The US Presidency 2019

[Journeyman]

The goalpost-shifting appears to be focused on moving away from "collusion" to bad behaviour and obstruction, with a view to impeachment.

….Andrew McCarthy (at NRO), whom I consider to be a must-read resource....

a)  I'm also a fan of McCarthy's insights, even when I disagree with his start state at times.

b)  I'm not sure that Barr is completely off the hook yet;  there was something biased to the point of unsavoury about his whole non-neutral AG performance. While McCarthy's explanation rings true, I still feel it's too soon to say.  We'll see how the remaining criminal proceedings play out.

c)  Most importantly, I desperately hope that the Dems aren't so oblivious as to go for impeachment (number of seats held/necessary to pass both Houses; 'normal' voter reaction ['normal' = not left or right extreme]; and of course, having the religiously out-there but more competent than Trump, Pence as President).  But then, the Democrats also display a 'holier than thou, natural governing party' attitude, so they may  go for stupid.  So far, Pelosi is using the right words to reel them in.


I'd best bow out;  I've already spent too long in this thread. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

The centrist/establishment sub-faction of the Democratic party isn't oblivious, and has made that clear by its actions and statements.  What they would like to do is milk the idea of impeachment and misdeeds to fight the next election, but they really needed this report to be released a year from now (6 months before election rather than 18).  I suppose they might try to park the discussions on a back-burner to simmer for 12 months and then turn up the heat again.

There's enough blow-back from within the Democrat-favouring media and pundits over the colossal "collusion" story frig-up that I doubt they'll be able to hold together any kind of anti-Trump narrative (based on the Mueller report) for that long.  As fast as each breathless accusation emerges, it'll be shredded by people unwilling to tolerate degradation of their collective reputation any further.

 

[mariomike]

But then, the Democrats also display a 'holier than thou, natural governing party' attitude, so they may  go for stupid. 

Jay Leno put it this way, “Every time I think I’m a Democrat, they do something stupid. And every time I think I’m a Republican, they do something greedy.” 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Videos like this lead be to believe Trump is going to win the next election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuHepjHA2JY

https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/rebecca-mankey-parker/

 

[Brad Sallows]

Alan Dershowitz has an opinion on obstruction; he is not supportive of the investigators' preferred position.

 

[FJAG]

Not sure this is a 100% fit into this thread but it's close enough.

The French Ambassador to the US is retiring after five years under both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was recently interviewed by Foreign Policy and gave very candid comments not only about the difference between the two presidents and their administration but also about his views on what he is calling an end of an era in US/European politics.

This from the later part of the interview:

...FP: I understand your memoir is finished. Can you give us some highlights?

GA: What for me was striking was realizing that I had started my career more or less when Ronald Reagan was elected and I was completing my career when Trump was elected. And suddenly I realized by chance my career nearly exactly fit a particular period in history—a period that I’m convinced is over. I’m really convinced the direction of Trump is a signal that 40 years of what people call neoliberalism is over. This period where everybody was convinced that free trade was good, the market good, taxes were bad, and state intervention was bad, and suddenly with the election of Trump but also with Brexit and the populist wave in the Western countries, including France, the signal is that some of our citizens are saying, “No way, it’s over.” Nearly overnight all the certainties of my diplomatic life were shattered. You had an American president saying suddenly that the EU is a threat, that NATO is dangerous. That for me was the stepping stone of my memoirs.

FP: So if this era is over, what follows?

GA: I think that what’s interesting on the right wing of the political spectrum is you have a new conservatism that is suddenly defined. The Republican Party was the party of free trade, the party of active foreign policy, of budgetary restraint, and suddenly it’s over. In a sense Trump hijacked the Republican Party. So you can argue that after the mandate of the current president, things will come back to business as usual, but I don’t think so. That’s the advantage of being a foreigner: You see that conservatism is moving in the same direction everywhere. The French conservative party—and I’m not talking about the far-right—is also moving in the direction of identity, [closed] borders, anti-immigration, anti-globalism, so you have sort of a new right. And I’m regretting a bit leaving my post now because I’m convinced the 2020 elections will be a critical moment for the American left to redefine itself, and of course it has influence on the rest of the world.

FP: What went wrong? Why is this era ending in a backlash where people feel that the verities of the period you describe didn’t hold true anymore?

