to a man still in his thirties, the former two term mayor of America's 306th largest city? And critically important African American voters continue to be slow to warm to him. Pete's talent is undeniable. He might become our nation's next President. But a safe bet? Not even close.

What about our two leading women candidates, each of whom has distinguished herself in the United States Senate? I've seen reports that a fifth of the female Democratic electorate harbor real doubts that a woman can actually defeat Donald Trump in 2020. That's not the male chauvinists among us talking, these are people who want a female President. It might be the daring move, it might be the right move, and it may be the winning move, but it can not be described as the "safe" move to attempt to elect America's first woman President this November.

Meanwhile, though not quite to the same extent as Bernie Sanders with whom she somewhat share's the Left, Elizabeth Warren raises concerns with some as to whether she is too extreme in her own views to be elected, while simultaneously raising new doubts over her ability to elicit the enthusiasm needed to win the Presidency, given her third and then fourth place finishes in the contests held so far. Amy Klobuchar, for most Americans, is also a fairly fresh face, though she comes with a substantive political resume, one that most Americans know little about. She, perhaps more so than anyone else, has not been thoroughly vetted on the national stage. Can she capture the loyalty of leftist leaning voters? Will African American voters warm to this one time prosecutor who now registers essentially at 0% among Blacks for voter preferences? Amy presents too many unknowns herself to be called a "safe"presidential candidate in 2020.

Then there is Mayor Bloomberg, the man with bottomless pockets who opened them up in the not so distant past for Republican candidates for office. It wasn't so long ago that he himself was a Republican running for office, and he used that office, the Mayor of New York City, to warmly welcome and endorse George W. Bush for President at the Republican National Convention in 2004 - after the Iraq invasion. His time in office as New York's Mayor offers a checkered picture from a Democratic perspective. He was not exactly known for his warm relations with NYC's minority communities. He has never been seen as a man of the people. And for a lot of people concerned about our Democracy being for sale, Bloomberg looms large as the largest potential buyer. Not to mention that he is anathema to most leftist voters, a minority themselves to be sure but one whose votes could prove decisive in a showdown against Trump.

So who did I leave out? Oh yeah, Bernie Sanders. who so many leaders of the Democratic Party and people here as well dismiss as unelectable, even while he wins elections, tops the polls, matches up well in head to head match-ups against Trump, shows strength with all racial groups, and consistently registers approval numbers that put him among the best liked and most trusted people in national American politics today. Is Bernie Sanders a "Safe" bet for President? Of course not. That option today is as rare as Dragons and Unicorns. I don't have to here review the ways in which Sanders presents a risk, plenty of other people have already done so for me. 2020 is ripe with risks, but contrary to what some like to assert, those risks are distributed all across our current field of candidates. But what might present the biggest risk of all is for Democrats to nominate another candidate for President who fails to capture the imagination of the public. When we do so is when we most often fail.

February 12, 2020

The NH/SC Paradox

Heading into the 2008 NH primary off of her third place finish in Iowa. it looked like Hillary Clinton was in serious trouble, that Barack Obama was on a roll and nothing would stop him. Then Hillary Clinton pulled off an upset win in NH and suddenly all bets were off. In 2016 Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race as all but the presumptive Democratic nominee. Bernie Sanders did surprisingly well in Iowa but still, all Clinton had to do to cement her path to the nomination was to roughly hold her own in NH, where a narrow Sanders win could be dismissed as home field advantage. Bernie Sanders blew Clinton out in NH that year and suddenly all bets were off.

This year Bernie Sanders entered the NH primary with the chance to build potentially unstoppable momentum. Another impressive win there and he would, for the moment at least, be running well ahead of the pack. Bernie pulled off a win in NH true, but it was a narrow one. Instead of distancing himself from the filed in NH he finds himself facing two new challengers who depart from that race with strong signs of fresh momentum themselves.

But now, as in cycles past, the presidential race turns sharply away from nearly all white fields of battle. In both 2008 and 2016, after inconclusive skirmishes in Nevada, the South Carolina primary recast the presidential races, restoring strength first to Barack Obama in 2008, and four years later to Hillary Clinton, propelling each on to their respective Democratic Party nominations. There would me more than a small measure of irony in the outcome if it was People of Color, first in Nevada, but more crucially in South Carolina, that gave Bernie Sanders fresh momentum, and restored a growing sense of inevitability to his quest to head the Democratic Party ticket.

