Biased Much?

Yesterday's post The Power to Investigate sets forth the dangers to democracy of endless investigations of political figures. Today, Vox has posted on a related concept Clinton's critics know she's guilty, they're just trying to decide what she's guilty of. In this piece, Matthew Yglesias calls this the Prime Directive driving Clinton bad coverage, worthy of capitalization. Our reference to "double derivative" investigations is given more user-friendly terms by Vox - "The investigation pivots" and "Fishing into the next pond.". As Yglesias states in the final sentence, "What if Clinton has been getting away with it for all these years because she hasn't done anything wrong?"

Yglesias happens to be the author of American Democracy is Doomed from September 2015 which follows similar reasoning to the arguments in this blog, (The perils of presidential democracy, Constitutional hardball, raising the stakes), so his perspective on endless investigations is no surprise.

Two years ago, in the first days following the 60 minutes hit job by Lara Logan, but before the deeply biased flaws in the segment became public, I overheard a water cooler comment by a colleague at the office -- "I don't think we are ever going to know what really happened at Benghazi". My co-worker was in effect saying, "That Hillary Clinton is so evil, so obviously guilty of gross wrongdoing, if only we had the evidence to prove it, but we never will, because she is so slippery!" Biased much? Later that week, almost before you could shout "Lock Her Up!" three times, the incredible bias of the 60 minutes piece and the fraudulence of Logan's primary source were revealed. Now, in a healthy media environment, one might find calmer heads thinking - we better be more careful here, not just 60 minutes, but all investigative news outlets.

In a companion piece, Two experts say Donald Trump should be investigated for criminal tax evasion, Vox lays out reasons that Trump could be indicted for abuse of the rules that govern charities. The big difference between the Clinton and Trump situations is that the Clinton investigations always require a lot more digging and sifting to uncover new information, almost like panning for gold. The Vox article says "Trump should be investigated", but all of the salient facts are known about Trump, except that maybe he did not know what he was doing was illegal if he knew, but not necessarily illegal if he did not. Got that. It was wrong, which is why it was illegal, but white collar crime is difficult to prosecute because so much turns on intention.

The stories about Comey this week make the claim that FBI investigators have been pressuring Comey to prosecute Clinton. In some versions of the story, Comey was afraid the news would leak anyway and so decided to write the letter. We are not hearing about similar moves to prosecute Trump for the abuse of his charitable foundation. Nor have we heard about any investigations under way on Trump's relationship with the Russian leadership, despite his odd denial that the Russian government is behind the hacking of DNC emails.

Unfortunately the obsession with Clinton is only the latest instance of off-base FBI conclusions. The FBI was sure that Richard Jewell was the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bomber, but he was not. The FBI took years to figure out that Robert Hanssen was a mole in their operations. And the FBI was sure that Steven Hatfill committed the anthrax attacks in 2001 -- oh sorry, he was just a "person of interest" who necessitated agents in hazmat suits rifle through his home as news crews filmed. The FBI later settled on Bruce Ivins' guilt in the anthrax case. So in two of the cases, the FBI placed focus on an innocent person who was made to look guilty, and the press cooperated, as they often do. In the case of Hansen, the guilty party was their own guy -- the FBI took years to uncover Hanssen's role following many breaches and security lapses.

Investigations instigated from bias are an enormous problem. The Vox article correctly asks - what if she has done nothing wrong, but the problem goes well beyond the Vox question. If investigations are pursued primarily because they may turn up wrongdoing, or, if not, will result in a different investigation, that may turn up wrongdoing, or, if not will result in...and so on, forever, in an infinite loop,  the result is limited to either (1) wrongdoing uncovered or (2) something that can pass as wrongdoing is found, all without regard to significance or proportionality.  As a society, we need to recognize this is a serious threat to a democratic system of government.

