October 11, 2018--October Surprises

In election cosmology an October Surprise is a news event deliberately created, timed, or occurring spontaneously that influences the outcome of an election, particularly for the presidency.

With the upcoming midterm elections, since Donald Trump has kidnapped them and made the hundreds of congressional contests all about him--in effect, a referendum on his presidency--by nationalizing these individual races, it would not be unexpected for him to come up with a whopper of an October Surprise. One that would underscore what he claims to be his achievements (tax cuts, renegotiating NAFTA, withdrawing from the Iran deal, a strong job market) a surprise designed to motivate his base to vote for candidates he supports. Essentially, any and all Republicans running for office.

Recent examples of October Surprises include leaking the news in 2000, when George W. Bush was locked in a tight contest with Al Gore, that some years earlier Bush had been cited in Maine for driving while under the influence.

Four years later, to undermine Bush's reelection chances, Osama bin Laden released a videotape in which he took credit for the 9/11 terrorist attack in the hope that this would remind voters of Bush's failures.

The 2008 stock market crash weakened John McCain's chances in his race against Barack Obama. Republicans in general were blamed and the onset of the Great Recession boosted the chances of all Democrats, especially Obama's. So much so that the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress.

And then most recently, in 2016, it is generally agreed that FBI director James Comey ruined Hillary Clinton's candidacy when in late October he summarily released thousands of emails of hers that, even though they contained nothing disqualifying, reminded the voting public that she was not trustworthy.

What then might Trump have in mind for us during the next few weeks? We know he shapes a daily political drama to dominate the news cycle and thus I suspect there will be at least two surprises of magnitude that will suck up all the media oxygen. I predict there will, unprecedented, be at least two such surprises since for Trump more is never enough.

One will involve foreign affairs, the other will focus on domestic theatrics.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently spent a week in Asia. In China but more interesting in North Korea. After his Korea visit he said little progress was made in denuclearization talks. I wonder.

My guess is that he brought with him for Kim Jong-un one of those love letters Trump mentioned the other day. Letters so steamy that even the exhibitionist president said they were too amorous to disclose.

Trump's to Kim likely included a plea--

"Help me out please! I'm about to get shellacked in the midterm elections and need your help. Maybe you could blow up a big missile or two on live TV. I could then say you're on track to getting rid of all your nukes. Of course that's really unnecessary. I just need a good show one of these mornings. Maybe you could time it so it could be shown on Fox & Friends. My favorite."

Then domestically, a couple of days ago, without a formal announcement, Trump launched the Month of the Woman. It began with UN ambassador Nikki Haley announcing on live TV in the Oval Office that she is resigning. 

There they were, Trump and Haley together shamelessly flirting with each other. 

The Month of the Woman will culminate with Trump appointing Dina Powell, a woman, to replace Haley. Unless Trump can convince daughter Ivanka to allow him to appoint her. One advantage for her--it would get her out of Washington (which she hates) and back to New York City.

Recognizing that the so-called "gender gap" is hovering at about 30 points, some are saying it's not a gap but a chasm, realizing that, Trump will do all sorts of things between now and November 6th to focus on how good his presidency has been for women and then will hope that at least a few will show up at the polls in November and vote for him.

If women come out in a wave of votes for Democrats, he'll need more than a couple of surprises to keep him from being impeached in January. There aren't enough angry old white guys to keep him politically safe. We'll see, then, if he can bamboozle enough women to vote for Republicans as he did in 2016.

I'm saying, more than anything else, Kim has to come through for him.

August 7, 2018--Under the Bus or Taking a Bullet?

Donald Trump in a Sunday morning tweet appeared to throw his son, Donald Jr., under the bus. 

He pled him guilty to committing a federal crime that forbids a candidate for the presidency or his agents to accept any form of material help from a foreign citizen or government. This includes both direct donations of money or in-kind assistance that has monetary value. 

Asking Russian agents to help gather "dirt" about Hillary Clinton ("an opponent") surely qualifies. 

The pertinent section of the federal code (52 U.S. Code 30121) reads as follows--


(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—

(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Sunday morning Trump tweeted--

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it. 

8:35 AM - Aug 5, 2018

This would appear to be Trump throwing his progeny under the bus to save his own skin when he denied he knew about his son's meeting in Trump Tower. If there is anyone to blame, this tweet appears to say, it is his "wonderful son."

One thing Trump gets right--gathering dirt, or engaging in "oppostion research" (oppo) in a political campaign is done all the time and is not per se illegal. On the other hand, seeking assistance in this by foreign agents is seriously against federal law.

This, however, is not going to be the end of the story. First, some possible context--

It is not a coincidence that all sorts of information is just now leaking, flooding out of Robert Mueller's thus-far leakproof investigation.

This is because he is following the Justice Department 60-day rule--not to report publicly less than 60 days before Election Day about an investigation that might include candidates for office. FBI director James Comey violated this unofficial rule just weeks before the 2016 presidential election when he reported out about allegations that Hillary Clinton used a private server for her official work as Secretary of State.

If Mueller is to observe the 60-day rule, if he has indictments to announce before November, he has to get that done by Labor Day. Thus, he is likely right now, as part of the discovery process, telling people he has been investigating that he is about to indict them. This doubtlessly includes Trump Jr. If the young Donald has been thus informed you know he shared that news with his father.

Among other consequential matters affecting Trump's state of mind--the Manafort trial, the Michael Cohen tapes, the subpoenaing of Trump's accountant (Allen Weisselberg)--the impending indictment of Donald Jr. has father Trump in a panic. As I mentioned yesterday this unraveling has drawn Hope Hicks back into the mix. And has Trump flailing about in a tweet storm. Including Sunday's in which for the first time he admitted there was collusion. After months of denial, even though collusion occurred, according to Fox News's and Trump's and his people's twisted logic, it is not a crime. 

As my grandmother used to say, "We'll see."

In spite of Trump reflexively dumping all of this on his son, if there are three or four people in the world he cares about (and this may be stretching the limits of his caring) it is his boys, Ivanka, and again Hope Hicks. 

If true, expect at least one of two things--

First, he will begin to churn out a bushel of presidential pardons. For  all his children as well as for Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, his accountant, and of course Hope.

If and when he does this there will be the expected outcry from all Democrats, a few Republicans, and Fox. Whether this will turn out to be more than a week of stories will depend on how it is absorbed by his base--35 percent of the adult public. Will they let him get away with this "murder" as they would if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue?

