Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

Do you think Hillary would have been absolved had she taken the advice to acknowledge her mistake?

 

I think it would have helped. When the issue first arose, long before October, she could have acknowledged error and made sure all errors were covered. When it re-surfaced in October, that might have been too late. The opportunity had passed her by.

 

As I said, you cannot stop crazies from being crazy. But most people are not crazy.

I am a little reluctant to get far into the 2016 email issue, it was not me that brought it up, but imagine that in late October or whenever it was there was a claim that some emails had not been examined. Now imagine that within one hour of that claim, HC could have said "The emails you are speaking of were fully disclosed along with all of my other emails. They were all available, all of them together, there are no undisclosed emails anywhere".

 

I really do not recall the details, but I think that was not what happened. The problem arose when in the course of different investigation involving some sort of computer sex stuff of her aide's spouse out popped these emails. You do not want new emails coming out and you definitely do not want them coming out in this manner.

 

A quick look at Wikipedia produces:

 

In early October 2016, FBI criminal investigators working on a case involving former Congressman Anthony Weiner allegedly sending sexually explicit texts to a fifteen-year-old girl discovered emails from Weiner's estranged wife, Huma Abedin, vice chair of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, that they considered potentially relevant to the Clinton server investigation. FBI officials reportedly decided to disclose the development despite its potential effect on the pending presidential election to preempt the possibility that it would be leaked in another way.

 

This suggests my memory is approximately right.

 

So the crazies might think this relates to the child sex ring HC was running. Non-crazies look at what happened and say "Can't she do something right? Turning over emails is not a highly difficult task, she should have been able to get this right". Add to this the fact that suddenly her name and Anthony Weiner's name are in the same story.

 

And then look and see that her support fell sharply after this.

 

I see a connection.

 

So only a crazy thinks she was running a sex ring. Others, not at all crazy, might question her judgment and her ability to kill a problem so that it stays dead.

 

Ok, history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think there are lessons to be learned.

 

HC and supporters are very good at explaining how unfair it was that she lost. I hope for a different ending in 2020. Complain about unfairness or learn a lesson, that's always a choice.

[y66]

From Brent Kendall and Byron Tau at WSJ March 10, 2021 1:41 PM ET:

 

WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Congress can have access to grand-jury materials from Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, sided with the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, which sought access to material that was redacted from the 448-page special counsel report. as well as some of the exhibits and transcripts referenced in the report.

 

The report was the culmination of Mr. Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump or his associates were connected with that interference.

 

Mr. Mueller didn’t find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to bring such charges and said he couldn’t exonerate Mr. Trump of obstructing the probe. Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee previously said they needed the underlying Mueller materials to evaluate whether Mr. Trump committed an impeachable offense in the course of the investigation.

 

The appeals court, in an opinion by Judge Judith Rogers, said the committee had established that it had a valid need for the information, especially because Mr. Mueller stopped short of making conclusions about Mr. Trump’s conduct, in part to avoid pre-empting the House from doing so.

 

“The committee has established that it cannot fairly and diligently make a final determination about the conduct described in both volumes of the Mueller Report without the grand jury material referenced therein,” wrote Judge Rogers, who was joined in the majority by Judge Thomas Griffith.

 

Judge Griffith wrote the appeals court’s recent ruling against the Judiciary Committee that declined to enforce Democrats’ subpoena for testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn. The judge on Tuesday said the fight over the grand-jury materials involved different issues that gave the House the upper hand.

 

In dissent, Judge Neomi Rao said it wasn’t clear that the committee could still show that it needed the materials, given that the House already impeached the president and the Senate acquitted him. Judge Rao also maintained that the Judiciary Committee didn’t have standing to obtain a court order requiring the Justice Department to turn over the grand jury materials.

 

For Congress, the ruling is a narrow victory that affirms the legislature’s ability to receive evidence collected as part of criminal investigations to use as part of potential impeachment proceedings.

 

It is unlikely to have a significant impact on the majority of congressional oversight disputes, which don’t involve criminal information or impeachment proceedings.

