Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Newsweek Really, Really, REALLY Needs to Retract THIS Statement

Updated  | Why did FBI Director James Comey shock Washington on Friday with an announcement that the FBI “has learned of the existence of emails” related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and what does it mean?

The truth is Comey didn’t have a choice. Because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true.

Why FBI Director Made Clinton Email Announcement Now, Michele Gorman and Matthew Cooper, Newsweek, Oct. 28 at 2:40 p.m.

Under oath Comey had stated that the bureau had completed its review. Once he learned that there were new emails that required examination, Comey had to notify Congress that he had to amend his testimony because it was no longer true?

WOW.  That is utter nonsense–although I know that that is something that Comey is claiming. That Newsweek just repeats it as gospel is seriously outrageous.

What Comey testified to under oath is what was true when he testified to it under oath.  There is no obligation to apprise investigators, a grand jury, the FBI, Congress, or any other investigative body or agency, that something that was true when you said it has now changed. This is NOT an instance of misstating a fact and learning later that the fact you stated was not true when you stated it; that may or may not require correction, depending on the circumstances, but it is NOT what happened in THIS circumstance.

If Comey truly doesn’t recognize the difference, he’s wayyyyy over his head in that job he has. But he does, apparently.  He sure didn’t make that claim in his email message late yesterday to FBI employees, stating his reasons.

This is bullsh_t of the first magnitude.  That Newsweek reporters and editors that clueless, that credulous, is … oh, I don’t know … par for the course these days?  They reported this as “the truth,” folks.

Lordy.

Tags: , , , , Comments (4) | |

James Comey’s Appalling Abuse of Office

“I got a lot of respect for Jim Comey, but I don’t understand this idea of dropping this bombshell which could be a big dud,” said former federal prosector Peter Zeidenberg, a veteran of politically sensitive investigations. “Doing it in the last week or ten days of a presidential election without more information, I don’t that he should because how does it inform a voter? It just invites speculation … I would question the timing of it. It’s not going to get done in a week.”

Nick Akerman, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, was more critical: “Director Comey acted totally inappropriately. He had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.”

“It is not the function of the FBI Director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant,” Akerman added. “The job of the FBI is simply to investigate and to provide the results of its investigation to the prosecutorial arm of the US Department of Justice. His job is not to give a running commentary about any investigation or his opinion about any investigation. This is particularly egregious since Secretary Clinton has no way to respond to what amounts to nebulous and speculative innuendo.”

Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors, Josh Gerstein, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf, Politico, 6:59 p.m. today

Former prosecutors aren’t the only ones shocked by Comey’s disclosure.  I have firsthand knowledge of this and can attest to that fact.

This strikes me as an outright abuse of office by Comey.  As FBI director he learned that the FBI had found new information potentially relevant to a closed investigation but had not reviewed it yet and so its significance is uncertain.  What legal authority does he have to disclose this?  Any? At all?

I have no expertise whatsoever on the breadth of latitude that law enforcement investigative agencies have to disclose raw investigative information, but it sure as hell seems to me unlikely that it extends to willy-nilly disclosure of that information.

This guy apparently thinks that his first obligation is to protect his own reputation from certain types of criticism.*  But actually it is not.

He chose to serve his own interest when faced with what amounted to a conflict of interest.  He doesn’t belong in that job.

 

____

*I added that link at 11:22 p.m. after reading the Washington Post article that the link is to, in which dismayed former prosecutors and former Department of Justice officials make statements similar to mine.  What also is clear from that article, which reports on a letter Comey emailed to FBI employees this afternoon explaining his decision to notify Congress, is that Comey seems not to understand the role of the FBI in a matter of this sort, and misunderstands the meaning of the term “cover-up” as including ongoing investigations that have not been publicly disclosed, rather than just killing investigations.

Tags: , Comments (16) | |

Donald Trump, A Man After My Own Heart

I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear.

– Donald Trump, last night

Wow.  Out of the mouths of babes.   Or something.  I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear, either.

OMG.  I’ve been supporting the wrong candidate!

Repeal the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988!  Repeal the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988!

