Interesting Tit-for-tat Hypothetical

It seems rather clear to me that GOP lawmakers have made a bargain with President Trump:

• On the one hand, they will look the other way with respect to his considerable personal corruption and that of his administration and campaign (see: Trump Hotel D.C., Emoluments Clause, Pornstar Payoffs, Profiteering from the Presidency as demonstrated by the financial information we know about Ivanka/Jared, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, et al)
• On the other hand, he give the GOP establishment the policy that it wants: tax cuts, conservative judges . . . the rest of the stuff can be forgiven so long as its not too egregious or costs them elections

Given the probable, though by no means certain, takeover of the House of Representatives later this year, I wonder if they too are willing to accept this kind of Faustian bargain. Allow Trump to continue to marinate in his swam in exchange for more money to social programs and cuts to the military?

Something to think about.

NO COLLUSION

Collude (v): come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.

As we know, "collusion" is the noun form of the verb "collude." We also know that our president has insisted repeatedly that there was NO COLLUSION (he always seems to go all-caps for that assertion).

Because I can't get the tweet to properly embed, I will just quote it:

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

OK. Let's back up a bit.

I thought the first line was "the meeting never happened." Let's just take a look at the timeline and the shifting company storyline:

• July 8, 2017 -  The meeting was about adopting Russian Children
• July 9, 2017 - OK, so they suggested to us that maybe they had some information implying that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party were being funded by Russia; nothing came of it and the suggestion was vague all along
• July 12, 2017 - Jay Sekulow (one of the most despicable people in America, he also happens to be one of Trump's lawyers), responding to a story from the day before that President Trump had signed off on the July 8 statement, categorically denies that President Trump had anything to do with the original statement. Sekulow repeats this claim on July 16, 2017, on Meet the Press.
• July 31, 2017 - Washington Post reports that President Trump personally dictated the July 8 statement
• August 1, 2017 - President Trump (via his Press Secretary) concedes that President Trump "weighed in" on the statement but did not dictate it
• January 29, 2018 - Jay Sekulow admits in a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller that President Trump did dictate Don Jr.'s statement
• June 2, 2018 - The NY Times publishes the January 29 letter
• June 3, 2018 - Rudy Giuliani (a walking disaster of a "lawyer" if ever there was one) claims that Sekulow was uninformed in June 2017 when he claimed that the President was uninvolved in Don Jr.'s initial statement
• June 4, 2018 - President Trump's Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refuses to answer questions as to whether he dictated the letter
• July 26, 2018 - Michael Cohen (President Trump's longtime personal attorney and notorious liar) claims that the President had foreknowledge of the meeting and signed off on it
• August 5, 2018 - "My son went to this meeting to receive intelligence on Hillary Clinton."

So, in sum, we know the following about the infamous Russia Meeting:

1. They knew they would be meeting with representatives of the Russian state
2. They knew they were being offered Russian state intelligence
3. They intended to use Russian intelligence offered by Russian agents against an American opponent
4. They did not alert the FBI to any of this

Look, I'm not an expert in national security law by any means and I'm trying really hard not to just be a partisan liberal here. However, I think that maybe we just need to step back and ask ourselves whether we've gone through the looking glass here. I mean, do we really have to ask whether aiding and abetting foreign meddling in American elections is OK?

Random Information, Apropos of Nothing

This is part of Article I of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
5. Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
6. Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Not that any of this is relevant to the present moment. Continuing in the irrelevant articles of history, here is a copy of the Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton:

Article I: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. States that contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.

Article II: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

Article III: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

Article IV: States that using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. States that William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

The highlights in both (other than the Article headings) are mine.

I post this information so that we have primary source evidence as to the nature of the last two impeachments. Personally, I don't think that this country needs another impeachment. However, if/when "The Don" has articles of impeachment brought against him, or if such measures enter the public discussion, we should have a historical backdrop for same. As is perfectly clear, I disagree with President Trump. However, pursuing policy with which I disagree is not an impeachable offense. Further, as I stated time and again during the Obama administration, "unconstitutional" (and "liberalism" for that matter) is not analogous to "stuff I disagree with."

