If there's a "Deep State", here's why they're afraid of Trump

We hear a lot about the "Deep State" that conservatives claim is opposed to President Trump. Two recent executive orders by President Trump show a reason why the deep state might be so strongly opposed to his presidency.

This article in Forbes summarizes the two executive orders and provides links to them. These executive orders instruct agencies to use formal rulemaking to guide regulations. Today too often agencies instead use informal guidance and often impose rules after the fact. Informal rulemaking is also too often used with implied threats of "investigation" if some agency guidance isn't followed. When I have talked to people subject to regulation (e.g. bankers) the major complaint about regulators is that the regulations aren't clear and often appear arbitrary.

Now let's hope these executive orders are implemented and that the next President doesn't quietly reverse them.

The Joshua Brown killing

Joshua Brown, a witness in the Amber Guyger murder trial in Texas, was killed a couple days. He was shot in the parking lot of his new apartment building. Original reports didn't make it clear whether it was a drive by shooting or if the killer(s) had stopped.

This killing is problematic in many ways. Mr. Brown had previously testified in the Amber Guyger trial. He was scheduled to testify in a civil trail against the Dallas Police Department over the Guyger murder. He was also involved in another murder trial against a man who allegedly killed one person and shot Mr. Brown in the foot outside a strip club.

A couple days after the shooting the Dallas police have made one arrest and have warrants for two other people. They claim that Mr. Brown was shot in a drug deal gone bad with the killers being three people who drove in from central Louisiana to do a deal with him. Mr. Brown got into an argument and altercation with one of the three and in the end Brown shot one and wounded one suspect while Brown was shot (not clear by which of the three suspects). Dallas police say a search of Brown's apartment resulted in a stash of drugs and cash.

What to make of all this. One thing is to apply the "48 hour rule" which says wait 48 hours (not ahard limit) after any event to see what's true or not true of often contradictory reports. That rule applies here and we're still hearing about new developments. Even so, it is clear several things will happen as this story plays out.

One is that the Dallas Police will be blamed for the whole thing. Immediately after the shooting there was strong speculation that this was a killing by police officers (or those acting for them) either in revenge for testifying against Guyger or to prevent Brown from testifying in the civil trial. The fact the Dallas Police investigated the case after requests they turn it over to somebody else won't help conspiracy theorists. It's easy to assume that the police planted the drugs in the apartment and have fabricated the charges against the three suspects to protect their own.

There will be obvious racial overtones since Joshua Brown is black. Thus there are statements about this showing the danger of being black in America. Even though the Dallas police chief is black any theories that the police are guilty of the shooting will likely also invoke Black Lives Matter and White Supremacy.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot known about Joshua Brown (at least in the news stories so far). Nothing says he had a regular job, rather he is said to have managed "several Airbnb's". This brings up the question of how much money can be made managing an Airbnb property. It would also be a good public occupation for somebody dealing in illegal drugs, not to mention Airbnbs often being used by sex workers (so we may hear speculation that Joshua Brown was a pimp).

Still, this is all speculation. There are few facts and a lot of people trying to fit those facts into their predefined narrative.

Voting to start an impeachment inquiry

Impeachment is the big news story of the day. The House of Representatives has begun an impeachment inquiry but in a different manner as in the past. Rather than the whole House voting to begin an inquiry Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after long opposing impeachment, simply announced an inquiry.

In addition, the impeachment inquiry is about the Trump Ukraine phone call a few months ago which recently hit the news. Not about Russian collusion, obstruction of Mueller, or any of Trump's many other alleged misdeeds.

The timing and nature of the inquiry appears to say some interesting things about Democratic party politics:

First is Nancy Pelosi switching from opposing impeachment to supporting it. This happened when news reports were stating a majority of House Democrats supported impeachment. I remember a number around 150. Though not a majority of the House of Representatives this switch makes sense. If a majority of Democrats support impeachment there is a risk that those Democrats could challenge Pelosi as Speaker if she didn't start supporting impeachment.

The impeachment inquiry starting based on an announcement by Nancy Pelosi rather than a vote of the full House of Representatives (as has happened in the past) implies that support for an impeachment inquiry isn't as solid as it might be. While there are reports of 222 Democrats and a couple Republicans supporting an inquiry, enough to win a vote, it appears some of this support isn't as solid (or is not publicly as solid) as needed to win a public vote. Many Democrats in swing districts probably don't want to be on record as having voted for an impeachment inquiry. Some are likely saying they support an impeachment inquiry in relatively anonymous questions of support (to satisfy their left wing base) while not wanting to vote publicly.

