JustOneMinute

Not The Bombshell I Was Waiting For

The NY Times sneak previews the long awaited IG report investigating the investigators. If we can believe the Times - IF! - there will not be fireworks:

Russia Inquiry Review Is Said to Criticize F.B.I. but Rebuff Claims of Biased Acts

A watchdog report will portray the pursuit of a wiretap of an ex-Trump adviser as sloppy, but it also debunks some accusations by Trump allies of F.B.I. wrongdoing.

WASHINGTON — A highly anticipated report by the Justice Department’s inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump, according to people briefed on a draft.

However!

More broadly, Mr. Horowitz’s report, to be made public on Dec. 9, portrays the overall effort to seek the wiretap order and its renewals as sloppy and unprofessional, according to the people familiar with it. He will also sharply criticize as careless one of the F.B.I. case agents in New York handling the matter and say that the bureau and the Justice Department displayed poor coordination during the investigation, they said.

At the same time, however, the report debunks a series of conspiracy theories and insinuations about the F.B.I. that Mr. Trump and his allies have put forward over the past two years, the people said, though they cautioned that the report is not complete. The New York Times has not reviewed the draft, which could contain other significant findings.

Hmm. Their source may well be a Resistance figure providing a generous gloss on this. I guess we see soon enough.

The Walls Are Closing In On Trump

The Times finally runs the "John Dean moment" story they probably outlined months ago. Still waiting for a smoking gun, but I know they are ready with that headline as well.

Definitely a tipping point.

Buttigieg Coming Up Roses

The Centrists Strike Back! Mayor Pete surges to the lead in a tiny, statistically unpersuasive New Hampshire poll. This follows his more convincing lead in a recent Iowa poll.

All very exciting as we roar into tonight's Democratic debate in Atlanta aired on MSNBC (9 PM ET).

Here is a fun Fight Night preview. As the latest front-runner, Buttigieg needs to watch his six. Actually, he should watch his one through twelve.

Hmm...

Team Trump coming up short in LA. And Buttigieg ascendant in Iowa. That poll is interesting because it clearly is part of the story behind Warren's shift to "Medicare For All, Someday".

Saturday Night Lights

Baylor- Oklahoma!

Taylor Testimony Damaging

Taylor testimony damaging, or so says Fox News' Chris Wallace.

Must See TV?

The public impeachment hearings begin tomorrow.

The battle lines are drawn. Is there anyone left likely to change their mind?

Sunday Afternoon

Away we go, finally.

We'll Never Have Paris

Jonathan Adler, one of The Few, The Proud, the Green Right-wingers, describes a market-oriented agenda to grapple with climate change. He has a companion piece in the LA Times.

This triggers a flashback to my post last August, when Politico and the NY Times were describing an emergence of Green Republicans.

South of the Border

This is appalling:

9 Members of Mormon Family in Mexico Are Killed in Ambush

Six children were among the victims in a massacre attributed to organized crime, relatives said. Other children were rescued, some of whom hid along a roadside.

 

 

Saturday Afternoon Open Thread

Here we go again. I actually think the beginning of the end of Elizabeth Warren's campaign's end will be marked as yesterday with the release of her progressive fan fiction on Medicare For All.

Paul Krugman has the funniest reaction - serious libs pulled this together, the numbers sort of add up, this will never make it through Congress anyway, so lets talk about something else. Uh huh. I think Biden and Buttigieg will be happy to talk about this. Time will tell.

DO LET ME ADD: Among her revenue raisers is a proposal to adopt a mark-to-market on capital gains for the 1 percenters. She thinks that will raise $2 trillion, which ain't hay. Presumably she is getting a cue from Sen. Wyden, the ranking Dem on the Senate Finance Committee. As a longshot, maybe the Minuteman got results! (Yeah, yeah, this got booed off here and it hardly makes me want to back Warren, but the idea is coming on like a freight train. President Buttigieg will be looking for sock-the-rich revenue ideas, especially Constitutional ones. Of course, that might mean we're safe until 2025...

Saturday Afternoon Open Thread

Here we go again. I actually think the beginning of the end of Elizabeth Warren's campaign's end will be marked as yesterday.

Paul Krugman has the funniest reaction - serious libs pulled this together, the numbers sort of add up, this will never make it through Congress anyway, so lets talk about something else. Uh huh. I think Biden and Buttigieg will be happy to talk about this. Time will tell.

DO LET ME ADD: Among her revenue raisers is a proposal to adopt a mark-to-market on capital gains for the 1 percenters. She thinks that will raise $2 trillion, which ain't hay. Presumably she is getting a cue from Sen. Wyden, the ranking Dem on the Senate Finance Committee. As a longshot, maybe the Minuteman got results! (Yeah, yeah, this got booed off here and it hardly makes me want to back Warren, but the idea is coming on like a freight train. President Buttigieg will be looking for sock-the-rich revenue ideas, especially Constitutional ones. Of course, that might mean we're safe until 2025...

She Had A Plan

Elizabeth Warren releases her Medicare For All fan fiction.

She will hold down costs by paying current Medicare reimbursement rates, in a fantasy taken seriously by on one.

NY Times:

Would ‘Medicare for All’ Save Billions or Cost Billions?

...

In our current system, doctors, hospitals and other health care providers are paid by a number of insurers, and those insurers all pay them slightly different prices. In general, private insurance pays medical providers more than Medicare does. Under a Medicare for all system, Medicare would pick up all the bills. Paying the same prices that Medicare pays now would mean an effective pay cut for medical providers who currently see a lot of patients with private insurance.

For a Medicare for all system to save money, it needs to reduce the health care industry’s income somewhat. But if rates are too low, hospitals already facing financial difficulties could be put out of business.