 

“We are reviewing the decision,” said a spokeswoman for the Justice Department.

 

Tuesday’s decision echoes a precedent from 1974 when the chief judge of the Washington, D.C. federal court transmitted a report of grand-jury material to the House as part of its inquiry into whether President Nixon should be impeached.

 

The current court fight was sparked by a dispute between the Justice Department and Congress over the evidence collected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation using a grand jury, a typically secret process designed to keep investigative details from being revealed publicly.

 

The department claimed that it couldn’t disclose the materials to Congress under the federal rules governing the secrecy of grand-jury material, while Congress said that the law provided for exemptions for a judicial proceeding. It argued that its impeachment investigation qualified as such a proceeding, and that it needed the materials as part of the investigation.

 

The Justice Department earlier turned over a version of the Mueller report to Congress that revealed some of the sensitive information it had redacted from the public version of the report, but it has refused to provide any material obtained by a grand jury, citing the longstanding precedent that grand-jury investigations are by law secret.

 

The appeals court’s decision is the second Mueller-related case to be addressed by the federal courts in recent days. In a separate lawsuit brought by journalists and transparency activists, Judge Reggie Walton said last week that he would review the redactions made to the Mueller report—opening the door to making more of the report public in the coming months.

[Winstonm]

From Brent Kendall and Byron Tau at WSJ March 10, 2021 1:41 PM ET:

And now it will go to the SCOTUS, which is a big deal decision. We will find out how corrupted that court has become.

[Winstonm]

 

I think it would have helped. When the issue first arose, long before October, she could have acknowledged error and made sure all errors were covered. When it re-surfaced in October, that might have been too late. The opportunity had passed her by.

 

As I said, you cannot stop crazies from being crazy. But most people are not crazy.

I am a little reluctant to get far into the 2016 email issue, it was not me that brought it up, but imagine that in late October or whenever it was there was a claim that some emails had not been examined. Now imagine that within one hour of that claim, HC could have said "The emails you are speaking of were fully disclosed along with all of my other emails. They were all available, all of them together, there are no undisclosed emails anywhere".

 

I really do not recall the details, but I think that was not what happened. The problem arose when in the course of different investigation involving some sort of computer sex stuff of her aide's spouse out popped these emails. You do not want new emails coming out and you definitely do not want them coming out in this manner.

 

A quick look at Wikipedia produces:

 

[/font][/color]

 

This suggests my memory is approximately right.

 

So the crazies might think this relates to the child sex ring HC was running. Non-crazies look at what happened and say "Can't she do something right? Turning over emails is not a highly difficult task, she should have been able to get this right". Add to this the fact that suddenly her name and Anthony Weiner's name are in the same story.

 

And then look and see that her support fell sharply after this.

 

I see a connection.

 

So only a crazy thinks she was running a sex ring. Others, not at all crazy, might question her judgment and her ability to kill a problem so that it stays dead.

 

Ok, history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think there are lessons to be learned.

 

HC and supporters are very good at explaining how unfair it was that she lost. I hope for a different ending in 2020. Complain about unfairness or learn a lesson, that's always a choice.

 

I think that is reasonable. I don't know why it was so hard for Hillary to say she made a mistake in judgement.

[awm]

I think that is reasonable. I don't know why it was so hard for Hillary to say she made a mistake in judgement.

 

She did apologize. When the media has decided on a narrative, they are loathe to give it up regardless of the facts.

[cherdano]

I think it would have helped. When the issue first arose, long before October, she could have acknowledged error and made sure all errors were covered. When it re-surfaced in October, that might have been too late. The opportunity had passed her by.

Except that she did apologise. Over and over again. Starting in September 2015.

 

Moreover, she did have her lawyers turn over all work-related emails to the state department. That was early/mid 2015. That's all she can do - she cannot turn over state department emails to the public on her own, that's not her decision.

 

Non-crazies look at what happened and say "Can't she do something right? Turning over emails is not a highly difficult task, she should have been able to get this right".