Interesting . . .

I read in the "Failing New York Times" an interesting story today. You really should read it yourself. It was authored by a former White House stenographer, whose job it was to keep transcripts of conversations between the President and, well, anyone, to ensure that people accurately quoted what the President of the United States said. A few highlights:

On Friday, at a news conference with Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain a reporter asked President Trump about disparaging comments he had made about her to The Sun newspaper. He denied ever having said them and declared that recordings of the interview would vindicate him. “We record when we deal with reporters,” he said. “We solve a lot of problems with the good old recording instrument.”

Do we?

. . . . . . . 

As White House stenographers, we were among the handful of staff members who remained at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when the administration changed. This was my first transition, but my boss had said every new administration she’d worked in since the 1980s was grateful for our help.

. . . . . . .

We carried a microphone and two recorders at all times, and let them run until the last reporter had left the room, just in case a reporter yelled a question over his shoulder with one foot out the door. Should the press actually misquote the president, we were there, armed with an official transcript of what the president did or did not say.

But now, we were faced with a president who didn’t want to be recorded.  

. . . . . . . 

Mr. Trump likes to call anyone who disagrees with him “fake news.” But if he’s really the victim of so much inaccurate reporting, why is he so averse to having the facts recorded and transcribed?

President Trump did criticize Theresa May to The Sun. We know because it was recorded.

It’s clear that White House stenographers do not serve his administration, but rather his adversary: the truth. 

As a self-righteous jackass who has done more than perhaps one person to put this horse's ass in the White House said a few months ago, "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."  (And that very much includes the infamous "pee tape.")

I guess when you lie every time your lips move . . . . .

Classy

This:

On Wednesday, Arizona Sen. John McCain announced his opposition to President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the CIA, Gina Haspel.

On Thursday, White House special assistant Kelly Sadler reportedly reacted by saying of McCain, who is fighting brain cancer, “It doesn’t matter, he’s dying anyway.”

And this:

 In the annals of bad TV takes, it’s going to be hard to beat the one offered by a Fox Business guest earlier today: Torture works, and he knows tortures works because it made John McCain cough up sensitive information during the years he spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

“It worked on John [McCain],” retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said during a Thursday appearance on the Fox Business Network. “That’s why they call him ‘Songbird John.’” 

McInerney, an avid supporter of President Donald Trump, mentioned McCain in a segment about CIA director nominee Gina Haspel. Here’s why: On Wednesday, the senator vowed to vote against her nomination and recommended his colleagues do the same.

Look, I didn't vote for John McCain in 2008; I thought his grandstanding attempt to impeach Bill Clinton was shameful. However, Sen. McCain showed his true colors in the face of torture . . . twice.

First, the North Vietnamese offered to release John McCain before his fellow POWs so that they could get a nice propaganda piece ("SEE! The capitalist Americans come for the sons of admirals first!"). John McCain, to his undying credit, told them to go to hell and denied them their little victory, even though it resulted in his continued imprisonment.

Second, in the early 00s, John McCain stood up against the Bush Administration on the issue of torture enhanced interrogation. Anyone who remembers that time knows that any disagreement with the way the Cheney Bush Administration chose to prosecute the War on Terror (TM) was quickly subjected to accusations of "not supporting the troops" or "siding with the terrorists." John McCain took a big risk, and I applaud him for it.

Contrarily, Donald Trump's "Vietnam" experience involved not picking up too many STDs while screwing as many random women as possible, marriage (for either party) be damned.

A Single Data Point

Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe that presidents are singularly responsible for economic growth during their administrations.

I'll repeat that: I do not believe that presidents are singularly responsible for economic growth during their administrations.

However, some people/organizations disagree with me. To those who tend to believe that a president is singularly responsible for economic growth/performance, I offer this:

This fact tells me nothing about either Obama or Trump. Perhaps it says something to those who believe that presidents singularly control the economy (see link above). Of course, as we know, facts have a well-known liberal bias so this is all probably just "fake news."

