Seventeen Minutes Not Wasted

I'm not a "swoon" kind of guy. However, she makes a good point: 

Imagine if we had more of @mehdirhasan on the air. The electorate would be smarter. There’d be a lot more accountability. And restored faith, perhaps, in the political media landscape. He does interviews incredibly well. And. I swoon. https://t.co/1TQIMeePVz

— @tiffanydcross (@TiffanyDCross) October 15, 2020

Not only was this excellent interviewing but it was even better than suggested. Hasan introduced this general topic at 11:47 of the interview, a full 91 seconds before Bolton began to state "this is really about as low...."

The viewer benefits when an interviewer challenges a guest's pat answer to a pre-determined question. When the guest responds by criticizing the host, it's obvious that something important is being elicited.

A moment earlier, Bolton had referred to Iran and, unlike bad interviewers, Hasan did not revert to a pre-determined issue. Hasan then noted that- according to the International Atomic Energy Administration- when the nuclear deal was in place and Trump became President, Iran had 100 kilograms of enriched uranium and now has 2,000 enriched kilograms. As the conversation proceeded, Bolton eventually claimed that the "IAEA is not an espionage agency. It knows what people declare to it. It does not know much else."

If true, that would imply that conclusions of the IAEA could not be trusted. Except that it's not, for a month ago we had learned from Reuters

Iran has let the U.N. nuclear watchdog inspect one of the two sites it agreed last week to grant access to after a protracted standoff, while Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has risen further, quarterly reports by the agency said on Friday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspected one of the sites and took environmental samples there, one of the two reports obtained by Reuters said, referring to samples aimed at detecting traces of nuclear material that may have been present.

The agency’s inspectors will visit the other site “later in September 2020 on a date already agreed with Iran, to take environmental samples”, the report said.

The other report said that Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) rose by 534 kg in the most recent quarter, roughly the same amount as in the previous three months, to 2,105.4 kg.

That is more than 10 times the 202.8 kg limit set by Iran’s 2015 nuclear accord with big powers, which Iran has been breaching in response to Washington’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and reimposition of sanctions against Tehran.

 

Admittedly, it is not a "spy agency," instead having inspectors, which make it at least a little more credible. And if in fact the IAEA knows only "what people declare to it," the truth is even more damning to the Trump Administration. Presumably, it would be what the Iranian government is declaring to it, and Tehran would be likely to underestimate, rather than overestimate, its current stock. It is better to calm fears than to inflame them.

Unfortunately, Hasan didn't make the connection at the time. However, he made some progress in emphasizing the failure of the Trump policy on Iran and engaged the former National Security Advisor in a spirited discussion of both Iran and Iraq.  Also, as Cross observed, he exposed Bolton's hypocrisy. 

Not bad for a day's work. And for extra points:  once again we saw an example of the 30-year GOP project to demonize Hillary Clinton, an ultimately highly successful scheme with devastating consequences to the families of 213,000 Americans

Share |

Easy Question With A Simple Answer

Legally, the answer is "no." 

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

Congress does appear to have the power, in the event of an emergency of "changing the appropriate statutes, to change the general election date and as well the dates electoral votes are received in Washington and counted in Congress." However, given that the House is controlled by the party in favor of free elections, that wouldn't happen.

But it appears Trump soon will have one more Supreme Court justice on board if he does want to delay the election unilaterally. From today's questioning of nominee Amy Coney Barrett:

FEINSTEIN: On July 30, 2020, President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election. Does the Constitution give the President of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

BARRETT: Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigant and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. If I give off-the-cuff answers, I would be a legal pundit and I do not think we want judges to be legal pundit. We want judges to approach with an open mind.

The answer still is "no" legally and it doesn't take a pundit to know that.  If she checked her search engine on a desktop, laptop, or smart phone computer, Judge Barrett would notice that the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was set by statute in 1845 as presidential election day. U.S. Code now enshrines that occasion "in every even numbered year... as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress."

Judge Barrett, being smarter than a fifth grader, could have taken the advice of the late First Lady, Nancy Reagan- "just say no." The Chosen One probably will not sign an illegal executive order postponing the election and if he does so, might get blocked by the courts. However, by nominating Amy C. Barret, Donald Trump did, knowingly, take one more step toward his goal of establishing an autocracy.

Share |

Sound And Fury

"The hearing to confirm Judge Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court will now begin."