GA: The statistics show that half of Americans, roughly speaking, have seen stagnation of their income in the last 30 years. Overall the opening of the borders has been good for the poor countries, and very good for the rich of the rich countries, but the lower middle class and lower end have been really hit. And it’s not only the opening of borders but also automation. And on top of that, you had the storm of the financial crisis of 2008. I think it was very well managed, especially by Obama, but millions of Americans lost their homes and millions of Americans lost their jobs. So there was a moment when 30 or maybe 35 to 40 percent of Americans said, “It’s over.” And the genius of Trump has been to feel this crisis....

See interview here:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/19/how-trump-practices-escalation-dominance/

Incidentally I learned a new word recently - "autarky" - when I was researching the economy of Germany in the '30s. It's defined as:

Autarky is the characteristic of self-sufficiency; the term usually applies to political states or to their economic systems. Autarky exists whenever an entity can survive or continue its activities without external assistance or international trade. If a self-sufficient economy also refuses all trade with the outside world then economists may term it a closed economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

I might be pushing the envelope on this but what I see behind the current Trump/Republican push on repatriating jobs, restricting immigration and limiting trade deals to bi-lateral ones have at their heart the move to an autarkic state.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

His memory is selective, and his understanding of US conservatives is weak.

There was never a period when "everybody" believed that taxes and state intervention were bad; both were supported continuously by progressives and progressive parties and governments throughout the period he defines.  US conservatives still support free trade and markets, provided you look beyond Trump and his dedicated acolytes (and even their influence is tiny in the big picture - it is simply not to be mistaken for a war on free trade).  What is "over" was just another interval between evolutionary/revolutionary upheavals.  The current governing castes have had a long kick at the can to alleviate the problems they claimed they would solve or mitigate if elected; they are now held to have failed or under-performed and people are looking for alternatives.  Mostly, people just want to be masters in their own houses and are not at all on the same page as the castes who find borders and passports annoying to their freewheeling enjoyment of all the world has to offer.  The French path through academia to high government is so rarefied that I have no doubt they have lost touch with everyone except themselves.  So: Obama / Clinton tell the people jobs are going away and not coming back; Trump tells them he'll bring jobs back; no surprise who wins the voters at risk.

The "active foreign policy" advocates still exist, but they have differentiated.  Although US Republicans / conservatives seem to be (according to Pew surveys I have linked before) approximately where they were attitude-wise during the Clinton administration, the Democrats / progressives have shifted very far in the progressive direction.  This leaves the neo-cons who were the centre of attention during the Bush 43 administration without a home - conservatives are shot of them, and the centre-left part of the spectrum from which they originated and which was once well-occupied by Democrats is now only sparsely populated.  Hence all the whining recently by their thought leaders.  Their brand of muscular foreign policy (solution to everything: military intervention and war) has no home; what remains of activist foreign policy among conservatives is a willingness to engage in building all the institutions that people claim the Trump administration wishes to destroy.  And Trump's non-interventionist lean is an outlier; he just has a big voice and big pulpit.  Trump didn't hijack the Republican party; he won the presidency, and his position and his coattails matter enough that Republicans aren't going to throw away everything over principles this time (which is one of the great disappointments on the left: Alinsky's make-them-play-by-their-rules doesn't work any more).

Trump and Republicans are nowhere near seeking autarky.  Seeking favourable deals and trying to clamp down illegal immigration is what they are doing, which is not the same thing as saying "we don't need you, goodbye".

Something to remember about Trump, highlighted again by the Mueller report: he doesn't often follow through on his bombastic rhetoric and flights of temper.  To assume he will oversee a coherent policy of isolationism is unreasonable.

 

[dapaterson]

To assume he will oversee a coherent policy ... is unreasonable.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

US seems to be doing alright the last couple years.  Well except in the whiny pathetic Canadian psych.

 

[FJAG]

US seems to be doing alright the last couple years.  Well except in the whiny pathetic Canadian psych.

They've been doing fine for more than "a couple of years". It's been ever since the Obama administration cleaned up the Subprime mess that occurred at the end of the Bush years.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/25420/economics/us-economy-under-obama-2009-2017/

If you add in the Trump years you'll see that the GDP growth curve continued at roughly the same pace.

https://www.headwater-ic.com/blog/2008-us-economy-part-2-3

Give a little credit where it's due.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>It's been ever since the Obama administration cleaned up the Subprime mess that occurred at the end of the Bush years.

The stabilization measures that cleaned up the mess were all started/passed/implemented during the last few months of the Bush administration, and were the work of the Bush administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress.  That's where the credit is due - it was bipartisan, and did not involve Obama.  (It did involve McCain, because he thought it important to show up at the Senate in the middle of the presidential campaign - he was wrong about that.)