Chicken Hawks

Regrettably, I allowed myself to comment on a "debate" on NextDoor regarding the NRA's supposed "Don't be a Victim" conference. One thing I have noted about the pro-gun crowd is how quickly most people are to bring up the notion that they "won't be victims" to "thugs." Formulate this anyway you want, it sounds to me like some people have seen one too many bad action flicks.

Case in point: the NRA likes to say that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." OK. Where was the "good guy with a gun" at the Broward Co. HS while the shooter was offing teenagers? Waiting outside.

To be clear, this is a person who is ostensibly trained to address "threats" such as this.

He was waiting outside.

Now, I don't mean to pile on this poor guy. For the rest of his life, he will have to look in the mirror and admit to himself that when the time came, the time that would have defined his entire life, he hesitated.

Nonetheless, I continue to hear all NRA pro-gun types talk as though, what with their 30 minutes/month on an empty shooting range, they will be the heroes that save the day. Case in point:

The president also said he would have run into the South Florida high school where 17 students and faculty members were killed in a mass shooting, even if he was not armed, and he criticized law enforcement officials who were at the scene of the school shooting but did nothing to try to stop it. He called their performances “frankly disgusting.”

Interesting, isn't it, how people get their courage up after the fact to talk about what they would have done in a particular situation.

For a small intellectual exercise, let's just contemplate a few questions:
Q1. Has Donald Trump ever been faced with a situation where he may have been required to confront a "bad guy with a gun" who wanted to shoot at him?
 A1: As it turns out, Donald Trump was alive during the Vietnam War, and he was drafted.

Q2: Assuming that Donald Trump was faced with a situation where he would have been required to confront a "bad guy with a gun" who wanted to shoot him, would Donald Trump have rushed into the situation, even if he was not armed.
A2: No. He wouldn't. In fact, Donald Trump received draft deferments in 1964, 1965, and 1966 under the 2-S (college deferment) program. He then received a deferment in 1968 for a supposedly short-term medical problem (bone spurs in his feet); on Feb. 17, 1972, he was permanently classified as unfit for medical service.

All of this "good guy with a gun" post hoc discussion is nothing but chicken-hawkery at its worst.

Russian Update

No collusion! No collusion! (Kind of makes you wonder whether the people yelling "no collusion" understand what the term "collusion" actually means, but nonetheless).

Here is an interesting update on the Mueller Russian Investigation:

Thirteen Russians and three Russian entities were charged Friday with an elaborate plot to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, federal prosecutors announced Friday.

The indictment, brought by the office of special counsel Robert Mueller, alleges that Russians used bogus social media postings and advertisements fraudulently purchased in the name of Americans to sway political opinion during the race between Republican Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

The charges are the most direct allegation to date of illegal Russian meddling in the election.

The goal, the indictment says, was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.” 

Charges include conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The charges arise from Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the election and whether there was improper coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Before Friday, four people, including Trump’s former national security adviser and former campaign chairman, had been charged in Mueller’s investigation.

The White House had no immediate response to the indictment.

I have nothing to add; just wanted to share the information.

Devil his Due

I really hate that expression, because it implies that the person you're crediting is indeed evil. Maybe I'm sensitive about that expression because it is so close to the term "Devil's Advocate," and me being a lawyer . . .

Anyway, the point of this post is to concede that just because Donald Trump advocates for something doesn't mean the thing for which he is advocating should be opposed. (Would that my conservative friends took this approach to President Obama, but water under the bridge and all . . .).

Anyway, I saw this in the Opinion section of the Indianapolis Star this morning. )Full disclosure, one of the authors of the piece, Fran Quigley, is (or at least was) a professor at the IU-McKinney School of Law, where I attended. I did not have Prof. Quigley for any courses.) Here are some quotable pieces of the article, starting with cold statistics:

 A vial of insulin can cost a person with diabetes 10 times as much as it did in the late 1990s.The price of an EpiPen has risen 450%. Some new treatments for cancer and other diseases are priced as high as $750,000, even when taxpayers paid for the most critical research to develop those drugs.