You are proving my point. She did turn over all her emails, yet somehow Ken Berg is convinced that she didn't. I am not aware of any evidence that the Weiner emails were not emails the FBI had already seen. But in Ken Berg's mind they are, "proving" it was Hillary's fault for not "putting this issue away".

 

Obviously, it's is pointless to argue about 2016. Except I am 100% convinced it will repeat itself. There will be an "issue" dominating news coverage about the 2020 Democratic nominee. And somehow, the Democratic candidate will be unable to put the issue away. Just proving a lack of judgement on their side, because if only they had done X or Y or Z, the issue would have gone away.

And the same will happen in 2024. And in 2028. And in 2032. And at some point, some voters, and perhaps even some journalists, will learn that just because an issue doesn't "go away" doesn't prove that there is merit to the topic. That you actually have to look at the merits yourself, and not just treat is as an issue because everyone else treats it as an issue. Because if you do that, you cede your agenda to Fox news and twitter trolls.

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18004478/hack-gap-explained

[Winstonm]

Except that she did apologise. Over and over again. Starting in September 2015.

 

Moreover, she did have her lawyers turn over all work-related emails to the state department. That was early/mid 2015. That's all she can do - she cannot turn over state department emails to the public on her own, that's not her decision.

 

 

You are proving my point. She did turn over all her emails, yet somehow Ken Berg is convinced that she didn't. I am not aware of any evidence that the Weiner emails were not emails the FBI had already seen. But in Ken Berg's mind they are, "proving" it was Hillary's fault for not "putting this issue away".

 

Obviously, it's is pointless to argue about 2016. Except I am 100% convinced it will repeat itself. There will be an "issue" dominating news coverage about the 2020 Democratic nominee. And somehow, the Democratic candidate will be unable to put the issue away. Just proving a lack of judgement on their side, because if only they had done X or Y or Z, the issue would have gone away.

And the same will happen in 2024. And in 2028. And in 2032. And at some point, some voters, and perhaps even some journalists, will learn that just because an issue doesn't "go away" doesn't prove that there is merit to the topic. That you actually have to look at the merits yourself, and not just treat is as an issue because everyone else treats it as an issue. Because if you do that, you cede your agenda to Fox news and twitter trolls.

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18004478/hack-gap-explained

 

Many years ago a superb car salesman friend of mine told me that you can say anything to anyone as long as you smile. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton did not have the reputation of joking around, while everyone knows Trump IS a joke, so nothing he says can be taken seriously.

[kenberg]

I will re-phrase. I suggest the JB crew, assuming he is nominated, give some serious thought to the HC email disaster. If, after giving it serious thought, they decide that HC did absolutely the best she could, that there was nothing else she could have done, then I suggest they go back and think some more.

 

And now, Tuesday evening, I think we can delete "assuming".

[y66]

I will just add that if Clinton had taken some of kenberg's advice in 2016, this thread would have ended 3+ years ago. Lame apologies and coming clean are not the same thing.

[helene_t]

I suggest the JB crew, assuming he is nominated, give some serious thought to the HC email disaster. If, after giving it serious thought, they decide that HC did absolutely the best she could, that there was nothing else she could have done, then I suggest they go back and think some more.

Yeah but what could she have done? Avoid the issue? Refuse to apology? Apology even more? Blame someone else? Give some non-apology? "Yes it was a mistake but compared to the fact that Trump did this and this and this it was trivial?"

 

Winston is probably right that HC was just held to much higher standards than Trump. So is the solution to somehow (magically?) avoid being held to high standards?

[y66]

She could have called Richard Haynes.

[kenberg]

I gather Biden is all but anointed. I can't say that I am exactly ecstatic, but I think he was the best choice. Well, probably I hope maybe the best choice. I'll have a talk with myself and perhaps get more inspired. Ecstasy is not needed but inspired would be nice.

[y66]

“This is an opportunity that you just don’t see very often in politics. ... We have a chance to run the table in November,” James Carville says on Today, Explained at Vox.