Politico:

Medicare for All' backers find biggest foe in their own backyard

Hospitals threaten to derail big and small Democratic plans for coverage expansion.

On the revenue side Sen. Warren proposes a spate of new taxes and a level of IRS enforcement and taxpayer compliance that seems unprecedented (in a "Gee, how come nobody ever thought of THAT?" kind of way) - she hopes to raise compliance from 84% to 92%, which is great. Why not 95% like in the UK?

Left unmentioned: the rest of her plan includes having government office workers check under the cushions of every sofa in Federal offices for spare change. Another revenue source is money left by the Tooth Fairy.

This will work.

No it won't. Politico again with Obama alums rehashing their battle scars and guessing Warren has no chance with this.

More Tea Leaves On The Impeachment-Lite Drama

From Politico:

Top NSC Russia official to step down ahead of impeachment testimony

As with Bolton, Washington wonders: Did he jump, or was he pushed?

Tomorrow's excitement MAY include a House vote affirming the existence of an ongoing something-or-other. An impeachment inquiry, maybe, but why insist on labeling this thing we have?

To The Polls!

Back in Brexit-land the Parliament approves a plan for a Dec 12 election. Andrew Stuttaford of NR is nervous.

Re-Enter Sandmann

The Covington HS kids come closer to having their day with their defamation suit against the Washington Post.

I've Had Worse News

Not that we celebrate death around here but I'll cheer for justice:

ISIS leader al-Baghdadi believed to have been killed in a US military raid, sources say

Trump will address the nation at 9AM. I doubt it is to announce tonight's starting pitchers.

DO LET ME ADD: My kids have put up with many years of the following type of dialogue:

Eager Learner: "I hate those guys [at the DMV / at the supermarket / reffing the game/ whatever]. They are the worst!"

Pedantic Yet Seemingly Inexhaustible Dad: "OMG don't hate! We aren't haters! OK, yes, we hate ISIS. And Bin Laden, but he's dead. And Kim Il-whoever is running North Korea into the dirt is hate-worthy. That pretty much covers it. Don't be a hater."

I try to keep the list pretty short but I'm always happy to shorten it. If I were a better Christian I'd take a hate-the-sinner sin-not-the-sinner view, but I have other failings I'll focus on before my ISIS-hating rises to the top of my self-improvement list.

BONUS: Here is a transcript of Obama on Osama. Some will wonder whether Trump will also be self-congratulatory.

Are You Ready For Some Football?!?

Something new to argue about. Auburn at LSU and Wisconsin at Ohio State may answer some questions while we await the Nov 9 Totally NOT An Armistice Day showdown between LSU and ALabama.

Traditional Friday 'Now What?' Open Thread

I don't know the Outrage du Jour but we have one every day.

Here We Go Again

I am limping into the new day.

Battle Lines

The impeachment polling is shaping up as more trench warfare in 50/50 nation.

I promise you, there are people out there thinking that (to snatch a few recent examples from the headlines) the idea of hosting the G-& at Trump's Doral resort was an optically dubious decision and the Ukraine arm-twisting is not how a President should exert his power. But they're also thinking that the Warren/Sanders intended fracking ban would be a disaster. 

We're on track for another sequel: Lesser of Two Evils II. 

Today's Bad News

The Ambassador to the Ukraine is not helping Team Trump.

Traditional Outrage du Jour Open Thread

If its not one thing its another.

Waiting On BoJo

Big Brexit votes today. The showrunners have delivered plenty of plot twists but still... it should have been wrapped up a while ago.

Much closer to home, coming down the tracks are:

an impeachment trial, or something, in the Senate (Cocaine Mitch sees impeachment by Thanksgiving).

AND

the Barr/Durham 'Crossfire Hurricane' investigation gets some 'bury it on Saturday' pixels.

Trouble For Trump

This Sondland testimony doesn't sound as bad as the headline but its not helpful for Trump.

And another brutal poll, this time from Gallup, showing a slim majority in favor of "Impeach/Remove". The increase is driven by Democrats and Independents, but still.

Tell Us What You Really Think, John Bolton

This is based on leaks of a second hand account but by this reporting former Nat Sec advisor John Bolton was pretty colorful and outspoken about Trump's Ukraine misadventures:

Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’

OK, that "hand grenade" might top the list. But don't sleep on this one (my emphasis):

The aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Mr. Bolton told her to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council about a rogue effort by Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the people familiar with the testimony.

“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition. (Another person in the room initially said Mr. Bolton referred to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney, but two others said he cited Mr. Sondland.)

Yike. Bring in Bolton!

 

Here We Go On Whatever.

Have at it.

Is It Thursday?

This Turkey-Kurd debacle is freaking me out. For sheer random fecklessness this blows WAAY past Obama's Red Line Fever, and I had hoped that was too high a bar for future President's to clear. Baah. At least I get an excuse to reprise John "Unbelievably Small" Kerry's most ludicrous hour in a lifetime full of them:

Kerry: Turn Over Your Chemical Weapons Now or Face … “Unbelievably Small” Consequences

By JOSHUA KEATING

Secretary of State John Kerry’s case for a U.S. strike in Syria seems to rest on two assumptions. One, that it is a crucial test for U.S. national security and the values of the civilized world comparable to the rise of Nazi Germany. Two, that it’s not really a big deal.

Over the weekend, Kerry described the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons as “our Munich moment,” telling an audience in France, “This is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter. … This is not the time to send a message where doing nothing is far more risky than responding.”

Today, Kerry—now in Britain—issued an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, giving him one week to turn over his complete stockpile of chemical weapons, or else. Or else what?

