Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

The Answer to Whether Trump Obstructed Justice Now Seems Clear to Jeffrey Toobin at the New Yorker:

 

Most white-collar prosecutions turn on the issue of criminal intent. These cases involve behavior that would, in ordinary circumstances, be totally legal—if not for the intent of the defendant. Consider, for example, the entrepreneur who sells stock in a company whose value goes down. If business conditions turn sour, or the competitive environment changes, the loss is simply part of the risks of capitalism. There’s no crime. But if the entrepreneur knows that his company has no value, or has lied about its assets, then he has committed fraud. Insider trading is another example. It’s only criminal to sell stock if you had improper knowledge of the status of the company. In both kinds of cases, the key question regards the defendant’s state of mind. That’s why lawyers refer to “intent cases”; the outcome turns solely on the motivation of the defendant.

 

The issue of whether President Trump obstructed justice centers on his decision to fire James Comey, the F.B.I. director, last May. This is a classic intent case. The President clearly had the right to fire Comey, but he did not have the right to do so with improper intent. Specifically, the relevant obstruction-of-justice statute holds that any individual who “corruptly . . . influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” is guilty of the crime. “Corruptly” is the key word. Did Trump act “corruptly” in firing Comey?

 

It is this question of corrupt intent that makes the Times’s recent blockbuster scoop so important. According to the article, the President tried to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel, last June, but he stopped when Don McGahn, the White House counsel, threatened to resign if Trump insisted on the dismissal. Trump apparently offered three justifications to fire Mueller—that Mueller had left one of Trump’s golf clubs in a dispute about dues; that Mueller’s former law firm had represented Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law; and that Trump had interviewed Mueller as a possible interim replacement for Comey as F.B.I. director. McGahn’s threat to resign shows that he saw these purported reasons as pretexts. The golf-dues matter was obviously trivial; the law firm’s representation of Kushner, which did not involve Mueller at all, could only have biased the special counsel in favor of the President’s family; and Trump’s willingness to interview Mueller for the F.B.I. position showed how much the President trusted Mueller, not that he believed the former F.B.I. director harbored any animosity toward him.

 

McGahn recognized the key fact—that Trump wanted to fire Mueller for the wrong reasons. Trump wanted to fire Mueller because his investigation was threatening to him. This, of course, also illuminates the reasons behind Trump’s firing of Comey, which took place just a month before the President’s confrontation with McGahn regarding Mueller. Trump and his advisers have offered various tortured rationalizations for the firing of Comey—initially, for example, on the ground that Comey had been unfair to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. Trump himself came clean in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and in a meeting with Russia’s foreign minister. In both, Trump acknowledged that he fired Comey to stall or stop the Russia investigation—that is, the investigation of Trump himself and his campaign.

 

This was an improper purpose, and McGahn clearly saw that the same improper purpose underlay Trump’s determination to fire Mueller. So McGahn issued the ultimatum that prompted the President to back down.

 

Mueller and his team surely have evidence on obstruction of justice that has not yet been made public. But even on the available evidence, Trump’s position looks perilous indeed. The portrait is of a President using every resource at his disposal to shut down an investigation—of Trump himself. And now it has become clear that Trump’s own White House counsel rebelled at the President’s rationale for his actions.

 

Abundant questions remain about Trump’s fate in the Mueller investigation. Can or will a sitting President be indicted? What, if anything, will the House of Representatives do with respect to its impeachment powers? In what forum and format will the public see the full range of the evidence against the President? But on perhaps the most important question of all—whether the President of the United States committed the crime of obstruction of justice—the answer now seems clear.

[y66]

What has two thumbs and created ISIS?

 

 

This guy:

 

Sorry if that is off-topic.

[PassedOut]

Donald Trump appears to misunderstand basic facts

 

When asked if he believed in the existence of climate change, however, Mr. Trump’s answer did not chime with the scientific consensus.

 

“There is a cooling, and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place,” he said.

Tillerson's description of Trump was right.

[kenberg]

From Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration by Alan S. Blinder, Mark W. Watson

 

NBER Working Paper No. 20324

 

 

 

I suspect that it takes some work to see just what to make of this paper in its entirety, but it has potential.

 

The claim that research means to search again suggests we look at a poem by Gene Weingarten in today's WaPo Magzine:

 

 

A medical researcher went to her shrink

 

And said that her co-workers all seem to think

 

That she is too literal, and that it's a flaw,

 

"At me they laugh and they grin and guffaw."

 

"And how do you feel?" he inquired of her.

 

"Why, through monoamine neurotransmitters, sir."