Tags: , , Comments (1) | |

No, Mr. Trump, THIS is what a movement looks like

There it was.  That familiar logo, the one I’d seen on so many lawn signs and bumper stickers in my (very) liberal small-city college town, and at the top of so many emails I’d received since early summer 2015.  The logo with “Bernie” in sky blue, with a little star over the “I” instead of a dot, and the narrow wave of a sky blue line underlining it, with the similar line except in red under the blue one.

I’d checked my emails late last night and had seen the one from him.  With a subject line reading: Yuuuge.

Below the familiar logo at the center top was this message:

Beverly: Since earlier today, 10,000 people have donated more than $400,000 to Catherine Cortez Masto, Deborah Ross, Maggie Hassan, and Katie McGinty.

That’s how much people want Paul Ryan’s warning about Bernie Sanders becoming chair of the budget committee to become true.

What you’re doing for these candidates is yuuuge. It’s game-changing for their campaigns. But there’s still more to do, because we can do more than just take back the Senate. We have a chance to take back the House. It starts with helping candidates for Congress who are inspired by the political revolution.

So we’re going to set an audacious goal that we don’t know is possible to hit by tomorrow night’s final FEC fundraising deadline – but it’s one that is very important to try to reach.

Let’s raise $1 million for candidates for the House and Senate by tomorrow’s final FEC fundraising deadline of the campaign. Split a contribution between Deborah Ross, Zephyr Teachout, Nanette Barragan, Tom Nelson, Pramila Jayapal, Rick Nolan, and Morgan Carroll.

Adding a contribution to these candidates – even if you’ve already supported them – is so important right now. Every poll shows these races within a handful of percentage points. And every contribution you make to these candidates will go to the critical work of communicating with voters and organizing for Election Day.

We don’t know if we can reach $1 million for House and Senate candidates tomorrow. But it’s very important that we try.

Adding a contribution to these candidates – even if you’ve already supported them – is so important right now. Every poll shows these races within a handful of percentage points. And every contribution you make to these candidates will go to the critical work of communicating with voters and organizing for Election Day.

We don’t know if we can reach $1 million for House and Senate candidates tomorrow. But it’s very important that we try.

If you can, add a contribution to reach our goal.

Thank you,

Jeff Weaver
Team Bernie

By this morning I’d forgotten about it.   And anyway, I’d sworn that that donation I made last week to the DSCC during one of their triple-match drives was my absolute last campaign donation.  Ever.  Okay, I’d meant, in this election cycle.  Which feels like ever.  (I haven’t donated to Clinton.)

But then.  There it was again.  The logo.  Bernie had emailed me again, this time with the subject: I hear you want me to have a gavel.

I do, so I’d clicked the message, which read:

Beverly,

I heard what Paul Ryan said about me: that if the Republicans lose the Senate, I will be the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

That sounds like a very good idea to me. It means that we can establish priorities for working people, and not just the billionaire class.

What would be equally exciting is if the Democrats took back the House, and Congressman Ryan was no longer Speaker. That would mean the clearest possible path to enact our agenda – the most progressive agenda of any party in American history.

In the last day, you have responded tremendously to our call to support four leaders who will help shift the balance of the Senate. More than 20,000 people have contributed more than $900,000 to ten candidates who are inspired by the political revolution.

During our campaign we pushed ourselves to reach goals that many thought impossible. That is why we set a very big, very audacious goal that we didn’t know if we could reach, but that we thought it was very important to try. But you’re about to smash that $1 million goal.

So, we’re going to need a bigger goal.

Let’s raise $2 million before tonight’s final FEC deadline of the campaign for candidates for the House and Senate. Can you start with a contribution between Paul Clements, Catherine Cortez-Masto, Deborah Ross, Zephyr Teachout, Morgan Carroll, Nanette Barragan, and Rick Nolan?

Consider for a moment the power that exists in the U.S. Senate. Right now, the Republican majority is using their power to block any meaningful action on addressing income inequality or climate change. In addition, without a Democratic majority the Senate is refusing to confirm federal judges and, incredibly, has left open a critical seat on the Supreme Court.

With a Democratic majority, we can change all of that. What Paul Ryan is specifically afraid of is the power of the budget committee. That committee defines the spending priorities of the entire government. The work of that committee says how much revenue the government should have, and where its money should go.

I have some thoughts on how the government should allocate its spending. I’m sure you do, too.

