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.

What if with Gary Hart

Former senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart has been in the news lately. I first saw this with an article in The Atlantic. According to this article, Lee Atwater engineered the scandal which took Gary Hart out of the presidential race, fabricating Mr. Hart's extramarital affair. Mr. Atwater reportedly told this story to his counterpart in the Hart campaign shortly before his death from a brain tumor.

I'll ignore whether the account is true or not. Lee Atwater did report creating the Willie Horton scandal against Michael Dukakis but didn't publicly take responsibility for the Gary Hart scandal, just a private statement to his opposite number.

Still we are now seeing a stories speculating about what might have been if Gary Hart had won the presidency instead of George Bush, including an interview with Gary Hart. This speculation is filtered through the lens of today, of course. Thus, speculation centers around there never having been a Gulf War, extending to neither George Bush being president and by extension no Donald Trump.

Let's look at the what if's. First, in 1988 when Mr. Hart was running and through 1989 the big foreign policy issue was not the Middle East but the fall of Communism. The Berlin Wall fell in November, 1989, 9 months after Mr. Bush was inaugurated. So the unasked question is whether the Berlin Wall would have fallen under President Hart, or would he have come into office announcing defense cuts (reversing the Reagan buildup), giving Soviet Russia time to rebuild its strength. Of course we'll never know.

On the subject of the Gulf War there are two questions. First, would Iraq under Saddam have still invaded Kuwait? I haven't investigated but Saddam's invasion was based on Kuwait being a province of Iraq. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with George Bush being president. So the Kuwaiti invasion would still have happened. The argument seems to be that Gary Hart as president would not have invaded to drive out the Iraqis.

If there had not been a Gulf War then Osama Bin Laden would most likely not have turned as strongly against the United States and would not have created Al Qaeda. So there likely would not have been a Twin Towers attack and Middle Eastern history would have changed.

On the other hand, there would have been a Middle East with a strong, beligerent Iraqi regime bullying its neighbors. Iraq had just concluded its war against Iran (fought to a stalemate). Iraq would likely have turned against Saudi Arabia or more directly against Israel. So instead of a Gulf War in Kuwait we might well have had another oil embargo or a new Arab Israeli war. Either of these results would not have been the peaceful result that commentators and Mr. Hart envision but could easily have been a much less stable world.

This is the nature of "what if" speculations. It's easy to change one event and argue how great the world would be but we need to consider other events which may go a different direction.

As to the argument there would never have been a Donald Trump, Mr. Trump was elected 20 years after the election Mr. Hart pulled out of. Many things could happen over 20 years. Much of the support for Donald Trump was opposition to "coastal elites", to use a broad stereotype. None of the coastal elite philosophies tie even indirectly to the Gulf War, so the rise of Trump or a similar nationalist leader likely would still have happened even if there were a President Gary Hart.

Climate change "disappointment"

A few days ago I was at an event and one of the people I was sitting near expressed concern over Hurricane Florence hitting the Carolinas, opining that it's an example of the rise of stronger storms due to climate change.

As frequently occurs, Florence lost much of its strength before hitting the coast. While billed as a potential Category 5, it was Category 1 at landfall and soon after has been labelled a tropical storm. While there was flooding and damage from the storm, North and South Carolina have weathered stronger storms in the past.

Thus I sympathize with disappointed Climate Change activists who have lost a prime example of the coming climate apocalypse.

Revolt against the establishment

Recent books have explained the election of Donald Trump is a revolt against the establishment. See for instance The Great Revolt by Selena Zito or White Working Class by Joan C. Williams. Trump voters report having voted for candidates who claim to share their concerns only to see the candidate become part of the Washington establishment after the election. They saw Donald Trump as an outsider who would actually make changes, albeit from the political right.

The recent primary victories of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, though left wing, are in many ways the same phenomenon. In both cases voters rejected the establishment, opting for radical change. These candidates follow Bernie Sanders run at the presidency, again a vote against the establishment.