That last part about taxpayers paying for the most critical research is very important, it would seem to me. No innovation is done entirely from whole cloth; instead it is created by combining pre-existing components with small amounts of new innovation to create a newly usable product. In the case of so much R&D, "we the people" are footing the bill for the foundational research.

Well, at least some entities are getting fabulously wealthy. Martin Shkreli anyone? However, what are the real-world effects of pricing these necessary drugs so high?

One of every five Americans report either skipping medicine doses or failing to fill prescriptions each year due to cost.  As physicians and a lawyer working on health-care access in Indiana, we have talked with people who have suffered strokes after they could not afford to fill their doctors’ prescription for blood pressure medicines. We have talked with mothers who have lost adult children who had been forced to ration their insulin.

That sounds perfectly awful! I guess that means that Americans just don't care about each other?

Americans are outraged, and rightly so. In poll after poll, strong majorities of people across different political parties agree that our government needs to do more to rein in drug pricing abuse.  

Oh. Never mind.

What strikes me as  interesting about this whole debate is the ferocity with which people argue against the government bargaining for better prices.

For a quick detour, I'd like to explain a bit about what life as an insurance defense litigator is like. For starters, I am handed 1-2 lawsuits per week by various insurance carriers. Because I get such a volume of business from them, I charge less than I would to a "private, one-off" client. I would likely quote a rate of $200/hour to a private client (a pretty good deal by local standards . . . go ask a litigator at Ice Miller to handle your matter for that price and see how that works out). Insurance companies, on the other hand, won't pay above $150/hour. Mind you, all of my overhead is the same for the insurance company cases as it is for the private cases, but I can rest assured that the insurance company will actually pay my bill and will continue to send me business. That's why I take the lower rate.

Something similar happens with doctors vis a vis Medicare. My brother is a surgeon and despises the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services because they pound his rates down so aggressively. Nonetheless, his practice continues to accept Medicare patients. I don't really know why, but they have determined that it is in their business interests to do so.

Nonetheless, for some reason, Big Pharma (looking at you, Eli Lilly) gets a special dispensation. 

Negotiation is the right prescription for curing out-of-control drug price increases. Thanks to benefitting from taxpayer-supported research and government-granted monopolies, the pharmaceutical industry enjoys some of the highest profit margins in modern history, even after spending more of its revenue on advertising than on research. That is why President Trump and a whopping 92% of Americans support allowing our Medicare program to negotiate down drug prices.

Wow. Mark today on the calendar. I, and 92% of my fellow Americans, agree with a Donald Trump position.

Negotiation is the right prescription for curing out-of-control drug price increases. Thanks to benefitting from taxpayer-supported research and government-granted monopolies, the pharmaceutical industry enjoys some of the highest profit margins in modern history, even after spending more of its revenue on advertising than on research. That is why President Trump and a whopping 92% of Americans support allowing our Medicare program to negotiate down drug prices.

Interesting twist on American exceptionalism, no?

As a final point, I would reiterate to my more conservative friends that if the market isn't working, the market won't be used. If the current system is not delivering, it will eventually be replaced, and all of the filibustering and lying about the replacement won't change that.

The widespread frustration over our U.S. health-care system’s tragic flaws, where we pay the world’s highest costs for very poor coverage and health outcomes, is building momentum for a single-payer system here. Over half of Americans support single-payer, and more than 100 members of Congress have signed on in support of Medicare for All legislation. Businesses of all sizes are struggling with health-care costs, leading leaders like Warren Buffet to support a single-payer system. 

Talking points can only take you so far. Eventually, people will figure out that we don't have the best healthcare system on earth, that the insurgency is not in its last throes, and that you can't necessarily keep your plan even if you like it. 

As a final point, please bear in mind that this is not to disparage the hard-working healthcare professionals in this country. They did not create the system of financing healthcare. However, if the present system continues to work for fewer and fewer people, the present system will be replaced sooner or later.

Budget Hawkery

There are a lot of congressional critters who like to claim that they are budget "hawks" and want to reduce the budget. Similarly, I know a lot of people who proclaim their "fiscal conservatism," which I take to mean something similar to budget hawkery.

Let's test the mettle of these convictions.