The first step to being able to enact our progressive agenda is taking back the Senate. And if we take back the House… well, the sky is the limit for what we can achieve.

Help us reach for our new, audacious goal of raising $2 million for candidates for the House and Senate by midnight tonight. Add a contribution now split between Paul Clements, Catherine Cortez-Masto, Deborah Ross, Zephyr Teachout, Morgan Carroll, Nanette Barragan, and Rick Nolan.

Thank you for all you do.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

Sigh.  I’ll hate myself in the morning.

Here’s the link, folks.  And, btw, a graphic inserted into the second email, sent at 2:10 this afternoon, shows that they’d raised $1,137,888. Since yesterday morning.

Tags: Comments (4) | |

Anthropomorphic Mexico

WASHINGTON — In June of 2010, four boys were playing in the dry bed of the Rio Grande that separates El Paso from Juárez, Mexico. The international borderline, unmarked, runs through the middle of the culvert.

The boys dared one another to run up a concrete incline and touch the barbed wire of the American border fence. An American border guard, Jesus Mesa Jr., grabbed one of them.

Another boy, Sergio Hernández Guereca, fled, and he made it back to Mexico before Mr. Mesa shot him in the head from about 60 feet away, killing him. Sergio was 15.

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Sergio’s parents may sue Mr. Mesa for violating the Constitution by using excessive force. If not, lawyers for the parents argue, then Sergio died in “a unique no­-man’s land — a law­-free zone in which U.S. agents can kill innocent civilians with impunity.”

Had Sergio been killed in the United States, he would have been protected by the Constitution. Had he been an American citizen, he would have been protected whether he was killed in the United States or in Mexico.

An Agent Shot a Boy Across the U.S. Border. Can His Parents Sue?, Adam Liptak, New York Times, yesterday

Dan emailed me the link to the article yesterday, with a subject line, “This might be of interest.  To which I responded:

This is very much of interest, Dan.  It’s not simply the narrow legal question about whether the family of this teen can sue for a violation of a U.S. constitutional right.  It’s also what I consider an absolutely critical issue: the Conservative Legal Movement’s aggressive privileging of the rights of “sovereigns” over the rights of individuals–usually they mean U.S. states–as though the “sovereign” is a person.  They call it the “dignity” of the states, and I guess in this case they’re calling it the “dignity” of Mexico.

Of course, the difference here is that, unlike in the states’-rights-to-violate-individuals’-rights–which almost always means state-courts‘-rights-to-violate-individuals’-rights (this dignity concern does not extent to the other two branches of state government)–the government whose dignity the Conservative Legal Movement judges are so concerned with is–what?–waiving its right to have the Conservative Legal Movement protect it from this affront to its dignity.

And, btw, the Fifth Circuit is the only circuit among the 12 federal appellate circuits that remains so thoroughly within the chokehold of the Conservative Legal Movement.  But if Trump wins, they’ll all quickly begin reverting back to it.

I’ll write something on this, but it’s a complex subject and I might not be able to finish it today.  But if not, then tomorrow.  I want it posted before Wednesday night’s debate.

What I was referring to when I said it is very much of interest (to the general public) is not fully apparent in the above excerpt; after all, most Americans will never be in a situation in which they are physically in a legal no-man’s-land.  But the operative word there is “physically,” by which I mean, in a physical rather than a metaphorical place whose very legal status, its reach by this country’s basic precepts of law, are deemed by this country’s federal courts to be nonexistent.

In legal jargon, what I’m talking about is the issue of “subject-matter jurisdiction”—the threshold authority—of federal courts to hear, to address, to consider, to not dismiss for lack of threshold legal authority to hear it, the lawsuit (whether civil in nature or quasi-criminal in nature, which is what most habeas corpus cases really are) whose purpose is to make a claim of one sort or another under the laws of this country.

But due entirely to a set of Supreme Court-concocted legal “doctrines” in civil cases and the lower federal courts’ all-encompassing interpretations of it, and a rewriting by the Supreme Court’s Conservative Legal Movement crowd of an already-awful 1996 jurisdictional statute to effectively repeal the Constitution’s habeas corpus provision’s applicability (via the Fourteenth Amendment) to state-court criminal convictions and sentences, anything that occurred in state court or is related in some way to what occurred in state court that arguably or inarguably violates a constitutional right of the individual who challenges it federal court is ruled beyond the jurisdictional reach of the federal courts.

