A Different Ballgame

In the wake of the accusation of Lucy Flores that she had been inappropriately touched by Joe Biden when the Vice-President was promoting her for Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Laura McGann reminds us that Biden had

been caught on camera embracing a female reporter from behind and gripping her above her wait, just below her bust. At a swearing-in ceremony for Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Biden put his hands on the shoulders of Stephanie Carter, Carter’s wife, and then leaned in and whispered into her ear. (He’s whispered into many women's ears.) He’s also touched women’s faces and necks during other photo ops. Once at a swearing-in ceremony for a US senator, he held the upper arm of the senator’s preteen daughter, leaned down and whispered into her ear, as she became visibly uncomfortable. Then he kissed the side of her forehead, a gesture that made the girl flinch.

Nonetheless, it is odd, or hypocritical, or a combination of the two that Erick Erickson would tweet

What we’re learning today is that a lot of the media and Democrat politicians knew about Joe Biden’s propensity to make women feel uncomfortable, but they were happy to keep quiet so long as he was Barack Obama’s Vice President.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 31, 2019

Far be it for me, of all people, to deny that an individual was given a pass by the media because of his loyalty to Barack Obama. However, that simply is not the reason that a blind eye was turned to the apparent creepiness of Joe Biden.

Biden was 66 years old when he became Vice-President. He would serve either eight years in that position or, if President Obama were to be defeated in 2012, he would have to wait four more years to run for President. A campaign in his '70s would have been very unlikely.

The 2012 election was assumed to be the last electoral effort by ol' Joe, especially because his two previous campaigns for the Democratic nomination for the presidency famously flamed out. And as Vice President, he wielded no power, other than that granted to him by the President to cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie, in which case he would not be exercising independent judgment,. There simply was little reason for an expose of a man who was largely irrelevant.

Enter Donald J. Trump. When he entered office, Trump was 70, the oldest individual to become President in a nation which has always valued youth, and even more so in recent decades. If he is re-elected in 2020, he will be 74 on Inauguration Day 2021. (I've always dazzled with my mathematical acumen.)

Being old had been considered an impediment to being elected President- not as much so now. Additionally, it was assumed that no one who treated women like they were the standard offering of the neighborhood butcher would be seriously considered as President. 

That assumption was eroded upon the election of a man who has been accused by 13 women of having touched them inappropriately, or worse, the man seen on tape stating

I did try and f--- her. She was married....

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married.

Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

That tape only briefly, and temporarily eroded Donald Trump's popularity and a few weeks later he would be elected President of the United States of America and leader of the free world.

It became evident, though little acknowledged, that unless the victim is oneself, a relative or a friend, Americans care far less about sexual harassment than previously thought. That was reinforced when a man credibly accused of sexual assault was approved for a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court.

But now Joseph R. Biden is presumed to be a formidable candidate to win the Democratic nomination for President.  He would not be one of 100 United States senators, nor in a powerless position as vice-president.

It therefore is odd to argue that the primary reason that Joe Biden's sexually questionable record was ignored is because he served Barack Obama. Biden is simply far more relevant now than ever before because he could in two years possibly wield tremendous power, all the more for what Trump has demonstrated is possible if the office is abused.

But it's also hypocritical, because Erick Erickson should understand very well that it would have been disproportionate to delve into Biden's behavior when the President is Donald J. Trump. Clearly pleased about the Trump presidency, the once-never Trump Erickson recently wrote 

I will vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. And, to be clear, it will not be just because of what the other side offers, but also because of what the Trump-Pence team has done. They’ve earned my vote.

Share |

Educating White People About Their Privilege

At 5:10 of the video below, South Bend mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg tells Bill Maher

I also think sometimes there's a sense of condescension coming from our party. Fairly or unfairly, I think a lot of people perceive that we're looking down on them. And if we allow that to continue, that's going to be a real problem.

If a wealthy coastal liberal professional goes up to a guy pumping gas in South Bend wearing one of those red hats and says "you're voting against your economic interests. You know what that guy is going to say? He's going to say "so are you."

I'd bet Buttigieg a whole lot of money that the last thing someone being confronted about the hat he's wearing will say is "so are you." It might be "shut the hell up" or "if you don't like it, you can get your ass out of here" or "f_ _ _ you." But it wouldn't be "so are you." Additionally, knowingly antagonizing a fellow with a gas pump in his hand is not very wise. You're a little out of touch, Pete.

But it gets worse because when Maher responds "or if he says 'you have white privilege. That rubs people the wrong way," Buttigieg replies

Yeah, well, look, white privilege is real and we should talk about these issues. But we can't paint people into a corner where they have nowhere to go but the far right. That's how radicalization works.





Real, also, is people voting against their economic interest- and more widespread than white privilege.  On social media and elsewhere, progressives often argue that the interests of the poor, the working class, and less obviously, the middle class are served by voting against conservative Republicans.

However, while few people are individually confronted, a great many white voters complain they are labeled "racist" whenever they express an opinion contrary to "political correctness."

These same people may have lost their home or, more likely, are experiencing severe difficulty paying their mortgage.  If a single mother, she may have to work long, even irregular, hours to provide for household needs and be stuck with inadequate or costly child care. Her child may be stuck in troubled public schools- some with a heavy proportion of minority students- with the parent lacking the money to get him or her into a private school.

Or perhaps a couple's children have graduated and are unable to enter college- which they are told is the only ticket to a secure livelihood- even though the father or the mother is working two jobs.

The parent may be stuck in a low-paying job, maybe one with few benefits, and unable to obtain a better job or to commute to for which she is qualified. All around them, the family may see the signs of what once were considered symptoms only of urban decay- declining (probably underfunded) schools, increasing crime, and a neighbor, relative, or a friend of a friend dead from opiate addiction.

Some of these people are white. Then they hear a presidential candidate blithely assuming the existence of "white privilege." Worse yet, the pol may condescendingly say- as those "coastal elites" are wont to do- "we should talk about these issues." They know what that means- we talk, you listen, because it's a "teachable moment."



Share |

More Than Meets The Eye

Lost, inevitably, in the assessment of the Barr memorandum to the chairpersons and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees was further confirmation by Attorney General William Barr that the "Russian efforts" to manipulate the 2016 presidential election.

Lost, too- actually never recognized- was that Vladimir Putin has admitted to this campaign and that he had a role in it. Former FBI agent and current CNN contributor Josh Campbell reminds us 

President Trump tonight on Fox News: "Russia, if they were at all for me—by the way, if you look at all of the things, they were sort of for and against both, not just one way – but you look at all of the different things, Russia would much rather have Hillary than Donald Trump."

As Campbell has made clear many times, he finds this ludicrous, as does the USA intelligence community. So does Vladimir Putin. Asked at the news conference he had with President Trump in July 2018 at Helsinki whether he did "want President Trump to win the election," the Russian President conceded "yes, yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."

Nearly every response, understandably, to this exchange was to note that Putin had admitted that he favored Trump. When I searched on Google for "putin at helsinki said he directed his officials to help Trumpwin the election," the responses consistently reflected that. In the Atlantic, it was "Putin said in Helsinki He wanted Trump to Win;" in Politico, "Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election;" in The Daily Beast, "Putin Admits He Wanted Trump to Win 2016 Election."

Fair enough. But the question was not merely about the Russian president's preference. Julia Davis has it all:

#Helsinki:
Q: "Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"
Putin: "Yes I did. Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal."https://t.co/qFGNI0Ox6t

— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) March 28, 2019

Vladimir Putin was asked not only "did you want President Trump to win the election?" He was asked also "and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

Putin could have ambiguously responded, "Yes I did. Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal." Or he could have made it clear that he merely wanted Trump to win the election but did not direct any officials to help.

Instead, Putin responded "yes, I did," followed by "yes I did." This was a critical (two-part) question and the betting here is that Putin was responding to both parts: "yes, I did help him win the election" and "yes, I did direct officials to help him do that."

The intelligence community had concluded in January 2017 "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election."  Admittedly, it is critical to contrast that with the American president's dishonest claim that "Russia" probably wanted Clinton elected. 

(Note that he doesn't say "Putin" because it would have suggested that his buddy helped that bad woman, and it would have reinforced the notion that Putin had his hand in the election. Mama Trump didn't raise a dope.)

Remembering that Putin probably actually has acknowledged (June 2018) being the ringleader of a counter-intelligence campaign may be of limited value. It is not as important, for instance, as recognizing that when Attorney General Barr wrote "the Special Counsel recognized 'the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russia election interference," he is likely acknowledging evidence, albeit insufficient evidence.

But it is not nothing and reminds us that when we get to see a (much redacted) report from the Special Counsel, there may be more to it than the lawyers, journalists, and national security experts see. 

Share |

Government God

The Buffalo Springfield, circa 1966 :There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

There is something going on, probably not exclusively in Pennsylvania.

Voters of the State of Pennsylvania, after twice voting for Barack Obama for President, rejected (the slightly more religious) Hillary Clinton while opting for Donald J. Trump. Oddly (or appropriately), then, (state) Representative Stephanie Borowicz, forced-birth extremist (quelle surprise!)

was on the ninth “Jesus” of her opening prayer in the Pennsylvania statehouse when other lawmakers started to look uncomfortable.

Speaker Mike Turzai, a fellow Republican, glanced up — but Borowicz carried on, delivering a 100-second ceremonial invocation that some of her colleagues decried as an offensive, divisive and Islamophobic display shortly before the legislature swore in its first Muslim woman.

“God forgive us — Jesus — we’ve lost sight of you, we’ve forgotten you, God, in our country, and we’re asking you to forgive us,” Borowicz said, followed by a quote from the Bible’s second book of Chronicles that implores God’s followers to “turn from their wicked ways.” Then she praised President Trump for his unequivocal support of Israel.

“I claim all these things in the powerful, mighty name of Jesus, the one who, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord, in Jesus’ name,” Borowicz said.

By the time she said “Amen,” Borowicz had invoked Jesus 13 times, deploying the name between prayerful clauses as though it were a comma. She mentioned “Lord” and “God” another six times each and referenced “The Great I Am” and “the one who’s coming back again, the one who came, died and rose again on the third day.”

You are outraged, as you should be, and as many of her fellow legislators were:

As the prayer reached a crescendo, at least one member shouted objections. Turzai, standing behind her, looked up again and nudged her elbow, prompting her to quickly conclude the address. Afterward, the protests only grew louder.

“It blatantly represented the Islamophobia that exists among some leaders — leaders that are supposed to represent the people,” Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell, the newly sworn-in Democrat who is Muslim, told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Monday. “I came to the Capitol to help build bipartisanship and collaborations regardless of race or religion to enhance the quality of life for everyone in the Commonwealth.”

Though not technically "Islamaphobic"- a phobia is a fear- the prayer was an intended rebuke of Islam at a public gathering and intended to offend many people, especially Johnson-Harrell.  We learn that Borowicz's prayer provoked an interesting reaction: 

Johnson-Harrell won a special election earlier this month to fill a seat vacated by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown, who had been re-elected in November after being convicted of bribery. Johnson-Harrell's swearing-in drew 55 guests, a majority of them Muslim. A Muslim prayer was said from the House dais during the ceremony....

Another Muslim lawmaker, Rep. Jason Dawkins, D-Philadelphia, opened the session on Tuesday by reading from the Quran. His invocation was followed by applause.

We have a problem, Harrisburg.  Atheist Deana Weaver already has delivered the invocation/prayer in the state Senate twice but Assembly Speaker Mike

Turzai has blocked atheists from delivering the opening prayer in the chamber, a matter currently tied up in federal court. Last year, when the House lost in federal court – it has appealed – Turzai went to great measures to block nonbelievers from delivering the invocation, abandoning the use of guest chaplains and allowing House members to deliver the opening prayer.

This would have been a great big clue for Turzai, were he not so politically correct as to ignore it. The prayer in these circumstances is anachronistic and should be retired.

The prayer should be eliminated not only because it's obviously an establishment of religion, whatever a court might say.  It need not be eliminated only because there will be an increasing number of Muslims performing, which would offend not only the likes of Borowicz and other narrow-minded Christians, but also open-minded believing Christians.

But it should be excised because it is in fact becoming a performance.  Presumably both Borowicz and Dawkins are sincere in their beliefs, devoted to their religion, usually referred to in polite company as faith.

While a prayer is not technically a performance, it might as well be, when such invocations of "faith" are increasingly cheered, as in "his invocation was met with applause."

Elimination of the "invocation," as it is euphemistically described, would not require elimination of the communal expression of religious faith among lawmakers upon the occasion of a government meeting or other event. 

They could follow the lead of National Football League players, some of whom upon completion of a game swiftly and voluntarily, meet on the field, kneel, and very briefly pray. Public officials could meet either before or after the event, praying as they wish, in combination with or apart from  Christians, Jews, Muslims, members of any other religion, or even as New Age spirit worshipers.

In fact, they already can do so, yet another indication that a public prayer at a government gathering is, in pertinent part, largely a performance.

Blogger's note in the interests of full disclosure: upon request, I once delivered a prayer at the opening of a municipal council meeting. By choice, it was- other than reference to "Father" (a term typically invoked only by Christians)- completely monotheistic and non-sectarian. (Thankfully, no applause.)

Share |

Et Tu, CNN?

William Barr sent a 3 1/2 page alleged summary of the Special Counsel's report to the chairpersons and ranking members of the Senate and the House Judiciary committees on March 24, and the "liberal media" reacted as should have been expected.

The New York Times, though otherwise relatively objective, claimed "the investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government's 2016 election interference."

Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris, on March 27 practicing worse than bothsiderism, lamented "We can’t all seem to agree that it’s a good thing the president didn’t conspire with Russia, nor can we all admit that the Kremlin may have helped elect Trump."

Of course, the President didn't conspire with Russia- but the Kremlin may have helped elected Donald Trump. (And the President at that time was Barack Obama.)

 CNBC's headline of March 24 read "Trump did not collude with Russia, says Mueller, and is cleared of obstruction by the attorney general."

The only problems here are that

1) Barr cleared the campaign of having committed an "obstruction-of-justice" offense not because Donald Trump was found by Mueller not to have obstructed justice. Instead, Barr rationalized, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an underlying crime had been committed, in part because corrupt intent is unlikely when the obstruction took place in public view.

2) Even Barr does not claim that Mueller stated that Trump did not collude with Russia, but rather "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated...." Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

3) Barr carefully referred to the "Russian government" and "Russia," never addressing "Russian actors" or "Russians."  Given that Vladimir Putin's power and influence extend well beyond government officials, that is a significant, if not telling, distinction.

But the worst mangling of the findings came from Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb- not members of an editorial board, columnists, or analysts- but reporters at CNN.

 "Democrats' past statements on Trump and Russia are facing new scrutiny," they maintain, though the only scrutinizers cited are the "Trump campaign." They claim "Special counsel Robert Mueller found that no one in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in 2016," though even Barr chose to claim only that Mueller "did not find" collusion" rather than stating definitively that no one conspired.

Although a determination is "the resolving of a question by argument or reasoning"- and the question has not been resolved- the reporters complain Democrats refuse to believe the "determination" that no collusion transpired. Barr invoked a less definitive "did not establish" for a reason.

Raju and Herb believe Democrats "demanding the full release of the Mueller report" and promising to "continue investigating ties between Trump  and Russia" is a strategy which "risks political backlash for Democrats "if they are viewed as overreaching and probing into an area that has already been exhaustively investigated..."

There is no acknowledgement of (overwhelming) public supportfor release of the report nor of the implied constitutional obligation ofCongress to render oversight of the Executive branch.

This was not Breitbart, Fox News, or even the Washington Examiner. It was CNN, periodically cited by Donald Trump as "fake news." As a former Vermont governor notes

I confess to being disgusted with the American media in general. Just heard again in NPR that “the Mueller report cleared President Trump”. No one in the American media has read the Mueller Report.

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) March 26, 2019

Share |

Russia's Bitch

It's just a thought, an out-of-the-box thought or, as the less generous would put it, eccentric and even a little bizarre. It is prompted by Bill Scher's argument that

By not alleging any illegal collusion, Mueller has liberated Democrats from chasing the impeachment unicorn, which was always a political loser and a substantive dead end. If the Democratic House ever impeached, the Republican Senate was never going to convict, and may not have even held a trial. Impeachment had appeal only to the Democratic base, while doing little for the voters in swing areas who just delivered Democrats the House majority and hold the key to retaking the White House.

Again and again, during the decades since Watergate, opposition parties have tried and failed to exploit scandals for electoral gain....

In all of those cases, regardless of the severity and accuracy of the charges, voters proved less interested in presidential scandals than presidential job performance, especially on the economy. Conversely, when the opposing party parades its investigative zeal, it can look more interested in scoring political points than governing....

Today, Trump barely has a legislative agenda. In turn, Democrats have the opportunity to further the narrative that Trump is a threat to sustainable economic growth, middle-class prosperity and global stability.

It's not an either-or choice, though, especially given that President Trump presents a threat to global stability precisely because of his ties to Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Democrats obviously must emphasize important issues such as health care, immigration, the hollowing-out of the economy, and potential cuts to earned benefits. However, they can address "Russiagate" in the context of a failed presidency.

Richard Painter:

The President’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, top national security advisor, personal lawyer and fixer, and even the “coffee boy”, all convicted of felonies. Roger Stone arrested and indicted. And @PressSec calls that vindication?
Is she high, or does she just lie?

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) March 26, 2019

The President’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, top national security advisor, personal lawyer and fixer, and even the “coffee boy”, all convicted of felonies. Roger Stone arrested and indicted. And @PressSec calls that vindication?

Is she high, or does she just lie?

Imagine that prior to the 2016 election we had been told that six individuals associated with the candidate- whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton- elected President would be convicted of felonies (as Stone probably will be). We would conclude that the President is either a really corrupt person or an incompetent leader.

If neither President Trump nor his campaign colluded with the Kremlin- as Attorney General Barr suggests Mueller has found- there nonetheless was a profound, ultimately successful, effort by the Kremlin to turn an American election. It was done, in the unlikely effort we are not being snookered, without the Trump campaign and the candidate sufficiently able and strong to resist it.

That is the hallmark of a president who, because his dishonesty and outrageous tweets have distracted us, has been a very weak President. 

He finds it difficult to fire people, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, John Kelly, and Jeff Sessions being among those who left the Administration well after their expiration date. James Comey was fired while visiting an FBI field office, and without hearing from the President himself. Trump further

has revealed a weakness that is unprecedented in recent history. The president of the United States is now repeatedly ignored and rebuffed by his own staff, party, and the rest of the federal government. Trump declared the U.S. was leaving Syria, and now hundreds of troops are staying. When he demanded his fellow Republicans prioritize the border wall, they instead pursued tax cuts and health care repeal. Trump can’t even get the military to hold the authoritarian-style parade he’s long demanded.

"Being Saudi Arabia's bitch," Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has pointed out, "is not America First.'"

Still, there persists the image of Trump the Winner and Trump the Man of Strength.  Reminding the electorate that indictments and convictions proceeded because of a foreign conspiracy that took place right underneath Donald Trump's notice might go a long way toward shattering the facade.

Share |

Trump Knew What He Had In Barr

On Wednesday, two days before Robert Mueller gave Attorney General William Barr the report on collusion by Russia in the 2016 election cycle

President Donald Trump said he believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s report should be released to the public, even as he disparaged its very existence as “ridiculous.”

“Let it come out, let people see it,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Let’s see whether or not it’s legit"...

Trump said he was personally looking forward to reading the findings, even as he scorned the fact that Mueller was empowered to write the report in the first place.

“I just won one of the greatest elections of all time in the history of this country. ... And now I have somebody writing a report that never got a vote?” Trump said. “It’s called the Mueller report. So explain that because my voters don’t get it. And I don’t get it.”

Now that Barr has given his spin on the Special Counsel's report, Trump has stated of its release "It's up to the Attorney General. It wouldn't bother me at all."

But don't be fooled (and if you're reading this blog, you rarely are).  Mary Ann MacLeod Trump may have raised a crook, sexual predator, and coward, but she didn't raise a fool.  In 2017, as a private attorney and former Bush 43 Attorney General, Mueller staunchly defended President Trump's decision to fire FBI director William Comey. The following year, he wrote that the Special Counsel's inquiry into obstruction of justice was "fatally flawed" and

Mueller should not be able to demand that the President submit to an interrogation about alleged obstruction. If embraced by the Department, this theory would have potentially disastrous implications, not just for the Presidency, but for the Executive branch as a whole and the Department in particular.

Cagey Trump knew what he was getting in William Barr. Thus, when Trump says he would not be bothered by release of the Mueller report, he does so with a nod and a wink.

The President knows there can be so many redactions that the report is blacked out to near irrelevance.  So it was with the eventual release of the "28 pages," previously classified, of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into alleged Saudi involvement in the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. The "pages" came out, but with more than 140 redactions and tens of thousands of documents still classified.

There is a reason 193 of the Republicans in the House of Representatives joined last week with their Democratic colleagues to call for release of the Special Counsel's report.  There is release, and there is release, and the likelihood that Trump's man at the Justice Department is going to allow the public to see all the evidence accumulated by Robert Mueller's team against Donald Trump's inner circle is minimal.

Share |