What is “Skinny Repeal”?

Taylor Griffin
-
0
What is “Skinny Repeal”?

As prospects for outright repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dim, Republicans are still looking for some way to make good on their promise to banish Obamacare to the dustbin of history. The latest idea is a so-called “skinny repeal” that would jettison a few unpopular provisions, such as mandates to buy health insurance and a tax on medical devices, but leave the bulk of the law in place.

Skinny repeal is less a serious policy proposal than a bid to keep the path for a more comprehensive rollback open. Passing a bill, any bill, would trigger a conference with the House, allowing lawmakers more time to hash out a compromise. Think of it as a placeholder for a more comprehensive solution rather than a final product.

Skinny repeal is destined to be the sad little bill from Schoolhouse Rock…without the happy ending. It’s highly unlikely to ever become law as a standalone measure. Good thing too. If it did become law, it would create a mess of unintended consequences that would throw health insurance markets into chaos. This has put Senators in the absurd position of seeking assurances  before they for the bill that the House won’t do anything crazy — like actually pass it. We must have missed that episode of Schoolhouse Rock.

Health policy is insanely complicated. Seemingly small changes can have cascading effects that aren’t immediately apparent. For example, forcing people to buy health insurance isn’t a popular idea, so repealing this part of Obamacare seems like a no-brainer. But, doing so would cause a steep rise in premiums and add millions to the rolls of the uninsured. The reason has to do with the one thing everyone likes about Obamacare, the provisions prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and limiting what insurers could charge them in premiums. This allowed loads of people with health problems that couldn’t get covered before to buy health insurance. But, the cost of covering these sorts of people is usually substantially greater than the ACA allows insurers to charge. To make it all work, you need more healthy people, who don’t need much care, to buy insurance. Their premiums could then offset the cost of all the new sicker people.

Among the reasons premiums have risen so steeply in recent rears is not enough healthy people actually bought insurance. This forced insurers to hike premiums on everyone to fill the gap. If the individual mandate were removed, the situation would become far worse.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this would result in an additional 20% increase over the rise in insurance premiums already expected. Over the next ten years, they reckon that 16 million more people would end up uninsured, either because they opted to go without coverage voluntarily or could no longer afford it.

If “skinny repeal” passes the Senate, it will keep the process alive, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for a solution to the country’s health care problems. A conference committee might figure out a more workable alternative. But, conferees will face the same set of politically unpalatable tradeoffs that have bedeviled Obamacare repeal all along.
  • Democrats will still be immovably opposed to dismantling their party’s signature legislative accomplishment.
  • Ending Medicaid expansion will still be a non-starter for Senators whose constituents received coverage through Medicaid expansion.
  • And covering people with preexisting conditions without forcing healthy people to buy insurance will remain a tough nut to crack.

Obamacare has lots of problems. But getting rid of it does too.

Why Mueller is Investigating Trump’s Business Ties

Publius Valerius
-
0
Why Mueller is Investigating Trump’s Business Ties
The investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly turned to President Trump’s business dealings with Russia according to a new Bloomberg News story. We’ve long taken the view at Roughly Explained that this is where the investigation would inevitably lead. The infamous Don Jr. meeting not withstanding, the collusion case against Team Trump has always struck us as thin. Russia definitely meddled in the 2016 election, but we still don’t know that anyone from Trump world was in on it. With President Trump’s business dealings, there’s substantially more meat on those bones. A story we originally published in March looked at some of these issues. We reprint it here. By focusing its attention on potential connections between President Trump’s campaign and the Russian government, the media is missing a bigger story: Trump’s business ties to Russians. While there have been some articles that document the latter, those have been few and far between. The press has largely ignored those pieces, instead it has focused on chasing what it thinks is the next big scandal.

Felix Sater

To find a connection between Trump’s real estate organization and Russians, you need look no further than 246 Spring Street in Manhattan, the location of the Trump SoHo hotel-condominium.The hotel-condominium is run by Bayrock Ltd. and the Sapir Organization. It was developed by them and the Trump organization. Both Bayrock and Sapir have Russian ties. Bayrock’s founder is Felix Sater, whose father Mickhail Sheferofsky (also known as Mike Sater) was a Russian organized crime boss, according to a lawsuit. Mike Sater pled guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit extortion. Like his father, Felix Sater reportedly has associations with organized crime – only in his case it is both the Russian and the Italian mafia. He was indicted on federal money laundering and stock manipulation in a case that top this day remains sealed. Felix Sater also was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a $40-million that involved figures from four of New York City’s five Mafia families. Salvatore Lauria was Sater’s partner in the stock manipulation case. In a book about his criminal past (The Scorpion and the Frog: High Times and High Crimes), Lauria used an alias for Sater. But, if you know the facts of Sater’s life, it is clear the person is Sater. For example, Lauria wrote that his partner had his brokerage license revoked in 1991 after a bar fight during a celebration of Lauria passing his security licensing exam. Sater’s license was revoked after he attacked someone with a glass in a bar during Lauria’s celebration. The New York Times reported on that back in 2007. Lauria described his partner’s father as “a notorious, politically connected gangster who was high up on the food chain.” A description that fits Mike Sater, if the lawsuit is to be believed. After their federal indictment, Sater and Lauria fled to – you guessed it – Moscow. Sater tried to negotiate immunity in a series of failed deals with the CIA that involved purchasing Russian military equipment from former Afghan freedom fighters. One of those operations reportedly had the assistance of a KGB general that Sater knew. The KGB officer had ties to Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance. When those arms deals failed to materialize, Sater and Lauria began negotiations for their surrender to U.S. authorities. For those who do not remember this, three days before September 11, 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated, presumably by al Qaeda. Lauria stated that, shortly after the terror attacks, Sater told him the FBI was interested in the proposed arms deals with the CIA, since it now implicated national security and counter-terrorism activities. Lauria wrote that the Department of Justice wanted to hide their involvement with anything that dealt with the matter, which could account for the files still being sealed.