Thus began (after welcoming everyone) Senate Judiciary Committee chairperson Lindsey Graham on Monday morning. More conventionally, Graham would have announced that the hearing to consider the nomination of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court would begin.

 But Graham has little to fear. Indivisible, the group formed in response to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, has outlined tactics which the Democratic minority in the Senate can take to "slow downthe Amy Coney Barrett nomination. " While acknowledging "there is no single silver bullet," Indivisible notes (emphasis theirs) that the longer Democrats stall, "the more time we get to pressure Senate Republicans, who are in control of the timeline, and demand they REFUSE to consider any Supreme Court justice until the next president is inaugurated."

Slowing Down Senate Proceedings

While Democrats are unable to filibuster Supreme Court nominees, they do have a variety of tools they can use to slow down proceedings in both committee and on the floor. They include:

Withholding Consent: The Senate works on unanimous consent, meaning they assume procedures that require a vote are passed with unanimous consent. Any Senator can object and force a vote. You can read more about withholding consent in our explainer.

Quorum Roll Calls: The Senate requires a quorum to conduct business. It is assumed that there is a quorum but Democratic Senators can object and force a roll call.

Raising Points of Order: Senators can object at any time when they feel a rule has been violated. Once the Presiding Officer passes judgement on if a rule has been breached, Senators can object to the ruling and force a vote. Democratic Senators could force votes on any number of rules to delay proceedings.

Forcing the Senate to take up other business

Under Senate norms, the majority party has complete control of the agenda. However, there are certain measures that could require the Senate to take action. Through these mechanisms, Democrats could force Senate Republicans to temporarily pause proceedings on the nomination and focus on the following:

 Force a cloture vote: Technically, any Senator can force a vote on a bill that has been introduced but don’t because it could grind Senate business to a halt. Democratic Senators can use this rule to delay the nomination proceedings and force votes. Senator Schumer used this tactic to force a vote on a bill to protect people with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act.

Short-term funding: The House could insist on passing further budget-related measures which the Senate would need to vote on.

War Powers Resolutions: The Senate generally has to take up WPRs within a certain number of days or any senator, including the minority party, can move to proceed.

Indivisible recommends voters encourage their (Democratic) senators to slow down the nomination or their (Republican) senators to reconsider filling Justice Ginsburg's seat.

But it is fairly clear that Democrats are uninterested.  Democrats possess the vain hope that people will rise up and discourage Republicans from voting to move Barrett's nomination primarily because she could prove instrumental in striking down the pre-existing conditions clause in the Affordable Care Act, secondarily because of her hostility to reproductive rights. In the video below, Judiciary Committee member Amy Klobuchar, joined by other Democratic senators, gives the game away, arguing

It's probably not going to be some brilliant cross-examination that is going to change the trajectory of this nomination. But there is something that will. And that is the people of this country. That is them, voting.

According to Klobuchar (and Connecticut senator Blumenthal at the same news conference), the answer to Justice Amy Coney Barrett is what we already knew to do: vote.

This is not leadership. It's an abrogation of responsibility. Senate Democrats know they have a good chance to slow down the process sufficiently to prevent the full chamber from voting on the nomination. Prospects are not good they will even try.

 

Share |

Good Timing

Note the date and time of this tweet from an MSNBC prime-time guy:

 

The WH hasn’t “bungled the response.” It has taken repeated steps to sabotage public health, lie about the virus, and promote its spread.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 9, 2020

That was 54 minutes before we learned from The New YorkTimes

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention drafted a sweeping order last month requiring all passengers and employees to wear masks on all forms of public and commercial transportation in the United States, but it was blocked by the White House, according to two federal health officials.

The order would have been the toughest federal mandate to date aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus, which continues to infect more than 40,000 Americans a day. The officials said that it was drafted under the agency’s “quarantine powers” and that it had the support of the secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, but the White House Coronavirus Task Force, led by Vice President Mike Pence, declined to even discuss it.

Since Donald Trump announced the travel ban from mainland China, approximately 255 days have passed. He still has uttered not one word of sympathy, nor has he expressed any empathy. for the 211,000 residents of the USA who have died, nor for their families.  And the "White House" refuses to require passengers and employees to wear masks on public and commercial transportation.