[Zelandakh]

I gather Biden is all but anointed. I can't say that I am exactly ecstatic, but I think he was the best choice. Well, probably I hope maybe the best choice. I'll have a talk with myself and perhaps get more inspired. Ecstasy is not needed but inspired would be nice.

If you think you are uninspired now, Ken, wait until the real campaign starts. It is going to be a precise re-run of 2016, complete with manufactured smears, voter suppression, Russian interference, open racism/ableism/religious intolerance and lots and lots of "Us against the politicians". As elections get tighter, campaigns pretty much always get dirtier. And 2020 is highly likely to be a close election. Expect to be generally demoralised about the whole political process come November.

[kenberg]

If you think you are uninspired now, Ken, wait until the real campaign starts. It is going to be a precise re-run of 2016, complete with manufactured smears, voter suppression, Russian interference, open racism/ableism/religious intolerance and lots and lots of "Us against the politicians". As elections get tighter, campaigns pretty much always get dirtier. And 2020 is highly likely to be a close election. Expect to be generally demoralised about the whole political process come November.

 

Just the sort of cheering up I was looking for! Most unfortunately, I suspect that you are right. So open another bottle of wine and deal the cards.

[Winstonm]

“This is an opportunity that you just don’t see very often in politics. ... We have a chance to run the table in November,” James Carville says on Today, Explained at Vox.

 

That reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day. My idea was that the Republican party has evolved into a coalition of extremists, each small group with their own personal agenda but held together by a contempt for anyone who disagrees or threatens those individual agendas, be it gun rights, abortion, small government, white privilege, Christianity, yada, yada, yadi. That is why they are so difficult to defeat as it is personal with them, and they go vote, and they vote as a block. Chipping away at the core of that voting block won't be easy, but steering people toward better sources of information would go a long way in that mission.

 

It\s not who is John Galt? It's where is Walter Cronkite?

[johnu]

Who could have guessed?

 

Exclusive: White House told federal health agency to classify coronavirus deliberations - sources

 

The White House has ordered federal health officials to treat top-level coronavirus meetings as classified, an unusual step that has restricted information and hampered the U.S. government’s response to the contagion, according to four Trump administration officials.

 

Staffers without security clearances, including government experts, were excluded from the interagency meetings, which included video conference calls, the sources said.

 

“We had some very critical people who did not have security clearances who could not go,” one official said. “These should not be classified meetings. It was unnecessary.”

 

The sources said the National Security Council (NSC), which advises the president on security issues, ordered the classification.“This came directly from the White House,” one official said.

 

So they excluded government experts who may have had critical insight in solving the COVID 19 problem from to secret meetings? I feel safer already.

 

I also approve of the Manchurian President not allowing people to leave infected cruise ships to be treated in US hospitals. Each infected person adding to the virus statistics would be a stain on the political record of Putin's Puppet, which by extension, would be a stain on America. MAGA!

[y66]

From The Democrats Aren't in the Mood for Your Revolution by Michelle Cottle at NYT:

 

Mr. Biden has been happy to position himself as a caretaker. “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” he told a crowd in Detroit on Monday, in an appearance alongside his former primary rivals Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw standing behind me,” he said. “They are the future of this country.”

 

This primary season is not over, but the math is grim for Mr. Sanders. Andrew Yang, who ended his presidential run last month, noted as much when, not long after Michigan was called, he offered his official endorsement of Mr. Biden while doing on-air commentary for CNN. Much of the night’s commentary, in fact, revolved around the assumption that Mr. Biden would secure the nomination and speculation as to how he could stitch together the party’s feuding factions.

 

Many Democrats are understandably nervous. Mr. Sanders has never been an especially gracious competitor. Belligerence is central to his brand, and he is a master practitioner of grievance politics, rallying disaffected voters around the message that the system is hopelessly rigged against them — and him.

 

Since the race turned against him, Mr. Sanders has been busy blaming everyone else for his troubles: the media, young voters and, most pointedly, the Democratic establishment. When the voters of South Carolina saved Mr. Biden’s candidacy, Mr. Sanders’s first impulse was to complain that “the establishment” had conspired to bring him down. That was also his second, third and fourth impulses.