For the most part I think they would. The pardons will be spun as the actions of a loving father who acts to protect his children from the "enemies of the people" and rogue players such as Mueller, who are leading the biggest "witch hunt" in American history. Forget Salem for the moment and the abuses of Joseph McCarthy.

Then there is the Watergate alternative--Trump seems sincerely to want to meet one-on-one with Mueller and to tell him his version of the story. This won't work and I suspect even Trump with his colossal ego is aware of this. More than anyone else (except for Putin) he knows Mueller has the goods on him. Mueller may have already told Trump's attorneys he is about to be cited as a target of his investigation and soon may be designated an unindicted co-conspirator.

Why then does Trump appear to be so insistent on meeting with Mueller? 

Perhaps, with Hope Hicks counseling and soothing him, he will agree to make the biggest deal of his life--taking a page from Richard Nixon, he would agree to resign the presidency in exchange for Mueller pulling the plug on the rest of the investigation.

Or a third version--Trump and Mueller agree to both options: a host of pardons plus a deal that includes resignation.

In this admittedly unlikely scenario, instead of others taking a bullet for Trump he takes one to protect the very few people he cares about. 

And then he takes a victory lap, relishing in the cheers of his people as he declares his mission as president accomplished.

March 22, 2018--BREAKING NEWS!!!

Rona is making predictions again. This time about Stormy Daniels.

Not about what she will reveal Sunday evening on 60 Minutes. Not about the headlines she will inspire, even if she brings along a picture or two of a certain gentleman caller in flagrante delicto. 

But rather her prediction is about the headlines that gentleman caller will inspire.

Headlines Monday morning of the most shocking kind that, in a banner, will span all six columns at the top of the front page of the New York Times and every other paper in the United States and western world and will lead to 24/7-days of Breaking News on the three cable news channels.

TRUMP FIRES SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER!!!

In the case of the New York Post, over a photo of Trump, pointing at the camera, in his Apprentice pose--

YOU'RE FIRED!!!

"Expect that to occur," Rona says, "Sunday afternoon to allow editors to get their stories written and typeset. To scoop Stormy. She'll be relegated to page 14, below the fold, and will be mired there for as long as it takes for this Sunday massacre to play out. Probably for the whole week after Republican members of Congress emerge from their bunkers and join Democrats in expressing upset about the 'constitutional crisis,' which, by the way, you can explain to me when you have a moment,"

When I overcome my shock, I ask, "Explain what?"

"'Constitutional crisis.' I have no idea what that means."

"It means," I stammer, "It means . . .  you know I really don't know. Maybe until they get the impeachment process going?"

"Dream on," Rona says, "You really think Republicans in Paul Ryan's House are going to impeach Trump? Enrage his base? They'd all get tossed out of office in November."

"Dream on," I cynically say.

"Maybe the crisis will result from what gets unearthed by various congressional committees."

"Dream on," I say. 

"You're right. There will be no committee investigations with the GOP in the majority."

"Correct. The Dems can jump up and down and scream about the need to get to the bottom of things but unless Ryan and Mitch McConnell allow it to happen there will be no meaningful investigations. The way Congress works the leaders and committee chairman totally control the agenda, including not allowing members of the minority, Democrats, to even call witnesses. It's almost as totalitarian as the Russian or Chinese legislatures. We've seen those in action. Members behave like zombies."

"This is very scary stuff. Is it the beginning of the end of our democracy? What if nothing can be done about this?"

"I have a crazy idea," I say, "Organize a Guerilla Congress."

"You're making light of this? We're in a crisis and you're cracking jokes?"

"I'm totally scared by what you said about Trump firing Mueller this weekend. I'm trying to keep myself from going crazy because what you are predicting sounds more than plausible to me. Look at the new lawyers he's hiring. That Joe diGenova is a killer."

"So what's your idea about Congress?"

"Since the Democrats have no power whatsoever, while waiting for the midterm elections in November, they should rent a big conference room in a Washington DC hotel and hold a Rump or Guerrilla Congress there. Do their  own investigations, try to get witnesses to show up, take testimony, issue findings. All of it unofficial, of course, but if they invite people carefully they could get quite a few to come before them. For example, by mid April, former CIA director Jim Comey will be on the talkshow circuit to publicize his new book and I suspect would appear before the Guerrilla Congress. As would another former head of the CIA, John Brennan, who went off yesterday on Morning Joe when he implied that the Russians may have personal dirt on Trump."

"Not a bad idea," Rona said, "I'll bet MSNBC and CNN would give it some coverage. It would break the mold and in its own way be entertaining. Which is sadly required by the news these days."

"There was a Rump Parliament in England in the middle of the 17th century. I think it has something to do with Charles I."

"Yours may be a crazy idea," Rona says, ignoring my historical example, "but we'll have to come up with things of this kind to keep Trump's and his sycophants' feet to the fire."

"Back to your prediction."

"You know I don't make them often, but about this one . . ."

"Please, for the sake of my sanity, don't finish the thought."

Rump Parliament

August 4, 2017--Jack: "What If . . .?"

"What if if there's no there there."

"What in God's name are you talking about?" Jack is not at his best when he tries to be clever.

"I called to see what you think."

"About there-there?"

"About my boy. The Donald." Jack was sounding chipper.

I thought--what am I missing? He's chipper after the ten days Trump just completed? Failing to get the Senate to pass even a vacuous healthcare bill; Congress' passage of a veto-proof Russian sanctions bill Trump opposed; the fiasco about his direct involvement in drafting Donald Junior's note about the dirt-on-Hillary meeting with Russians; and then of course Sean Spicer's quitting; the mini-appointment of Anthony Scaramucci; Reince Priebus' "resignation." Things of that sort.

"Here's what I'm thinking. I mean wondering about."

"Go on."

"I mean, as I said, maybe there's no there there." I sighed. "For month's you and people like you have been talking about Trump's being guilty of colluding with the Russians to undermine Hillary's campaign and how Trump probably has all sorts of business dealings with the Russians. Not to mention that scurrilous BuzzFeed dossier that claims that Trump, while in Russia for the Miss Universe pageant, was caught on tape fooling around with prostitutes. I forgot what you called it--something about a razor?"

He really had me confused. He said, "The razor business."

"Ockham's Razor, right," I said, remembering. "About how it's used to come up with the simplest explanation for a lot of seemingly unrelated information."

"That's the one."