The Power to Investigate

The power to investigate is the power to destroy. We often hear that the U.S. president is the most powerful person in the world, but that has more to do with the nuclear codes and that power to destroy than the power for positive change in the world. The president's power is checked at every turn by other powerful entities like Congress.

The Watergate Committee understood their power to destroy and took great pains to reach consensus at each major step in their investigation. The investigation was an attempt to understand what just happened - who did what, when and why? At whose direction? Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous "What did the president know and when did he know" was spoken from the perspective -- we do not presume guilt and seek to find evidence to support the conclusion of guilt---we assume the possibility of innocence, but we try to understand what just happened and what is going on. The truly bipartisan consensus of seriousness of purpose and care with regard to the potential danger for democracy was paramount.
We find ourselves at a very different juncture. Investigation is used as a tool for political advocacy. The red flag is the double derivative:
1. Multiple Benghazi investigations. After the first investigation, all other investigations are instigated due to disappointment at the results of the first, or to search for new material for unrelated investigations.
2. Clinton private email server is discovered as a result of the Benghazi investigations. Otherwise, we would not know about the server. That puts us in the derivative mode. If you investigate enough and never close the investigation, you are sure to find something.
3. The latest batch of emails, about which we have no information, is also discovered as a result of an "unrelated investigation", said to be the Weiner investigation.

But here we go again - constant investigation mode.  All that matters is the investigation in this world. Nothing else counts. Timing of revelations is ignored. Perspective on proportionality is ignored. The fact that the choice to investigate or not, every step of the way, matters a great deal is ignored.
So investigation (2) derives from (1). That is the derivative.
And investigation (3) derives from the Weiner investigation. But the interest in the treatment of the emails in (3) derives from (2) which derives from (1). So that puts us in second derivative mode, which is a big red flag that screams out - Is this any way to run a country?

Rep. Chaffetz of Utah threatens endless investigations. This stolid stance works as a tactic if the representative does not care about moving forward with legislation because there is never a need to work with colleagues who disagree on some issues, but can agree on others -- to compromise. His investigations do double duty -- they also succeed in distracting from policy objectives. Here we are in 2016, with the Republican strategy to stall out the Congress until 2018, 2020, or beyond -- whenever they finally hold power in Congress working with a Republican president, or, if that never happens, to stall forever.

The continuing endless investigations are just one component of the search for disqualifiers. As a society, we are the victims, subject to the discretion of the powers that be to pursue the search, or not, depending on their own objectives, without regard to the impact on confidence in our government. We have already seen where this does and does not lead.

Stay tuned for more about the role of the Director of the FBI - to report to the Attorney General or to report to the Congress.

Advice From A Hit Man

Three Days of the Condor (book and film) is a great example of the classic genre of the talented protagonist who is thrown into an impossible life and death situation and must survive by sheer wit against more powerful, ruthless experts in spycraft. Think Jason Bourne without the physique or training. In the 1975 film, Robert Redford plays the bookish Joe Turner, a low level CIA analyst who returns to the office mid-day to find all of his co-workers have been assassinated. At first Turner contacts headquarters for help, but in the rendezvous barely escapes alive. Realizing he has no place to hide and can not trust anyone, he kidnaps a total stranger, a woman returning to her apartment with groceries, to make her apartment a temporary safe haven for him as he lauches a one-man investigation.
The fascinating element that drives the plot of the film is the series of major adjustments that Turner realizes he must make in order to survive and attempt to bring the killers to justice.
One of the best lines of the film comes when Turner is confronted with the hired hit man Joubert played by Max Van Sydow, who had been after him, but did not have Turner on his hit list that particular day. Joubert tells Turner it is not safe for him to return to his life in New York City:

"It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift."

In the finale Turner announces to the CIA head of department that he has handed the New York Times the story, presuming they will print it, which will secure his safety and expose the rogue CIA operation. But will the NYT print it?