And while the habeas corpus jurisdictional statutory interpretation at least purports to be, well, statutory interpretation, no such claim was ever made about one of the two doctrines barring access to federal court in non-habeas cases concerning something that occurred in or relating to state court.  It was always unabashedly simply a policy preference by the Court.  And as such, it violates the Constitution’s Article III, which accords Congress the sole authority to determine federal-court jurisdiction (subject to the Supreme Court’s determination that jurisdictional statute, or the absence of one, itself violates the Constitution).

The other of the two Court-fabricated jurisdictional doctrines is unique in its weirdness and, for the last 28 years, in its audacity.  The 5-4 opinion that created it in 1983 was a standard statutory-interpretation opinion, but the statute it interpreted was repealed five years later at the behest of William Rehnquist, then newly elevated as chief justice.  But instead of just dying with the repeal of the statute, it remained, but, like the other one, just a Court-created “doctrine”.

This itself has operated to permit the lower federal courts to treat the continued viability of the doctrine, post-1988-statutory-repeal, as it treats the other doctrine: as unchallengeable via litigation, by dint of its provenance as a Court-created jurisdictional pseudo-statute.  Or something.  And therefore beyond the reach of a court challenge to its continued viability, and its very constitutionality.  It’s not a statute, see.  And it’s not an Executive Branch regulation or policy, see.  It, like the state-court events that these doctrines, together, serve to bar from constitutional challenge in federal court, exist in a legal no-man’s land.  The actions, the operations, the consequences—they sure may be unconstitutional, but they’re also un-remedial.

Like the Mexican teen’s family’s case, according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  And according to the Obama administration.  Liptak explains:

The Obama administration, in a brief urging the justices to deny review, said allowing civil suits in American courts was not the right way to address cross-­border shootings by American agents. The Mexican courts have jurisdiction over events that happen in Mexico, the brief said.

True enough, and the Mexican authorities did charge Mr. Mesa with murder. But the United States has refused to extradite him.

The government of Mexico filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the parents’ case. “Applying U.S. constitutional law in such a case does not disrespect Mexico’s sovereignty,” the brief said. “Any invasion of Mexico’s sovereignty occurred when Agent Mesa shot his gun across the border at Sergio Hernández — not when the boy’s parents sought to hold Agent Mesa responsible for his actions.”

A trial judge dismissed the case, but a three-­judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, let part of it move forward.

“If ever a case could be said to present an official abuse of power so arbitrary as to shock the conscience,” Judge Edward C. Prado wrote, what Sergio’s parents described was that case.

The full Fifth Circuit reheard the case. While it agreed that “the death of a teenaged Mexican national from a gunshot fired by a Border Patrol agent standing on U.S. soil” was a “tragic incident,” it said Sergio’s parents could not pursue a claim under the Constitution.

A 1990 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Verdugo­-Urquidez, supports that view. It said some constitutional rights applied only within the nation’s borders unless the plaintiff had a “significant voluntary connection” to the United States.

But a more recent decision, Boumediene v. Bush in 2008, concerning people detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, took a more flexible approach. It allowed detainees there to invoke the Constitution. The Fifth Circuit relied on the narrower view. By contrast, the Ninth Circuit, with jurisdiction over the border states of Arizona and California, has said that “the border of the United States is not a clear line that separates aliens who may bring constitutional challenges from those who may not.”

Under that broader standard, a trial judge in Arizona last year refused to dismiss a civil case against Lonnie Swartz, a Border Patrol agent who is accused of killing José Antonio Elena Rodríguez, 16, in another cross­-border shooting. Federal prosecutors have charged Mr. Swartz with murder, and he has pleaded not guilty.

Mexico’s Supreme Court brief described several other cross­-border shootings. More generally, it said, “shootings at the border — whether or not justified in any particular case — are, unfortunately, far from a rare occurrence.”

A 2013 report commissioned by United States Customs and Border Protection studied 67 shootings from 2010 to 2012. “Too many cases,” the report said, “do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness with regard to the use of deadly force.”