Kerry said the Americans were planning an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria. “We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”

I may not have much experience with brinksmanship, but it seems to me that threatening to hit someone becomes a lot less effective when at the same time you’re telling your friends, Don’t worry, I’m not going to hit him that hard. And convincing the public that this situation is analogous to the buildup to the largest war in human history is difficult when you’re also saying that an “unbelievably small” effort will be sufficient to deal with it. Given the blows the Assad regime has already absorbed over the last two years, it’s hard to imagine statements like these changing his thinking.

 

Wide World of Trouble

The AllahPundit takes us to Syria so he can bash Obama, Susan Rice, Trump, ISIS, the designated hitter rule... well, there's a lot to bash.

If Trump was hoping to alienate Congressional Republicans at a critical moment, well, mission accomplished. As one wag put it, prior to condemning the abandonment of the Kurds the last time the Twitterverse showed so much bipartisan unity was when they blasted some Hollywood studio's plan to remake The Princess Bride.

Ready For Some Football!

Kicking off the weekend. Yankees rule later today.

In other news, these Admin texts about Ukraine seem deeply problematic. I guess the White House spin is that the Burisma-Biden connection represented 2016 election interference by Team Obama since it quashed potentially embarrassing headlines about the conduct of foreign policy under Obama. Quite a stretch.

Good Jobs Report and The White House Strikes Back On "Formal" Impeachment Inquiry

Trump's re-election prospects hinge on the economy and jobs, jobs, jobs. This latest report turns some frowns upside down, although the global economy remains fraught.

On the impeachment front, the White House is reportedly about to emphasize a point I ranted about in late September: Unlike with the precedent set by Nixon and Clinton, there has not been a full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry.

The NY Times explainer from mid-September is a good starting point. The gist - the House can subpoena material as part of their routine oversight responsibilities. They can also subpoena material in the context of an impeachment inquiry. Impeachment related subpoenas carry more weight in Executive Privilege fights. They also have a different legal status - a duly authorized impeachment inquiry has the same status as a judicial inquiry, so the DoJ can transfer normally-secret grand jury material to them.

That grand jury question is being litigated now. The House Judiciary Committee wants the Mueller grand jury testimony; the DoJ says they don't have the standing of a judicial inquiry. Tense times for the judge!

As to rules and precedent, the Times paints an uphill struggle for the Democrats:

The Republicans argue that the Judiciary Committee does not inherently have the authority to conduct a presidential impeachment investigation on its own. The standing rules of the House explicitly outline the panel’s jurisdiction, including the impeachment of judges, but they do not mention presidential impeachments, proving that the two are different, Republicans aides say.

I have not verified that but if its true, the Democratic position must be that the full House explicitly delegated to the Judiciary Committee the power to open an impeachment inquiry into judges and implicitly delegated one of their gravest powers, the ability to initiate an impeachment inquiry into the President. Really?

History is also not helpful for the Pelosi/Nadler position:

This is not exactly your father’s presidential impeachment investigation.

Democrats are deviating in key ways from the way the House launched the two presidential impeachment inquiries of the modern era.

When the Judiciary Committee was investigating whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon in the 1970s and Bill Clinton in the 1990s, it ultimately sought and received explicit authority to conduct each of those inquiries by a vote of the full House.

In this case, the Judiciary Committee led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has neither asked for nor received such a vote.

[Big Skip and...]

But Democrats’ strategy is not without risk. House parliamentarians, nonpartisan aides who help interpret and enforce the rules of the House, would likely make a more conservative recommendation, people who work with them said. If lawmakers want to ensure that a judge will recognize what they are doing as impeachment, it would be better to follow the most well-worn path.

“They can say they are doing it, but what will a judge think, given the precedent in the past?” said Michael Conway, who served as a Judiciary Committee lawyer in 1974 during the Nixon impeachment.

The Congressional research Service prepared an overview of impeachment, updated August 12, 2019 (Quite a date, yes? Whistleblower conspiracists will gasp!).

This passage from the summary is not helpful to the Pelosi position.

So what has been going on? My madcap speculation is this: Trump's tax returns are a key to this.

The current House effort to get Trump's tax returns by way of a routine oversight subpoena is likely to fail. However, a duly authorized House impeachment inquiry will easily win any court fight to collect Trump's tax returns. That is from law professor Andy Grewal.

So - Team Trump originally released the transcript of the controversial Ukrainian call in part (OK, maybe a small part) to pre-empt a full House impeachment vote authorizing a subpoena of the call transcript. Their fear was (and is) that, with such authority, the House will inevitably subpoena Trump's returns. That pre-emptive release seems to have failed as a PR strategy, so they've shifted course.

And on Pelosi's side of the aisle? Why hasn't she un-muddied the waters and held a vote?

Several reasons. Until recently, the Speaker probably didn't have 218 Democratic votes. Now she does.

But Nancy Pelosi has a dual role - she is Speaker of the House but also Herder of Cats.

As Speaker of the House, she has an eye on history and would like to pick up a few Republicans on a full House impeachment inquiry vote. Thirty-one Democrats crossed over in October 1998 to open an inquiry against Bill Clinton; Pelosi was there and might have that number in mind. I doubt she is near that so far.

As Herder of Cats my guess is that Pelosi, oddly enough, shares a fear with Team Trump. She may be very concerned that the Maddow wing of her party will take the focus off the Ukraine by subpoenaing Trump's tax returns and promptly leak them, irresistibly and illegally.

And with that dive down a rabbit hole the process will collapse amidst mutual accusations of lawlessness and bad faith. But with great CNN ratings!