Finally there are the grounds for impeachment. Several impeachment resolutions have been introduced in the House over the last 2 1/2 years. The charges in those resolutions range from Russian collusion to one that basically says "We don't like what he says". None of these resolutions or charges went anywhere.

Instead the impeachment resolution is based on a phone call between President Trump and the president of the Ukraine. In this Joe Biden's past dealings with Ukraine were mentioned, including a request that Ukraine investigate any wrongdoing by Biden or his son. Since Joe Biden is an announced candidate for president next year this has been seized on as an attempt to destroy a political opponent and an obvious "high crime or misdemeanor". Added to this are whistleblower complaints which have made a number of allegations, none of which have been substantiated (or, to be fair, investigated in many cases).

Why is it that the impeachment inquiry is being done without open votes and on the basis of a fairly recent charge which most people probably don't consider a big deal? After all, presidents negotiate with foreign leaders all the time and there are bound to be offers and conditions.

It seems today that Democrats are becoming desperate. Democrats promised to impeach President Trump since before his inauguration. They have made constant accusations of wrongdoing which have not panned out. It's now time for a new election and they are faced with the possibility that they may lose the 2020 election. It's time to hurry up and impeach, putting the onus on the Senate to try the impeachment. Democrats probably then see one the following results:

1. Senate Republicans refuse to hold an impeachment trial. This would spark a constitutional crisis and be very negative press for the Republican party.
2. President Trump resigns before the trial following the example of Richard Nixon. This is also very unlikely unless there's clear evidence of guilt and evidence a lot of Republican senators are willing to vote to convict.
3. The Senate holds a trial and acquits President Trump. This was Bill Clinton's approach. The hope here is the impeachment trial will so damage Trump he will lose reelection.
4. The Senate convicts Trump. In this case he will be out of office. This is the ultimate goal of the Democrats, something they've promised their base for 2 1/2 years.

The Democrats are playing a risky game here. Politically the United States is split in half, with one half considering Donald Trump to be the worst thing that's happened to the country and the other half strongly in favor of him. Trump's supporters might dislike some of his actions (I know of few people who like his use of Twitter) but they are in favor of many of his policies. These people have seen the obvious media bias and one sided reporting of the last few years and generally discount any negative Trump story. Trump's opponents tend to hate everything about him. They accept any negative story and discount anything positive.

If Democrats succeed in ousting President Trump or obviously cause him to lose the 2020 election based on the impeachment process they will create a large constituency, largely Hillary Clinton's "deplorables", who feel they are again being ignored by "coastal elites". These people are a prime constituency for the next charismatic candidate who challenges the "system".

If Democrats don't oust the President it isn't clear that impeachment is going to hurt him. Enough people believe that President Trump is being persecuted, especially if the charges don't pan out, that a failed impeachment might result in a backlash against Democrats at the polls.

Jeffrey Epstein and politics

The Jeffrey Epstein sex case has been in the news and as always there are those trying to make it a partisan political issue. Epstein has been linked to Bill Clinton and to a less extent to Donald Trump, so those on the left and the right have been trying to create a narrative for their side.

Obviously any association between Trump and Epstein is a potential scandal, though at this time it appears that President Trump has avoided any real scandal.

Labor Secretary Acosta signed off on the Epstein's plea deal so has been criticized and has now resigned. I've seen reports trying to argue Acosta got directions from "above" to give Epstein a deal, but I think some of these are misguided. The reason for a deal is to protect the Clintons, but the Epstein deal was done under the Bush presidency. If it had been a year or two later we'd be hearing claims Holder or Obama ordered the deal.

The remaining argument is that the new prosecution of Epstein is to "get" Bill Clinton. This is certainly a goal of a faction on the political right, though I think it's misguided. Bill Clinton is yesterday's news, he has no real influence. Hillary Clinton is potentially a candidate in 2020 (I'm sure she'd love to be "drafted") but most likely not, she's also yesterday's news. But there are those who want to see the Clintons in jail at any cost. So there is the argument that the Trump administration has pushed the Epstein indictment.

Abortion

I'll probably be excoriated by some, but it seems we need to look at the fact that the country is divided roughly 50/50 between those feeling abortion should be legal and those opposing it. So long as half the country does not feel the fetus is a person it's hard to legislate that it is.