If you claim to be a budget "Hawk," I want to hear from YOU either (a) how much more you are willing to pay in taxes to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have; or (b) which programs that you actually use you are willing to see eliminated in order to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have.

Point of order - The following are considered non-responsive and get no credit:

• General statements of principle and ideology (i.e. "government should be smaller," "government should not be in the education business" (if you don't have kids), etc.)
• Cliched pablum (i.e. "cut waste," "the rich should pay their fair share")
• Statements demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the actual facts (i.e. "cut taxes and that will grow the economy so much that we won't have to cut any programs," "eliminate foreign aid")

For eight years I heard Republicans, both local and nationally, bitch and moan about the budget deficit after uttering nary a peep from 2001-2009. Now that a Republican is in the White House, apparently the budget deficit and the national debt (two different things, by the way) stopped being a problem.

Now is the time to "put your money where your mouth is." As they say at the poker table, "put up or shut up." 

Full Disclosure: I don't actually expect any good-faith answers to this question from any self-styled "fiscal conservatives." If I get one, I will be shocked.

On Puerto Rico

I have seen a lot about our government's response to the hurricane that struck Puerto Rico, replete with the unflattering comparisons to its response to the hurricanes that struck Texas and Florida. While I have no doubt that our president views Puerto Rico as less authentically "real" American than "his" voters in TX and FL, I do not think that the government's response to the hurricane is a manifestation of our president's racism.

I think it's a manifestation of his childishly short attention span.

When the first hurricane hit, he was all over it; tweeting, sending in resources, etc.

When the second hurricane hit, he was on it; maybe not to the same degree as before, but FL has a long history of responding to hurricanes and it likely did not seem like much of a fall off because of that.

By the time the third hurricane hit Puerto Rico, the president was on to other things, real (N. Korea) and contrived (NFL).

I agree that President Trump is terrible; I just find him to be terrible for different reasons than many others in this particular instance.

On Taxes - Pt. 3 (broken promises)

Remember the phrase, "If you like your plan, you can keep it"? As an Obama supporter, I came to dread hearing those words because I knew they weren't true. I wish he would never have uttered them, because broken promises hurt politically. 

Well, Mr. Trump, you have the floor:

"The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan," Trump declared again last week. 

OK. I'm not enough of a sucker to take Donald Trump (well-known serial liar) at his word. What about some others? Surely, a former Goldman Sachs executive would never lie to us!

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin vowed that "any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class."

OK. They both said it. Can we trust them? And for what it's worth, I don't "believe in" trickle-down economics for one simple reason: cutting taxes on the extremely wealthy has been tried (repeatedly) in the past few decades and that money has not "trickled down," even after waiting for decades. 

My test for credulity as to "trickle-down" economics is the same as it is for that perpetual motion machine: I'll believe it when I see it.

As Jerry Maguire so memorably said, "Show me the money!"

As an incidental note, I wonder how Indiana's congressional delegation intends to vote on this and whether they intend to (ever) hold a town hall to defend such vote.

Who Pays?

Back in November, I would joke with my wife that I was going to run for Speedway Town Council on the slogan of "Make Speedway Great Again," and the main plank of my platform was going to be that we're building a wall and making Indy pay for it.

Ha Ha.

Of course, our Tweeter in Chief has recently indicated that if Congress doesn't appropriate the money to pay for his beloved border wall, he may shut down the government.

Wait. What?

I mean, I never really believed ANYTHING coming out of President L'Orange's mouth, but he said it over and over: "Mexico will pay for it."

Videos don't lie:

At the time, a lot of people (myself included) pointed out that this was never going to happen (and was a terrible idea, to boot). Apparently, in a rare concession to reality, The Orange One has now decided that the United States paying for the wall is somehow equivalent to MEXICO paying for the wall.

United States of America = Mexico?

As I've noted, the wall is a terrible idea. What's next? A fence to keep the tide out? I was thinking of an umbrella to hold my basement in place, too.

Anyway, the actual merits of this (terrible) idea aside, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CAMPAIGN PROMISE WAS THAT MEXICO WAS PAYING FOR THE WALL. You can't change that now! It was supposed to punish Mexico, not me!