 

That did not sit well with many black leaders and voters, who Mr. Sanders seemed to be implying had been snookered or brainwashed. Some of his more animated supporters took an even nastier tone on social media. As an outreach strategy, it was, um, counterintuitive.

 

Mr. Biden recognizes the challenge now before him, as was evident when he spoke to staff members and supporters in Philadelphia a little before 11 p.m. on Tuesday. Unlike the euphoria displayed on Super Tuesday, the candidate’s tone was subdued. This may have been in part a nod to the coronavirus crisis. He opened by mentioning the canceled rally in Ohio. But he also clearly grasped that this was no time to gloat. The closer he comes to clinching the nomination, the more he must think about how to bring at least a portion of Mr. Sanders’s supporters along with him. On Tuesday night, he was in extend-an-olive-branch mode, with much talk of unity and healing.

 

“We need you, we want you, there’s a place in our campaign for each of you,” he coaxed any and all listeners. He explicitly thanked Mr. Sanders and his supporters for all their hard work and passion, stressing that they all “share a common goal” and that “together we’ll defeat Donald Trump.”

 

He ticked through a handful of policy aims, from expanding health care coverage to bringing the N.R.A. to heel. But even that was in the service of his message of unification. “There’s not a single thing we cannot do if we do it together,” he proclaimed. It was a speech meant to comfort more than to electrify.

 

Mr. Biden has never been the most exciting choice in this race. But that is kind of the point.

Gretchen Whitmer? That's a name we may hear more often.

[y66]

From The Democrats Aren't in the Mood for Your Revolution by Michelle Cottle at NYT:

 

Mr. Biden has been happy to position himself as a caretaker. “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” he told a crowd in Detroit on Monday, in an appearance alongside his former primary rivals Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw standing behind me,” he said. “They are the future of this country.”

 

This primary season is not over, but the math is grim for Mr. Sanders. Andrew Yang, who ended his presidential run last month, noted as much when, not long after Michigan was called, he offered his official endorsement of Mr. Biden while doing on-air commentary for CNN. Much of the night’s commentary, in fact, revolved around the assumption that Mr. Biden would secure the nomination and speculation as to how he could stitch together the party’s feuding factions.

 

Many Democrats are understandably nervous. Mr. Sanders has never been an especially gracious competitor. Belligerence is central to his brand, and he is a master practitioner of grievance politics, rallying disaffected voters around the message that the system is hopelessly rigged against them — and him.

 

Since the race turned against him, Mr. Sanders has been busy blaming everyone else for his troubles: the media, young voters and, most pointedly, the Democratic establishment. When the voters of South Carolina saved Mr. Biden’s candidacy, Mr. Sanders’s first impulse was to complain that “the establishment” had conspired to bring him down. That was also his second, third and fourth impulses.

 

That did not sit well with many black leaders and voters, who Mr. Sanders seemed to be implying had been snookered or brainwashed. Some of his more animated supporters took an even nastier tone on social media. As an outreach strategy, it was, um, counterintuitive.

 

Mr. Biden recognizes the challenge now before him, as was evident when he spoke to staff members and supporters in Philadelphia a little before 11 p.m. on Tuesday. Unlike the euphoria displayed on Super Tuesday, the candidate’s tone was subdued. This may have been in part a nod to the coronavirus crisis. He opened by mentioning the canceled rally in Ohio. But he also clearly grasped that this was no time to gloat. The closer he comes to clinching the nomination, the more he must think about how to bring at least a portion of Mr. Sanders’s supporters along with him. On Tuesday night, he was in extend-an-olive-branch mode, with much talk of unity and healing.

 

“We need you, we want you, there’s a place in our campaign for each of you,” he coaxed any and all listeners. He explicitly thanked Mr. Sanders and his supporters for all their hard work and passion, stressing that they all “share a common goal” and that “together we’ll defeat Donald Trump.”