 

 

 

https://www.washingt...m=.9aee71c1ee22

[Winstonm]

The money quote from a new Atlantic article:

 

From both the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers, vast disclosures illuminating previously hidden offshore accounts of the rich and powerful worldwide, we can see the full extent to which corruption has become the master narrative of our times. We live in a world of smash-and-grab fortunes, amassed through political connections and outright theft. Paul Manafort, over the course of his career, was a great normalizer of corruption. The firm he created in the 1980s obliterated traditional concerns about conflicts of interest. It imported the ethos of the permanent campaign into lobbying and, therefore, into the construction of public policy.

 

And while Manafort is alleged to have laundered cash for his own benefit, his long history of laundering reputations is what truly sets him apart. He helped persuade the American political elite to look past the atrocities and heists of kleptocrats and goons. He took figures who should have never been permitted influence in Washington and softened their image just enough to guide them past the moral barriers to entry. He weakened the capital’s ethical immune system.

 

Helping elect Donald Trump, in so many ways, represents the culmination of Paul Manafort’s work. The president bears some likeness to the oligarchs Manafort long served: a businessman with a portfolio of shady deals, who benefited from a cozy relationship to government; a man whose urge to dominate, and to enrich himself, overwhelms any higher ideal. It wasn’t so long ago that Trump would have been decisively rejected as an alien incursion into the realm of public service. And while the cynicism about government that enabled Trump’s rise results from many causes, one of them is the slow transformation of Washington, D.C., into something more like the New Britain, Connecticut, of Paul Manafort’s youth.

[y66]

The bitcoin quote from a new Atlantic article:

fyp

[Winstonm]

:P

fyp

[kenberg]

The money quote from a new Atlantic article:

 

 

 

I am working my way through the article. It's interesting to see names pop up, Roger Stone for example, where I think oh yeah I seem to remember him. The history in this goes far beyond Manafort and I hope it gets picked up and thoroughly discussed.

 

One thing that this article makes clear to me, probably not its main purpose, is how totally unable I am to understand the world of power politics. I simply don't think that way, I never have. I am not claiming moral superiority here, I think it is in fact more substantial than that. It's as if the people engaged in this are a different species. I could no more become like them than I could become a frog.

[rmnka447]

Your statistics are overlooking the fact that President Obama was handed an economy that was on the precipice of failure. In October 2007 - January 2009 -- Let the record show:

• Washington Mutual Bank failed (largest savings and thrift) and was acquired by Chase Bank in fire sale.
  
• Lehman Brothers failed.
  
• Indymac Bank failed and was put into FDIC receivorship. It was the 4th largest bank failure in U.S. history.
  
• Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America to avoid bankruptcy.
  
• Wachovia Bank was acquired by Wells Fargo to avoid a ruinous bank failure.
  
• The FDIC fund was practically drained dry and was wheeling and dealing with big banks to avoid having to finance another big bank failure to prevent its own insolvency.
  
• The U.S. Treasury guaranteed ALL money market funds from September 2008 to September 2009 to reduce the enormous amounts of capital flight occurring in the capital markets.
  
• AIG, the largest insurer of credit default swaps, was bailed out to avoid bankruptcy -- especially since $3.6 trillion of the money market fund industry was invested in AIG debt.
  
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into federal conservatorship to further reduce market panic.
  
• Citibank was loaned billions of dollars by the federal government to avoid bank failure.
  

Exactly how many years should a President be allowed to get the economy back on track given THESE type of cataclysmic events occurring before his Presidency?

 

Some place between 6 months and forever? You raise a very good question. I think if you want to claim that it took the full 8 years of the Obama administration that would be too long. But it would be also be unfair to expect a full recovery and be back on an even keel in a year or two. If you want to set that period at 3 or 4 years I have no problem with that.

 

But there's a problem with the way some pundits wax on about the economy. When their person is in charge, good economic news is always portrayed as the result of that person's effort. But when a switch occurs and the opposition gets in, any good news isn't portrayed as the result of the person in charge, but a carryover from the previous administration under their person. That's trying to have it both ways and basically being dishonest.

[Winstonm]

Some place between 6 months and forever? You raise a very good question. I think if you want to claim that it took the full 8 years of the Obama administration that would be too long. But it would be also be unfair to expect a full recovery and be back on an even keel in a year or two. If you want to set that period at 3 or 4 years I have no problem with that.

 

But there's a problem with the way some pundits wax on about the economy. When their person is in charge, good economic news is always portrayed as the result of that person's effort. But when a switch occurs and the opposition gets in, any good news isn't portrayed as the result of the person in charge, but a carryover from the previous administration under their person. That's trying to have it both ways and basically being dishonest.

 

On the length of time for a recovery, Japan's lost decade is a better gauge of how long it takes to overcome such a vast collapse.