Some things I've seen translate abortion arguments to murder. This is actually a good analogy. If half of the population felt murder should not be a crime I guarantee homicide laws would be full of controversy, etc. We see a little of this (not a good analogy) with inner city demands that the police go away. The Jim Crow South (at least the stereotype) was similar, killings of blacks weren't pursued because it wasn't considered a major crime (as opposed to killing a white person).

Unfortunately, a Supreme Court dictate was the wrong way to handle abortion. The result over the last 40+ years has been for both sides to harden their positions. Anti-abortion activists will not budge from "life begins at conception" while pro-abortion activists object to any restriction on abortion before birth. Because of Roe v Wade states on one side craft laws to effectively ban abortion by making it nearly impossible for a doctor to perform legally. Other states have gone the other way, resulting in a few dangerous clinics (e.g. Gosnell) and kids able to get abortions without parental or other permission at an age when they can't legally get pierced ears without a parent.

I've concluded that imperfect as it is, the original Roe v Wade is a reasonable compromise. Allow early term abortion and make it progressively harder for late term abortion. The trimester distinction, while arbitrary, provides this compromise.

Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign?

This is a little past the news cycle, but a week or so ago there was a dispute between Attorney General Barr, who talked about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign, and officials who said it didn't.

I've found the answer to this in the Lisa Page congressional testimony which is now publically available.

When asked if the FBI spied on the Trump campaign she said that the FBI does not spy. Spying is a foreign government trying to get information in the US. The FBI does not spy on people, it investigates.

But this is simply a matter of definition. By her definition the FBI cannot "spy" because "spying" is between governments or nations. So we're down to the definition of a word, but the truth is the FBI was actively (spying / investigating) the Trump campaign. Does it really matter which term is used?

Impeachment then and now

The first US President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868. I recently read a book about his impeachment, Impeached by David O. Stewart. As I read it I was struck by the similarities between Andrew Johnson's impeachment and the demands for the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Andrew Johnson became President when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. As is frequently the case, Andrew Johnson's selection as Vice President had more to do with regional politics (Johnson was from a former slave state) and little to do with what Mr. Johnson would do if he became President.

Immediately after the Civil War the nation was split into highly partisan political camps. On one side was the South, which had just been forced to give up slavery. Many in the South wanted to return to a system as close to slavery as possible. On the other side in the North were the Radical Republicans who wanted (or said they wanted) equality for Blacks. The Radical Republican viewpoint must be tempered by the fact that most of the non-slave holding North didn't allow Blacks the vote or full civil rights at the time. There was also a push for revenge against the South for seceding. Andrew Johnson became President in this environment and largely sided with the South. He allowed Southern States to return to the union on fairly easy terms and was willing to allow former Confederate politicians and officials to return to positions of power.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson came about under this backdrop. Many in Congress wanted Johnson impeached for his handling of Reconstruction. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" which Johnson was guilty of mattered little, they wanted him out of office. The Johnson presidency was dominated by political battles between Johnson and Congress. In the end, the impeachment articles against Johnson were largely political, with the crimes consisting largely of not doing what Congress wanted.

Compare the Johnson impeachment with the situation today.

Since before inauguration day Democrats have demanded that Donald Trump be impeached. Many reasons have been given for impeachment, but to a large extent they boil down to "we don't like how Donald Trump behaves" combined with President Trump's stated goal of reversing much of the Obama era expansion of government rules and regulations.

So today's constant demands for impeachment (mirroring constant demands for Andrew Johnson's impeachment).

Today Congress is split on impeachment with no consensus of the crime committed (introduced impeachment resolutions range from "we don't like what he says" to violations of the emoluments clause or collusion with Russia). This mirrors the Johnson impeachment, where there was no consensus the charges.

And in both cases, the impeachment demands are largely political. Today Democrats largely demand impeachment, sometimes moderated by considerations of the effect on the 2020 election. The basis for impeachment has changed, with today's demands based on the fact the Mr. Trump hasn't (in violation of the law) given Congress the full unredacted Mueller Report. The other factor inhibiting impeachment is knowledge that the impeachment process is still political. Since the Democrats don't hold a two thirds majority in the Senate any impeachment would fail (as happened with Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson).

So if Donald Trump is impeached there are two possibilities. One is that the Democrats will impeach Trump on largely political grounds and the Senate will acquit him of the charges. This will probably happen if the firebrand left of the party is able to gain enough momentum. It might also happen if Mr. Trump is re-elected in 2020 and Democrats are looking at four more years out of power.