All through 2016 we have been receiving warnings about threats to democracy, threats to the republic, but we are not used to this. The American political system has been experiencing a slow motion crash for many years now, but the immediate effects have been accelerating this year with the Trump candidacy and the suspension of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination. Clueless pundits have described this as a "not normal" year of campaigning.  Other pundits have been more perceptive, describing the Trump candidacy as a normal extension of GOP campaign strategy going back decades. But few if any pundits are describing the only two possible outcomes: Either the Republican Party splits into two parties, or the democratic underpinning of our system collapses.

"It will happen this way. A candidate who knows nothing about policy will focus the debate on attacking personalities and will make wild claims about his own capabilities. He will belittle opponents and offer simple solutions to complex problems as he appeals to hate, fear, and resentment. He may even call for his followers to take matters into their own hands if he does not win the election. Moderate people will wait for other moderate people to take necessary action, but no one will."

We are a nation with many Joe Turners. Each day feels like the day before, but one day you wake up and everything has changed. Only terrible choices remain. Republicans who stick to the party no matter what happens in the Congress or the campaigns or who, like Paul Ryan try to have it both ways, placing short term perceived gain above long term impact.  Journalists who wake up every day trying to be objective, who define objectivity as maintaining balance, no matter what they observe. Eventually someday comes, and if you receive advice from a hit man, you need to take it.

Winning Is the only Thing

Paul Waldman has an insightful piece in WaPo today entitled Republicans are already treating Clinton's presidency as illegitimate, but that does not match the text and the real title should be more like "Republicans play by their own rules, and have for a long time." Kudos to Waldman for resurfacing the "Brooks Brothers" riot outside the year 2000 Florida recount which was staged by Republican operatives, but treated by the press as a protest by regular citizens. He points out that Republicans play by their own set of rules in the sense that they violate established political norms at will in order to gain political advantage, which is, of course, developed as a key feature of modern American politics in the Six Points and many posts on this blog. Waldman also mentions the willingness to do a "180 degree turn" if there is political advantage, which will apply to the Supreme Court nomination process if Clinton wins on Nov. 8th. If the Republicans hold the Senate majority, they will decide whether to approve the Garland nomination or stonewall Clinton appointee(s).

Unfortunately, he ends the piece with the suggestion that Democrats may change the rule on filibusters in response to a potential Republican filibuster of the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the suggested areas of reform by Mann/Ornstein, Dionne, and others is exactly to eliminate or reduce further the ability of the Senate minority to filibuster by rule precisely because the filibuster has been abused so much during Obama's presidency. Waldman's "Two Can Play This Game" is therefore unfortunately cynical and off-the-mark. "Both sides" don't do it, not the same way. The Republican strategy is to take advantage of gaps in the rules - how government is structured, as well as weaknesses in the system, including he said/she said political reporting.

This is Gonna Hurt You More Than It Hurts Me

Now that most strategists foresee a Clinton victory, we are hearing about plans to launch endless investigations and impeach the new president.

This tactic needs to be seen for what it is. With Republicans having almost a lock on the House of Representatives, and a strong lock on most of those seats, the plan to make life as painful as possible for each new Democratic president sends a clear message to the American people - "Vote for a Democrat for President at your peril because if you do, we will make life as painful as possible for all Americans!"

The Rump Party

In a mostly spot-on piece in the NYT today It's Trump's Party, Paul Krugman asserts "Everyone who endorsed Mr. Trump in the past owns him now;" which is true, and predicts that Republicans in Congress can be expected to do everything they can to make America ungovernable. This prediction is consistent with the Six Points and the general theme of this blog. But he goes on to say "Some observers are already speculating about a regime in which the House is effectively run by Democrats in cooperation with a small rump of rational Republicans. Let's hope so - but it's no way to manage a great nation."

