Some Preliminary Thoughts and Observations

Tuesday was certainly a huge news day. Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 of 18 federal charges, including tax evasion and lying on bank loan applications. Manafort had been Trump's campaign manager for 3 months in 2016. His crimes date back years, and are unrelated to the special counsel's investigation into Russian collusion. However, Mueller's power includes the ability to pursue other charges arising from his investigation. Meanwhile, Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, entered into a plea deal with the US Attorneys from the Southern District of New York; the Cohen case having been referred there from Mueller. Cohen pleaded guilty to 5 counts of tax evasion, one count of lying on a loan application, and two counts of campaign finance violations.

I am opposed to the idea of a "special counsel." I opposed it when Ken Starr pursued Bill Clinton, and I am opposed to Mueller's investigation. Interference by the Russians, or other foreign entities, is a serious matter. That should be investigated by Congress. I am opposed to giving any prosecutor the power to pursue claims that arise from an investigation into other matters. Everyone I have asked has agreed that they would not want the full power of the federal government, with unlimited resources, investigating every corner of their lives. Why did Mueller keep the case against Manafort, as it had no relation to Russian collusion? At the least, refer it to a US Attorney's office. Mueller's mission from the outset was to get Trump - just like Starr's mission against Clinton. Sorry to disappoint all those who are celebrating Tuesday's news, but open and ongoing investigations into sitting presidents makes the US appear to be a banana republic.

Trump supporters have pointed out that Obama paid $375,000 for campaign finance violations. That was a civil fine, as there was no charge that the violations were done "knowingly," which would make it a crime. But still, why such a huge fine? The Baltimore Sun reported in 2012 that the restrictions on campaign donations has actually brought more money into politics, with Presidents spending more time out fund raising. According to the paper, had Obama accepted public funding for his campaign, he would have received about $135 million. However, with all of his fund raising, online and in person, he was able to raise $745 million. The paper noted that Obama made 220 fund raising trips during the two year campaign - compared to only 86 for Bush, 70 for Bill Clinton, 24 by G.H.W. Bush, 3 by Ronald Reagan and 25 by Jimmy Carter.

A very good argument can be made about the need to change these campaign finance laws. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to 2 counts of violating campaign finance laws. Why? It is not obvious that any violation occurred. The plea was likely made because, with Clinton confidante and adviser Lanni Davis as his attorney, a deal was made for lesser prison time as long as Cohen would not only admit that it was a crime, but also admit that Trump had him do the alleged crime (paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal) "for the purpose of influencing the election." That makes it a crime if it was unreported, but only if the sole purpose was to influence the election. Except, clearly Trump would have personal reasons as well for not wanting any affairs to be made public. And, if Trump was using his own funds, still not a crime, as there is no limit on using one's own money for the campaign. But Davis has called Trump an "illegitimate President," and has written a book advocating for Trump's impeachment. So the plea gave Davis the opportunity to announce that if Cohen admitted the payments were a crime, then Trump must be guilty of the same crime. Would that suggest collusion between between Davis and the US Attorney in order to get Trump?

So, if these undeclared payments are in fact a crime, why? Wouldn't that make Hillary Clinton's payments to Fusion GPS for the Steele dossier also be an unreported campaign contribution, and therefore a crime? Sadly, it would not make any difference to my liberal friends to point out that Obama escaped escaped impeachment over Fast and Furious. Or Benghazi, and the lies about a movie trailer. Or using the IRS to target specific conservative groups and individuals. It would make no difference that Hillary Clinton had 33,000 missing emails, because, all of us use "bleach bit" to get rid of emails which are claimed to be personal - not classified - in nature. It would make no difference to remind liberals that Timothy Geithner was, shall we say, somewhat light in paying his federal income taxes for at least four years; which apparently qualified Geithner to become Obama's Treasury Secretary, a person who also oversees the IRS (the taxing entity that he shorted). We seem to have two justice systems, one for Republican officials and one for others. We will now be seeing non-stop prosecutions of people affiliated with Trump, and other Republicans.

What about attorney-client privilege and confidentiality? I get that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, was willing to break the privilege and risk likely disbarment in order to avoid decades in prison. But is anyone else concerned that the federal prosecutor undoubtedly forced Cohen to break the privilege in order to get an opening into Trump. Is anyone else concerned that the prosecutor wrote the script for what Cohen had to say (that the payments were made "for the purpose of influencing the election"), even though Cohen had previously said just the opposite. I guess there is no line that prosecutors are not allowed to cross.

