JustOneMinute

Bracing For 2020

Last week it was MoDo and now Tom Frideman joins the ranks of those worried that the Dems will lose the Presidential election by nominating a left-wing nutjob. 

But it may not matter. Trump will run against The Squad regardless of the nominee. That means a moderate Dem will be taking (and returning!) fire from both flanks. Or embracing the love of The Squad. Tough either way, but this is the face the Dems picked so they can grin and wear it.

I Want To Go Back To Wherever I Came From

Trump loves a brawl featuring extremist Democrats and The Squad loves attention so this scuffle works for both sides.

David Brooks is interesting on the theory of classic liberalism, ie, the non-revolutionary type which has fallen out of favor among the young and young of heart (We see you ranting over there Bernie!).

The Times notes in passing that with his "go back" comment Trump may have been aiming for a more race-neutral, politically themed "Love it or leave it". And going WAAY back, "go back" was more about politics than race:

Those who study language and rhetoric say the president’s “go back” comments — or, at least, the sentiment behind them — have roots beginning as far back as the 1600s, when dissidents were banished from American colonies for advocating total religious freedom. Later, a set of laws passed in 1798 allowed the deportation of noncitizens who were considered dangerous, were from hostile nations or had criticized the federal government.

Obviously, since everything is about race today, "go back" is as well.

And where does this leave us? Aghast and confused, which is to say, the same place I've been for a few years now. Keeping The Squad on center stage may help Trump in 2020. Having people scream Trump's a racist may have been tuned out by now. I endorse the view of Jeff Dobbs on Twitter:

I am calling for the total and complete sending of every elected official back to their countries of origin until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

That ought to buy us some time. Like, a decade or two...

All The News That Fits The Narrative

Antifa? What's that?

A Seattle man attacked an ICE facility with a rifle and incendiary devices. Hmm, Seattle. A possible antifa connection? Hey, what's antifa anyway? The NY Times gets this close:

Police have not established a motive for the attack, but The Seattle Times reported that a longtime friend of Mr. Van Spronsen’s, Deb Bartley, believed he had intended to provoke a fatal conflict.

“He was ready to end it,” she told The Times. “I think this was a suicide.”

Hmm, did the long-time friend have anything else to say? Link-clickers who make it to the Seattle Times read this (my emphasis)

Deb Bartley, a friend of Van Spronsen’s for about 20 years, described him as an anarchist and anti-fascist, and she believes his attack on the detention center was intended to provoke a fatal conflict. 

 “He was ready to end it,” Bartley said. “I think this was a suicide. But then he was able to kind of do it in a way that spoke to his political beliefs … I know he went down there knowing he was going to die.”

She and other friends of Van Spronsen got letters in the mail “just saying goodbye.” He also wrote what she referred to as a manifesto, which she declined to discuss in detail but predicted would be taken by authorities.

Huh. The manifesto is probably this and yes, the antifa make the news occasionally but the NY Times has a hard time noticing.

The Washington Post also choked on this bone, quoting Deb Bartley only in part:

Deb Bartley, who said she was a longtime friend of Van Spronsen’s, told the Seattle Times she believes he intended to die by attacking the detention center on Saturday.

“He was ready to end it,” she told the Times. “I think this was a suicide. But then he was able to kind of do it in a way that spoke to his political beliefs. . . . I know he went down there knowing he was going to die.”

Bartley said Van Spronsen left a “manifesto” that she did not share details of but thinks will be used by authorities. She and others got letters from Van Spronsen “saying goodbye,” she said.

On the other hand, USA Today ran an AP story and managed to blurt out the truth, so we know its possible:

69-year-old 'anarchist' shot, killed after attacking Washington migrant detention center

Story Highlights

• • A 69-year-old man was shot and killed after an attempted attack on a migrant detention facility in Washington.
  • The man, Willem Van Spronsen, was described by a friend as an anarchist and anti-fascist.
  • The attacker was arrested outside the same detention facility for assaulting a police officer during a protest in 2018.

The idea that the antifa is a problem will have a harder time taking hold while urban liberals remain cocooned by their solicitous news outlets. But all that means is that 2020 is likely to be full of surprises!