"How almost everything Trump has said or done that has anything at all to do with Russia--from his refusal to acknowledge their meddling in Clinton's campaign to his going ballistic whenever it's hinted that one of his children was involved, and of course firing Comey and saying how he would also like to sack Mueller, all of this and more," I said, "'makes sense,' in Ockham's Razor terms if Trump himself was up to his eyeballs in dirty-dealings with Putin and the Russians."

"Exactly."

I was surprised to hear Jack agree with this, so I added--"Until Mueller and his battalion of lawyers get to the bottom of things, Trump is the only one who knows what he did and didn't do. His being guilty would explain almost everything that has been going on."

"That's my point!" He was getting more excited by the minute.

"What's your point? That Trump is drowning in his own . . ."

Jack cut me off, "That maybe he did and maybe he didn't."

"Here we go," I said, more and more exasperated. "I don't have time for games, so either get to your point or I'm hanging up."

"This is America, right?"

"More talking in riddles," I said, ready to hang up.

Jack pressed on, "In America you're innocent until proven guilty, right. Apply that to Trump. As you say, he's the only one who knows what he did and didn't do. It's conceivable, then that he could have clean hands. No colluding with the Russians to defeat Hillary, no substantial financial ties with Russia, and no truth about anything much in that so-called dossier,"

"Anything's possible," I said, "Even that he has clean hands, but what are the chances . . ."

"Think of it this way. He loves to entertain and surprise. Notice how different things are after only three days of General Kelly becoming chief of staff. No incendiary tweets, no crazy off the cuff remarks or inappropriate behavior."

"Let's see how long that lasts."

"Months ago, after he was nominated and then really after he was elected, people, even you, wondered if he would pivot. Become more presidential. Maybe he's finally about to do that. He has been letting the investigations play out, he's fulminated about Mueller, but he's still there. Do you think if Trump was seriously, legally guilty he would let Mueller continue? Wouldn't he roll the dice and fire him?"

"Where are you going with this," I asked Jack.

"Maybe there's another Ockham's Razor analysis--that there's no there there."

"Again you . . ."

"That Trump's been playing Mueller, the media, and all the rest of us. Just when he's about to go down for the last time, just before the house collapses on him, he'll pull back all his defenses, share his tax information, and show everyone there's nothing of substance behind any of the charges."

"I'll tell you what I think is going one with you."

"I'm all ears."

"Pure and simple, he's crazy and you're scared. Because you think he's going under. Just yesterday there was a story in the Wall Street Journal that Mueller empaneled the grand jury. To Trump, and to you too, this must feel ominous. So you're looking desperately for explanations other that he and his cohorts committed crimes."

Not dealing with that, Jack said, "Time and time again he's proven to be crazy like a fox. If what I'm saying is true, what do you think will happen to his approval ratings? I'll bet they'd soar to 60 percent. At that time he could become the powerful president a lot of us have been waiting to see him become. Think about how that would be viewed by both the public and Congress. It would be like a Houdini escape--it looks as if he's finished and then when all seems lost he surfaces and everything is well. Better than well."

"I suppose anything's possible. But this one strains credulity. To let himself get into so much unnecessary jeopardy is way beyond putting on a show. I know he's into providing entertainment and maybe in some case flirts with near-death experiences, but if what you're saying is true, he really is reckless. In fact, worse than reckless."

"I like your comparing him to Houdini," Jack said, "Like all magicians Houdini was a master of diversion. He gets you to watch his left hand while he's doing his thing with his right one. You yourself acknowledged Trump is great at diverting attention. This could be his masterpiece."

"Like I said--this is crazy. Talk about there not being any there there."

"Good one," Jack said, laughing. "Let's be a little patient and see how this plays out."

June 27, 2017--Jack Again: Trump's Intelligence

OK. One more from Jack and then tomorrow, I promise, back to Midcoast stories--

Trump's Intelligence

Never previously, but this time, two days in a row, Jack showed up at the Bristol Diner.

I said, "Long time, no see." I admit that though he almost always manages to get under my skin, I was happy to see him. Maybe I was in a masochistic mood. Or confused about the state of our politics. Closer to the truth, how Democrats are faring these days. Not good.

"Did you see that piece in Friday's Washington Post, 'How Can You Still Doubt Trump's Intelligence?'"

"I did in fact see it. By one of their conservative opinion writers, Kathleen Parker, and so . . ."

"'And so' nothing. Just being a conservative doesn't mean you're always wrong. Even to people like you who claim to be interested in honest dialogue between those who disagree with each other. You always talk about the need to be open minded and civil."

"The Post piece was civil, I'll grant you that, but it dealt only with Trump allegedly outsmarting former FBI director, Jim Comey. Trump may or may not have won the day with him but that doesn't speak to his larger state of mind or ability to be an effective president. In fact, though he may be good at putting people down--ask Little Marco and Low-Energy Jeb about that--but about the things that presidents need to know, I see very few signs of intelligence."

Ignoring me, Jack said, "The title of the Post piece says it all. My boy may be getting battered and even at times shows signs of unravelling, but there's no denying he's sly as a fox. Call it political intelligence if you will. My favorite current example is not how he helped four Republicans win four special congressional elections, but, as Parker said, how he managed to snooker Comey with that talk about how he had their conversations on tape. That dominated the headlines at the same time Comey was testifying to Congress and became as much the story as what Comey had to say. If nothing else, Trump knows how to change the subject and dominate what you guys call the 'narrative.'"

I repeated, "That doesn't prove he's particularly intelligent. Let's agree to disagree about that. I think Comey did pretty well, but for me that's not the meaning of life. What special counsel Robert Mueller eventually comes up with is much more important than how Comey did the other day."

"OK, let's disagree about that but how about what your Maureen Dowd wrote last Sunday in the New York Times, 'Trump Skunks the Democrats'? Let me read some of it to you--

The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump. 

If Trump is the antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment. . . . 

Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new, progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats' vision, people are doing great and getting along. It is the opposite of Trump's dark diorama of carnage and dystopia--but just as false a picture of America.

"I saw that," I said, "and agree with most of it. Liberals, most Democrats have been out of touch with voters who should be, who have been their constituents. We have become isolated and smug. People feel this and hate it. And us. Of course not all of us," I added, "But enough to win national and local elections. Especially local elections. I've been writing about this for years."

"Which brings us back to Trump," Jack said.

"Yes and no," I said, "He won, that's true, and it showed a certain kind of intelligence. But he's done nothing but stumble when it comes to the being-president part of the equation. For politics I give him an A-, for the rest of it, straight Ds."

"And," Jack said, winking, "I thought the old professor in you would give him Fs."