It’s all about preserving the dignity of the sovereign (or the “sovereign,” depending upon your viewpoint).  “Dignity”and “sovereign” being the Supreme Court’s terms, repeated time and again in cases justifying the incessant rulings by that court privileging the rights of state courts, but not the rights of state legislatures, and not the rights of state executive branches, at the cost of the constitutional rights of individuals that state courts, or someone or some entity related to something that happened in or in connection to one, has trampled.

At the Supreme Court in recent decades, states’ rights usually means state courts’ rights to violate individuals’ constitutional rights.  In the name of preserving the anthropomorphic right of the state to dignity.  Or, to be precise, their sovereign dignity.  Sovereign here apparently meaning the monarch, since monarchs, after all, are human.

But now the Mexican government, unlike the state governments whose dignity the Supreme Court’s Conservative Legal Movement knights in shining robes defend so gallantly, begs to differ on the meaning of sovereign dignity and on the underlying purpose of it.  That government, although it surely appreciates the thoughtfulness of the sentiment, apparently considers its citizens the ones entitled to dignity under civil rights and civil liberties and human rights law.  And in fact it may not even consider itself human.

How refreshing.

Tags: , , , Comments (4) | |

John McCain Says He’s Glad a 5-4 Supreme Court Majority Fabricated a Constitutional Ground to Strike Down Most of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law as Unconstitutional

Okay, so how many of the 53 percent of voters who say they want a Republican Congress to thwart Clinton’s policy agenda have any idea what that policy agenda IS? Just wonderin’.

But those same polls [suggesting a Clinton lead] don’t suggest doom and gloom for down-ballot Republicans just yet. And in fact, there’s real reason for GOP optimism that Trump won’t ruin their year completely. …

For one, the so-called generic ballot — i.e., whether people prefer a generic Democrat for Congress or a generic Republican — still only favors Democrats by a small margin: 3 points in both the Post-ABC poll and NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, among likely voters. That same Democratic edge on the generic ballot is actually down from 6 points in last week’s NBC-WSJ poll.

Put plainly, these generic ballots are unremarkable and don’t suggest a big Democratic wave ahead.

Part of the reason Trump’s woes might not have filtered downballot could be that a strong majority of people don’t really associate Republicans with their party’s presidential nominee. And many people also appear to dislike Clinton enough that they like the idea of a Congress that could keep her in check.

The Post-ABC poll includes a question about whether people think Trump represents the “core values” of the Republican Party, and a strong majority of likely voters say he doesn’t – 57 percent overall.

The number includes a whopping 62 percent of independents. Just 27 percent of them think Trump does represent the GOP.

And the NBC-WSJ poll might be even more encouraging for Republicans, because it suggests a path forward for them. The poll asked whether registered voters would be more likely to support a congressional Republican who would be a check and balance on Clinton and Democrats, and 53 percent said they would. Just 40 percent preferred a congressional Democrat who would help Clinton pass her agenda.

And now, some legitimately good news for Republicans, Aaron Blake, Washington Post, this morning

Of all the asinine comments by major political pundits about the presidential campaign during the last one and a half years, one that rates among the silliest is a recent claim by Paul Krugman on his Twitter feed pronouncing himself vindicated for his aggressive defense of Clinton as the only Democrat who could win the general election.

Why the claim of vindication?  Well, because no candidate other than Clinton would have had a campaign team deft enough to recognize that Trump could be baited into a meltdown during the first debate by reciting his awful treatment of 1990s-era Miss Universe Alicia Machado because she gained weight during her reign, a meltdown that spiraled for about a week afterward.  And that was what began the turning of the tide away from what appeared to be momentum for Trump and (apparently) triggered the release of the Access Hollywood Boys-on-the-Bus videotape.  See?

Because the only possible way that a Democratic nominee could defeat—at all, but especially soundly defeat—Donald J. Trump was that.  It couldn’t have happened instead based on, say, on a progressive platform pushed by Bernie Sanders in the primaries, or one that would have been advanced by Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown, one or the other who likely would be the Dem nominee had she or he run. That is, on a progressive agenda that is broadly popular among the dominant swath of the public that wants significant change, and much of it among pretty much everyone else who isn’t in the basket of deplorables.