Saturday Morning

Here we go again. Trump and Pelosi versus AOC! Do you bet on youth and energy or experience and numbers?

I remain shocked (in a totally non-shocked way) that Dem "strategists" seem to be seeking a progressive Presidential candidate whose coattails should let them sweep Congressional districts in Brooklyn, Manhattan, San Francisco and a few other urban enclaves while losing most of the country.

Do they understand "swing districts"? Do they understand that winning Brooklyn with 85% of the vote doesn't send more people to Congress than winning with a mere 75%?

The roster of nervous libs is expanding. Matt Yglesias tried to explain the benefits of moderation. With science AND studies, since common sense has left the building.

Jon Chait joined in on July 3, which may have gotten him even more readership than a full burial at sea on July 4.

Kevin Drum wonders if the Democrats are now the party of open borders and makes a courageous admission:

I have previously criticized Republicans who accused liberals of wanting “open borders.” President Trump tweets about this endlessly. But I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders.

Well, yeah.

I'm sticking with my current theory: With her race and gender, Kamala Harris gets a bit of an automatic progressive pass so she is under less pressure to go Full Crazy. That should help! However, as a Hothouse California Dem who may have never met an actual conservative, she seems to be hazy as to just how crazy her party is. Hence her waffling and walkbacks on Medicare for All and her support, or nostalgia, or something for forced busing.

I'm old enough to remember 1984, when Walter Mondale was lefty enough to be dubbed the Pander Bear and Reagan carried 49 states. That led to the Democratic Leadership Council and a moderate revolt which culminated in Clinton '92. Or go back to lefty McGovern in '72, when Nixon carried 49 states. Carter ran as a moderate in '76 and away he went.

So far 2020 looks more like 1972 or 1984 but these pendulums keep on swingin'.

Acosta Out; Are There DoJ Files Available?

Acosta has stepped down as SecLab.

NY Mag finds hedge fund managers who don't think Epstein managed a real hedge fund. Their guess: he blackmailed his clients. Well, call it 'blackmail-lite' - investors pay Epstein, say, 2% per year and he puts the money in Treasuries and index funds. Epstein raises $1 billion, pockets $20 million a year, lives the life. If the fees are higher but the clients are paying for regular access to the young ladies, well, more money for Epstein. Of course, that is a lot less like blackmail and a lot more like a disguised fee for service. This theory also works with the idea that Epstein was pals with some wealthy Saudis and was shaking down the sheiks for cash and intelligence (hence Epstein's ownership by US intel), as reportedly claimed by Acosta during his Trump transition interviews).

A waving red flag that libs are worried about just who was being protected is this ludicrously framed article by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:

How Alex Acosta Got Away With It for So Long

Acosta got away with it? What was in it for him? And why (as Ms. Lithwick eventually acknowledges in the hundredth paragraph) were so many other of the high and mighty also abetting Epstein? Why, for example, did Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance go easy on Epstein? Acosta's reach extended that far? Please.

The real question is why did the system protect Epstein. And on that point, I have yet to see any reporting describing the prosecutor's case files down in the Southern District of Florida. Unless the DoJ is unique in the history of bureaucracies, I expect there is surviving paperwork documenting the charging decision. The Miami Herald, in their exhaustive Epstein investigation, claimed access to other documents but nothing from the SD FL (my emphasis):

Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal — called a non-prosecution agreement — essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes, according to a Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records.

There is also the odd aspect that the plea agreement bars pursuit of Epstein's co-conspirators. Isn't that a bit of clue that maybe the point was to protect people other than Epstein?

Well. My Frequently Unasked Questions: Would there normally be contemporaneous DoJ paperwork on a typical case? Is there paperwork for the Epstein case or did the dog eat it? If there is paperwork, shouldn't the DoJ Inspector General and Congressional overseers have access to it?

We heard Acosta's rationalizations on Wednesday, but is there contemporaneous support for it? Or some other explanation, such as a note citing a senior DoJ official telling Acosta that the intelligence community has asked them to back away?

Where are the leaks??? Or is this a situation where the usual media suspects have been advised that "I'd tell you but then you'd want to kill yourself"?

 

Epstein "Belonged To Intelligence"?