 

Bernie On The Outs?

Bernie has a heart scare. "Dropping out" of the race is not supposed to include an actual thud on the floor. He may come back from this but, well, he's not coming back from this.

Guyger Guilty In 'Wrong Apartment' Shooting

Amber Guyger is found guilty.

I thought she was far too quick on the trigger. She stood in or near the outer apartment hallway shooting at shadows inside what she mistakenly believed to be her apartment. She had no family or friends inside that might be in danger. Step into the hall, count to ten, and get backup.

Well. Hindsight is 20/20.

Prior To The Invention Of "Jobs Created Or Saved"...

This "Jobs Apocalypse" study by Alan "Peaky" Blinders did not hold up well.

What, prominent liberal economists can be wrong? Don't anyone tell Elizabeth Warren - she does not have a plan for her plans making contact with reality.

Sunday Kick-Off

Away we go again.with a rousing "How 'bout them NY Football Giants!!!" The re-born Giants behind Daniel Jones are favored at home over the hapless Redskins.

Slow News Day

We got the IG report on the whistleblower. In my view it did not advance the plot much.

Today Is The Whistleblower Complaint Day

Here we go with the story and complaint.

I'll say this - with these document dumps Trump is clearly teeing up a "You're Damn Right I Ordered The Code Red" defense. It's a longshot but I could consider backing him for Royal President Showman for Life is Trump comes out and says "Deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you WANT me to build that wall. You NEED me to build that wall."

A man can dream.

Hey, Dude, Where's My Formal Impeachment Inquiry?

Let's pause and admire this CNN headline:

Pelosi calls out 'President's betrayal of his oath of office' in announcing formal impeachment inquiry

Ahh! A "formal" inquiry! That really dials it up a notch, since House subpoena power is greater in the context of an impeachment inquiry than with their normal oversight authority. But did Pelosi just launch a "formal" inquiry, or simply dial the smoke production up past eleven? Weird to think she hopes to pursue our norm-busting President with a norm-busting impeachment process, but what she said yesterday changed nothing.

Folks who can remember back to Clinton (Oct 1998) or Nixon (Feb 1974) will recall that the full House voted to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry. The 1974 Times coverage leads with the subpoena power:

HOUSE, 410–4, GIVES SUBPOENA POWER IN NIXON INQUIRY

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6—The House of Representatives voted 410 to 4 today to grant the Judiciary Committee broad constitutional power to investigate President Nixon's conduct. The House thus formally ratified the impeachment inquiry begun by the committee last October and empowered the panel to subpoena anyone, including the President, with evidence pertinent to the investigation.

It was only the second time in the nation's history that such a step, directed at a President, had been taken in the House. But the roll‐call vote was not a test of impeachment sentiment.

So when does Pelosi plan to call the vote? Ahh, awkward moment. She has not called for a full House vote, the House is going on a two week recess after Friday, and Trump has announced he will provide the controversial Ukraine phone call transcript on Wednesday [link] and the equally controversial whistleblower complaint and IG report by Friday. My firmly held opinion is that current fence-sitters will feel comfortable sitting for two more days while waiting for those documents. A formal House vote is weeks away at the earliest.

So, does the House need a full vote, or is this a formal inquiry because Pelosi and CNN say it is? Unclear! From the Times:

How does a House impeachment inquiry start?

This has been a subject of dispute. During the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts, the full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former federal judge in 1989, began at the committee level.

The House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has claimed — including in court filings — that the panel is already engaged in an impeachment investigation. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department has argued that since there has been no House resolution, the committee is just engaged in a routine oversight proceeding.

Ms. Pelosi did not say in her announcement that she intended to bring any resolution to the floor.

The Times also delved into the court filings related to House subpoena power under their oversight and impeachment authorities.

Well. With a two week recess looming, all Pelosi did yesterday was attempt to start a stampede. With Trump cooperating (suggested Republican spin - "pre-empting"), there won't be a vote soon.

Some folks will realize that this helps protect Trump's tax returns, which (per law prof Andy Grewal) can be kept out of the normal oversight process but could not be kept away from a House impeachment inquiry. From his abstract, my emphasis:

Abstract

This Article examines whether congressional committees enjoy the unrestricted authority to demand a President’s tax returns. It concludes that they do not. Though a federal statute seemingly compels the IRS to furnish, on request, anyone’s tax returns to some congressional committees, a statute cannot transcend the constitutional limits on Congress’s investigative authority. Congress enjoys a near-automatic right to review a President’s tax returns only through a proper impeachment inquiry.

SO - Pelosi dialed the smoke production up past eleven. Does she plan to schedule a House vote at some point, or nail our norm-busting President with a norm-busting impeachment? Does the media plan to delve into this, or just celebrate the latest Resistance posturing? Time will tell!

TRANSCRIPT UPDATE: Here is the transcript. Not exactly a Nixon-level smoking gun although I'm sure I'll read that it is. Giuliani is brought up By Zelensky; Trump routinely inked Barr and Giuliani, so there is a nod to proper process.

Well, Team Trump knew what was in this before they agreed to release it.

CROWDSTRIKE: Trump mentions Crowdstrike. They were part of the DNC email investigation and tagged the Russian "Fancy Bear" as one hacker group. But they also had a controversial situation in the Ukraine involving a hack of Ukranian artillery fire control. Presumably Trump would love to discredit them.