Or, hell, even a platform chosen by Joe Biden, who currently is far more progressive than he had been at any earlier time in his career, had he been the nominee.

That, of course, presumes—surely accurately—that each of these candidates would have run, and run aggressively and constantly, on their progressive platform.  A platform that argues for significant structural change in the power of mega corporations and the very wealthy vis-à-vis everyone whose interests are not the same as those of mega corporations and the very wealthy.

I chuckle every time Krugman or some other big pre-convention Clinton backer angrily notes that Clinton is running on the most progressive party platform ever. As if Clinton has actually campaigned on this, other than to mention it in passing when the last Trump outrage falls from constant view and his poll numbers begin to rise, or hers begin to drop because of some new email-related something-or-other.

I’ve thought countless times since the convention how lucky Clinton is to have a party platform to run on that was largely forced through by Sanders.  But that has presumed that eventually she actually would begin to run on it.  No.  I mean actually campaign on it.  It’s specifics.  Godot may arrive, but he hasn’t really yet.

But if he does, it should be in the form of asking this: What part of Clinton’s agenda is it, exactly, that all those voters want a Republican Congress to halt?  And what part of the Republican Congress’s agenda do those voters want Clinton to comprise on and agree to?

Ah.  It must be re-deregulation of the finance industry that they want.  And immense cuts in taxes for Donald Trump, his heirs, mega corporations, CEOs of mega-corporations, and the insurance that Citizens United will never be overturned, and that the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts will continue to be steady-as-she-goes unapologetic proxies for mega-corporate America; Clinton’s agenda includes some very specific legislation on campaign financing, some of proposals which I did not know of until I read yesterday’s NYT editorial listing them.

Or maybe it’s the stuff about handing federal lands and environmental and energy policy to the likes of the Koch brothers.  And control of the SEC by the Mercers and the Ricketts. The Kochs don’t support Trump, but they sure as hell fund the rest of the Republican Party.  And Harold Hamm, Forrest Lucas, the Mercers and the Ricketts fund Trump—bigly—as well as the Republican Congress.

For starters.  There’s also the healthcare-insurance public option.

Every one of those proposals by Clinton is supported by a majority of the public, some by wide margins.  And every one of the Republican Congress’s proposals are opposed by a majority of the public, most by very wide margins. Yet Clinton’s campaign focuses so little on this that, according to that poll, 53 percent said they want a Republican Congress, to keep Clinton from enacting these policies, and just 40 percent preferred a congressional Democrat who would help Clinton pass her agenda.

I’ve wondered—and wondered, and wondered—for many weeks now why Clinton continues to allow the misconception to persist that Trump’s general election campaign is not funded in part by billionaires and has no ties to the finance industry.  I actually had expected her to mention at one or another of the debates that Trump is funded extensively not only by two oil-and-gas billionaires, Hamm and Lucas, but even more so, apparently, by two finance-industry-titan families: the Mercers and the Ricketts.

When she didn’t, and didn’t mention the Mercers and the Ricketts even when campaigning in Toledo, Ohio, I presumed it was because she was concerned about angering some of her Wall Street donors.  But in light of the leaks of the transcripts of her paid Wall Street speeches, I think there was something more.  I think she knew or suspected that these had been hacked, and she didn’t want to provoke their release.

So now, to borrow from Trump, she’s been unshackled. She can detail to the public the reports that the Mercers in particular, but other billionaire donors as well, including the fossil fuel ones, are directly dictating policy proposals to Trump.

And that the Heritage Foundation—the far-right policy arm of none other than Congressional Republicans, the very ones whom the public wants to write laws, rather than seeing Clinton’s administration do so—in fact has written a fiscal and regulatory policy agenda for Trump that curiously mirrors the policy agenda of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.  Neither of whom is exactly popular.

In my opinion, there isn’t much in Clinton’s paid speeches—at least from the articles I’ve read about them—that are really a problem, other than that she said that Wall Street folks should help craft the laws to reign in Wall Street, since they know better than anyone else how Wall street works.  Well, not better than Warren.  And not better than some other law and business professors. And not better than former Wall Street folk who left in disgust.  But, okay; that was three years ago, in a paid speech.