Tamir Sapir

Tamir Sapir, a Russian émigré, founded the Sapir Organization. Born Temur Sepiashvili in Georgia, he helped fund the purchase of the site that became the Trump SoHo.. For his part, Trump told New York Magazine that he considered Sapir and his son “great friends.” Sapir’s son, who now runs the real estate business, told The New York Times, he did not know about Sater’s criminal history until the newspaper began investigating it. But, as the New York Magazine article stated, “Given the tight circle of Soviet-born real-estate players in New York, that’s hard to believe.” Lest anyone think this is old news, a well-placed source tells us that federal authorities are currently looking into activity that gives an indication of potential money laundering at a Bayrock property in a former Soviet republic. Investigations by U.S. government into collusion between President Trump, his campaign and the Russian government have so far turned up nothing, according to James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence. Further investigations by Congress, law enforcement, and the press likely will produce the same results. Although they may provide some tangential information that some campaign hangers-on sought to make some money on the side. Rather than try to grab the highest ratings or the most web site hits with its obsession over Trump links to the Russian government, the media should conduct more serious investigative reporting of the business connections between Trump’s real estate empire and Russia. They might find some very interesting facts.

Why a “Made in America” Mentality Could Make Us Less Safe

Tyler Cralle
-
0
Why a “Made in America” Mentality Could Make Us Less Safe
It’s “Made in America” week at the White House and it seems like President Donald Trump is trying to keep the promises he made on the campaign trail.  However, doing so could disrupt a brilliant plan to diminish Russia’s role and influence in the world. For two years on the campaign trail, Donald Trump frequently invoked saving jobs in manufacturing, coal, and any other industry that was near and dear to the hearts of rust belt voters.  It was a smart move. The voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan were the ones who put Trump over the top on that surprising November night.  However, there has always been a healthy skepticism on whether Donald Trump would actually follow through on this promises. The results have been mixed.  President Trump certainly talks a good game, but the recent news from Ford and Carrier that jobs may not be saved after all show it’s sometimes more style than substance.  Steel tariffs could be Trump’s first substantive action to protect a specific domestic industry.  Unfortunately, that same decision could have devastating consequences from a national security standpoint. President Donald Trump has been complaining of steel dumping, focusing mostly on China, since even before he announced he was running for President.  Normally when it comes to enacting tariffs, the argument is always based on economics.  However, the current debate in the White House is actually a national security one.  Currently, there is a 232 investigation into steel dumping, a kind of trade investigation to determine the effect of imports on national security.  Advocates for tariffs argue that dumping of foreign steel in the domestic markets could cause American steel producers to go out of business.  This would then put us at a disadvantage in a time of crisis.  However, even if this is true, the global implications of steel tariffs could still make us less safe. Thanks to their hatred of President Donald Trump, Democrats are finally waking up to the geopolitical threat that Russia poses to the United States.  America’s pullback from both Europe and the Middle East under Obama mixed with Russia’s extensive energy supply have made Russia an unfortunate partner to many. The absence of America’s allows a vacuum that competitors like Russia will fill. Luckily, this is fixable. First, America needs to reassert it’s position of leadership in both regions.  Second, the United States needs to use it’s ever expanding energy supply to limit Russia’s.  Larry Kudlow and Elliot Kaufman recently published articles at The National Review arguing that President Donald Trump was setting the stage to expand energy exports to more countries in Europe.  Many of these countries are forced to work with Russia to keep the lights on.  Expanding our energy presence in Europe would not only put a hurt on Putin’s wallet it would severely limit the pressure he can exert on the continent.  This seems like a pretty good plan.  Unfortunately, the entire thing could be derailed by Trump’s “Made in America” attitude. In 2002 President George W Bush implemented steel tariffs in an attempt to help save the domestic steel industry.  The results were disastrous.  200,000 people lost their jobs in steel reliant industries which equated to 4 billion dollars in lost wages.  This data, however, came out much later.  The reason President Bush and his administration decided to pull back on the tariffs was the retaliatory plans of trading parties in response to our tariffs.  Mark Tran of the Guardian explains “Mr Bush made his decision just days before a deadline that would have triggered retaliation from the EU, which was preparing to impose sanctions worth $2.2bn (£1.3bn) on US goods ranging from Florida citrus products to Harley Davidson motorbikes.” Herein lies the problem.  If America imposes broad steel tariffs again, we could see our ability to export natural gas and extend our influence in Europe facing a significant roadblock.  In order to build the necessary infastructure, we need to be working openly with the Europe Union. The EU will be far less likely to back these costly infrastructure projects if they see it as a lopsided negotiation.  We need to ask ourselves a question.  Is propping up America’s steel industry worth hurting our economy and allowing Russia to maintain dominance in Europe?  I think most Americans would say no.