Russian hacking investigations

CrowdStrike helped investigate the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks and connected those attacks to Russian intelligence services. On March 20, 2017 during testimony before congress, James Comey stated "CrowdStrike, Mandiant, and ThreatConnect review[ed] the evidence of the hack and conclude[d] with high certainty that it was the work of APT 28 and APT 29 who are known to be Russian intelligence services."^[48]

In December 2016, CrowdStrike released a report stating that Russian government-affiliated group Fancy Bear had hacked a Ukrainian artillery app.^[49] They concluded that Russia had used the hack to cause large losses to Ukrainian artillery units. The app (called ArtOS) is installed on tablet PCs and used for fire-control.^[50] The earliest version of the app (supported until 2015) was called POPR-D30 and installed on Android phones and tablets. CrowdStrike found a hacked variation of POPR-D30 being distributed on Ukrainian military forums that utilized an X-Agent implant.^[51]

The International Institute for Strategic Studies rejected CrowdStrike's assessment of hacking causing losses to Ukrainian artillery units, saying that their data on Ukrainian D30 howitzer losses was misused by CrowdStrike in their report. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense also rejected the CrowdStrike report, stating that actual artillery losses were "several times smaller than the number reported by [CrowdStrike] and are not associated with [Russian hacking]".^[52]

Cybersecurity firm SecureWorks discovered a list of email addresses targeted by Fancy Bear in phishing attacks.^[53] The list included the email address of Yaroslav Sherstyuk, the developer of ArtOS.^[54] Additional Associated Press research supports CrowdStrike's conclusions about Fancy Bear.^[55] Radio Free Europe notes that the AP report "lends some credence to the original CrowdStrike report, showing that the app had, in fact, been targeted."^[56]

Following CrowdStrike's investigation of the 2016 Democratic National Committee hacks, journalist Yasha Levine questioned CrowdStrike's methodology, citing it as "forensics in reverse."^[57]

 

 

I Can't Take Anymore

Patterico walks through the 'hding in plain sight' evidence about Trump pressuring the Ukraine for dirt on Biden.

He doesn't come out and say this is impeachable but...

I left this comment there:

 

The only thing like pushback I’ve seen (because I’ve written some of it) is that this is an investigation of 2016 interference encouraged by Team Obama to embarass Trump with the Manafort secret file and protect the Administration (Hunter).

On my current scorecard I have that 2016 collusion theory as “Definitely Probably Not”. The fellow who leaked the Manafort payment files in Aug 2016 had plenty of Ukranian-centric reasons to want to torpedo Manafort. [LINK]

But it also doesn’t matter. It’s a bit late to impeach Obama and we already rejected Hillary, in part because of her ‘above the law’ attitude. And, obviously, two wrongs don’t make a right.

So, while the shadowboxing continues and we await a transcript, is this impeachable? It may actually be legal, given the President’s latitude with respect to foreign policy. But it’s nutso. From another direction, if the President had threatened to fire the head of the FBI if he didn’t go hard after Biden, Hunter and the MBNA questions, or the China questions, I think he would be impeached. So why is this all that different? Other than being worse, since FBI heads come and go but The Ukraine is an embattled ally.

Well. I’ll let you go first in calling for impeachment on this if you like. I’ll add that you (or the Trump Whisperers] are right about one thing – the House will vote out impeachment articles that include this, which is real, and twenty of their fan fiction favorites, and the debate will be torpedoed. As much as The Resistance says they want Trump out, what they will really turn out to want (IMHO) is vindication on everything they have been saying for two and a half years. Fighters gotta fight,and those fundraising letters don’t write themselves. For either party.

Jiminy. I’m feeling some solidarity with Michelle here – for the first time in my adult life I’m not so proud to be an American. [Ahh, still pretty proud though!]

Let me fill in some blanks. John Solomon was writing back in March and April that the Ukraine was trying to get evidence of Biden dirt to US officials, who weren't interested. From March:

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

The leak of the so-called black ledger files to U.S. media prompted Manafort’s resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign.

Lest you wonder, Enemy of the People Ken Vogel (NY Times, Politico) had a pre-ianugural story with a similar theme:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Here is the link mentioned above about Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukranian journalist/politician who had a million reasons to loathe Manafort. Now, it can be true that his heart was pure but he was still used by Team Obama. So impeach Obama or don't elect Hillary. Their bad behavior may 'contextualize' Trump's but it hardly excuses it.

So what next? Erick Erickson describes the likely dynamic - any Republican who criticizes Trump only for this will be blasted from the left for failing to recite their full impeachment catechism. And from the Trump trenches the fire will also be withering. (Yeah, today is a great day to be a nobody like me...). Since Trump is moving to the "You're Damn Right I Ordered The Code Red" defense, a lot of the media drama about "What did the President know and when did he know it" will be missing. We all "know" what Trump did (pending the transcript, release of which will be compelled by politics if not the law). So what do We the People think? I guess we will see. 

Well. Full Disclosure: I woke up this morning thinking Romney had defeated Pence in Iowa. It took me a moment to realize it happened. Yet, anyway  Strange times, strange dreams.

DO LET ME ADD: I'm remembering Hemingway, who said you go bankrupt two ways - gradually and then suddenly. Nixon engaged in trench warfare for two years but... he was ordered to turn over the White House tapes in late July 1974; the smoking gun tape went public on August 5 and Nixon resigned August 9. From Wikipedia:

In late July 1974, the White House released the subpoenaed tapes. One of these tapes, recorded six days after the Watergate break-in, was quickly dubbed the "smoking gun" tape after a transcript was publicly released on August 5, 1974. ...

Once the "smoking gun" transcript was made public, Nixon's political support practically vanished. The ten Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who had voted against impeachment in committee announced that they would now vote for impeachment once the matter reached the House floor. He lacked substantial support in the Senate as well; Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott estimated no more than 15 Senators were willing to even consider acquittal. Facing certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction in the Senate, Nixon announced his resignation on the evening of Thursday, August 8, 1974, effective as of noon the next day.^[37]

On the other hand, Bill Clinton survived, so I infer there was no clear proof of a crime so high that We the People in our collective wisdom demanded removal. (Not speaking for myself there.)