If we're going to discuss stupid ideas that don't work and will waste money, OK. Let's have that discussion. Why do we have to focus on THIS stupid idea that won't work and will waste money? Better yet, how about expensive ideas that will actually do some good? Perhaps we can put that money into healthcare or education for poor kids (I know . . . pipe dream).

Jay Sekulow, certified A-Hole

I have never met Jay Sekulow. I don't know that I've ever been in the same state as Jay Sekulow. But I know the type, and he is certainly the type.

From what I've gathered about him, he is one of those well-connected lawyers who never actually got good at the "lawyering" thing and instead has relied on connections, etc., to live a "rich lawyer" lifestyle. Fake it 'til you make it, as they say. Now, of course, thank you to James Comey, the Russians, and roughly 100,000 disaffected rural white people in three states, we all know the name Jay Sekulow and are "treated" to his legal "analysis" on a regular basis.

After seeing his tour de force crap on Sunday, I was amused to see this on one of the lawyer industry blogs I read. Some highlights:

According to Sekulow, the hubbub over the meeting could only be #FakeNews because the Secret Service wouldn’t have let it take place if it were improper.^[1]

Within minutes, social media lit up with sources pointing out that the Secret Service doesn’t perform any such service, a damning indictment one-upped by the revelation that the Service wasn’t even on Trump Jr. at the time. For anyone bothering to stay even a little informed, Sekulow’s appearances came off as buffoonery on parade.

But what if that’s the whole point? While most of us wonder how an attorney could go on television and marry his client to such a flimsy, easily disproven defense, it’s just possible that Sekulow’s playing the con perfectly.

Another quote:

Still, that any attorney would go on television so ill-prepared that he’d do this kind of damage to his client and his cronies strains credulity.  

Wow. Politics and assholery aside, this is pretty damning commentary on Sekulow's legal work. Here is the advice offered to Mr. Sekulow:

Sekulow doesn’t defend Jr., Kushner, or Manafort. But, as we’ve been saying for months, this is a white-collar matter, and like most white-collar matters, attorneys need to begin from the premise that every friend or family member as a trusted partner… and also a potential lump underneath the proverbial bus. “Mr. Trump knew nothing of the meeting, and relied only on the reports he received from people he had no reason to distrust” is a perfectly fine answer. Making up a phantom Secret Service vetting process is not. 

I can't resist this:

Sekulow’s legal career consists in large part to running a charity to buy very nice toys for himself. 

Finally, the punchline:

But of course to believe Jay Sekulow is a master showman, one would have to dismiss all those videos of his rock band.
That’s not so easy.

And . . . . . . microphone drop.

 

The Real Goal (I think)

I used to lament during George W. Bush's presidency that he ran on a promise that government didn't work, and he governed to ensure that his campaign promise came true.

I still believe, generally speaking, that anyone who runs against the government he/she purports to lead is disqualified from the office. In light of that, I came across some interesting commentary on one of my favorite blogs, Gin & Tacos (linked on the right). Here are some excerpts:

The Federal bureaucracy is like the world's most anal-retentive child meticulously building a sand castle for decades. The Trump administration is the asshole who kicks the whole thing down in thirty seconds.

I would agree. It takes time to build things, and it only takes a fraction thereof to destroy them. Just think of how long it takes to bake cookies vs. how long it takes to eat them.

More:

This underscores a fundamental reason that Republicans have the upper hand in modern politics. Their only goal is to tear down as much of the structure of government as possible or, perhaps even preferably, turn it into a poorly functioning tool for channeling government contracts to their hangers-on. Democrats, even in the lukewarm Centrist style of Democrats like Hillary Clinton, want The State to do things. Implementing any policy, law, or initiative in which the government has to do something requires the bureaucratic capacity to do it. 

I would add to this and say that implementing any governmental action that will make the lives of one's citizenry better requires the will to implement such action. Sadly, I see no such will in the modern Republican Party.

What is lost during periods of right-wing governance rarely is recovered.

Agreed again.