Chris Hayes' insight is exceeded only by his diplomacy. "Sabotage public health, lie about the virus, and promote its spread" could have been termed "kill people."

 

Share |

Ignoring GOP Court-Packing

Amy B. Wang of The Washington Post recognizes

Democratic nominee Joe Biden and running mate Kamala D. Harris are facing growing pressure to say whether they would “pack” the Supreme Court if the Republican-led Senate names Amy Coney Barrett to the bench.

Over the past few days, the question — from Republicans, debate moderators and reporters — has dogged the pair.

Melissa Quinn of CBS News writes

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris repeatedly dodged questions Wednesday on whether she and Joe Biden support adding more seats to the high court, a proposal that has gained traction among progressives in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last month.

When bad reporting is the order of the day, Politico cannot be far behind. Caitlan Oprysko claims

Sen. Kamala Harris on Wednesday pointedly ducked several questions about whether a Biden-Harris administration would try to “pack” the Supreme Court to dilute what could become a solid conservative majority on the court.

Of these three august pillars of the Fourth Estate, only one- CBS News- noted that the Constitution does not establish the number of justices to serve on the United States Supreme Court.

Two of the three organs- CBS News and Politico- did refer to Harris' remark

And do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is Black? This is what they've been doing. You want to talk about packing a court? Let's have that discussion.

The California senator stated also

And I've witnessed the appointments, for lifetime appointments to the federal courts, district courts, Courts of Appeal -- people who are purely ideological people who have been reviewed by legal professional organizations and found to be not competent, are substandard.

But "of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is black" is the money quote. 

Further, Harris' comment comes against a backdrop of more than a million people marching in the streets this past summer to protest racial injustice (albeit in policing). Yet President Trump appoints 50 people to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, none of them black, and the media demands to know why the Biden-Harris ticket won't renounce the court packing the Constitution is silent on.

Let that sink in.  Remember, too, if Donald Trump claims victory in November, that he was pursuing a deal for a Trump Tower in Russia while running for President in 2016, paid no income tax in 10 of the last 15 years, has roughly $400 million in unpaid debts, and all the while has the highest national security classification in the United States of America.

Then recall that in early October, the media did not ask why Donald Trump believes blacks are unqualified to be federal judges but was aghast that President Biden might even consider adding judges to the Supreme Court.  And we then would have one more big piece of the puzzle as to why the very embodiment of evil would still be President beyond January 20, 2021.

 

Share |

Fraud

This is quite right, though a little misleading:

Sooo young journos: this is what we call being a bad moderator. https://t.co/s7pw5a6xiq

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) October 8, 2020

Sooo young journos: this is what we call being a bad moderator. https://t.co/s7pw5a6xiq

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) October 8, 2020

Early in Susan Page's introduction to Wednesday's debate, the host stated Pence-Harris was "sponsored by the nonpartisan commission on presidential debates." It might have been better described as bi-partisan because it effectively excludes third party candidates. However, we don't know even that for sure, given that the debates are funded by hosting institutions and private contributions from foundations and corporations, and the identity of those latter entities never are disclosed.

It isn't as if Susan Page didn't ask a few good questions, among them being

- (to Harris) "Would (a Biden Administration) impose new lockdowns for businesses and schools and hotspots, a federal mandate to wear masks?"

- (to Pence) "Why is the US death toll, as a percentage of our population, higher than that of almost every other wealthy country?"

- (to Pence) "Have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with President Trump about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, do you think you should?"

- (to Harris) "Have you had a conversation or reached an agreement with Vice President Biden about safeguards or procedures when it comes to the issue of presidential disability? And if not, and if you win the election next month, do you think you should?"

- (to Harris) "Would raising taxes put the recovery at risk?

- (to Pence) "Do you believe as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter, and more deadly and have made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging?"

- (to Pence & Harris)  "How would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies?"

- (to Pence) "If Roe V Wade is overturned, what would you want Indiana to do? Would you want your home state to ban all abortions?"

- ("to Harris) "If Roe V Wade is overturned, what would you want California to do? Would you want your home state to enact no restrictions on access to abortion?"

The other questions (except one) weren't bad, either. However, if, as was the case in this "debate," the candidate asked the question is given two minutes to respond, he or she will take at least two minutes commenting about whatever the candidate wants to at that time. If one candidate- in this case, Mike Pence- consistently goes over the allotted time and disregards the signal ("Thank you, Vice President Pence") to stop, the debate becomes even more of a sham.