 

The Lost Decade or the Lost 10 Years (失われた十年 Ushinawareta Jūnen) is a period of economic stagnation in Japan following the Japanese asset price bubble's collapse in late 1991 and early 1992. The term originally referred to the years from 1991 to 2000,[1] but recently the decade from 2001 to 2010 is often included,[2] so that the whole period is referred to as the Lost Score or the Lost 20 Years (失われた二十年, Ushinawareta Nijūnen). Broadly impacting the entire Japanese economy, over the period of 1995 to 2007, GDP fell from $5.33 to $4.36 trillion in nominal terms,[3] real wages fell around 5%,[4] while the country experienced a stagnant price level.[5] While there is some debate on the extent and measurement of Japan's setbacks,[6][7] the economic effect of the Lost Decade is well established and Japanese policymakers continue to grapple with its consequences. It took longer to recover from the impact of these events because the conditions imposed by the new environment were not favorable to the Japanese management style at that time.

[Al_U_Card]

On the length of time for a recovery, Japan's lost decade is a better gauge of how long it takes to overcome such a vast collapse.

And they used QE to re-inflate the Nikkei (from 30k+ it fell to less than 15k and is now finally back over 20k) A template for current US fiscal policy.

[y66]

From Take Trump's Immigration Plan Seriously. His proposal is flawed but could be a step in the right direction. by the editors at Bloomberg:

 

President Donald Trump has done something that has eluded the Republican Party for nearly a decade: He has outlined the possibility of broad immigration reform.

 

Trump's immigration framework is far from perfect. But the fact that it is being criticized by the extreme wing of his party should be taken as a sign of hope that we may just have a basis for bipartisan discussion. For this reason, Democrats should treat the proposal with more seriousness (and less derision) than they have to date.

 

To be sure, there's plenty wrong with Trump's framework -- his insistence on wasting $25 billion for a wall system, in particular, and the veiled curbs on asylum. But in other ways the plan is an advance. For the Dreamers, anything less than a path to citizenship would be deeply unfair. And, in principle, it makes good economic sense, as Trump proposes, to replace the U.S. emphasis on family reunification with rules addressed to shortages of labor.

I hope Mr. Trump reads this.

[kenberg]

From Take Trump's Immigration Plan Seriously. His proposal is flawed but could be a step in the right direction. by the editors at Bloomberg:

 

 

I hope Mr. Trump reads this.

 

I hope so too, and there have been other expressions of support for a constructive discussion. Donald Trump has trouble with subtle discussion. Everything is either bigly great or the worst deal ever. Even in our polarized times he stands out, and he has advisers that have little interest in working together with anyone. But they don't control everything so maybe there is hope.

 

I offer a couple of basic thoughts.

 

Legal immigration and illegal immigration should be treated differently. This doesn't mean we have to go on a round-em-up rampage, but it should not be a surprise that those who come here illegally are less secure than those who came here legally.

 

On balance, immigration is good and in fact probably necessary.

 

Sometimes we allow immigrants in because they need a place of refuge, sometimes we allow immigrants in because they have skills that we need. Both are legitimate, but we should be clear about when we are doing what. Of course often they need a place of refuge and after achieving this, they contribute to society and sometimes, definitely more than just occasionally, they make major contributions.

 

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” has always been a romanticized version of what we were doing. My father came as a ten year old with his 16 year old brother in 1910. I don't know that they were a huddled mass yearning to be free but they certainly were looking for a better life. Let's just try to keep our idealistic sentiments under control when designing policy. "A nation of immigrants"? Well, I was born here. I understand what is meant, but still it is idealism instead of realism. How about simply acknowledging that immigration has played a strong positive role in the development of the country? That's pretty hard to disagree with.

 

Oh. Another thought. I don't think most Norwegians are particularly interested in coming here. Many did, but times change. If I am wrong about this, fine, I have Norwegian genes and I welcome them. But I am not expecting a flood.

[barmar]

I do not know all of the details of the referenced case. We have laws to enforce contracts. If the contract was valid, the individual has recourse through the courts. Did he avail himself of the rememdy?

I don't know. Possibly not, since the legal system is expensive, and Trump undoubtedly could afford better lawyers than he could.

 

But from what I've read, this was not an isolated example. It's just the only one I remember the specifics of. But read the history of how he ran his Atlantic City casino businesses, it was full of shenanigans (yet he still managed to be one of the few moguls who couldn't make money from a casino).

[jjbrr]

"Very few US adults report receiving bonuses or raises from the Republican tax law" seems one of the most predictable headlines in human journalism history.

[Winstonm]

Oh, what a tangled web

 

Trump Tower Russian Lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, Exposed in Swiss Corruption Case

[rmnka447]

"Very few US adults report receiving bonuses or raises from the Republican tax law" seems one of the most predictable headlines in human journalism history.