"OK," I agreed, "All Fs." This time I did the winking.

May 19, 2017--Jack, Not In a Good Mood

"I'm not in a good mood."

"If true, I could take a pass on talking to you right now. I'm feeling good, the weather's perfect, I have a lot to get done, and to tell you the truth I don't want you to bring me down."

Jack said, "I only need 10 minutes. Start the timer."

"I'm OK but, really, just for 10 minutes. If you're calling about Trump I can imagine why you wouldn't be feeling very happy." I couldn't resist poking him.

"It's not what you think. With all this Comey business and now a special prosecutor or counsel you might be assuming that I want to talk about that. Suffice it to say, I agree with Trump--it's a witch hunt, plain and simple."

"The people involved with this now, Robert Mueller especially, do not engage in which hunts. But feel free to believe whatever works for you."

"I want to talk about why Trump supporters are sticking with him. People like you expect that his favorabilites will plummet. Well, think again. They're pretty rock solid. Still about 40 percent."

"I have been wondering about that."

"Well, it's pretty simple. Basically, he's doing exactly why we sent him to Washington to do. To tear everything down. Even if he has to put a blowtorch to things. That's why they're going after him. Even Republicans, though they won't admit to that out loud. We've grown fed up with everything. Both parties are at fault. All they want is to keep the gravy flowing in their direction. They don't care about the people, they only care about feathering their own nests. To continue to do so. Trump is a threat to that. That's what we wanted and that's what we still want from him. Bring it all down. Start all over."

"None of this surprises me. There's a lot of frustration out . . ."

"Listen to yourself. Frustration? It goes way, way beyond that. We're talking rage, fury. Not frustration."

"You got me. I underestimated it. A lot of people are furious. They deserve to be. I share some of that, but no way is Trump the solution. In fact, he's part of the problem. He's on the gravy train too. He's all about wanting the government to do things to the tax code, for example, that will yield to him and people like him more and more money. At everyone else's expense. At the expense of the rest of us."

"Furthermore," Jack rolled on, ignoring me, "people like you and the elite media think they know how to make sense of this. You have your conventional wisdom that you apply to what's going on but that gets in the way of your understanding what's really at work. In fact, your conventional wisdom is a good place to begin because everything you assume to be true isn't true. It's the opposite of true. Take any example, and I'll show you how the reverse of what you think you understand is not what's going on. Go on, try me."

"I'm not sure I'm following you. So why don't you give me one example."

"Sure. You value leaders who are thoughtful and restrained. You think that's what voters want. You assume that's what we want, what everyone wants. Well, we don't. We want a leader who goes with his gut and is the opposite of restrained. We don't value that. Restraint. We value the opposite of that. Reasonable leaders think they can negotiate their way to good deals for people. What they wind up negotiating is worthless to us. Worse than that. It is harmful to us. So we like it when Trump goes off script and tells it like it is. Especially when it comes to what's politically correct, which is another example of how the conventional wisdom is all wrong. We're OK with the outrageous. In fact we value it."

"This sounds totally crazy to me."

"We're also OK with crazy. Not totally crazy, but a decent amount of crazy. Crazy also shakes things up. We like it when everyone is scared about the next things coming out of his mouth. I'll admit it, I would prefer if he toned it down. Not all the way down but a little bit. It would make him more effective."

"'Trump' and 'effective' don't belong in the same sentence."

"One more thing from the conventional wisdom," Jack said, ignoring me again, "About economics. I don't mean big-picture economics but personal economics. People like you think that a big motivator for people is concern about their personal finances. Of course to some extent that's true. Everyone has to pay rent and eat. But even truer is that people like me don't follow what you assume about us--we're not primarily motivated by what's 'good' for our bottom line. 'Good' in quotes. Money doesn't trump everything for us. Bringing everything down, bringing everything to a halt is what motivates us. That's what we care about. Bring it down so we can start all over. Enough tinkering around the edges. Even if the tinkering puts a few more dollars in our pockets. Blowtorching it, that's what we wanted from Trump, that's what we still want even as the witch hint unfolds."

"I have to run in a minute," I really did, "so cut to the chase--what do you want to see happen? I mean for him to accomplish."

"What I just said--to bring things to a grinding halt. A lot of people are saying, including conservative people, that if Trump is forced out of office--and I don't see that happening; to be a loser would kill him so he's not quitting--if Pence took over, people are saying, he'd sign the same kind of bills Trump would sign. But Pence fits the conventional wisdom so with him it would be more of the same. We're in a crisis and, don't quote me, we need to be in one. As I see things a bigger mess would be even better."

He paused for breath, "My 10 minutes are up," Jack said. I could sense him smiling, feeling good about himself. That he got all this off his chest.

"I have one more thing to share with you," I said.

"What's that?"

"You may hate it, viewing it as another example of the conventional wisdom. But you remember when Trump was first elected how so many people of my persuasion were worrying out loud, fearing that he was like Mussolini and was going to bring fascism to America?"

"I remember that. I thought you and people who thought that way, who were so afraid, feeling so smart about yourselves and how you looked down you noses at us, showing off what you thought history taught, well, I thought you were a bunch of jerks. Sorry, but that's what I thought."

"I felt that people who thought that way were way over-reacting. But whatever we thought at the time, one thing I said, and this was conventional wisdom too, was that no one should underestimate the power of checks and balances built into our system. Look around, take a look. As of two days ago we have a special counsel and Trump is on the ropes. I don't know where this is headed but his strongman days are over. That's one thing I'm sure about."

"We'll see," Jack said, "People of you persuasion counted him out before, all the way back to the first days of the primaries, but he won the nomination and the election and he's still standing. A little weaker at the moment, but keep you eye on North Korea. I'm not suggesting anything, but if things get out of control there, it will be commander-in-chief time."

As usual, after having the last word, Jack hung up.

May 12, 2017--RussiaGate

Here's where this is headed.

But first a little history--

On June 17, 1972, James McCord was one of five burglars who were caught in the Watergate complex while breaking into and bugging the offices of the Democratic National Committee. Nearly a year later, on March 19, 1973, after being convicted of eight counts of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping, the trial judge, "Maximum John" Sirica, who was famous for the severity of his sentences, was prepared to throw the book at McCord, potentially sentencing him to 35 years in federal prison.

Facing decades of incarceration, McCord wrote a letter to the judge in which he confessed that his testimony was perjured and that he would like to correct the record. In effect, he was offering to tell the truth, implicating the other defendants and White House staff who authorized and paid for the break in and then led the attempts to cover up the crime. Including the president, Richard Nixon.