Why the Supreme Court is Allowing Trump’s Travel Ban to Go Into Effect

Taylor Griffin
-
0
Why the Supreme Court is Allowing Trump’s Travel Ban to Go Into Effect
President Donald Trump finally caught a break in the courts Monday. The Supreme Court unanimously voted to allow much of his controversial travel ban to go into place while it considers the case. The move reverses injunctions issued by lower courts that blocked the ban. More broadly, it suggests that the Supreme Court — in contrast to lower court judges whose suspicions of Mr. Trump’s true motives were central to their decisions — intends to consider President Trump’s actions with the “presumption of regularity” it would apply to other Presidents.

Listen to the audio version of this story.

Monday’s order allows the portion Mr. Trump’s revised executive order barring entry for refugees and citizens of six countries at high risk of terrorism, without preexisting ties to the U.S., to go forward while it considers the case. “Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national,” the Court said in its opinion. However, the Court leaves in place lower court decisions blocking enforcement of the order with respect to people with “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Court concluded that the injunctions should have been tailored more narrowly to entrants similarly situated to those at issue in the cases before the appeals courts. The Court’s opinion explained that the case before the Ninth Circuit considered Dr. Ismael Elshikh, a U.S. citizen living in Hawaii with relatives in Syria. Dr. Elshikh argued that the ban placed an undue burden on him by preventing his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting him in Hawaii. Yet, the injunction the court issued bars enforcement of the ban for all entrants, not just those in similar situations to Dr. Elshikh. That, the Court concluded, went too far. The Government, the court said, has compelling interests n protecting national security. These “are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States… To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing [the President’s Executive Order] against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else.” While the court hasn’t decided the case on its legal merits, its opinion signals that it could rule in favor of the Trump Administration when it takes it up in October. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent objecting to the court’s failure to reinstate the entire ban “the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments…will be reversed.”

Trump and the ‘Presumption of Regularity’

The courts have historically given the President broad deference in matters of national security. The judiciary does not have intelligence services and foreign policy experts to equip it to make such judgements. The Trump Administration claims that the travel ban was intended to protect national security. So it was an unusual break with precedent when the lower courts declined to take his word for it. Pointing to President Trump’s campaign rhetoric, the appeals courts concluded that the primary purpose was instead to ban Muslims. In the travel ban case, lower courts treated President Trump differently than other Presidents — substituting their judgement of what the President intended for his. In essence, they concluded that the President was lying.  Ben Wittes and Quinta Jurecic argue that this resistance to President Trump among judges is rooted in suspicion that he cannot be trusted to follow his oath of office faithfully and as such he should be treated as something other than a normal President:

It goes, not to put too fine a point on it, to the question of whether the judiciary means to actually treat Trump as a real president or, conversely, as some kind of accident—a person who somehow ended up in the office but is not quite the President of the United States in the sense that we would previously have recognized.

Whatever you think of the wisdom of President Trump’s travel ban or of the man himself, this approach sets a troubling precedent. The question of whether or not Trump is fit for the office he holds was, for better or worse, answered by the voters in November. The judiciary’s role is to interpret laws, not to psychoanalyze the President. As law professor Josh Blackman, who opposes President Trump’s travel ban on policy grounds but nevertheless believes it is legal, wrote in a Politico op-ed back in March, “[w]hen judges treat this president as anything other than normal, it sends a signal to the public that the chief executive is not as legitimate as his predecessors… Trump’s presidency will come to an end sooner or later. But the precedents set during this period will linger far, far longer.”
The judiciary’s role is to interpret laws, not to psychoanalyze the President.
Perhaps the most significant effect of the Court’s action Monday will be that it reestablishes the grounds for judicial considerations of President Trump’s actions within the normal bounds applied to other Presidents. Or, as Professor Blackman put it, “[t]he Supreme Court did what the lower court judges would not–treat President Trump like any other President with the ‘presumption of regularity.'”