If the Democrats take back the House in November, which seems increasingly likely, then the day they are sworn in in January will be the day Articles of Impeachment are taken up by the House Judiciary Committee. The Democrats have been seeking Trump's impeachment since his inauguration. And, no doubt, they will justify their actions as payback for Clinton's impeachment. With conviction in the Senate highly unlikely, it will be yet another political charade, and a waste of taxpayer money.

Here's something to ponder: from 1790 to 1973, a period of 183 years, we had one impeachment of a president. Andrew Johnson, who was not convicted by the Senate. If we assume the Dems win the House in November, there is every indication impeachment proceedings will begin in January. That will make for 3 impeachment proceedings in the last 45 years. Nixon, who resigned before the entire House could vote on Articles of Impeachment. Clinton, who was impeached but not convicted. And Trump. If the Congress impeached at the same rate in our first 183 years, we would have had 12 impeachments during that time - not one. Here's my question: do you believe we now have more scoundrels and bad actors in modern times than before (if so, really?) - or are the two parties now using impeachment as a political weapon with no concern for the divisive impact on the country?

Which brings me to my final comment for the night. Our politicians are too concerned with their own reelections and their own power. Their egos swell with time in office. They begin to think that the people are irrelevant, that it's all about them. Previously, I opposed term limits for Congress, thinking people should be able to vote for whomever they want. But, if we can limit a president to two terms (eight years), why not limit Representatives to five terms (ten years), and Senators to two terms (twelve years). And let's have the people, at the ballot box, decide who holds political office - instead of the politicians dictating to the people, through impeachment proceedings, who gets to hold office.

Actually, one more final note. In case some of you need me to say it. No, I do not condone or excuse tax evasion or defrauding banks. Criminals should be punished. I have often said that people in office, and top level people in the world of business, sports and entertainment, do not think that the norms of society apply to them. Another reason for instituting term limits on Congress.

Democrats Will Seek to Imprison Republicans if They Win the Midterms!

What? You don't believe it? Why not? Paul Krugman is the left-wing Nobel prize winning economist and Op-Ed writer for the New York Times. In the August 18, 2018 online edition of the Times was an article by Mr. Krugman titled "The Slippery Slope of Complicity." Krugman starts out his piece by claiming that "Trump is every bit as much a menace to the republic, as some of us warned when all the cool kids were busy snarking about Clinton's emails." The "slippery slope" in his title refers to the Republicans having tolerated some of Trump's behaviors, to the point where they now "acquiesce in Trump's corruption, his incitement to violence, and his abuse of power."

Krugman then makes this outrageous assertion, based on nothing, which the New York Times - the self-described "paper of record" - happily publishes online: "Make no mistake: If Republicans hold both houses of Congress this November, Trump will go full authoritarian, abusing institutions like the I.R.S., trying to jail opponents and journalists on, er trumped-up charges, and more - and he'll do it with full support from his party." Then, Krugman went even further with this contention: "And some of them (Republicans) are making a coldblooded calculation that the demise of democracy is worth it if it means lower taxes on the rich and freedom to pollute."

It is hard to believe that this was not an "April Fool's" online edition of the Times. It was Obama who actually used the I.R.S. to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. It was Obama who spied on journalists, and sought to prosecute more people under the Espionage Act than other presidents. Where is Krugman's evidence that Trump wants to jail opponents and journalists? If there is no evidence, how dare he say it, and how dare the Times put it up online. And if there is evidence - and I am sure there is not - he should tell us what it is in the article.

One can only feel scorn for the claim that Republicans are willing to see an end to our democracy in exchange for lower taxes and pollution. Then again, Krugman also tells us that "Republican politicians are (not) serious, honorable people who care about policy." This sounds quite similar to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" - the racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. Only Krugman has taken it to the next level. Now, the deplorables (i.e. Republicans) want to lock up opponents, lock up journalists, and bring about an end to democracy just to get lower taxes and pollution.

In case Krugman's, and the Times, left-wing readers were not clear on the point of this trashy Op-Ed, Krugman makes it quite explicit: "democracy really could die just a few moths from now." In other words, with a Republican victory in the midterms, our democracy ends. So, Krugman, and presumably the Times, justify this garbage because the goal is to rally the base to get out and vote in order to prevent...fascism, jailing journalists, and lower taxes and pollution.

Here's how I look at it - if Krugman can make all these scurrilous comments about Trump and Republicans, then why can't I claim that Democrats will seek to imprison Republicans? Maybe Democrats will force Republicans into slavery and prostitution. Don't blame me. It's a time honored Democratic approach to the opposition - demagoguery and name-calling instead of true debate with facts and logical argument. Just ask Hillary. And Obama. And Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them.