The judge read the letter in open court and, after McCord's recanted testimony, set his sentence at one-to-five years and over the next two years a parade of high level officials, including John Mitchell, the former Attorney General and the two most senior presidential staff, H.R. Halderman and John Ehrlichman were convicted and sent to prison.

The world collapsed around Nixon and he resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.

James McCord's Letter to Judge Sirica

Now we have RussiaGate, and I suspect we will see the denouement unfold in a similar way. 

A Michael Flynn or a Paul Manafort or even more likely, the lower-level Carter Page, will wind up being indicted, regardless of who becomes the director of the FBI (the investigations will proceed no matter what Donald Trump does to impede them), and one or more of them will be convicted and thus face a Sirica-like sentence.

The threat of a decades' long sentence, as with Watergate, will focus the attention of the new felons and we can subsequently expect to see plea-bargaining--the promise of a reduced sentence for testimony about the higher-ups. Perhaps including the president.

This prospect is why President Trump made what seems to be an impulsive decision to fire FBI director James Comey.

Trump may not know much about history, to quote Sam Cooke's song, but he knows how to survive. We'll see how he does the time and how wonderful the world actually is.

May 10, 2017--Firing James Comey

Many are saying that Donald Trump's firing of FBI director James Comey smacks of Watergate. We had the Saturday Night Massacre then and the Tuesday Night Massacre last night.

This comparison doesn't sound like a stretch to me. 

In fact, back on March 21st I posted a blog about where they would lead if one were to connect all the dots about how Trump's men were directly involved in the Russian hacking of the presidential election and how this subversion of our election is much, much worse than Watergate.

Anyone wondering why Trump fired Comey, claiming that he did so because of how Comey failed to indict Hillary Clinton, is capable of believing most anything. The truth is much simpler than that. And chilling. 

So below is my posting from March.

Here's what happened and it's pretty obvious.

Admittedly this is speculation but since it explains most of Donald Trump's behavior regarding Russia's tampering in our election, let me air it out--

Last spring when it was obvious Donald Trump would win the nomination and then that summer, after securing it, one or more members of Trump's entourage with on-going Russian connections (fierce supporter General Michael Flynn and/or campaign chairman Paul Manafort) told candidate Trump that their Russian connections, or handlers, indicated that they had the capacity to hack into Hillary Clinton's campaign and in that way dig up enough dirt to help the underdog, Donald Trump, win the election.

As someone who loves winning above all else, Trump with a nod and a wink gave them the go-ahead.

The rest of the election is history.

All the while, the FBI or NSA, as part of their routine work, were tapping into the Russian ambassador's and other Russian officials' electronic communications.

In the process, they stumbled on Flynn's and Manafort's machinations and began a deeper investigation into their work with Russia, including their involvement in the Clinton sabotage effort.

So here's the big problem--

If a version of this is true, the connected dots lead directly back to Donald J.Trump.

Trump of course knows the full extent of this, especially his own direct involvement, and thus the frantic attempt to divert attention from this festering situation and out of desperation turn the heat on his predecessor, Barack Obama, accusing him of "wiretapping" Trump Tower.

Here's how this will unfold--

Flynn or Manafort, eventually facing 20 years in prison, will make a James McCord, Watergate-like deal with the prosecutors and throw President Trump under the bus.

That is unless Trump has already been pardoned by his successor, President Mike Pence.

Left to Right--Manafort, Trump, Flynn

April 3, 2017--Jack: "Long Time No Speak"

"Happy April Fools' Day," it was Jack a friend from Maine, "Long time no speak." I girded myself for a prank.

"These days," I said, "every day feels like April fools Day." I hadn't heard from him in a few weeks. "I assume you haven't been calling because your boy is making such a mess of the presidency and you're embarrassed about having voted for him."

"It's your people who are causing all the trouble."

"My people?"

"You know, the Democrats, the media, the socialists."

"Are you confusing socialists with Russians? Because if you are that's one thing we might be able to agree about--how the Trump people were in cahoots with the Russians who helped undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign."

"All three. The Democrats and mainstream media are making a big deal, with no evidence, about alleged Russian involvement in our election. Trump won fair and square. He didn't need any outside help."

"Didn't you listen to FBI director Comey when he said that the Russians were involved? He didn't hint about the possibilities but asserted that in no uncertain terms."

"He should talk. He's the one who undermined the Clinton campaign with his obsessing about her emails. Is he also working for the Russians?"

"These days anything's possible." Again I said, "Every day's April Fools' Day."

"If you're so sure Trump is making a mess . . ."

"Worse than a mess."

"If that's what you think why are his poll numbers going up?"

"What?" I was incredulous. "I know we live in a time when there are no longer any facts, but he's dropped to the low 30s."

"Forty-two percent in the latest poll."

"Have you been drinking because the last numbers I saw are from Gallop and they have him at 35 and dropping. By about a point a week."

"Check out the NBC News Poll."

"You mean the 'Survey Monkey Poll'?"

"If they have him at 42 percent approval, that's the one. But why it's called a monkey poll is beyond me. Everything's crazy these days."

"It's actually a very hip, relatively new poll that is done almost all on line. With so many people without wired phones they've been trying to measure opinions from people who are wirelessly on line all the time."

"Which would suggest that Trump is doing better with unwired young people. Thirty-five percent with Gallop and 42 with the Monkey."

"I'll have to do some checking."

"While you do find out what any of this has to do with monkeys."

"All the other polls have Trump's favorabilites plunging. And while we've been talking I looked up the poll you mentioned--the NBC Survey Monkey--and they also report his numbers are dropping. It's true they have him at 42 percent but he was two-to-four points higher the past week or so. The point is that as he fails to get anything through Congress and we learn more-and-more about his people colluding with the Russians his support is eroding."

"But he's getting a lot done that he promised to do."

"Really? Give me some examples."

"On immigration and regulations for openers."

"You mean his executive orders?"

"Those."

"Well, one has been ruled unconstitutional twice by federal courts and I haven't seen any specific regulations that have been removed. Just generalities. All he wants is to have fancy signing ceremonies in the Oval Office on live TV. Speaking of the Oval Office, have you noticed it looks as if he hasn't moved in yet? The book shelves are basically empty--he's not really a reader--and the only picture on the credenza behind his desk is of father Fred. No Melania, no children or grandchildren, no ex-wives Ivana or Marla Maples."

"Huh?"