The Obama administration's job was to manage recovery.  The data show what has been endlessly reported for over a decade (ie. it's no revelation) - an exceedingly slow recovery.  What's puzzling some observers a little right now is that the growth curves are not leveling off, which usually happens because the rates of improvement in the early stage of a recovery are faster ("low-hanging fruit").

Per capita GDP (in constant dollars, of course) is more illustrative.

World Bank

If I got the link correct, the chart line on that page illustrates a long-term trend of which the years since 2008 are unremarkable.  In particular, a smoother curve would result if you drew a line from 2003 to 2009 - the bump (rise) from 2003 to 2007 is remarkable.  The recovery still hasn't reached a point at which the historical data would coincide with an extrapolation of the line from 2003 to 2007.  That is the target.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think it is the 'system' ~ the Fed and the many and varied agencies ~ that get both most of the blame for 2000-2008 and deserve most of the credit for 2010 to 2019, not any particular politician or party.

The United States has a complex but well-managed system that seems to balance bureaucratic and political inclinations with the realities of the commercial world. It fails, sometimes, but it also has well-designed mechanisms for making corrections ... the system works; ditto for Australia, Britain, Canada and the non-Eurozone Europeans and Japan, Singapore and so on.

My objection to President Trump's policy direction, as I understand it, which I admit is very imperfectly, is that it is too short term. He seems, to me, to be still thinking like a real estate developer: on a quarterly results basis and 'believing' that there is, somewhere, the national or global equivalent of a bankruptcy court that will bail him out if he makes a mistake. I think a political leader needs to have a 'five-year plan' sort of mentality while a bureaucratic leader, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or the Governor of a central bank, needs to have a generational plan, one with a 25-year view.

That makes for a very healthy tension between the elected, and ultimately responsible to the people, politicians and the ultra-powerful bureaucrats. Neither likes being thwarted by the other but each must accept the 'checks and balances' which were, in some large part, developed in Canada circa 1960, in the Coyne Affair which pitted Bank of Canada Governor James Coyne (father of columnist Andrew Coyne) against Prime Minister John Diefenbaker ~ Diefenbaker won the battle, Coyne (and all central bankers, everywhere) won the war because, in those days, the world looked to Canada for leadership in many fields, including governance. My fear is that, unlike e.g. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all of whom disliked their central bankers but respected their role and independence, President Trump will try to use popular will to bend the Fed to his agenda ... even if you think his agenda is correct, the balance is more important.

America is doing well ... Australia has, since about 1995, done even better, Canada, not so much. None of Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump deserve all the credit for America's success; neither do Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen and Powell. None of them deserves all the blame for 2008, either. If you really want to give credit to someone then it's Harry Dexter White, John Maynard Keynes, Montague Norman and Marriner Eccles, none of whom mean much of anything to most people, sadly.

Edited: punctuation

 

[Good2Golf]

Kayne’s definitely has his supporters and detractors, as did other micro and macroeconomists, but your point about the moderated balance between national financial establishments and executive (of any lean) is worthy, as is you note that tension, potentially dysfunctional, comes when the temporal bounds of fiscal consideration become greatly foreshortened.

Regards
G2G

 

[mariomike]

News Release

29 Apr., 2019

IAFF Endorses Joe Biden for President
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91986
The IAFF, which represents firefighters and paramedics, endorsed Joe Biden today, making them the first major labor union to endorse a 2020 candidate.

 

[Jarnhamar]

News Release

29 Apr., 2019

IAFF Endorses Joe Biden for President
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91986
The IAFF, which represents firefighters and paramedics, endorsed Joe Biden today, making them the first major labor union to endorse a 2020 candidate.

Many of you may not like us being involved in politics or just won't like our decision. But we need to have a role in determining who gets the Democratic nomination for president to ensure that your voice is heard and remains a core part of the election and discourse -

Awfully thoughtful of that union to make that decision in behalf of it's members.

 

[mariomike]

Awfully thoughtful of that union to make that decision in behalf of it's members.

He's already having a meltdown on Twitter over it. 

This has always been the policy of our union in regards to active and retired members,

First and foremost, I want to be clear - your union will never tell you how to vote. No organization, individual or union should demand that you vote for a particular candidate. It is a very personal decision based on your values, priorities and expectations.

As public employees, IAFF members are subject to all manner of government – government that is run by politicians who make decisions that affect your lives and livelihoods. That’s why elections can have a more serious and direct impact for our members than for many other Americans.

Whether we like it or not, the political arena is where all the power is – politicians and lawmakers have a big hand in deciding policies that can greatly affect your career, family and economic future.