Though considered opposite ends of the political spectrum, Donald Trump and these left wing candidates are different aspects of the same political movement. Rejection of incumbent / establishment politicians, instead embracing a call for change.

Next year should be interesting as these left wing candidates will most likely be elected.

Executive social change

I've read the magazine The Economist for many years. For those unfamiliar with the magazine, it is a British news weekly directed toward the wealthy, business leaders, politicians, etc. In the past I've routinely seen ads by banks for "high interest rate CDs for the small investor, $50,000 minimum." The help wanted section is generally for CEOs, CFOs, or similar.

Today I'm looking at the latest issue and find two full page ads. One for Selective Search, the other for Gray & Farrar. Both are matchmaking services for the wealthy.

From bank investment ads to millionaire's match.com, the world has certainly changed.

Dealing with federal prosecutors

Michael Blutrich's book Scores describes how he acted as an FBI confidential informant against the Gambino mafia family and was then screwed over by the government, ending up with a long prison sentence and no witness protection.

Mr. Blutrich was under federal investigation in Florida for a bankrupt insurance company and in New York for mob influence in the strip club Scores which he was co-owner. Read the book to see all the details, a couple things hit me about dealing with the government after reading the book.

The first comes from the Florida insurance case. When Blutrich and others were indicted he says (In think in hindsight) that the prosecutors did it too early. If he had let himself be arrested and arraigned (starting the "speedy trial" clock) the prosecution would not have been able to have its case ready in time. He instead made a deal which ended up not starting the trial clock.

The second is from the overall result of the case -- the prosecutors didn't do anything they promised and the judge didn't accept the government's plea bargain, imposing a much longer sentence.

From this, a few rules when dealing with the government:

First, get it in writing. A verbal agreement is little better than no agreement at all. Recently published plea agreement relating to the Trump / Russia scandals shows that written agreements are possible, so any plea or cooperation agreement should be in writing. It's still possible that the agreement will be ignored, but less likely than a verbal agreement.

Second, everybody needs to sign the agreement. Much of Mr. Blutrich's problem was a Florida prosecutor who didn't like confidential informants and who was never really in agreement over the deals being done. A written agreement signed by all parties might make it harder to ignore the agreement.

Third, don't delay the trial. If Mr. Blutrich had started the trial clock and opposed all attempts at delay he might have left the government in a situation of having to prosecute an incomplete case (acquittal more likely), drop the indictment, or accept a light sentence in order to avoid losing the case. The government has a lot of power and influence over individuals, rushing the government might force it to accept better terms.

Government officials, whether police, prosecutors, or judges, often make mistakes. I've seen this many times from news stories or books. I've also seen it first hand when I was chosen for a jury, then the case was plea bargained, and the judge came in and basically told us (in polite terms) why the prosecutor was an idiot.

Government exempting itself from Obamacare rules

The government often exempts itself from rules the rest of us must follow, and it appears Obamacare is no exception. I recently discovered that Medicare Part A is considered to be qualifying coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Yet compare Medicare part A to Obamacare requirements:

Ambulatory patient services (outpatient care you get without being admitted to a hospital)	NO
Emergency services	NO
Hospitalization (like surgery and overnight stays)	YES
Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth)	In hospital childbirth only
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment (this includes counseling and psychotherapy)	Only inpatient hospital
Prescription drugs	NO
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices (services and devices to help people with injuries, disabilities, or chronic conditions gain or recover mental and physical skills)	Inpatient care center only
Laboratory services	Only when in hospital
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management	NO
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care (but adult dental and vision coverage aren’t essential health benefits)	NO

So Medicare Part A fully covers one of the ten services listed and partially covers an additional four. Yet the government considers this to be "qualifying coverage". No private health plan can offer only inpatient care (as Medicare Part A does), but Medicare gets a pass form the government.

Your government at work.