"OK, about that I'm kidding. April Fool! But very revealing was the report, I think from Joe Scarborough, about his saying to his senior staff, 'I don't care what's in the bills. What I want are signing ceremonies.' Is this what we expect of our president?"

"That's what I mean by the mainstream press--they, like you, make things up."

"Well, here's something that's not made up--his tweets about retaliating against members of the Freedom Caucus in the House who he thinks killed Paul Ryan's and his healthcare bill."

Freedom Caucus Members

"They did kill it. And what's wrong with his calling them out for it?"

"Do you know what's in that bill?" All I heard was static. "Among other things twenty-four million people losing their coverage. That means a lot more prematurely dead people. You're all right with that?"

"I thought we were talking about the politics, not the bill."

"I can understand why you'd prefer that. But, OK, that was politically dumb. To attack them. He also blamed the Dems, as he referred to them. He bragged about how in 2018 he'll campaign against them and the Freedom Caucus. By then whoever's opposing them won't want him campaigning for them since his approval rating will be down in the 20s."

"About this we really disagree. He's approaching the bottom of his support right now. At the worst he'll end up at 30-35 percent. That's his floor."

"You call that good?" I asked, "That's a disaster for a president. That would mean losing control of both houses in 2018 and assure that nothing gets legislated for at least two years."

"Not necessarily. His people are still with him. Passionately so. Have you heard any of them interviewed? They think the Russian stuff is not important, a made-up distraction to undermine him. What's important to them are jobs, protection from immigrants, hope for their children, and a strong America."

"You think," I asked, "after what he said that any Freedom Caucus people or Democrats will work with him? They're on TV right now saying 'No way.' Even making fun of him. Mocking him. After how many, 70 days or so in office, he's becoming a lame duck. Irrelevant."

"We'll see how relevant he'll be after the Koreans, the North Koreans attack Japan or one of our bases out there. With missiles."

"This is my worst nightmare about him. Worse than anything that can happen on April Fools' Day."

March 30, 2017--What's Up With Devin Nunes?

An otherwise nondescript congressman from the scorching Central Valley in California, Devin Nunes is now perhaps the best known of his 434 colleagues.

He of course is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a plum assignment for someone without any intelligence work on his resumé or much political savvy. Running the committee until now he played the game in the traditional bipartisan way operating out of the spotlight and rarely interviewed by the cable news channels. Your basic congressional hack.

Then something snapped.

He's on TV all the time, mostly racing through the House of Representatives fending off reporters hanging out in what appears to be Congress' underground boiler room, junior media types hungry for any snippet from him about his midnight sleuthing on "the White House grounds," his one-on-one meeting with President Trump, his unwillingness to share with committee members new information about the administration's alleged Russian Connection, or why without consulting other committee members he has suspended routine meetings and hearings. In effect shutting down the committee.

No one seems to have a handle on what's going on with him and why he either went James-Bond-style rogue or finds himself overwhelmed by the sudden scope and importance of his work.

In an effort to figure things out, I trotted out my trusty Ockham's Razor to see if that can bring insight to this mess of a situation.

Ockham would say there are at least three explanations for all the seemingly contradictory behavior--

(1) Nunes is way over his head and his underlying incompetence is being exposed. What he up to is not well thought out or strategic.
(2) As an early supporter of Donald Trump's he is striving to protect his leader from being harmed by whatever his committee might unearth.
(3) As a member of the Trump transition team, bedazzled by exposure to the glittery Trump life style and, wanting more of it, he is willing to sacrifice his reputation in order to become a member of the inner circle.
(4) All of the above.

I am inclined to say "all of the above." But with some new spin from what has already been reported and speculated about.

Invoking Ockham here's what I think is going on--

Nunes was born and raised in Tulare right in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley, a town of about 60,000, nearly 60 percent of them Hispanic farm workers. His father owned a modest cattle ranch and young Devin early on thought he would become the third generation of Nuneses to own and run it. So he went to the local community college and studied agriculture.

For someone even half smart--and he is at least that--Tulare was a good place to get away from. Almost 200 miles distant from both LA and San Francisco, he opted to stay close to home and seek ways to escape. After some local politicking he managed to get elected to Congress in 2003 and has been reelected six times, most recently, unopposed.

He was spotted by Speaker John Boehner as an effective fundraiser and was rewarded by being named chair of the Intelligence Committee. When Paul Ryan took over from the deposed Boehner he reappointed him, in part, I suspect, thinking Nunes is Hispanic. And since there aren't a lot of Latinos among the Republican congressional delegation, there he still sits and presides. That is, when the committee meets.

Nunes is in fact of Portuguese dissent, but for the GOP, this is close enough.

Then there was the invitation to join the transition team and with that came his exposure to the Russian Connection explosion.

Can you imagine what it must have been like for someone like Nunes from Tulare to be welcomed into Trump's gilded world?

Walls literally of gold; a wife and daughter looking like Melania and Ivanka; the opportunity to talk with the legendary Midas about potential cabinet appointments; and, closer to the current situation, to assist son-in-law Jared in talking with dozens of foreign leaders calling into Trump Tower to congratulate the Big Guy and to begin to seek diplomatic deals.

These apparently were Nunes' transition assignments. Heady work for someone who had never before been in any spotlight or seen the lights of Broadway.

Soon thereafter he and we learned from FBI director James Comey that there is an on-going investigation about potentially improper relationships between Trump associates, Russian oligarchs and diplomats, and Russian intelligence officers.

He and we also learned that there may have been collusion between some Trump associates and Russians who were busy hacking into the Clinton campaign in a effort to tip the election to Trump.

But as chair of the Intelligence Committee, Nunes likely learned a lot more than this barest of outlines about the investigations that are underway. He likely knows the unmasked names of those Trump associates who were picked up incidentally during FBI surveillance; he may have seen that Trump himself is a target; and, most perilous from Nunes' perspective, he may have learned that his own name appears in some of these investigative intercepts.

He, after all, might have spoken with people from Eastern Europe and, who knows, if he was used by Trump people as a dupe, even to a Russian or two. Maybe even a spy.

To get him implicated this way would assure he wouldn't be eager as Intelligence Committee chair to look too closely into what was really going on with and among Trump and his people. A compromised Nunes could provide some insurance or cover for implicated Trump operatives.

In the aggregate, especially his own potential involvement in things he shouldn't have been exposed to could easily explain his erratic and panicky-seeming behavior.

Too conspiratorial minded? Perhaps.