Your union represents you on a narrowly focused basket of issues – issues specifically related to your jobs as professional fire fighters and paramedics, including retirement security, occupational safety and health, collective bargaining rights, healthcare, wages and benefits, worker rights, staffing and presumptive protections.

As your union, we are your voice on these issues. We will always fight to improve your livelihood, keep you safe and improve conditions for our profession.

How much importance you place on these issues in electing a president is your choice.

It is our responsibility as your union to support the candidate who will have your back when it comes to signing laws, making agency appointments, writing rules and making the important decisions that affect you on the job every single day.

Your union works on your behalf on issues that pertain to our profession. We don’t engage in identity politics, nor do we advocate for or against other issues.

Our recommendations are offered as information on where candidates stand on issues that are vital to fire fighters – protecting you on the job, improving your standard of living, protecting your safety and health, securing affordable healthcare, making sure you come home at the end of each shift, providing a secure retirement and other aspects of your work.

Simply put, we provide you with information on where candidates stand so you are better educated on fire fighter-specific issues when you go to the ballot box.
https://client.prod.iaff.org/#contentid=91865

 

[Jarnhamar]

Cool. Did your union support specific candidates during elections?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At least they are out in the open. Unlike Working Families and other union shill, union supported and union financed organisations that use members dues to promote a specific party and candidate.

Then we have professional organisations that, by using pictures of people on the job and hedged speech, promote the idea that all their members support a certain government. Like the OPP association tried.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/deputy-ag-rod-rosenstein-submits-resignation?fbclid=IwAR0rnMI9u2gY_d9Llt8oKenOZ-L5U6iY4GPfwx301SQfhwbhEQgN4d1A0DQ

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Submits Resignation

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who frequently found himself in the political crosshairs due to his role in the special counsel's Russia probe and whose departure has long been expected, submitted his resignation on Monday to President Trump, effective May 11.

Attorney General William Barr in a statement said Rosenstein served the Justice Department "with dedication and distinction."

"His devotion to the Department and its professionals is unparalleled," the statement read. "Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor."

In his resignation letter, Rosenstein thanked Trump "for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity, because 'a nation exists to serve its citizens.'"

Rosenstein, 54, previously served as deputy assistant attorney general and U.S. attorney. He had intended to leave his position last month but stayed on for the completion of the Mueller probe, which Rosenstein had overseen.

In February, Fox News reported that Barr had picked Jeffrey Rosen, who currently serves as Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to take over for Rosenstein.

Rosenstein was part of a small group of department officials who reviewed the document and helped shape its public release. After Mueller didn't reach a conclusion on whether Trump had obstructed the investigation, Barr and Rosenstein stepped in and determined the evidence wasn't enough to support such an allegation.

In recent months, Rosenstein became a frequent target of Trump's ire, after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe described private discussions about secretly recording and potentially ousting the president in the days after he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Trump accused them of pursuing a “treasonous” plot against him. Rosenstein, though, denied pursuing a recording of the president and has pushed back on claims he broached the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. However, Rosenstein was largely spared the type of anger directed by Trump at Sessions, whose recusal infuriated the president and led to Sessions' to his forced resignation last November.

As first reported by The New York Times last year, Rosenstein allegedly discussed wearing a "wire" to tape Trump and pursuing his removal from office in meetings and conversations with Justice Department and FBI officials. This would have been in the tumultuous days after Comey was fired as FBI director, with the president citing in part a memo penned by Rosenstein — reportedly catching him off guard.

Fox News has learned one key meeting took place on May 16, 2017 at Justice Department headquarters. Several people were in the room, including McCabe and former FBI counsel Lisa Page. Mueller was appointed as special counsel the next day.

Rosenstein’s conservative critics on the Capitol Hill seized on the reports, with North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, calling on him to appear before Congress to explain the comments. In July, Meadows and Jim Jordan of Ohio, another member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, introduced five articles of impeachment against Rosenstein.

Those impeachment articles accused Rosenstein of intentionally withholding documents and information from Congress, failure to comply with congressional subpoenas and abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That effort was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it has not been voted upon.

Before named by Trump to serve as the No. 2 to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Rosenstein took over the Russia probe after Sessions recused himself from the investigation. It was Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller to his post.

 

[mariomike]

AG Barr's commitment, described fairly here at The Atlantic, means that if there is anything that someone other than Mueller might choose to latch onto, it should become available.

The author had this to say,

I was willing to give Bill Barr a chance. Consider me burned.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/

In today's news,

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."