The primary problem is the format, which is ultimately determined by the Commission on Presidential Debates, perhaps devised to prevent either candidate from embarrassing himself by saying something consequential. But the moderator must be permitted to be more than a stenographer or someone passing along questions to the candidates. She needs not only to interrupt the candidates but also to ask follow-up questions. Otherwise, she might as well ask whether they- oh, I don't know- appreciate the children of this country. 

Wait- Susan Page did ask Mike Pence and Kamala Harris roughly that same thing, with the 13-year-old girl who asked why we "can't get along" together. Or maybe a long-time, professional journalist turning a portion of a debate over to an eighth-grader may have been a fitting end to an encounter more clearly worthless than the one we had to sit through between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Share |

China Gap

After decades of watching presidential and vice-presidential debates, I can't help but conclude that the Pence-Harris snoozefest in Utah was the worst ever of the lot. Susan Page asks a question and the respondents get two minutes to talk about whatever it is that's on their minds.

And of course there was Mike Pence's strategy of going over the time allotted, whether in his response to a question from Page or in the time he was given to react to Kamala Harris' answer.

Page concluded a question of Pence by asking "how would you describe our fundamental relationship with China? Competitors? Adversaries? Enemies? You have two minutes." (The last four words were not intended for comic relief.) She asked the same question of Harris, a difficult one for a ticket led by Donald Trump and one even more difficult for a Biden-Harris ticket.

Although President Trump has tried to make mainland China out to be an enemy- or at least wants to be perceived as doing so- it's difficult to label the third most powerful (and gaining) nation in the world an "enemy" or even an "adversary." It is far riskier than it was to blast the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Therefore, Pence did not do so. He led with "first and foremost, China is to blame for the coronavirus and President Trump is not happy about it," which is the Administration's all-purpose justification of the past seven months. (I know, I know: Trump's "we love each other" is not exactly throwing the gauntlet down.)

He skillfully avoided answering the question while invoking the word "China" eleven times- and in an upset, only twice after the first time Page told him that his time was up. In response to the same question from the moderator, Senator Harris stated

Susan, the Trump administration’s perspective and approach to China has resulted in the loss of American lives, American jobs, and America’s standing. There is a weird obsession that President Trump has had with getting rid of whatever accomplishment was achieved by President Obama and Vice President Biden. For example, they created within the White House and office that basically was responsible for monitoring pandemics. They got rid of it....

There was a team of disease experts that President Obama and Vice President Biden dispatched to China to monitor what is now predictable and what might happen. They pulled them out. We now are looking at 210,000 Americans who have lost their lives. Let’s look at the job situation. We mentioned before, the trade deal, the trade war, they wanted to call it with China. It resulted in the loss of over 300 manufacturing jobs and a manufacturing recession and the American consumer paid thousands of dollars, more for goods because of that failed war that they called it. Then let’s talk about standing. Pew, a reputable research firm has done an analysis that shows that leaders of all of our formerly allied countries have now decided that they hold in greater esteem and respect Xi Jinping the head of the Chinese communist party than they do Donald Trump. The President of the United States, the commander in chief of the United States. This is where we are today because of a failure of leadership by this administration.

This was an attempt to jam as many disparate things as possible into one answer. A tighter, better response would have been to emphasize that President Trump does not understand the world as it is and does not know how to make America strong. As David Frum (emphasis his) notes, Trump has thrown the hard-earned money of American taxpayers at the Pentagon, which on mainland China

seems to have had no effect at all. Ships and planes cannot protect democratic demonstrators in Hong Kong, or pressure China to crack down on North Korea, or stop Chinese cyberattacks on U.S. hospitals, or match China’s aid to resource-rich African countries. The two countries are just playing different games. When the United States accumulates weapons to win the game China is not playing, it does not prevent China from winning the game China is playing.

The ending could have been expanded to "when the United States accumulates weapons to win the game China is not playing, it does not prevent China from winning the game China is playing. We are losing on this president's watch."

I hope that Senator Harris didn't go that route because in a race her ticket appears to be winning, she figured any gamble is a bad bet.  But my fear is that while President Trump addresses problems with mainland China only in fits and spurts and largely ineffectively, the alternative of a Biden-Harris administration will be to have no answer at all.

 

Share |