What is seriously problematic, in my opinion, though, is the hacked email discussion about how to go about trying to persuade an angry, adamant Hillary Clinton that Bill Clinton should cancel his paid speech to Morgan Stanley scheduled for a few days after Hillary Clinton was scheduled to announce her candidacy.

The hero in that incident, as in several others, was campaign manager Robby Mook, who appears to be the only actual modern-era progressive in Clinton’s entire inner circle. He’s a millennial, but so are a (precious) few others.  But only Mook appears to be a circa 2016-style progressive.

Trump likes to say that if it weren’t for the conspiratorial news media, he would be beating Clinton by 15%.  But that misses, well, a few points, but this one in particular: that the news media and the Clinton campaign seem to have conspired to keep from the public the most critical fact of all.  Which is that Clinton’s progressive policy agenda is the agenda that a majority of the public wants.

And that the Republican Party’s, so much of it actually adopted by Trump, with a steroid cocktail thrown in, is precisely the opposite of what that very majority wants.

Krugman’s Times column today is largely about the striking similarities between Trump’s depiction of the current state of this country and Ryan’s warnings in a speech last week about this country’s future if Clinton wins.  But the similarities are more in style than in substance. Krugman writes:

But for what it’s worth, consider the portrait of America Mr. Ryan painted last week, in a speech to the College Republicans. For it was, in its own way, as out of touch with reality as the ranting of Donald Trump (whom Mr. Ryan never mentioned).

Now, to be fair, Mr. Ryan claimed to be describing the future — what will happen if Hillary Clinton wins — rather than the present. But Mrs. Clinton is essentially proposing a center-­left agenda, an extension of the policies President Obama was able to implement in his first two years, and it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s remarks were intended as a picture of what all such policies do.

According to him, it’s very grim. There will, he said, be “a gloom and grayness to things,” ruled by a “cold and unfeeling bureaucracy.” We will become a place “where passion — the very stuff of life itself — is extinguished.” And this is the kind of America Mrs. Clinton “will stop at nothing to have.”

So, DSCC and DCCC, why not take this ball and run with it?  Why not take that little clip and juxtapose it with parts of the Dem Party platform and pieces of Clinton’s proposals, such as those on campaign finance reform?  And follow that with a summary of, say, Ryan’s budget’s Greatest Hits?

Clinton, of course, could do this, too.  Robby Mook, can you try to persuade the candidate to start campaigning on this, now that the sexual assault and voyeurism admissions and allegations are becoming old news?

I said here after the second debate that I myself believe that Clinton is very much a changed person now in her support of genuinely progressive structural-power changes.  I still believe that.  But she already has my vote.

Tags: , , , , , , , Comments (15) | |

“Why would you want to be associated with a party that’s so awful?”

This morning I overheard a part of a conversation between two 30-ish old high school friends, both from career-military families; their high school was on a military base.  One is a disabled Marine veteran, having lost his right leg below the knee, significant muscle in his left leg, a good part of the movement in his right hand (he’s right-handed), and enough of his colon to wear a colostomy bag, when he stepped on an explosive during deployment in Afghanistan, ending his plan to be career Marine.  During an earlier deployment in Iraq he watched as a friend of his was blown up by a suicide bomb in a car.

His friend was in the Navy for two years and then in a National Guard unit for several more.

Neither is a college graduate, although both of their wives are.  At least one, the Navy vet, is a comedy-talk-radio devotee, which I think means right-leaning.  Both of their families are decades-long Republicans.

Their conversation was about junk mail.  The Navy vet, one of my neighbors (I live in a college town, but one that has a good number of military vets and a major veterans’ hospital, which makes for a nice mix, in my opinion), made some off-hand comment about it, which I didn’t hear.  The disabled Marine vet responded, “Oh, yeah.  It’s all that campaign stuff.  I said to [I think he said, his mother, but I’m not sure], ‘Why would you want to be associated with a party that’s so awful?”  His friend said, “Yeah.”

What struck me was the indictment of the party, not merely of Trump.

I was so glad to read this morning about Obama’s speech last night in Ohio, in which he indicted the Republican Party itself for Trumpism—a change from the tack he took in his convention speech in July.  The purpose is to–finally–force Clinton to make a serious effort to swing control of the Senate and the House.