That once seemingly unlikely scenario is suddenly now plausible. As much as Bernie Sanders may have seen his chances of ultimate victory blunted by the rise of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar in New Hampshire, they have equally been boosted by the near total collapse of both Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren in that state. In the case of a fading Warren, it allows Sanders to firmly establish himself now as the progressive choice for the presidency. In the case of a fading Biden, it potentially opens wide a door for Sanders to the African American vote. Couple Biden's collapse with the release of tapes revealing Bloomberg's let's say prior "insensitivity" to the racial implications of Stop and Frisk, and Sanders could become the leading vote getter among African American voters in SC.

A recent Quinnipiac pre NH primary poll showed Sanders ranking in the top tier for African Americans voters considering Democratic presidential candidates, scoring 19% support, clustered within ten points of both Biden and Bloomberg. Trailing far behind Elizabeth Warren had twice the support inside that crucial voting bloc as did Pete Buttigieg. Warren had 8% backing. Buttiege had 4% backing, and Klobuchar failed to gain even 1% support from Blacks. Biden no longer has the aura of a winner. Bloomberg won't even be on the SC ballot. Could it be that African American support inside SC could put Sanders in the drivers seat heading into Super Tuesday?

February 11, 2020

On the eve of NH's vote, this one goes out to James Carville and Chris Mathews

February 10, 2020

One day from the NH primary and over 40% of DU members are still listed as undecided

That may be the only way in which DU member polls closely reflect the views of those who will be voting in one of the upcoming Democratic primaries or caucuses. Some pundits interpret this degree of indecision as a sign of weakness in the Democratic field and/or of a general lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats as the fall election approaches. Something similar is said about the non record breaking attendance at the Iowa caucus. I'm not so sure that there isn't a different factor at work.

A big part of me just wants to fast forward past this primary process to get to the point where we are all simply working together to defeat Trump. I haven't been nearly as gung ho a candidate advocate this time around as I was in prior presidential primary year cycles. Normally I am willing to let the obvious (to me) go unspoken, that I of course will support whoever the Democrats finally nominate. This year I often find myself touting my support for any of our candidates over Trump more vehemently than I tout my support for my own individual preference. This year so many potential primary voters are spending as much time trying to figure out who their neighbors are likely to support in the fall as they are deciding on who they themselves prefer. There is literally something agonizing about this process now more so than in other years. A part of me can literally relate to the idea of sitting out the infra-mural struggle, with an impulse to say "you guys sort this out, let me know when we have a nominee and I will jump in then". That of course seems irresponsible to me, I am conditioned to be a participant, but the thought of withdrawing until the dust settles no longer seems as alien as it previously was.

February 8, 2020

What some (predominantly) white folks can tell us on Tuesday

What use are the votes of a disproportionately small, white, and rural state to handicapping the chances of our Democratic candidates for the nomination. Though the voting sample is skewed, it still has a lot to tell us. One thing that is rarely said enough is this: New Hampshire voters get to know all of the candidates pretty damn well, up close and personal. And they are able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of each to another in real time, in the flesh, over several months, often on multiple occasions.That gives NH voters a perspective on our candidates that virtually no one (outside of Iowa) gets. But unlike Iowa, NH uses a secret ballot and makes it easy for all of it's citizens to vote. This is what I will be looking for:

1) Whether Joe Biden is still losing altitude. Biden doesn't have to win on Tuesday, or even come in second. He might even get away with coming in 4th, but he must close the gap between him and Buttigieg significantly, while not finishing further out of 3rd place than he did in Iowa. Sure, Biden can look ahead to states where People of Color factor in much more prominently. But although there is a strong case that no one can win the Democratic nomination without significant African American support, no one can win the Presidency without significant White support also. Biden bases much of his pitch for support on asserting that he is the Democrat best able to defeat Trump. Being an also ran anywhere undercuts that argument

Another part of Biden's potential appeal rests on his readiness to take command on day one of his administration. In NH Biden can try to discount both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as Senators from neighboring states with a subsequent built in advantage. He can't say that about either Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar though. Buttigieg in particular represents a stark contrast to Biden. He is as obviously youthful as Biden is seasoned. He is brand new on the political scene while Biden has run three times for President. He is from outside Washington DC while Biden has served in the capital since he was 29. After serving as our Vice President for 8 years, Biden should be able to soundly defeat Buttigieg with NH's white electorate, or something is not working.