A Veteran Journalist Explains How the News Media Really Works

Hal Tarleton
-
0
A Veteran Journalist Explains How the News Media Really Works
Some people seem to believe that American journalism is monolithic and all-powerful and that news reported in newspapers or in broadcast media has been prescribed and pre-written by a vast hierarchy of news dictators. Any rational examination of the U.S. news media reveals the silly impossibility of this conspiracy theory. There are many hundreds of newspapers across the country and thousands of news outlets, including television, cable, radio and websites. It would be impossible to control or dictate to those many thousands, serving constituencies from small towns to large cities to professional associations. In the heyday of newspapers, when most respectable cities had at least two newspapers, those newspapers often represented different perspectives — liberal and conservative or Democrat and Republican. The demise of daily newspapers has left most cities with only one newspaper, and it might present just one editorial viewpoint and endorse only one party’s nominees. But the essential need to sell newspapers to a broader population means most newspapers now take a more nonpartisan editorial stance.

He Said/She Said

A recent post on a current events/politics website prompted an angry reply from someone who blamed the news media for the current difficulties with public discourse. This person was tired of reading news stories that contained the terms “he said” or “she said.” The commenter, apparently, wanted reporters to own up to their own news stories instead of dodging responsibility by referencing someone else. That commenter has never spent any time in a newsroom or a journalism class and never gave any serious thought to how news stories are generated or written. In 33 years as a newspaper editor and as an occasional college-level journalism teacher, I consistently emphasized to reporters that they are not news sources; they have no authoritative knowledge; they should have no opinion on a subject, even when they might have some personal opinion on the subject, as reporters, they have no opinion and no real knowledge. Their job is to interview those who do have knowledge, whether it is a witness to a traffic accident, a scientist involved in research that is of public interest, or a legislator pushing a bill through legislature. Their job is to accurately report what that source knows. This process should be done at least twice in every news story because almost every story has two sides; interview people on both sides of controversial issues and report what both sides have said, with as fairly equal treatment as practicable. Facts or opinions that are not attributed to the source are like information in an academic paper that is not footnoted. The reader should ask, “where’s the reference?” As a newspaper editor, I often asked, “where’s your source?” Occasionally, I’d be told, “I saw it myself,” and I’d tell the reporter, only a little facetiously, “you need a better source! Who else saw this? Interview them.” So the person who wanted to do away with “he said” and “she said” in news stories wanted something other than journalism. He/she wanted unsourced opinion, a personal perspective, not news. I suspect the angry commenter suspected reporters of dishonesty, of collusion with unseen puppet masters of journalism, of nefarious, insidious conspiracies against the public weal.

Political Bias and the Newsroom

Regardless of the leaning of the editorial page, however, respectable news sources mandate that news coverage be transparent, fair and non-partisan. Even the appearance of political bias could harm the public’s perception of a newspaper’s fairness. I had to threaten to fire a reporter who wanted to keep an outdated campaign bumper sticker on his car. I pointed out that his coverage of any political news would be seen as prejudiced as long as he had that sticker on his car. For that reason, I have never put a political sticker on my car or sign in my yard.

Reliable Sources

Concerns about citing news sources (“he said”) is something new. In years past, concern within and outside the news business had to do with anonymous sources, which are less trustworthy than named, clearly identified sources. Some newspapers tried to ban anonymous sources altogether, but that proved to be extremely difficult. Most anonymous sources are people who have clear, even unique, knowledge of a matter but cannot afford to be named because they would lose their jobs. This is especially common in the federal government, where clandestine plots are kept secret for fear of alerting opponents. Most news organizations adopted a policy of requiring a second or even a third source for information from an anonymous source. The initial bombshell had to be verified by someone else with direct knowledge and with no direct ties to the original source. In hyper-partisan Washington, anonymous sources appear more frequently than ever. A rogue reporter would have a hard time getting false or distorted news into a traditional publication exactly because of the “he said,” “she said” news style. A false report would have to get past one or more skeptical editors (and anyone who has spent much time in a newsroom is a skeptic). Then it would have to withstand the barrage of criticism from the sources themselves. No one likes to be misquoted, and most will demand a retraction, correction or the keys to the company as a defamation judgment. At one time, bad reporting would not be tolerated. A news company had a reputational and financial interest in ensuring news is reported accurately. Bad reporters would be fired, or never hired. Editors and publishers kept close watch on news coverage. Facts had to be referenced and provable, thus the “he said,” “she said” requirement and editors asking, “How do you know this?” The proliferation of news sites made possible by the Internet gives readers access to more viewpoints and more sources for unvetted, unsourced, misleading news. The sad thing is that too many news consumers discern no difference between the reliability of the 150-year-old New York Times or Associated Press and the upstart Alt-Right or Democrats United. On a Facebook feed, they all look about the same, so they must have the same reliability, right? Hal Tarleton spent more than three decades as a working journalist and editor of The Wilson (NC) Daily Times. This post also appears on his blog, The Erstwhile Editor.  