I also was struck by Paul Krugman’s column this morning, the purpose of which–notwithstanding its title, “The Clinton Agenda”—is to try to shift the discussion from the Clinton-Trump contest, whose outcome no longer is in doubt, but to which party controls Congress.  Because which party controls Congress will determine whether or not federal policy shifts to what a large majority of Americans want—especially on climate-change-related law, but also on so much else on which there is broad public consensus.

The WikiLeaks-released emails from John Podesta seem to be largely-irrelevant history.  They show the dismaying extent to which Clinton and her aides, other than Podesta, failed so completely, for so very long, to grasp the nature of this election cycle.  But they continue to matter unless Clinton finally does recognize that most of the policies that progressives so care about—foremost, I believe, the policies (a.k.a., law) that the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts and federal agency heads will determine—are supported by the moderates she so fears reminding that she’s a Democrat, and who may decide to vote Democratic for Senate and House precisely on that basis.

Obama talked yesterday only about the Trumpian awfulness of the Republican Party itself—a subject that certainly deserved a speech all its own.  But Clinton should pick up the fiscal and regulatory mantle from her biggest cheerleader pundit and campaign for a Democratic-controlled Congress.  He says she’s done enough on that, but then belies that in the rest of his column.

Tags: , , , Comments (28) | |

Linda Greenhouse On the Intense Aggressiveness of Conservative Legal Movement Justices and Judges

Former longtime NYT Supreme Court correspond, current biweekly Times columnist, and habitual woman-after-my-own-heart Linda Greenhouse, has a column today titled “Let’s Legislate From the Supreme Court Bench” about how very fond movement conservatives became a while ago of legislation from the bench.

She makes the point that legislation from the bench is an absolutely essential component of the Conservative Movement.

I’ve made that point, or tried to, roughly 879 times at AB since I began posting here in 2010.  But she’s Linda Greenhouse, and I’m, well, nobody.  But at least I’m in good company in recognizing how ridiculously underappreciated—how thoroughly unknown, actually—this critical fact is.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (6) | |

The Fab Four (f.k.a. the Fab Five) Supreme Court Justices’ Last Grasp and Last Gasp

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear appeals from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and other former federal officials seeking to shut down lawsuits filed by Muslim and Arab men who were detained in the U.S. after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The justices said they will review an appeals court ruling that gave a green a light to the lawsuit claiming that Ashcroft, Mueller and the others should be held accountable for the harsh treatment the men suffered in the months after the worst attacks in U.S. history. The former officials argue they cannot be sued or held liable.

The court also said it will hear a separate appeal about access to the courts from the family of a Mexican teenager who was killed when a U.S. Border Patrol agent fired across the border from Texas into Mexico. The case involves the rights of people who are harmed by American authorities on foreign soil to have their day in U.S. courts. …

In the detainees case, the Obama administration is defending Ashcroft, Mueller, James Ziglar, the former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the warden and associate warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where more than 80 men were held, many of them charged only with minor civil immigration violations.

A divided panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the men were detained “as if they were terrorists, in the most restrictive conditions of confinement available, simply because these individuals were, or appeared to be, Arab or Muslim.”

The appeals court said that “the suffering endured by those who were imprisoned merely because they were caught up in the hysteria of the days immediately following 9/11 is not without a remedy.”

The new appeal, stemming from a class-action lawsuit that was originally filed in 2002, is the third time the court has intervened in lawsuits against Ashcroft and others from Muslims who were arrested in the U.S. following the 2001 attacks. The justices have twice sided with Ashcroft.

Only six justices will take part because Justice Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the New York-based federal appeals court that heard an earlier version of the case and Justice Elena Kagan worked on the issue when she served in the Justice Department. One seat on the nine-member court has been empty since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February.

Arguments probably will take place in January so it is possible that a new justice will by then be in place. President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Merrick Garland, but Senate Republicans have so far blocked action on the nomination.

Supreme Court will hear Ashcroft appeal to kill lawsuit, Associated Press, today

Well, we all can do the math and recognize that in light of Sotomayor’s and Kagan’s recusals, the outcome of this case doesn’t depend on whether the Scalia seat has been filled by the time the case is decided next spring.

We also know what the outcome will be.  Prescience, I guess.

Tags: , , Comments (0) | |