But, granted, politics is strange. Sometimes a fresh face suddenly leaps to the fore like it did with Mayor Pete in Iowa. OK, but now Biden and the rest of the nation have had a little time to digest a changing landscape. One week may not be long enough for Biden to get ahead of Buttigieg's new momentum, but it is long enough for him to blunt it. Biden can't finish far behind Buttigieg again. If he does not only will Pete be strengthened but so will other candidates who appeal to moderates. That could be Klobuchar if she surprises to the upside in NH, or it could be Bloomberg.

2) Has the Sanders surge stalled? Barring the totally unexpected, Sanders will emerge from NH as very much a viable candidate. But will he be riding any significant momentum into the contests coming up in Nevada and South Carolina? If Sanders doesn't at least finish in the top two it will raise real concerns about his candidacy. If he solidly wins the NH primary Sanders will have the upper hand in momentum over whoever comes in second. If the finish is tight, with Sanders either narrowly winning or narrowly losing to whoever wins instead, he will remain well placed but without the status of a clear front runner.

3) Does Buttigieg stay on a roll? His surprising strong showing in Iowa opens him up to fresh scrutiny, and there is both an upside and a downside to that. Does the increased focus on Buttigieg feed his rise further, or begin to chip away at it as he receives closer attention, both by the public and by his rivals for the nomination?

4) Any movement in "the progressive lane"? Tuesday is a real test for Elizabeth Warren. She, like Sanders, is a Senator from a neighboring state. Most voters in NH know her well. This is a case where lowered expectations may help Warren emerge from NH viable. She no longer has to best Bernie Sanders in NH. She does however have to at least do much better than recent polling indicates that she will, in other words she needs a close finish behind Sanders. Coming within a couple of percentage points of Sanders now could be seen as evidence of a late surge, and that could fuel the fundraising she will need to remain competitive.

5) Any movement in "the moderate lane"? With most eyes on Buttigieg and Biden, is there room for Amy Klobuchar to turn enough heads for her campaign to stay viable. She is running out of time to have a big time moment, but if it is going to happen now is that time. What might that look like? Finishing ahead of either Buttigieg or Biden would probably do the trick for her, or even just nipping at their heels so long as she isn't too far off the pace of the eventual winner. Like Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar needs to come out of NH with some evidence to support the premise that her campaign is starting to catch fire. She has run out of time to settle for another mere uptick in support.

6) What about a dark horse? The only dark horse on the stage last night who has any chance to go the distance is Tom Steyer, and that mostly is because he alone among them has the ability to self fund his campaign into Super Tuesday, without any victories or near misses under his belt. Steyer seemed to strongly be making his case to Black voters during the debate, obviously looking beyond NH toward South Carolina. It's a reasonably good strategy that could put him on the electoral map, but he risks being viewed as unelectable by the time votes are being cast in Nevada and South Carolina if he can't do better than the mid single digits in either of the first two contests. Steyer probably needs to come close to double digits in NH.

7) How many voters not previously registered as Democrats will participate in the NH Democratic primary, and what kinds of voters are they? Are they traditionally non partisan voters or moderate Republicans fleeing from Trump? Are they voters disillusioned by how politics is usually played who are giving Democrats another chance, under these trying circumstances? Are they drawn to solid centrists, or to populists, to those with ample political experience or to outsiders, even mavericks?

There is a lot we can learn from the results of the NH primary.

February 7, 2020

Stop calling Trump a "Bully". Start calling him a "Thug"

A Bully will steal your lunch money. A Thug will take your life. We are too often slow to use sharp enough terms to describe what is happening to America. Russia didn't "meddle" in our elections, it subverted them. For far too long Trump was accused of "uttering falsehoods" rather than telling flat out lies.

Thug keeps it simple but gets right to the heart of what Trump actually is. I kind of like "Thug in Chief".