As much as I would like to believe that so-called "conservatives" share my goals and simply believe that there is a better way to accomplish them, I am increasingly skeptical of my previous optimism. After 8 years, President Obama was not able to undo the damage done by George W. Bush, who managed to hollow out a substantial portion of the gains made during the Clinton administration on such things as the environment and increasing wages for the bottom 70-80% of wage earners in this nation.

Sigh. As President Obama so memorably said, "Elections have consequences." They certainly do, and we will be living with the consequences of the 2016 one for a long time. All that I ask is that when the predictable and predicted consequences of President Trump's incompetence come home to roost, at least acknowledge that many of us predicted these consequences. As has been said before, it's bad enough that I have to live with these consequences; at least don't insult me by saying nobody could've predicted them.

 

 

Origination

For the 4th of July, I will leave aside the cheap jingoism that too often accompanies the holiday and instead focus on what I believe was the founding idea of this great nation of ours.

For millennia, the commoners (like my ancestors) were expected to live at the pleasure of their royal "betters." The "landed gentry" was a term that arose in the context of a society where there were a few people who had land, and then there was everyone else who worked said land for the pleasure of its owners. These were the feudal lords, and at the culmination of this system were the titular royals who had the authority to grant land and titles, both of which directly correlated to more bountiful and comfortable lives. Pardon the oversimplification.

At some point, our founding fathers determined that they could set up a new system whereby power and wealth amassed not based on one's parentage but based on one's merit. Again, pardon the oversimplification.

I still believe that this is a beautiful aspiration: the populace governs itself, instituting policies that are based on objective evidence, and rejecting the policies that repeatedly fail. . . stubbornly refusing to repeat the mistakes of our peoples' collective history. A place, not unlike ancient Rome, where good ideas are always welcome; where we understand that those good ideas make our society better and are more than a mere vehicle to launch people into perpetual un/underemployment.

Maintaining such an idea requires vigilance and a constant longview. What may be good for today and tomorrow may be immeasurably bad for the day after. We need to be mindful of such things.

As I've written before, good policy outcomes in the past don't necessarily mean good outcomes in the future. Perhaps, we should have a conversation as to what outcomes we want. Then, we can move on to how we get there. That is the essence of self governance.

Happy 4th of July. Be careful.

And the award for most competent public official goes to . . .

I'm not really talking about the Town Council, but they are included in this observation. So far as I can tell, here are the people who represent me at all levels of government, starting here in Speedway:

• Eileen Fisher (R), Speedway Town Council
• Joe Hogsett (D), Indianapolis Mayor
• Rep. Karlee Macer (D), IN House of Representatives
• Sen. Mike Young (R), IN Senate
• Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), IN Governor
• Rep. Andre Carson (D), US House of Representatives
• Sen. Joe Donnelly (D), US Senate
• Sen. Todd Young (R), US Senate
• Pres. Donald J. Trump (R)

Of all of these people, I would say that I have the most confidence in Gov. Holcomb. While I tend to disagree with some of his priorities, I believe him to be a competent manager of people who is in the office because he wants to do something as opposed to being in the office because he wants to be something.

As pertains the remainder of those on this list:

• I have no doubt that Eileen Fisher is a nice lady. I have been fortunate to meet her and found her pleasant and agreeable. However, I have not seen much by way of any policy ideas that she has pushed. Insofar as she has acquiesced to the extortion over parking that is going on down on Main St., my feelings on this are well known.
• Likewise, Joe Hogsett seems like a nice enough guy. However, his track record as US Attorney leaves much to be desired.
• Karlee Macer is a nice lady who I have had the pleasure of meeting. She likewise seems pleasant and agreeable, and I am glad to have at least a few seats in the state legislature occupied by anything other than the self-proclaimed "conservatives" of the Republican party. However, I am unable to identify any major achievements of hers.
• Mike Young is your typical pseudo-conservative politician: feed at the public trough while lecturing others for doing the same . . . make sure that policy comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. 
• Andre Carson . . . inherited his seat from his grandmother and has no legislative accomplishments.
• Joe Donnelly. Caved on the Neil Gorsuch nomination. Resides squarely in the "Joe Lieberman/centrist/spineless" camp
• Todd Young - see my comments on Mike Young, and multiply by a thousand.
• Donald Trump - turn on the TV.