 

Back In The Ukraine

The NY Times explains that the "focus" of the Whistleblower scandal is whether Trump abused Presidential power for political purposes in 2019. Trump wants to "deflect" from that by alleging that Obama/Biden abused Presidential power for political purposes by pressuring the Ukraine in 2016. Hmm.

The controversy has focused on whether Mr. Trump manipulated foreign policy — a military aid package to Ukraine had been delayed at the time of the phone call — to pressure the country’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to take action to damage Mr. Biden’s election bid.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump sought to deflect attention from that question by accusing Mr. Biden of acting improperly as vice president in calling for the ouster of a Ukranian prosecutor who had overseen an inquiry into corruption related to the oligarch whose company employed Hunter Biden.

Trump's supporters also wonder whether the Ukrainian dirt that was dished on Manafort in 2016 was put forward as a favor to Team Obama in a bid to hit Trump and boost Hillary.

As to Biden:

No evidence has surfaced to support Mr. Trump’s claim that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal. But some State Department officials had expressed concern that Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine could complicate his father’s diplomacy there.

No evidence has emerged, which might be a predictable consequence of a quashed investigation. Then again, proving there is no evidence offers the usual challenge of proving a negative. Fun for everyone!

Well. If the media can take down Trump *and* Biden its a win-win for their most engaged readership/viewership. TBF, it also creates a huge opening in the Sane Center, if there is any viable candidate left to fill it.

Taking Down Trump AND Biden!

Good plot twist by the showrunners - there are a lot of Democrats and media members who will love this whistle-blowing scandal even more if it also ensnares Sleep (But Corrupt!) Joe Biden.

On the other hand, Establishment Republicans may be thinking that keeping Joe propped up doesn't look so bad relative to a President Warren. That said, they have to realize he is this election cycle's version of Jeb Bush, running on name recognition and fumes.

AND... chasing Joe out now opens up the moderate lane. Kamala Harris, still a bit of a newcomer to the Crazy Left, may try to revive her fading hopes by veering back towards the center. Who knows!?!

Meanwhile, Back In Israel

Netanyahu on the ropes as Gantz declares victory.

JERUSALEM — 

 Benny Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, declared victory in the nation’s close parliamentary election Thursday, two days after voters went to the polls.

 

Gantz, 60, leader of the opposition Blue and White party, has held a steady lead over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative Likud party, with 98% of the votes counted.

 

Official figures have not yet been released, but Gantz held two seats more than Netanyahu in the tight race. The Electoral Commission in Israel only releases voting figures, without any declarations of a winner.

 

On Thursday, Israel spun into political melodrama as Netanyahu attempted to grab the momentum ahead of coalition negotiations to form a government even as Gantz appeared to be cementing his slight lead.

 

Both parties would require partners to establish a government with a ruling majority.

Melting Down At The Times

The NY Times runs a hit piece on SC Justice Kavanaugh that

(a) omits seemingly relevant exculpatory evidence, to wit, the alleged victim refused to talk to the press and her friends say she recalls nothing of the incident and

(b) buries the seeming lede - Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's friend and chief 'witness' remembers nothing of the alleged incident, thinks the story makes no sense, and was pressured by friends to get in line behind Chrissy.

Wow. So egregious that CBS News stepped in with their re-write.

Criminal Subpoenas For Trump's State, Federal Tax Returns

Per the Times, 

8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A.

The pretext is an investigation of the Stormy Daniels payoffs.

My guess is that a criminal subpoena is harder to fight but secrecy rules also make it harder to leak without more dramatic consequences. But what do I know?

 

Ready For Some Football!

Actually I'm getting ready for some baseball. October baseball, especially.

The Dem Debate

The WaPo wraps up the big Dem debate.

Julian Castro tried for a break-out Kamala Harris moment by going after Joe Biden and ended up with egg on his face. This won't help his bid to be someone's VP and put Texas in play but Rude, Loud and Wrong should get him a gig on MSNBC.

Beto promised to Grab All The Guns but his party won't be in-line skating behind him. Even Democrats have figured out that its a bad idea if their Presidential candidates are running on a platform that picks up votes in CA and NY but hurts them in PA, MI, WI, FL, and more. Blame the Electoral College!

Wyden's New Capital Gains Tax Scheme

Se. Wyden (D, OR) released more details (CNBC, WSJ) of his plan to revise the capital gains tax and apply it to a mark-to-market of some assets. Valuing illiquid assets and non-marketable securities is a puzzle.

Figuring out annual values is straightforward for stocks and other tradable assets but trickier for private businesses, collectibles and commercial real estate.Mr. Wyden proposes to let holders of those illiquid, nontradable assets defer their tax bill until they sell assets or transfer them through gift or death. But they would face an additional charge designed to eliminate the benefit of deferral and the plan outlines options for calculating it.

That will be simple! Does it mean the Koch Brother defers taxes until death? Presumably. I don't see how that will fly with the Dems who are holding out for an annual public flogging.

I had suggested something similar last January. Wyden has lower thresholds now than he had mooted in the past - Warren's wealth tax is meant to kick in at $50MM and Wyden had a figure in mind of $43MM. His new threshold is $10MM of assets, with exclusions of up to $2MM for a residence and $3MM for retirement accounts. So as a practical matter, the threshold will be around $15MM for most (Some tech geek renting a place in San Fran or Manhattan will cash out his IPO at age 26, pocket a bundle and have no exclusions. Bummer, but I'm over it. And the tech geek is over it, too, if he buys an excludable residence.)