I disagree. What's wrong with that? A political party is an artificial construct - a group of people who share some common interests, generally most interests, but disagree on others. If the Republican Party is fitfully falling apart, as it has seemed to be since at least 2010, then there can be no greater stabilizing influence than a handful of moderate Republicans who finally realize that by voting in Congress with the Tea Party (or its successor), they are not full-fledged members of the Republican Party and can exert more influence by siding with Democrats when that works for them and their constituents, but voting with Republicans when warranted. In practical terms, both House and Senate members need to be willing to switch party affiliation if necessary to avoid government shutdowns, denial of hearings on judicial appointments, and other critical matters of governance. Sure, that is a tall order for a House member with only a two-year term, but there really is no alternative. Efforts at rump politics have fallen short in the past, mainly because the rump group's agreement to agree tends to fall apart. Basically, if you have already "betrayed" your larger party by joining a rump group, what keeps you faithful to the rump group?

The best hope for a rump style success lies in the margin of the Republican majority that holds after Nov. 8th in the Senate or House. The smaller the margin, the greater the power of the individual member to exert his or her own power to shift the balance of power on important issues in that chamber.  Here in New England, independence is championed as a virtue with Bernie Sanders as the most visible example. But we have had Lowell Weicker (from Republican to Independent) , Joe Lieberman (from Democrat to "Independent Democrat" after his primary loss) and Angus King (from Democrat to Independent) among others. Lincoln Chaffee glided from Republican to Independent to Democrat.

If the ruling margin in the Senate is close, each Senator who is ideologically close to the middle can exert enormous power by being flexible about party loyalty. This happened after the year 2000 election. The Senate was 50-50 with the Vice President Cheney the tie-breaking vote for Republicans after the January 20, 2001 inauguration. But in June, 2001 Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to Independent to caucus with Democrats and hand them the majority. If Republicans are obstructionist as expected, moderate Republicans will be under pressure to do more than beg their colleagues to be reasonable - never an effective tactic with Ted Cruz, for example. Switching to the opposing party feels too much like being a turncoat, but calling yourself independent has a positive ring to it.

By way of contrast with the above examples,  Scott Brown of Massachusetts, as a member for the Senate up for reelection, touted his "bipartisanship". But that was a smokescreen -- he made a show of voting with Democrats when the outcome was predetermined regardless of his vote while he voted with his Republican Party stalwarts when it mattered. Brown even made a show of standing to applaud President Obama at the State of the Union address at moments when Republicans remained sitting, which fooled no one about his independence. No surprise that his main selling point to be elected in opposition to Elizabeth Warren was to accuse her trumping up her Native American heritage.

So the independence must be real, not faked. More on this after November 8th.

Jockeying for Position

In the original Six Points thesis post from February 2016, we conclude that Things Will Only Get Worse, which is consistent with the retitled It's Even Worse Than It Looks Was from Mann/Ornstein.

All is not hopeless, but things do continue to get worse without any sign of an upturn.

source:realestatemagazine.com

The ugliness of the birther lie was that it was concocted from thin air - completely in bad faith - as a tactic to consolidate support of extreme elements of conservatism, and thus fed the rise of Trump and Trumpism. The all-tactics-all-the-time approach to political success has led us to Trump's latest ugliness that he will not (may not) honor the results of the electoral process. He sees yet another weakness in our political system that relies on parties (meaning individuals or institutions) acting in good faith. No law requires a candidate to honor and recognize the popular will at the ballot. And we have seen that process is an easy target because it is an abstraction. Actions in bad faith for tactical advantage are rewarded unless they are immediately called out for what they are. When a "fair and balanced" press bends over backwards to avoid even the appearance of objectivity, depiction of reality suffers.

The point here is that Trump's latest and greatest affront is a new low - beyond the pale in a new way, which illustrates that we are unfortunately still going downhill in politics. With the Republican Party leadership continuing their stony silence, we have no reason to expect revulsion at Trump to result in resolve to shed pure party loyalty in favor of democracy. Instead, we must expect Republican leaders will be jockeying for position to maintain as much power in the next Congress.