Gov. Holcomb, however, actually has ideas and is willing to take risks to do what he believes is in the state's best interest. Could you imagine Mike Pence agreeing to raise taxes, for any reason, at any time? Me neither. Gov. Holcomb recognized that roads need to be paid for, and taxes pay the government's bills. He recognizes that if the populace wants "stuff," they have to pay for it; "starve the beast" has been a miserable failure, perhaps "serve the bill" will work to shrink government.

Gov. Holcomb also recognizes (unlike the US Atty. Gen.) that the opioid epidemic is a public health problem and not merely a criminal justice problem. Again, can you imagine our ex-Gov. Empty Suit Mike Pence conceding something this monumentally obvious?

So, congratulations Gov. Holcomb, you have the vote of confidence of TableTop Joe. Congratulations, or something.

Unsolicited Advice to Sen. Donnelly

As anyone who pays attention to politics knows, Joe Donnelly is the Democratic Senior Senator from Indiana. He is also up for election in 2018 and has voted against three consecutive cabinet nominees of Donald Trump's: Betsy DeVos, Jeff Sessions, and Tom Price.

I would say that the choice on these votes is fairly easy for anyone in the mainstream of the national Democratic Party. DeVoss represents the privatization of education, something liberals have opposed for generations; Price represents the immediate repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the overriding notion of healthcare as a profit center, again something that liberals have opposed since the passage of the ACA or, for the more historically minded, since the Great Society and perhaps the new deal; Sessions favors investigation of voter fraud over civil rights enforcement and is against reforming both our privatized for-profit prison system and the war on (some people who use some) drugs, among other issue positions he holds. Whether these things are good or bad, they are against the liberal worldview.

My advice to Sen. Donnelly is thus: keep voting against Trump's picks that violate your conscience.

First, there is no amount of Trump a$$kissing that you can do that will make Indiana Republicans come out and vote for you. It didn't work for Evan Bayh or John Gregg in the end; it won't work for you. The only thing you could do by "going along to get along" with this stuff is alienate your own base, who will come to see you as another milquetoast Lieberman liberal, and a piece of ownership when this dumpster fire of an administration implodes.

Second, neither you nor I have any idea whether there will be a backlash against this crew of incompetents. If there is a backlash, better to be on the right side of history. If there's not, your reelection hopes are doomed regardless.

Finally, the Supreme Court.

Filibuster.

Make Mitch McConnell be the one who abolishes the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. He has shown that he is perfectly willing to use procedural obstruction against any democratic president, as evidenced by the refusal to allow Merrick Garland a hearing. This has irreparably damaged the Supreme Court as an institution allegedly above politics.

No More.

It is now, thanks to Sen. Jowls McConnell, every bit as political as any other American institution of governance. It is a failure of conscience to refuse to play hardball when those with whom you vehemently disagree play nothing but.

Neil Gorsuch deserves to be filibustered. He likewise deserves to have an asterisk next to his name forever, as the seat was stolen from Barack Obama by Mitch McConnell and handed to Donald Trump and Neil Gorsuch.

Executive Orders on Immigration

The Donald just issued an executive order re. immigration that has caused up quite a bit of controversy. Some scattered thoughts:

Let's be clear here. I am no expert on immigration law by any means. On Meet the Press today, Vice President Pence asserted that a president has the authority, under statute and the constitution, to determine who enters the country. Therefore, President Trump's recent executive order on immigration is perfectly legal, and the Washington judge who halted it is wrong and must be overturned.

I find Pence's argument to be intriguing.

If the President has the authority to increase restrictions on immigration, as Trump has done, does he not also have the authority to lessen restrictions on immigration?

I think at the end of the day, Trump probably did have the authority to issue his order. However, if the sauce is good for the goose it's good for the gander, and an executive order going the other way would likewise be legitimate. Be careful what you wish for.

It should go without saying that the judge knows better than me and we should all defer to duly issued judicial orders.