I had also noted that to avoid any liquidity crunch for the taxpayer some sort of deferred payment plan would make sense. Wyden is on the same page:

The tax would also apply to built-up gains on existing assets, after a deduction for losses, potentially triggering significant tax bills for billionaires who built their fortunes over the past few decades. That would include the world’s richest person, Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, Mr. Wyden said in an interview Wednesday.

Levies on past gains would be payable over a to-be-determined transition period, perhaps at discounted rates. So someone who bought $20 million of stock in 1990 that is now worth $50 million would face taxes on that $30 million gain. In that sense, Mr. Wyden’s plan resembles a one-time wealth tax President Trump proposed in 1999.

Obviously none of this is happening under Trump and with a Republican Senate, but who knows what 2021 will bring? As to applying the revenue, estimated to be at least $1.5 trillion over then years, Sen. Wyden is staid and lacks the "More Free Everything!" vision of the Dem Presidential candidates. He proposes dedicating the funds to Social Security. Boring! By way of contrast Warren wants to use $700 million of her wealth tax to pay off student loans, because heaven knows young college grads need more financial assistance sent there way than, oh, struggling inner-city school kids.

Well. I think tax hikes are coming and frankly, I'm with Willie Sutton on this one - let's tax where the money is, which is lightly-if-ever taxed capital gains.

Our Gal Val, Back In The News

Valerie Plame is back in the news and drawing a downbeat Fact Check from Glenn Kessler of the WaPo.

Old times! In fact, I feel like a recovering alcoholic holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue. But let me see if I can stop at two:

First, as CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo eventually claimed in his 2014 book, and as Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell and Dana Priest had reported years earlier, Plame's "outing" was just not that big a deal in terms of national security or personal danger. A Rizzo excerpt:

Secondly, what drove this investigation? Why did Special Counsel Fitzgerald look so hard at the White House yet ignore the obvious, easily detected, unconfessed leaking from Armitage (and probably Powell, and others) from State?

I say it was a mini-Deep State Coup. Democrats allied with moderate Republicans such as Comey in a DoJ revolt intended to pare back or eliminate Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald's team took it in when Richard Armitage of State admitted he leaked to Novak. It took the sleuths at the AP to obtain Armitage's appointment calendar for June 2003 and see a meeting with Woodward. Pretty heavy investigative work!

As a recap, Cheney's man at Doj, John Yoo, left the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2003 and was replaced by Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith withdrew the OLC opinion backing enhanced interrogation and put the warrantless surveillance program under a microscope. By December the DoJ was in something like a revolt over Cheny's handling of that, which culminated in the famous Comey/Ashcroft/Card hospital room showdown in March 2004.

And during all this, the DoJ decides (Oct 2003) to take the Plame referral seriously and actually investigate the leak Rizzo laughed off. By December, Comey was appointing Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel. The target was Cheney, not Bush, not Rove and most assuredly not "the truth" about who leaked what.

BONUS (But I can quit anytime): Why did Armitage leak at all? Surely it wasn't to punish Wilson? No, it wasn't, and stop calling me Shirley. In the summer of 2003 a dispute raged about who had said what and when about Saddam's WMDs and nuclear aspirations. The gist of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate had been made public. The CIA (with other intel groups) came down on the side of "Definitely maybe" as to whether Iraq was a nuclear threat. The State Department's INR had dissented, but that was lost in a footnote. Prophets without honor!

So when the dispute raged in June 2003 Armitage discussed with his old pals Novak and Woodward that tidbit about the CIA research effort - the CIA had cobbled together a trip to Niger that was never to going to be conclusive, sent off some retired ambassador (sponsored by his wife!) and come back with an inconclusive report. Did Armitage describe the CIA effort with the phrase "clown show"? We can only hope. But the mention of the wife's role was not meant as punishment; it was meant as a punchline.

JUST SAY NO: Don't get me started on the Tim Russert/Andrea Mitchell / David Gregory cover-up. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer testifed he leaked to reporters John Dickerson and David Gregory of NBC News, Tim Russert's underling. OK, it was Fleischer's last week on the job, he had a lot going on and he might have been wrong (Dickerson says he was, about him anyway) but... IF he leaked to Gregory there was time for Gregory to mention this to Russert, who might have then tried to confirm it in a call with Libby.

Since Libby was charged with lying about his chat with Russert (Libby said Russert mentioned WIlson's wife, Russert denied it), we can be sure that Relentless Truth Seeker Fitzgerald interviewed Gregory and nailed down his story, right?

Wrong. Dickerson says he was never formally questioned. As best I know, Gregory has never denied Fleischer's version. In retrospect, this transcript of a post-indictment Russert program reads like a hostage video, with everyone locking in their cover story. Here is Gregory:

GREGORY: And it is interesting--it's also interesting, I should just point out, that nobody called me at any point, which is unfortunately...
WILLIAMS: Apparently not.
GREGORY: ...not the point.
RUSSERT: Does anybody ever?
GREGORY: But I just wanted to note that.
RUSSERT: I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

Nobody called him, har de har. But of course, Fleiacher's testimony was that their chat was face to face, not a phone call. 

But no follow-up, again, as best I know.

I MEAN IT NOW: I am completely confident that you have seen this idea no where else, and lucky you: the issue of Valerie Plame's "covert" status hinges on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The gist: she would need both classified status (check) and "service abroad" in the prior five years (Fog!).

So - is "service abroad" a quick trip overseas, or a formal posting? Unlitigated! However, Ms. Plame's pension benefit gets an upward adjustment for her "overseas service" spanning "six years, one month and 29 days".