A Veteran Journalist Explains How the News Media Really Works

Hal Tarleton
-
0
A Veteran Journalist Explains How the News Media Really Works
Some people seem to believe that American journalism is monolithic and all-powerful and that news reported in newspapers or in broadcast media has been prescribed and pre-written by a vast hierarchy of news dictators. Any rational examination of the U.S. news media reveals the silly impossibility of this conspiracy theory. There are many hundreds of newspapers across the country and thousands of news outlets, including television, cable, radio and websites. It would be impossible to control or dictate to those many thousands, serving constituencies from small towns to large cities to professional associations. In the heyday of newspapers, when most respectable cities had at least two newspapers, those newspapers often represented different perspectives — liberal and conservative or Democrat and Republican. The demise of daily newspapers has left most cities with only one newspaper, and it might present just one editorial viewpoint and endorse only one party’s nominees. But the essential need to sell newspapers to a broader population means most newspapers now take a more nonpartisan editorial stance.

He Said/She Said

A recent post on a current events/politics website prompted an angry reply from someone who blamed the news media for the current difficulties with public discourse. This person was tired of reading news stories that contained the terms “he said” or “she said.” The commenter, apparently, wanted reporters to own up to their own news stories instead of dodging responsibility by referencing someone else. That commenter has never spent any time in a newsroom or a journalism class and never gave any serious thought to how news stories are generated or written. In 33 years as a newspaper editor and as an occasional college-level journalism teacher, I consistently emphasized to reporters that they are not news sources; they have no authoritative knowledge; they should have no opinion on a subject, even when they might have some personal opinion on the subject, as reporters, they have no opinion and no real knowledge. Their job is to interview those who do have knowledge, whether it is a witness to a traffic accident, a scientist involved in research that is of public interest, or a legislator pushing a bill through legislature. Their job is to accurately report what that source knows. This process should be done at least twice in every news story because almost every story has two sides; interview people on both sides of controversial issues and report what both sides have said, with as fairly equal treatment as practicable. Facts or opinions that are not attributed to the source are like information in an academic paper that is not footnoted. The reader should ask, “where’s the reference?” As a newspaper editor, I often asked, “where’s your source?” Occasionally, I’d be told, “I saw it myself,” and I’d tell the reporter, only a little facetiously, “you need a better source! Who else saw this? Interview them.” So the person who wanted to do away with “he said” and “she said” in news stories wanted something other than journalism. He/she wanted unsourced opinion, a personal perspective, not news. I suspect the angry commenter suspected reporters of dishonesty, of collusion with unseen puppet masters of journalism, of nefarious, insidious conspiracies against the public weal.

Political Bias and the Newsroom

Regardless of the leaning of the editorial page, however, respectable news sources mandate that news coverage be transparent, fair and non-partisan. Even the appearance of political bias could harm the public’s perception of a newspaper’s fairness. I had to threaten to fire a reporter who wanted to keep an outdated campaign bumper sticker on his car. I pointed out that his coverage of any political news would be seen as prejudiced as long as he had that sticker on his car. For that reason, I have never put a political sticker on my car or sign in my yard.

Reliable Sources

Concerns about citing news sources (“he said”) is something new. In years past, concern within and outside the news business had to do with anonymous sources, which are less trustworthy than named, clearly identified sources. Some newspapers tried to ban anonymous sources altogether, but that proved to be extremely difficult. Most anonymous sources are people who have clear, even unique, knowledge of a matter but cannot afford to be named because they would lose their jobs. This is especially common in the federal government, where clandestine plots are kept secret for fear of alerting opponents. Most news organizations adopted a policy of requiring a second or even a third source for information from an anonymous source. The initial bombshell had to be verified by someone else with direct knowledge and with no direct ties to the original source. In hyper-partisan Washington, anonymous sources appear more frequently than ever. A rogue reporter would have a hard time getting false or distorted news into a traditional publication exactly because of the “he said,” “she said” news style. A false report would have to get past one or more skeptical editors (and anyone who has spent much time in a newsroom is a skeptic). Then it would have to withstand the barrage of criticism from the sources themselves. No one likes to be misquoted, and most will demand a retraction, correction or the keys to the company as a defamation judgment. At one time, bad reporting would not be tolerated. A news company had a reputational and financial interest in ensuring news is reported accurately. Bad reporters would be fired, or never hired. Editors and publishers kept close watch on news coverage. Facts had to be referenced and provable, thus the “he said,” “she said” requirement and editors asking, “How do you know this?” The proliferation of news sites made possible by the Internet gives readers access to more viewpoints and more sources for unvetted, unsourced, misleading news. The sad thing is that too many news consumers discern no difference between the reliability of the 150-year-old New York Times or Associated Press and the upstart Alt-Right or Democrats United. On a Facebook feed, they all look about the same, so they must have the same reliability, right? Hal Tarleton spent more than three decades as a working journalist and editor of The Wilson (NC) Daily Times. This post originally appeared on his blog, The Erstwhile Editor.  