But who would have thought the Russians were up to sabotaging Hillary Clinton's campaign and who would have imagined that Trump's campaign manager was on a key oligarch's payroll to the tune of $10 million a year?

At the moment, I like Ockham's answer.

March 21, 2016--The Russian Connection

Here's what happened and it's pretty obvious.

Admittedly this is speculation but since it explains most of Donald Trump's behavior regarding Russia's tampering in our election, let me air it out--

Last spring when it was obvious Donald Trump would win the nomination and then that summer, after securing it, one or more members of Trump's entourage with on-going Russian connections (fierce supporter General Michael Flynn and/or campaign chairman Paul Manafort) told candidate Trump that their Russian connections, or handlers, indicated that they had the capacity to hack into Hillary Clinton's campaign and in that way dig up enough dirt to help the underdog, Donald Trump, win the election.

As someone who loves winning above all else, Trump with a nod and a wink gave them the go-ahead.

The rest of the election is history.

All the while, the FBI or NSA, as part of their routine work, were tapping into the Russian ambassador's and other Russian officials' electronic communications.

In the process, they stumbled on Flynn's and Manafort's machinations and began a deeper investigation into their work with Russia, including their involvement in the Clinton sabotage effort.

So here's the big problem--

If a version of this is true, the connected dots lead directly back to Donald J.Trump.

Trump of course knows the full extent of this, especially his own direct involvement, and thus the frantic attempt to divert attention from this festering situation and out of desperation turn the heat on his predecessor, Barack Obama, accusing him of "wiretapping" Trump Tower.

Here's how this will unfold--

Paul Manafort, eventually facing 20 years in prison, will make a James McCord, Watergate-like deal with the prosecutors and throw President Trump under the bus.

That is unless Trump has already been pardoned by his successor, President Mike Pence.

Left to Right--Manafort, Trump, Flynn

March 6, 2017--Kool Aid

Anyone who thinks Barack Obama during the last months of his presidency had anything to do with bugging Donald Trump's Trump Tower email server is drinking the Kool Aid. This time with Steve Bannon, his Brietbart News, and talkshow lunatic Mark Levin pouring refills.

That Obama would commit a felony, literally a felony in support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, when it was universally thought she had a commanding lead, is delusional. Starting with Trump who, dangerously, believes this stuff.

The explanation is a lot simpler--

The coverup being perpetrated by the current president and his flunkies is coming undone. Even poor attorney general Jeff Sessions sold his chief out, deciding on his own, without consulting Trump, to plead recusal when it comes to the Russian connection, basically abandoning the president to twist slowly in the wind as one piece of fabrication after another peels away, leaving Trump and his senior staff vulnerable to further exposure.

What happened is as follows--

As part of their routine monitoring of Russian electronic communications chatter, the NSA or CIA or FBI stumbled on conversations between the Russian ambassador and Trump operatives such as Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, both of whom have longstanding ties to high-level Russians, have been on various Russian payrolls, and as a result are significantly compromised, including, as Flynn finally fessed up, engaged in perhaps illegal discussions before taking office about reducing the sanctions the Obama administration imposed on Russia in retaliation after they were caught red-handed (pun intended) hacking into Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Digging deeper, members of the intelligence community discovered other connections, including, in his own words, Donald Trump, Jr. boasting about all the Russian money "pouring into" various Trump projects. Minimally from black-money laundries such as Wilber Ross' Bank of Cyprus.

With this evidence in hand, including transcripts of these back-channel discussions, it was easy for the FBI (not Obama) to secure FISA-court approval to monitor further conversations between Trump campaign operatives, transition team staff, and various Russian spies. As a result, intelligence officials discovered that the campaign outreach to the Russians and more recently the coverup reached very high into the Trump organization.

So, in the aggregate thus far, we have flunkies such as Flynn and Manafort directly involved in encouraging the Russians to sabotage Clinton's campaign, minimally inappropriately talking with them about what the compromised Trump administration would do after taking office to "compensate" Russia for its help in the campaign, and now of course the massive coverup that likely reaches to Trump himself.

Then of course there is what is revealed in the infamous BuzzFeed dossier about Trump and his Russian capers.

This explains the towering rage Trump unleashed on his staff on Friday after Sessions recused himself without even talking with Trump about his intentions. He opted not to take a bullet for the boss and has as a result already outlived his usefulness. Expect him to be exiled and as the drip, drip, drip continues and various members of the Trump team to begin to peel away. I suspect that this will soon include Rex Tillerson who refuses to drink the Kool Air because he doesn't want the coda to his remarkable career to be that he went down with the Trump ship. And, yes, Watergate style, FBI director James Comey to be fired.

December 21, 2016--Obama's Political Legacy

There's lot of talk about Barack Obama's legacy. There's much that is positive to take note of and important things that will complicate the way he is remembered.

In regard to the latter there is the rupture in our relationship with Russia and chaos everywhere in the Middle East for which he is at least partially responsible.

The positive side of the ledger includes the impressive though imperfect Obamacare, the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, the stimulus and economic recovery, and Wall Street reform.

Of a different sort is his political legacy. How many Democrats of high caliber did he inspire to seek high office and how did they in general fare?

By any measure, not very well--

Between 2009 and now there are 12 fewer Democratic governors, 900+ fewer Democratic state legislature seats, 69 fewer Democratic House members, and 13 fewer senators.

And, yes, one less Democratic president--Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton will be inaugurated next month.

This is not the meaning of life, but to progressives who care about the future of the Democratic Party the data require that we search for why this political tsunami swept so many away, wiping out a host of next-generation candidates.

The focus naturally has been on the results of the presidential election. If Democrats engaged in the forensics continue to cling to the notion that Clinton lost because of FBI director Jim Comey's letters and Putin's and Russian hacking, the numbers of elected officials will continue to slide further right.

For one, it's essential to acknowledge that Hillary was a terrible candidate who didn't have a convincing story about why she wanted to be president. Saying it was to make history by electing a woman or because it was her turn, ignored what elections are about--not the candidates, but the people they seek to represent.

For all his craziness, Trump did a much better job of presenting himself. How could a billionaire who lives in an actual gilded penthouse represent himself successfully as a friend of working people? How could someone with an orange face, three wives, and a lifetime of overt sexism gain the votes of 53 percent of white women?

We need to find answers to these questions. And very soon.

I've suggested here that a good analysis of the problems can be found in Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal.

The fact that Democratic Party leaders continue to be stuck on Comey and Putin prompts me to assign it as required reading.