 

Isn't it something like 200+ companies and approximately 3 M+ plus people who are getting "bonuses"? But I guess from some people's filters of reality that qualifies as very few people. Most of these announcements are from fairly large companies. There may be smaller companies taking similar actions that aren't receiving any publicity at all.

 

Just remember that these payments are being made just as the new tax laws are kicking in. That doesn't preclude any of these companies from taking further actions to improve employees compensation and/or benefits as the full effect of the tax laws are felt.

 

So tell me how many progressives voted for any tax cuts at all for everyday people?

[jjbrr]

If the workforce is 160M people, that's 2%. Much better than the 1% the bill was designed to benefit, I suppose.

[Winstonm]

Bloomberg reports:

 

Kelly held separate meetings or phone calls with senior Justice Department officials last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to convey Trump’s displeasure and lecture them on the White House’s expectations, according to the people. Kelly has taken to ending such conversations with a disclaimer that the White House isn’t expecting officials to do anything illegal or unethical.

 

After Trump’s strong reaction on Air Force One over the Boyd letter, White House officials, including Kelly, sprang into action again, lashing Justice Department officials Thursday over the decision to send the letter, according to the people. Sarah Isgur Flores, director of public affairs at the Department of Justice, declined to comment.

 

Isn't this classic obstruction of justice - trying to influence an ongoing investigation?

[jjbrr]

Doesn't matter, that magic Я

[RedSpawn]

Did you think Mexico was going to write a check? Given the trade flows and money flows between the US and Mexico I would imagine there are a number of ways that Mexico might eventually pay for the wall. Perhaps as a concession to keep NAFTA in place? Perhaps by imposing tariffs on Mexican imports. Perhaps by providing incentives for more companies to return from Mexico to the US, causing a $25 billion swing in the trade deficit with Mexico? Lots of possibilities if you don't insist on Mexico writing a check before construction begins.

This sounds like a John Q. Taxpayer-financed wall UNLESS and UNTIL we find a way to get Mexico to pay for it (indirectly).

 

Brand marketing matters, but this is not how it was presented during the Presidential campaign.

[RedSpawn]

I hope so too, and there have been other expressions of support for a constructive discussion. Donald Trump has trouble with subtle discussion. Everything is either bigly great or the worst deal ever. Even in our polarized times he stands out, and he has advisers that have little interest in working together with anyone. But they don't control everything so maybe there is hope.

 

I offer a couple of basic thoughts.

 

Legal immigration and illegal immigration should be treated differently. This doesn't mean we have to go on a round-em-up rampage, but it should not be a surprise that those who come here illegally are less secure than those who came here legally.

 

On balance, immigration is good and in fact probably necessary.

 

Sometimes we allow immigrants in because they need a place of refuge, sometimes we allow immigrants in because they have skills that we need. Both are legitimate, but we should be clear about when we are doing what. Of course often they need a place of refuge and after achieving this, they contribute to society and sometimes, definitely more than just occasionally, they make major contributions.

 

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” has always been a romanticized version of what we were doing. My father came as a ten year old with his 16 year old brother in 1910. I don't know that they were a huddled mass yearning to be free but they certainly were looking for a better life. Let's just try to keep our idealistic sentiments under control when designing policy. "A nation of immigrants"? Well, I was born here. I understand what is meant, but still it is idealism instead of realism. How about simply acknowledging that immigration has played a strong positive role in the development of the country? That's pretty hard to disagree with.

 

Oh. Another thought. I don't think most Norwegians are particularly interested in coming here. Many did, but times change. If I am wrong about this, fine, I have Norwegian genes and I welcome them. But I am not expecting a flood.

The United States is built on a growth economy such that we would like each generation to be slightly larger than the last. If you look at the mortality issues in America, we are not birthing enough babies.

 

So it just so happens that we have immigration of people with higher fertility rates such as Hispanics to help counter this problem.

 

[Al_U_Card]

This sounds like a John Q. Taxpayer-financed wall UNLESS and UNTIL we find a way to get Mexico to pay for it (indirectly).

 

Brand marketing matters, but this is not how it was presented during the Presidential campaign.

Could it qualify as an infrastructure project? Financing grandiose projects is a Trump specialty, no? Trump National Border? ;)

[PassedOut]

So tell me how many progressives voted for any tax cuts at all for everyday people?

With a debt of $20 trillion and full employment, only irresponsible people imagine that the new tax cut is a good idea. In contrast, the Obama tax cuts put money into the hands of working people after the 2008 crash, and were a temporary measure.

[Winstonm]

Krompromat, anyone?

“Today, we have informed Congress that this legislation and its implementation are deterring Russian defense sales,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. “Since the enactment of the ... legislation, we estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions.”

 

With the statement, President Donald Trump’s administration signaled it was not imposing new sanctions under a bill he reluctantly signed into law in August, just six months into his presidency.