Dershowitz: Trump Didn’t Obstruct Justice in Firing Comey

Taylor Griffin
-
0
Dershowitz: Trump Didn’t Obstruct Justice in Firing Comey
Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, a prominent constitutional law scholar and among the left’s towering intellectual figures. But, at the moment, among many of his fellow liberals he is persona non grata. Professor Dershowitz has earned the enmity of the political left by arguing, in essence, that the same legal standard for obstruction of justice must apply whether a President is a Democrat or Republican. This is a perfectly reasonable position. Inconveniently, it also spoils their case for obstruction of justice against President Trump. The anti-Trump contingent concedes that President Trump did have the authority to fire his FBI Director. But, they contend, this otherwise innocent act becomes illegal if the president was ‘corruptly motivated.’ Writing in the Washington Examiner Wednesday, Dershowitz warned that this is “a dangerous argument that no civil libertarian should be pressing.”
The law does not — and must not — bend to fit partisan ends.
What “corruptly motivated” means has a lot to do with where you stand politically. “If Hillary Clinton had been elected and Republicans were investigating her for asking the attorney general to describe the investigation of her as a ‘matter’ rather than a ‘case,'” Dershowitz wrote, “my colleagues would be arguing against an expansive view of existing criminal statutes, as they did when Republicans were demanding that she be locked up for espionage. The same would be true if Bill Clinton or former Attorney General Loretta Lynch were being investigated for his visit to her when she was investigating his wife’s misuse of email servers.” As our friend Ted Frank might say, everyone remember to switch sides on what constitutes obstruction of justice. Professor Dershowitz deserves credit for forgetting to do so. The law does not — and must not — bend to fit partisan ends. Among the more disturbing aspects of our current political moment is how readily we discard contrary facts and accept extremely dubious arguments when they serve our partisan biases. Professor Dershowitz has taken enormous heat from his fellow travelers on the left for resisting this trend. Some have accused him of being paid off. Others have declared him to be “a Zionist Republican authoritarian bigot.” When confronted with their own cognitive dissonance, people tend to react with anger — there is a special kind of bile partisans on the left or right reserve for those who challenge their own. “The point,” Dershowitz says, “is that many of those who disagree with my arguments refuse to believe that I am making them out of principle. They assume a corrupt motive.” “We have to stop criminalizing political differences,” Dershowitz, told Fox News last week. “The criminal law should be reserved for obvious violations of the criminal law that exists, not for making political points against your political enemies on both sides.” Professor Dershowitz has willingly suffered the relentless slings and arrows that seem to come with commitment to principle and intellectual honesty these days. While we may disagree with Prof. Dershowitz on many things, for this he has our respect — and the title of this week’s enemy of nonsense.

A Short Note on the Shooting in Washington

Taylor Griffin
-
0
A Short Note on the Shooting in Washington
Let’s all take a deep breath before we go blaming Democrats and the media for this morning’s shooting. The radicalization of politics as blood sport has happened on all sides. Judging from his Facebook page the shooter, James Hodgkins, was a Bernie supporter and rabidly anti-Trump. While we don’t know what caused him to open fire this morning, we might suspect that his political views had something to do with it. But, his political orientation is less meaningful than the concept of politics as warfare he apparently embraced. On this the left hardly has a monopoly. What happened this morning is an alarming reflection of the depths to which our politics, on all sides, has sunk. We should respond with a call for civility, not just in those we disagree with politically, but also in ourselves.

What Sessions Didn’t Say May Be More Revealing Than What He Did

Taylor Griffin
-
0
What Sessions Didn’t Say May Be More Revealing Than What He Did
In testimony punctuated by flashes of anger, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called charges that he colluded in Russia’s effort to influence the 2016 election “an appalling and detestable lie.” The hearing revealed little new about the core issue of potential collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. There remains little hard evidence for that. But, the questions Mr. Sessions refused to answer were more intriguing than those he did. Over the course of a sometimes contentious hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Tuesday, Mr. Sessions bristled at accusatory questions lobbed by Democrats. When Democratic Senator Ron Wyden pressed Mr. Sessions to explain what fired FBI Director James Comey was alluding to when he hinted last week at other reasons for Mr. Sessions recusal, tempers flared. “Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Senator Wyden,” Mr. Sessions responded, his voice rising in anger. “This is a secret innuendo being leaked about me and I don’t appreciate it.” Mr. Sessions frustration seemed well-justified. Mr. Comey’s vague accusation was a landmine that left Mr. Sessions in an impossible position – defending himself on charges about which he could only speculate. From what we do know, Mr. Sessions contacts with Russian officials, specifically with Moscow’s Ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak, appear innocent. A meeting with a Russian Ambassador is not anything out of the ordinary for a Senator. Indeed, your humble blogger recalls meeting Mr. Kislyak’s boss, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavarov, many years ago as a young Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer. But, in light of the peculiar amnesia about meetings with Russians that infects Trump world, Mr. Sessions failure to initially disclose these encounters raises eyebrows nonetheless.