The second possibility is that the Democrats will finally find the smoking gun, an actual crime which all sides believe is a crime. That is what happened to Richard Nixon. He lost the support of his own party in Congress and wisely decided to resign rather than risk impeachment and conviction. It's not clear what Donald Trump would do in such a situation. First Democrats must find a charge more serious than dislike for some policies or vague catch all crimes like "obstruction".

Apologize for Everything

Apparently there are recent news stories that Beto O'Rourke has apologized for statements he recently made. Apologized for joking that he occasionally helped in raising his kids, apologized for his white privilege, and apologized for something he wrote as a teenager.

Is this the sort of person we want as President? Contrast this to the way Donald Trump won election. Every time some misstatement or past misdeed came out he didn't apologize, he either ignored it or bulled his way through the controversy. Perhaps he should have apologized for a few things, but Mr. Trump knows that most people will forget the scandal of the day and those who don't forget probably won't change their minds because of an apology. Those complaining about Trump's statements on the Access Hollywood audio recording are complaining about the statements made, not that he didn't apologize.

Yet conventional political wisdom is to apologize for any sort of misstatement and withdraw from a race if something too embarrassing comes out. Looking recent presidential races a number of candidates who seemed to be gathering traction had some past action or statement released and promptly dropped out of the race. Finding a scandal about an opponent has become a reliable technique for getting ahead in a race. And often the survivor of the presidential primary process is the candidate who doesn't give into the demands of scandal -- Hillary Clinton ignored the claims about classified emails, Uranium One, and Benghazi (admittedly coming mainly from the right) and Donald Trump ignored the Access Hollywood recording and similar claims. In fact, doing this probably helped Mr. Trump win some voters -- he's a flawed human being and not ashamed of it.

So today as the 2020 presidential race gets going, with what's shaping up to be an auditorium's worth of Democrats running, we'll see who survives. I don't give Beto O'Rourke much of a chance -- those he's apologizing to (the Social Justice left wing) are going to give their support to a woman or person of color regardless of what Mr. O'Rourke says.

Amy Klobuchar has a chance -- she's letting the scandal about her temper and poor management style blow over, though I think this doesn't say much about her qualifications for the presidency, she's essentially accused of doing the things which many say makes Donald Trump a menace.

As for the others, most candidates so far are either unknown or have their own skeletons. Elizabeth Warren has her "Pocahontas" scandal and Kamala Harris was far too tough on crime for the typical liberal democrat to name a couple that come to mind.

So time will tell which Democrats have the fortitude to stand up against accusations and make it to the election.

Number of detention beds and a new shutdown

The latest news on the negotiations to fund the government and avoid another shutdown is that Democrats are insisting on a limit on the number of detention beds for illegal immigrants who are caught away from the border.

Rather than demand more detention beds, perhaps President Trump should insist on funding to double the number of judges handling immigration cases. That way we can avoid detaining more people by getting their cases through the court faster (and thus deporting or properly releasing them sooner).

Thoughts on the Roger Stone indictment

The latest Russia collusion, get Donald Trump news is about the indictment of Roger Stone. There are the usual attempts to show how this is horrible for Donald Trump. Yet what is really in the indictment?

Reading the indictment, it basically says that Roger Stone lied to congressional committees about having advance knowledge of Wikileaks hacked email releases, having contact with Wikileaks, and having told people involved with the Trump Campaign that hacked emails might be released (5 counts of false statements). He apparently told an associate to lie or use the 5th amendment to avoid contradicting Stone's testimony (witness tampering), and in doing all this obstructed justice (obstruction count).

In terms of actual actions by Mr. Stone, the indictment says that Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly, and might have known in advance when hacked emails would be released. These actions are not the subject of any criminal complaint. Apparently the actual contact with Wikileaks was not a crime. As in so many cases in the past, the crime was covering up the contact.

As to the Russians, the indictment doesn't state that Roger Stone had any direct contact with Russians, just contacts with Wikileaks. Any Russian connection is most likely true but I'm not sure it's been definitively proven. The indictment doesn't make any allegation against Donald Trump name anybody high up in the campaign actively colluded with Russians. Instead it says that the Trump campaign was interested in dirty on Hillary Clinton and might have actively solicited it. If that's a crime then most political campaigns are committing crimes.

This indictment still leaves us asking "where's the beef?" There will be claims that Mueller can now "turn" Roger Stone to get closer to Trump, but it seems more likely that all the Mueller probe will produce is more allegations of false statements of obstruction.