JustOneMinute

Biden v. Booker: The War To, Hmm, Well, Interrupt the Snore?

At the next debate Spartacus will be all over Biden like white on rice for Biden's support of the 1994 crime bill and incarceration nation. It's a fine progressive position and Booker is uniquely positioned to promote it: his latest legislative proposal, the Second Look Act, is intended to give old-timers in prison for non-violent offenses a second chance at early release. Or so he says. [Spoiler, h/t Ann Coulter: The bill is named for an incarcerated drug lord who led one of the most violent gangs in Harlem back in the 80s. LOL Whatev!]

NBC News gave a glowing presentation of Booker's fight for justice for William Underwood, one of the two guys named in the bill's title:

William Underwood, 65 years years old, is one inmate who wasn't eligible for release under the First Step Act. He has been in federal prison for 30 years, convicted of conspiracy, racketeering and non-violent drug-related crimes. Although it was his first felony conviction, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole under mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Booker, who first met Underwood in 2016, says he's a prime example of the kind prisoner who should be eligible for release. He points to Underwood's age, the time he's already served and his record of good behavior as as reasons why more reforms are needed, noting that even the prison guards have said Underwood doesn’t belong there.

Booker’s legislation would address people like Underwood. The Matthew Charles and William Underwood Second Look Act, named after Underwood and Charles, the first person released because of the First Step Act, would give those serving long sentences a second chance.

That mirrors the Booker press release, so solid steno points to NBC!

Too bad NBC News budget doesn't spring for access to Google and the NY Times archives. But mine does!

Hmm... Trouble in My Blue Heaven?

Here are story excerpts. 1988:

And 1990, the peak year for NYC homicides. The age, 46, is clearly a typo.

Well. This is the guy NBC News and Cory Booker want back on the streets. Should be a rollicking debate, assuming Biden's staffers have given up decaf and do five minutes of homework.

ERRATA: NYC murders from 1928. Murder rate peaked in 1990 and the drug trade was out of control.

 

Sunday Morning Open Thread

Away we go.

Saturday At The Open

Gone golfing.

Could This Be Peak Bernie?

I love this game!

Labor fight roils Bernie Sanders campaign, as workers demand the $15 hourly pay the candidate has proposed for employees nationwide

Future quotes from our non-future President: Social justice is for those being exploited by greedy corporations, not for those being exploited by me.

Send Back "Send Her Back"

Trump distances himself from himself:

Trump hits ‘send her back’ chant, claims he tried to stop it

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday chided his supporters who chanted “send her back” when he questioned the loyalty of a Somali-born congresswoman, joining widespread criticism of the campaign crowd’s cry after fellow Republicans warned it could hurt the GOP in next year’s elections

In a week that has corkscrewed daily with hostile exchanges over race and love of country , Trump also claimed he had tried to stop the chant at a reelection event Wednesday night in North Carolina.

“I started speaking really quickly,” he told reporters. “I was not happy with it. I disagree with it” and “would certainly try” to stop any similar chant at a future rally.

Libs are in a meltdown, of course. On the right had side of the commentariat I would say that a clear majority find "Send Her Back" to be un-American; some bitter-clingers think the crowd is trolling the media and aren't seriously suggesting Trump suspend the Constitution and re-write our laws.

Tricky call. I think my Outrage-o-meter burned out in early 2016. I agree that most of that crowd was just mocking the media but still, funny or not, its not funny. Trump needs to dial this back. An election year suggestion: Go for a chant of "Send her home" with the idea that voters can send someone else to Washington.

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!