What Sessions Didn’t Say

But it was Mr. Sessions’ refusal to answer questions about the specifics of his conversations with President Donald Trump that ignited the most fireworks. Mr. Sessions declined to answer whether he discussed with the President potential pardons, the reasons for Mr. Comey’s dismissal and whether Mr. Trump had expressed his frustration with Mr. Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, invoking the ire of Democrats on the committee. “There is also a congressional investigation, and you are obstructing that…investigation by not answering these questions, and I think your silence, like the silence of Director Coats, like the silence of Admiral Rogers speaks volumes,” Sen. Martin Henrich fumed. Mr. Sessions cited Justice Department policy against revealing such discussions. However, Mr. Sessions was unable to cite exactly what policy precludes him from doing so. This led Democrats to press him repeatedly on whether he was asserting executive privilege. Mr. Sessions said he was not. “I’m protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses and there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance,” Sessions explained. Mr. Sessions selective refusal to answer questions about his discussions with the President and senior White House officials will not put these matters to rest. It seems certain that the committee will call his bluff. Senators will likely insist that either President Trump assert executive privilege or compel Mr. Sessions to answer their questions.

What Sessions’ Silence Might Tell Us

It’s reasonable to speculate that Mr. Sessions’ refusal to answer questions about whether he had talked with the President about certain matters could imply that he has. Elsewhere in the hearing, Mr. Sessions did deny that he had discussed various things with the President. In response to a question from Ranking Member Mark Warner about whether the President had confidence in Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Mr. Sessions responded, “I have not talked to him about it.” But, when Senator Warner asked whether any Department of Justice or White House officials have had conversations about the potential for presidential pardons related to the Russia investigation, Mr. Sessions declined to similarly deny that he had. If there is internal talk about pardons, it suggests that while publicly the Trump Administration is dismissing the Russia probe as “fake news,” privately they are taking it more seriously. That shouldn’t be taken to mean that the charges of collusion in Russian election meddling are true. These investigations often uncover other issues that result in prosecutions. News reports indicate that several people formerly in Mr. Trump’s orbit could potentially face criminal liability on matters not directly related to Russia’s election meddling that have been raised in the probe.
  • Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn initially failed to disclose payments from Russian-owned TV network RT on his security clearance forms and financial disclosure filing. He also failed to register as a foreign agent for work his firm performed on behalf of the government of Turkey. Both potentially expose him to criminal liability under various federal statutes.
  • Special Council Robert Mueller is also investigating Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort’s business dealings with former Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian businessman and Kremlin ally. Both matters pre-date Mr. Manafort’s involvement in Trump’s campaign.
Mr. Sessions’ questioning, like Mr. Comey’s, didn’t change much when it came to the question of potential collusion in Russia’s efforts to influence the November elections. There remains little direct evidence that either Mr. Trump or Mr. Sessions were complicit on Russia’s scheme. Despite all the hype, we are still about where we started two weeks ago — waiting for Special Council Robert Mueller to report back to learn the truth. In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s defenders would be wise to check their calls for firing Mr. Mueller. If Mr. Trump has done nothing seriously wrong, Mr. Mueller’s exoneration might be the only thing that will allow Mr. Trump to put the Russia story behind him. Firing Mr. Mueller would only exacerbate his problems. If he fires Mr. Mueller, whether he is innocent or not, the Russia cloud that so frustrates the President may never lift. READ MORE https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/03/need-know-jeff-sessions-recusal/ https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/06/comey-really-fired-five-things-matter-comeys-testimony/ https://prodroughlyexp.wpengine.com/2017/05/2294/  

Why Comey Was Really Fired and Five Other Things That Matter After Comey’s Testimony

Taylor Griffin
-
0
Why Comey Was Really Fired and Five Other Things That Matter After Comey’s Testimony
Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Thursday was riveting, but in the long run, not as damning as the White House may have feared. In his first public remarks since being sacked by President Donald Trump last month, Mr. Comey mounted an effective defense of the FBI, refuted attacks of his leadership of it, and called into question the actions of President Donald Trump and his administration in the wake of his firing. Yet, Mr. Comey’s testimony offered no clear smoking gun. It certainly didn’t help Mr. Trump, but it could have been worse. The damage was doled out in mostly superficial wounds to Mr. Trump’s credibility that mattered little to Trump supporters, among whom Mr. Comey’s version of events carries little currency. To Mr. Trump’s supporters, the key takeaway was Mr. Comey’s confirmation that Mr. Trump was not a target in the FBI counterterrorism investigation into Russian election meddling. For the President’s critics, it was “lies, plain and simple” — Mr. Comey’s stark refutation of the White House’s characterization of his leadership of an FBI they claimed to be in disarray. At the end of the day, while Mr. Comey’s testimony wasn’t exactly the “total vindication” Mr. Trump claimed on Twitter, it wasn’t the decisive setback many predicted either.