Vicky Ward, who has been pursuing the Epstein story since 2002, provides an intriguing detail about why Epstein may have gotten a sweetheart deal from the Feds:

A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up. 

Unaware of my personal history with Epstein, this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought.

...

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

Well now. First, this may be garbled third hand story-telling which Acosta won't confirm (he apparently made no mention of an intelligence issue in his news conference today.)

Second, Acosta may have been told that as a little white lie by senior officials protecting Epstein.

But third... a guy with friends among the Arab sheiks may have had useful contacts during the early 2000's when the US was looking for both bin Laden and intel on Saddam's WMDs.

If Epstein was involved in that sort of thing the odds are we will never find out. But IF (I say IF!) we learn that Epstein was protected in 2008 because he was part of the WMD bellyflop in 2002, well - Washington will need a bigger fan to process the shit that will hit it.

Jeffrey Epstein Busted

Mystery financier Jeffrey Epstein was busted by the NY Feds for sex trafficking [indictment here]. If I am following, these are new charges based on activity in Manhattan, not a revival of the bitterly controversial 2008 case that was quashed down in Florida.

Epstein is routinely linked to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew and many others among the rich and famous.

As to Wild Bill, records reportedly reveal he flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" 26 times, often ditching his Secret Service protection (I assume this is post-Presidency). Would Democrats have been pushing to protect Hillary's Presidential campaign in 2007/08? Obvi.

Trump seems to have flown with Epstein once but clearly knew him socially. Epstein was also a regular at Mar-a-Lago.

Obviously, protecting the Clintons is no longer a Dem priority. Would Bush have been protecting Trump back in 2008? Why? On the other hand, the Republican Establishment embeds in the DoJ might be willing to go after Trump today.

Well. Most likely, this case will turn into one more example of Resistance Projection: they accuse Trump of behavior (probably, in this case) engaged in by a Clinton. 

Meanwhile, Back At The Mall...

Saved by the rain! It was undoubtedly divine intervention that thwarted Trump's attempted putsch yesterday, but will progressives be willing to praise God?

Ebb And Flow

Nate Silver's 538 has polling indicating post-debate changes in polling position. Unsurprisingly, Biden lost support and Harris gained it. However, more Biden supporters moved to other candidates than to Harris.

Personally, I was delighted to see Kristen Gillibrand's net favorable rating decline, although probably not by a statistically significant margin. Boo 'er off!

How About That World Cup?

The non-traditional World Cup post-game thread. Or real news.

Dow Poised To, Well, Pounce.

Can the Dow pounce? Stock futures (DJIA up 226) indicate that the early money likes the Trump trade truce.  We will see what the morrow brings.

Health Care Follies

The NY Times notes the Democratic dance around Medicare for All and the possible elimination of private insurance.

But its what the Democrats all agree on that will really get them - the idea of free health care for all undocumented future Democrats when we have an obvious shortage of health providers for low-income US citizens? More crazy faster!

On the topic of immigration, Andrew Sullivan is excellent (either Sully is back from his Palin-fueled Alaskan wilderness journey or I have joined him.) Fareed Zakaria, a reliable lefty, is also concerned about his party's position.

BONUS QUERY - BLUE STATE BAILOUT?: Would the abolition of private insurance wipe out the obligation of various states on their health plans to public sector retirees and/or their current employees? One might think so but I have not checked the details of the Medicare For All plans or the state obligations to current and retired employees. That said, Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey are on everyone's list of states Too Big To Fail, Too Blue To Succeed.

Of course, both public and private sector unions negotiated health benefits later in lieu of (unaffordable) pay increases immediately, so union support my be soft.

DO LET ME ADD: Just to pick Connecticut at random, state budget projections show health care expenses (current and retirees) of $1.5B in 2020, $1.6B in 2021.

Projected deficits are $1.9B in 2020 and $2.5B in 2021. Eliminating the health care expense is not a complete solution but every big bit helps.

It May Not Be Smart Money But Its Early Money

PredictIt has the Dem frontrunners on a cool graph. Bettors say Biden is taking on water.

Heck of a problem posting today unless it's a link.OL that stamford article is for you.