So the CIA service record certainly tracks their notion of overseas service. Was the last date within five years of her outing? We don't know, in part because Special Counsel Fitzgerald chose to hide that factoid. And why would he hide it? Hard to see including a comment on her final date of overseas service as hurting either national security or his case, especially since he offered as a substitute the assurance she had flown overseas to Jordan on CIA business within the past five years.

It makes me think that the final overseas service date for which she got credit was outside the five year time frame. One more thing we won't know, unless someone wants to ask Candidate Plame. (She'll cite national security and duck it, but try anyway!)

Our Gal Val, Back In The News

Valerie Plame is back in the news and drawing a downbeat Fact Check from Glenn Kessler of the WaPo.

Old times! In fact, I feel like a recovering alcoholic holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue. But let me see if I can stop at two:

First, as CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo eventually claimed in his 2014 book, and as Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell and Dana Priest had reported years earlier, Plame's "outing" was just not that big a deal in terms of national security or personal danger. A Rizzo excerpt:

Secondly, what drove this investigation? Why did Special Counsel Fitzgerald look so hard at the White House yet ignore the obvious, easily detected, unconfessed leaking from Armitage (and probably Powell, and others) from State?

I say it was a mini-Deep State Coup. Democrats allied with moderate Republicans such as Comey in a DoJ revolt intended to pare back or eliminate Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald's team took it in when Richard Armitage of State admitted he leaked to Novak. It took the sleuths at the AP to obtain Armitage's appointment calendar for June 2003 and see a meeting with Woodward. Pretty heavy investigative work!

As a recap, Cheney's man at Doj, John Yoo, left the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2003 and was replaced by Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith withdrew the OLC opinion backing enhanced interrogation and put the warrantless surveillance program under a microscope. By December the DoJ was in something like a revolt over Cheny's handling of that, which culminated in the famous Comey/Ashcroft/Card hospital room showdown in March 2004.

And during all this, the DoJ decides (Oct 2003) to take the Plame referral seriously and actually investigate the leak Rizzo laughed off. By December, Comey was appointing Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel. The target was Cheney, not Bush, not Rove and most assuredly not "the truth" about who leaked what.

BONUS (But I can quit anytime): Why did Armitage leak at all? Surely it wasn't to punish Wilson? No, it wasn't, and stop calling me Shirley. In the summer of 2003 a dispute raged about who had said what and when about Saddam's WMDs and nuclear aspirations. The gist of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate had been made public. The CIA (with other intel groups) came down on the side of "Definitely maybe" as to whether Iraq was a nuclear threat. The State Department's INR had dissented, but that was lost in a footnote. Prophets without honor!

So when the dispute raged in June 2003 Armitage discussed with his old pals Novak and Woodward that tidbit about the CIA research effort - the CIA had cobbled together a trip to Niger that was never to going to be conclusive, sent off some retired ambassador (sponsored by his wife!) and come back with an inconclusive report. Did Armitage describe the CIA effort with the phrase "clown show"? We can only hope. But the mention of the wife's role was not meant as punishment; it was meant as a punchline.

Our Gal Val, Back In The News

Valerie Plame is back in the news and drawing a downbeat Fact Check from Glenn Kessler of the WaPo.

Old times! In fact, I feel like a recovering alcoholic holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue. But let me see if I can stop at two:

First, as CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo eventually claimed in his 2014 book, and as Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell and Dana Priest had reported years earlier, Plame's "outing" was just not that big a deal in terms of national security or personal danger. A Rizzo excerpt:

Secondly, what drove this investigation? Why did Special Counsel Fitzgerald look so hard at the White House yet ignore the obvious, easily detected, unconfessed leaking from Armitage (and probably Powell, and others) from State?

I say it was a mini-Deep State Coup. Democrats allied with moderate Republicans such as Comey in a DoJ revolt intended to pare back or eliminate Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald's team took it in when Richard Armitage of State admitted he leaked to Novak. It took the sleuths at the AP to obtain Armitage's appointment calendar for June 2003 and see a meeting with Woodward. Pretty heavy investigative work!

As a recap, Cheney's man at Doj, John Yoo, left the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2003 and was replaced by Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith withdrew the OLC opinion backing enhanced interrogation and put the warrantless surveillance program under a microscope. By December the DoJ was in something like a revolt over Cheny's handling of that, which culminated in the famous Comey/Ashcroft/Card hospital room showdown in March 2004.

And during all this, the DoJ decides (Oct 2003) to take the Plame referral seriously and actually investigate the leak Rizzo laughed off. By December, Comey was appointing Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel. The target was Cheney, not Bush, not Rove and most assuredly not "the truth" about who leaked what.

BONUS (But I can quit anytime): Why did Armitage leak at all? Surely it wasn't to punish Wilson? No, it wasn't, and stop calling me Shirley. In the summer of 2003 a dispute raged about who had said what and when about Saddam's WMDs and nuclear aspirations. The gist of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate had been made public. The CIA (with other intel groups) came down on the side of "Definitely maybe" as to whether Iraq was a nuclear threat. The State Department's INR had dissented, but that was lost in a footnote. Prophets without honor!

So when the dispute raged in June 2003 Armitage discussed with his old pals Novak and Woodward that tidbit about the CIA research effort - the CIA had cobbled together a trip to Niger that was never to going to be conclusive, sent off some retired ambassador (sponsored by his wife!) and come back with an inconclusive report. Did Armitage describe the CIA effort with the phrase "clown show"? We can only hope. But the mention of the wife's role was not meant as punishment; it was meant as a punchline.