 

He ticked through a handful of policy aims, from expanding health care coverage to bringing the N.R.A. to heel. But even that was in the service of his message of unification. “There’s not a single thing we cannot do if we do it together,” he proclaimed. It was a speech meant to comfort more than to electrify.

 

Mr. Biden has never been the most exciting choice in this race. But that is kind of the point.

Gretchen Whitmer? That's a name we may hear more often.

[shyams]

From The Democrats Aren't in the Mood for Your Revolution by Michelle Cottle at NYT:

 

I am not American and I have no say (or substantial interest) in your country's elections. However, I strongly feel that Biden as Democratic nominee will definitely ensure the reelection of Trump in November.

 

The only thing that can derail that outcome is the potential disaster from Coronavirus. Given the misery such an event will bring, I will pray for no disaster even if it means 8 years of Trump.

 

PS: Does anyone watch Rising with Krystal and Saagar on YouTube? I have recently begun watching their daily shows and I must say they sound refreshingly different from mainstream media.

[johnu]

I am not American and I have no say (or substantial interest) in your country's elections. However, I strongly feel that Biden as Democratic nominee will definitely ensure the reelection of Trump in November.

Really? Who do you feel the Democrats should have nominated who would have been the strongest candidate? I liked Warren, but the polls have said that Biden had the best polling numbers for various reasons.

[Zelandakh]

Really? Who do you feel the Democrats should have nominated who would have been the strongest candidate? I liked Warren, but the polls have said that Biden had the best polling numbers for various reasons.

I think both Buttigieg and Klobuchar would, after getting past the name recognition issue, have had at least as much appeal to moderate Republicans as Biden, albeit to somewhat different portions of the population. Their issue was not one of electability so much as not connecting with the African-American demographic. And you cannot become the Democratic nomination without that key support. Biden's association with Obama plays very well to Dems; not so much with Reps, particularly the borderline racist working class voters that Biden will need to beat dodgy Donald.

 

Most of all, DJT got elected primarily because he is seen as someone not from the inner establishment of the political class in the way that Clinton was. Biden is about as establishment as you could get in the Dem field of nominees. As I posted before, once we get into the campaign proper it is going to be cast into an "Us against the political establishment" light. And you won't be able to watch TV for more than 15 minutes without hearing either Burisma or Ukraine mentioned somewhere. When the campaign turns ugly, and it will, Biden's team are either going to have to react negatively, in which case the charge that he is "not really nice at all, just a typical politician" will easily stick, or do a Dukakis and be accused of being a walkover, which is already the impression from many after the Dem debates.

 

The truth is that while Biden's numbers look good out of the door, just as did HC's, it is extremely easy to see how to campaign effectively against him for a candidate like DJT. One can hope that the American people are sensible enough to see that this is not someone that you want in the WH for a full 8 years - 4 years to send a message and shake the system up a bit is plenty! - but so far the evidence for that being the case is slim. My estimate for re-election at this point is well over 50% and I suspect that is the case for almost all unbiased observers.

[thepossum]

Like a few others above, I am not an American, so feel eminently qualified to offer the following opinion

 

I can't see any result other than a Trump victory later in the year

[Winstonm]

Minutes after President Donald Trump delivered a major address Wednesday night on the US response to the novel coronavirus, his own administration and other US officials publicly contradicted three important claims from his speech.

 

Trump and the officials quickly walked back his nationally televised statements that 1) the administration would ban all travel from Europe to the US, 2) the ban would also apply to trade and cargo between the US and Europe, and 3) major health insurers would waive co-pays on coronavirus treatment.

 

Fortunately, we are being led off the cliff by a very stable genius who knows more than the experts about everything.

[shyams]

 

Fortunately, we are being led off the cliff by a very stable genius who knows more than the experts about everything.

I suspect Mr. Trump misspoke with regards to (2) --- I guess the written text included the work NOT apply and he simply misread the text.

 

With regards to (1), the clarifications from the US administration are clear. All EU travel (excluding UK) are banned. Ireland (not part of Schengen) is not banned --- which the speech did not clarify. But, he was not wrong in essence when he said all EU travel is banned.