The Real Reason Comey Was Fired

Constant leaks and Mr. Comey’s earlier testimony that the FBI was investigating potential collusion of Trump’s campaign in Russia’s election meddling left an erroneous impression that Mr. Trump was personally a target of the probe. The wisdom of Mr. Comey’s refusal to confirm what we now know as fact, that Mr. Trump was not, is debatable.  Mr. Comey’s rationalization that he would have a “duty to correct” if Mr. Trump later came under investigation seems lacking. It is fair to argue that Mr. Comey had a duty to correct the misperception that he was. It’s plausible that Mr. Trump was not personally complicit in Russia’s election meddling. If so, Mr. Trump’s frustration with the “cloud” created by the FBI’s investigation, which emerged as a consistent theme in Mr. Comey’s testimony, seems more understandable. Andrew McCarthy argued in the National Review that it was Mr. Comey’s refusal to publicly confirm that Mr. Trump was not a direct target of the investigation that led to his firing. “Do you suppose the desperation to tell that to the world, the exasperation over Comey’s refusal to tell it to the world, just might have been at the front of the president’s mind?” he wrote.

Trump looked foolish and prideful, but not necessarily criminal. 

Despite all the hype leading up to Thursday’s hearing, on the primary question of Mr. Trump’s complicity in Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the needle barely budged. Nothing in Mr. Comey’s testimony suggested new evidence that Mr. Trump colluded in Russia’s scheme to influence the 2016 election. Mr. Trump’s overtures to Mr. Comey about going easy on former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn and lifting the cloud the probe had placed on his Presidency, while arguably inappropriate and certainly a breach of the traditional protocol for interactions between a President and FBI Directors, aren’t in themselves criminal obstruction of justice. As Mr. Comey noted in his testimony, the President can fire an FBI Director for any reason or no reason at all. After Mr. Comey’s testimony, Trump’s pleas look less like obstruction of justice and more like poor judgement and lack of understanding of what is and isn’t appropriate in his interactions with an FBI director.

Media commentators thought Comey’s testimony was damning; Trump supporters were unfazed.

Media commentators universally thought Mr. Comey came off as the honest, sincere good cop. He was remarkably candid about both his interactions with Mr. Trump and his own actions and thinking. It was among the most stunningly open and unvarnished congressional testimonies of recent memory. Mr. Comey’s primary goal was to defend the FBI, and his actions as its leader against the attacks of President Trump and his surrogates. In this Mr. Comey largely succeeded, at least among audiences willing to listen. Mr. Comey’s testimony may have caused Mr. Trump’s credibility to take a hit — but only among those inclined to view Mr. Comey as the more credible source. Mr. Trump’s supporters are thoroughly hardened against attacks on him. Trump loyalists view the mainstream media as fake news, polls as rigged, and Russian interference in the election as a fiction concocted by the press and their “deep state” allies to absolve Hillary Clinton of blame for Trump’s victory. Few of them will be inclined to take Mr. Comey’s word for it.

Comey’s candidness gave Team Trump fresh ammunition.

Mr. Comey’s candidness had a flip side. It provided fresh ammunition for Mr. Trump and his defenders. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz pounced on Mr. Comey’s admission that he orchestrated the leaked memos detailing Mr. Trump’s interactions with Mr. Comey — an attack line later reflected in a tweet by Mr. Trump. The implication that the leak was illegal (it wasn’t) and that Mr. Comey is a “leaker” responsible for other media reports damaging to Mr. Trump were assumptions that Team Trump were more than happy to let stand. Mr. Kasowitz’s response, while at times disingenuous, may prove more effective than the usual White House strategy of scattershot hyperbole, which often leaves the White House vulnerable to incredulous news stories that extend the story for days.

Kasowitz’s Complaints About Comey’s Leaked Memo May Violate Whistleblower Statutes

In their zeal to capitalize on Mr. Comey’s admission that he was behind leaks, Trump’s defenders may be overplaying their hand. The formal complaints about Mr. Comey’s leaked memos Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, Mark Kasowitz reportedly intends to file with the Justice Department and the Senate Judiciary Committee could land Team Trump in hot water. As the Washington Post’s Phillip Bump pointed out, it may qualify as retaliation under federal whistleblower statutes.

In other words, Comey, here, is an employee who is blowing the whistle, to use the idiom, on his former boss. That boss wants to punish him for doing so. That’s problematic — especially if there’s no evidence that Comey actually violated any law that would trigger punishment.

Comey’s testimony poured cold water on charges of partisan motives

The accusations of political motivations behind Mr. Comey’s actions regularly leveled by Mr. Trump’s defenders didn’t hold water in light of his testimony. Mr. Comey’s detailed and unusually honest account of the thinking behind his decisions revealed a consistent thread of concern for protecting the institution for the FBI and the credibility of its work. Mr. Comey was also quite critical of the actions of Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s attorney general. Mr. Comey revealed that Mr. Lynch instructed him to use language that downplayed the significance of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton:

“[T]he attorney general had directed me not to call it an ‘investigation,’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.”

 
1...171819...23Page 18 of 23