November 1, 2016--Ode to J. Edgar

With the current flap about FBI director James Comey making an even bigger mess of the already-messiest presidential election in history, reading recently about the reign of J. Edgar Hoover, during this politically perverse year I've been asking where is J. Edgar when we need him?

Hoover was all the terrible things you know about him and then some. And I'm not talking about his penchant for black sheath dresses and extra-high heels. By today's standards that makes him more interesting and even amusing.

What I am missing in Hoover is his ability to get things done and to keep certain kinds of high-level matters where they belong--under control and out of the public eye.

For example, he had the goods on John F. Kennedy both before and after he assumed the presidency. He told brother Bobby, who was JFK's Attorney General, that he, Hoover, would keep the lid on Kennedy's womanizing (now there's a word for you), philandering that makes Bill Clinton seem celibate, as long as Kennedy let him remain FBI director and cooled his fooling around with Mafia mistresses. In other words, Hoover was devoted to his own prerogatives and to keeping things running on a version of even keel.

Comey, in contrast, whatever the email denouement, is nothing if not totally disruptive.

When in July he issued his report on the first swatch of Hillary emails, finding that she had been "extremely careless" but not indictable, Democrats raced to praise him while Republicans saw a pro-Hillary conspiracy involving Comey, attorney general Roberta Lynch, and Bill Clinton who, now famously, had a tarmac tete-a-tete with Lynch during which he allegedly promised her that she could continue as AG after Hillary is elected if she squelched the FBI probe.

And now, when on Friday Comey sent his incoherent letter to the congressional committee investigating Clinton's emails, just 10 days before Election Day, Democrats are excoriating him (Harry Reid says he may have committed a crime) for supposedly sandbagging Hillary.

And though Comey is a registered Republican and was an appointee of George W. Bush's, the same Republicans (i.e. Donald Trump) who lambasted him for his initial findings, this time around are praising him for going rogue with the now renewed investigation.

About this resumed scrutiny, here is one paranoid scenario about what is unfolding.

(Note--during this literally psychotic election season nothing one might imagine happening is paranoid since the craziest behaviors have become the norm--at least once of day in Trump's case.)

Though he is a Republican, Comey is of the old school of Republicans--a rare moderate--and thus he despises Donald Trump and wants to see him soundly defeated.

So he issues this seemingly inappropriate letter even before anyone in his office has looked at any of the emails recently found on Anthony Weiner's laptop (talk about psychotic) and then, after being massacred in the mainstream media, appears to backpedal, saying that FBI agents will fast track an analysis of these emails and report to the public perhaps even before Election Day if there are (or aren't) any emails that haven't been seen before that might convince him that Clinton is indictable.

The fact that nothing remotely like this has ever happened in all of American history aside, we are where are and, for sanity's sake, here's what might really be going on--

• Agents using metadata search methods will quickly review the Weiner emails and Comey will report by the end of this week, three days before the election, that there is nothing new and Hillary is finally and fully in the clear.
• The voting public goes crazy. 
• The Trump people cry foul and claim this shows once again that the election is rigged.
• The Hillary people are ecstatic and rush to the polls in record numbers.
• She wins in both a popular vote and Electoral vote landslide--52-45% in the vote count and 450-90 in Electoral votes.
• Comey sees the results he wants and goes down as a footnote to history.
• Two years from now, when his FBI job ends, Comey secures a $5.0 million advance to write his memoirs. He makes the rounds of all the talkshows. This is the last time he is ever heard from.
• Hillary doesn't take Huma Abedin with her to the White House. She hires a replacement "body woman." So Huma, after finally dumping Weiner, joins CNN as a political commentator. On the side, she resumes her no-show job at the Clinton Foundation.
• Anthony Weiner is convicted of sexting a minor and gets 3-5 in the slammer.
• And, yes, the Trump disaffiliates do not march on Washington with pitchforks and torches. They retreat to their finished basements more devoted than ever to six-packs of Bud.

July 7, 2016--Hillary, Oh Hillary

It's even worse than I imagined.

Hillary Clinton was fortunate not to have been indicted, but what the director of the FBI said about her is devastating.

If she had been charged with crimes, she would have had to drop out of the presidential race, Joe Biden would have been nominated, and then gone on to easily defeat Donald Trump. But though "cleared" of criminal wrongdoing, the focus will not be on the legal process but on what she did and lied about. There is a lot of both.

If she were headed to trial that would have been the story. Now it's about her irresponsibility and chutzpah. Chutzpah for the many intentional lies she told--

That she used private e-mail innocently (there was supposedly no illegal "intent")

That she had only one email account and device (she had four or five)

That she never received classified material via email (she did at least 100 times)

That she failed to set up a secure private server and system (in spite of her claims that she did)

That she turned over to the FBI all but her most personal emails (1,000 are still missing)

Etcetera

In addition, among other things, she will need to reconcile and explain away the following chronology--

The FBI investigation has been proceeding, some would say, dragging on, for exactly a year and there were dozens of agents and lawyers assigned to getting to the bottom of things.

Then in a sudden rush, seven days ago, three weeks before the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton in the now infamous encounter with attorney general Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix, self-reportedly, schmoozed with her about golf; grandchildren; and, according to the New York Times, that if Hillary were to be elected, the possibility of Lynch staying on as AG. When the meeting and the nature of their conversation leaked out, she recused herself from the investigation. One might say, this was irrelevant since it now appears that the fix was already in.

Just three days after that, this past Saturday afternoon, for up to four hours Hillary was "interviewed" by a team of FBI agents and lawyers.

Two days later, Tuesday, though criticized severely by FBI director, James Comey, she slithered off the indictment hook.

Later that same day, some would say in an attempt to change the subject, she and Barack Obama, in North Carolina, campaigned together.

After so many months, quite a week of action.

I am not a conspiracy-oriented person, but . . .

Two examples--

After a year of presumably careful investigation, it then took the FBI only two-and-a-half days to scrub the details of Clinton's lengthy "interview"? They must have worked around the clock over the July 4th weekend.

And was it just a coincidence that Barack Obama, the nation's ultimate law enforcer and constitutional law professor, just happened to be campaigning with Clinton on the day she wasn't indicted? Might he have known when this was to be announced well in advance (Comey and Lynch report to him) and to help Clinton, his legacy-assurer, he . . . ?

Voters will draw their own conclusions.

I've already done so.

I'll be sitting out this election.

In the past, the choice has too often come down to voting for the candidate I perceive to be the lesser of two evils. This time, it's to choose between two sociopaths.

For me, that's too much of a stretch.