Tuesday, May 31, 2016

BloggeRhythms

For what it’s worth, recent events suggest that the next POTUS will likely be Joe Biden.

On the Democrat side, evidence continues to amass that between the email scandal, irregularities in the Clinton Foundation and the soon to be released conclusions of the Benghazi investigation, the POTUS can’t afford to keep supporting Bill Clinton’s wife. Because, if he does, dissatisfied voters jeopardize the continuation of his “legacy,” whatever that may be.

As far as Sanders is concerned, he’s now made enough noise to gain some leverage in the party’s platform, but his chances of being actually being elected are probably near zero.

In the Republican’s case, although they seem to be on track to coalesce behind Trump, key figures such as Bill Kristol are intent on preventing cohesion. Talk of a third party has begun, which would undo the Republicans altogether. And, in any case, it would absolutely insure the impossibility of a win.

Along the same lines, a growing number of senior GOP figures, including former presidents, governors and senators are vowing to skip the upcoming convention in Cleveland. Among the notables, former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have said they will not attend. So have John McCain, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. All of which weakens the party further.

In the meanwhile, for whatever reason, the POTUS’s approval rating is slowly increasing, recently rising above 50%. And whereas an incumbent president has significant impact on voter’s decision-making, for the reasons stated above, by bringing Biden in as a last minute party savior, it almost virtually guarantees an election win for Obama’s current vice president.    

As far as the POTUS is concerned, a friend sent this today:



Michael Goodwin @foxnews.com/opinion, delivered another brilliant synopsis explaining the Trump phenomenon in his article headed: “Donald Trump = The short-term impact of Obama's eight years in office” 

The column begins: “He came, he saw, and he changed the world. Mostly for the worse. And from there, Mr. Goodwin builds his case, stating: “Each day brings a new notch on the legacy belt as he appears determined to do things just to prove he can. History will sort the wheat from the chaff, but the short-term impact of Obama’s eight years can be summed up in two words: ­Donald Trump.” 

Then, in a few short paragraphs, Mr. Goodwin repeats well known information concisely in one of the best presentations seen to date, as follows: 

“Obama begat Trump. Without Obama’s mixture of breathtaking arrogance and stunning incompetence, there is no constituency or emotional space for a Trump. 

“A year ago, that would have been a preposterous claim. Yet at this remarkable juncture, with Trump having secured the GOP nomination, it all seems obvious now. Trump is the inevitable reaction to the blundering Obama colossus. 

“But it’s more than Obama’s extreme partisanship and identity politics that paved the way for Trump. It’s also that Obama solved no serious problems facing the country, and turned some into full-blown disasters. 

“He doubled the national debt, the economy is stuck in neutral, and instead of cooling race relations, he turned them into a bonfire — the bonfire of Obama’s vanities. 

“Nor is it incidental that the world is on fire. By abdicating America’s leadership role, Obama created the vacuum that China, Russia and ­malignant forces everywhere are rushing to fill. Could anyone possibly do worse?” 

And in that brief analysis Mr. Goodwin correctly illustrates how total incompetence paves the way for any alternative to attract attention, Even one with no proven substance, required skills or practical experience.  

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

An article posted on Sunday by Dan Metcalfe @lawnewz.com/politics, has particular merit because it’s written by a lawyer in a publication for lawyers. The intent is to provide an opinion based on the law, not politics. 

In that regard, Mr. Metcalfe recaps the elements of the email situation to date, including his perception of what has already transpired, and then he presents the effects of the newly released IG report which contains legalese but is well worth reading carefully.

“To us, knowing that there are no applicable penalties within the FRA (or in the FOIA, for that matter, which Ms. Clinton also blatantly circumvented), the primary significance of the IG report is that it so flatly and persuasively belies nearly every public “defense” that she has uttered on the matter, from her extraordinary news conference at the United Nations on March 10 of last year to even her initial stunned reactions to the IG report itself this past week.   

“More to the point, though, you fear that the most likely Democrat nominee, having just been seriously wounded by this week’s IG report, is manifestly vulnerable to a much greater wound in the form of a criminal indictment for misconduct that far transcends what the IG report dealt with. Specifically, as a sophisticated observer, you are aware that Former Secretary Clinton’s intent (known in criminal law as mens rea), or lack of same, is not what matters in this case.  Rather, the applicable legal standard is a mere “gross negligence” one, as specified in the standard national security non-disclosure agreement that she signed and its underlying criminal statutes.   

“And when you marry that to the fact that (among other things) her admitted failure to use the State Department’s special classified email system for classified (or potentially classified) information constituted a clear violation of a criminal prohibition, you start worrying big-time.  And this is especially so given that Ms. Clinton did not just violate such laws inadvertently or even only occasionally — she did so systemically.  In other words, her very email scheme itself appears to have been a walking violation of criminal law, one with the mens rea prosecution standard readily met.   

“It also is especially so given that the ongoing investigation of Ms. Clinton’s misconduct is being conducted by the FBI, under the leadership of FBI Director James Comey.  Those of us who worked under him when he was the deputy attorney general during the George W. Bush Administration know him to be an exceptional man of utmost integrity, one who can be counted on to recommend a criminal prosecution when the facts and the law of a case warrant it, regardless of political circumstances.  Given that the facts and law are so clear in Ms. Clinton’s case, it is difficult to imagine her not being indicted, unless Jim Comey’s expected recommendation for that is abruptly overruled at “Main Justice” (i.e., by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, or by Attorney General Loretta Lynch) or at the White House by President Obama (who customarily does not intervene in such things and would do so here either secretly or at no small political peril). 

“So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January.  Which possibility would you prefer?” 

So, here we have an attorney’s well thought out conclusion that, as far as the law itself is concerned, Bill’s wife is undoubtedly subject to possible indictment unless offered shelter from political cohorts. 

Thus, put in those terms, the question becomes whether or not the POTUS feels that risking his reputation and “legacy” on her behalf is worth the risk. And while logic suggests that she very certainly isn’t, looking at the irrationality of most of his other decisions makes any guess as good as any other as to what he’ll do in her case. 

With the probability of the FBI’s seeking indictment quite high at this point, however, brings up the ongoing question once more: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.   
   
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment