What If Democrats Win… And So Does Trump?

The year 2020 has been one of black swans, to be certain.

Some would say 2016 was the precursor, when Hillary won the Popular Vote, and Trump was elected.

Who saw it coming, eh?

Certainly not the pollsters.

One man did, however, and since 1984 he has CORRECTLY predicted every Presidential Election’s outcome… including Trump’s impeachment.

More on that in a moment.

But just so we’ll understand one another, the term “black swan” in this and other such contexts (not necessarily politically related, however), is the moniker given to events that are outside the context of normalcy, or the normally-expected, are exceedingly rare, difficult to predict, may often have severe consequences, and in hindsight, often have broad acceptance that the event(s) in question were characterized as obvious.

In fact, I would suggest that many who supported the Current White House Occupant now, and then, would also consider him a “black swan” president.

Consider these actual events:

As candidate Trump, on his website, he wrote in part “It’s Time To Drain The Swamp In Washington, D.C.” Interestingly, that page (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform) is NO LONGER ACTIVE, and must be accessed via the Internet Archive (as linked above).

His promises were fairly straight-forward (though neither drastic, nor sweeping, and have been done previously):

First: I am going to re-institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for 5 years after they leave government service. I am going to ask Congress to pass this ban into law so that it cannot be lifted by executive order.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

Not only will we end our government corruption, but we will end the economic stagnation.

The promise is one thing. However… the reality is much different.

Consider these ACTUAL EVENTS of his administration which call into question the veracity of his claims, and the integrity of his administration:

• His former-Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Scott Pruitt, was living in super-cheap housing courtesy of the wife of a man who was lobbying the EPA, and the administrator Scott Pruitt.

• Trump opened the door for 281 lobbyists to work for his administration in his first three years. Former lobbyists now run four agencies, including the departments of Defense and Energy.

• A former coal lobbyist was put in charge of regulating air pollution.

• Trump fired the State Department Inspector General at the request of the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, because the IG was investigating how Pompeo used staff from the Department of State to run personal errands for him, such as picking up takeout food orders, and the family dry cleaning.

• Pompeo spoke at the Republican National Convention, live from Jerusalem, while on a taxpayer-funded trip.

• The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security used the White House to stage a naturalization ceremony starring the president, which became a video segment for the GOP convention.

• Trump’s White House Press Office recently announced they have compiled a “very large dossier” on Washington Post writer David Fahrenthold, after he reported that “taxpayers have paid Trump’s businesses more than $900,000 since he took office.” (Remember Nixon’s “Enemies List”?)

• Former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, a Republican, attacked

How And Why Bernie Will Defeat Trump

Crooked Hillary…

Everyone who pays attention to the news – especially political news – has heard the phrase uttered by the Current White House Occupant, sometimes also known as POS45. There’s even a Wikipedia page of the nicknames he gives folks.

Que sera, sera… eh?

Nevertheless, recall the 2016 General Election?

Why, of course you do!

Who could forget it, right?

I mean, it was a choice between “the devil you know, and the devil you don’t know.” Either way, it was a devil. But at least with one, you could half-way predict what that devil might, could, or possibly would do.

Not so with the other devil.

Or, put another way, a known quantity versus an unknown quantity.

And, time has proven it to be the case.

But for all the investigations which have been launched against her, or about her, and her dealings, nothing has stuck. So maybe she’s the “Teflon Don,” rather than her husband “Blowjob Bill,” eh?

Remember Donna Bazile, the twice-former, interim Democratic National Committee Chair? Recall how she’d been discovered having sharing debate questions with Hillary after a WikiLeaks email dump, and during a second such revelation resigned in shame from her position at CNN as political commentator/pundit?

Yeah… THAT Donna Brazile.

And, perhaps you may recall how she later revealed in her book, an excerpt of which was made into a Politico article, what she’d found when she was briefly DNC chair, specifically, how a back-room deal was struck between Hillary and the DNC a year before the 2016 election campaign season began.

So, let’s recap.

Here’s two of the article’s first three paragraphs, which are excerpted from her book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House:

“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

“So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

Focus upon that last sentence – “It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

“…for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

That, my friends, is a classic example of a quid pro quo – giving one thing of value in exchange for another thing of value. Legally defined as a type of valid contract, the quid pro quo is not an illegal act in and of itself, per se, and must be considered within context to determine if it was an illegal act, or not.

There’s little-to-no question that it was unethical, at the very least, and certainly hasn’t reflected positively on the party, nor upon Hillary.

But how did it get to that point?

After the convention, Ms Brazile called Gary Gensler, Chief Financial Officer of Hillary’s campaign, who told her that the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

Stewardship of the party’s finances was in shambles, to say the least, and it was due in significant part, or so she claims, from her predecessor Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Representative from Florida’s 20th Congressional District.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, as you may recall, also later resigned as DNC Chair after a tranche of WikiLeaks emails showed she had given significant help to Hillary during her Presidential campaign, rather than remain a supportive, yet independent observer. So perhaps it was for the best, anyway.

Not everyone in the party had been happy with her at the helm, either. Lis Smith, a longtime campaign operative, former Communications Director, and former Deputy Campaign Director for candidates like Martin O’Malley, Bill de Blasio, Claire McCaskill, and Barack Obama, said of Wasserman-Schultz’ resignation that, “Her resignation is good news for Democrats, and great news for anyone who believes the DNC needs wholesale reform. Hopefully we can all learn from her little experiment this past primary season and never repeat it as a party.”

Senator Sanders was more diplomatically circumspect in his remarks, saying that, “While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race.”

But, back to the story at hand.

Ms. Brazile wrote that while she was interim DNC Chair that, “I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him.” But in her search for the “smoking gun,” after diligent efforts, speaking with numerous party lawyers and officials who feigned knowledge or responsibility, she continually came up empty-handed… until later. She wrote:

“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook [Hillary’s Campaign Manager] with a copy to Marc Elias [General Counsel for Hillary’s campaign]—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

She wrote that while she was the interim DNC Chair, she experienced some unusual events, which at the time, seemed nothing more than purely odd, if not curious, but certainly not suspicious, nor even eyebrow-raising. One of those trifling matters was that, as chair of the party, she was hamstrung from doing anything the party chair would have normally done, such as write press releases, unless

Russian Meddling in U.S. Presidential Election: How Should Congress Proceed?

There is clear, unambiguous evidence that “Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”

“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.”

A header appears upon EVERY page and states: “This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.”

Several “Key Judgments” are made in the report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which is dated 6 January 2017.

Among them:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President elect-Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

• We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

• Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.

• Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.

Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

• Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.

• We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.

• Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assess es that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

• Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

—//—

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

President Obama in December. Some in his administration feared that intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election could be covered up or destroyed. Credit Al Drago/The New York Times

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

MARCH 1, 2017

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.

Then and now, Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration.

At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Credit Alexei Nikolsky/Sputnik

Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said,

Going Straight To Hell In A Solid Gold Trump Handbasket

November 10, 2016
Day 2: Still in a state of shock

Donald Trump appears to have won the 2016 General Election.

Hillary Clinton has conceded.

However, Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote. In the history of the United States, this is only the 5th time that’s ever occurred. The other times are:
1.) 1824: John Quincy Adams v Andrew Jackson – The Congress met according to the terms of the 12th Amendment to vote for a winner.
2.) 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes v Samuel J. Tilden – The “Compromise of 1877” awarded 20 disputed Electoral College votes to Hayes.
3.) 1888: Benjamin Harrison v Grover Cleveland – New York City’s Tammany Hall Democratic political machine helped deny native son Grover Cleveland the win.
4.) 2000: George W. Bush v Al Gore – Slim margins in some Florida counties automatically required mandatory recount. The punch card voting system’s infamous “hanging chads” were contentious, and counties had significantly differing standards of counting. Gore exercised his statutory right to request a manual recount in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties. Bush petitioned in  Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 – to order the recounts stopped. The Florida State Supreme Court decision had effectively changed the elector appointment procedures after Election Day, and the case asked whether the court’s decision changed the manner in which the State’s electors were to be selected. Time was also quickly expiring on certification of the results, in accordance with Federal Law. Essentially, the Supreme Court Of The United States sought clarification from the Florida State Supreme Court. Following those clarifications, the SCOTUS ruled in Bush’s favor in 531 U.S. 98 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/
5.) 2016: Donald J. Trump v Hillary Clinton –

Clinton had 60,274,974 Popular Votes, while Trump had 59,937,338 Popular Votes. That’s a difference of 337,636. At press time, Michigan was the only state without Official Vote Results, and though it’s close – almost evenly split – it’s widely expected to tilt toward Trump.

There were more “swing states” this year – 11 states in which the vote outcome was unclear, or uncertain with 146 Electoral College Votes – and included: Colorado-9, Florida-29, Iowa-6, Michigan-16, New Hampshire-4, Nevada-6, North Carolina-15, Ohio-18, Pennsylvania-20, Virginia-13, and Wisconsin-10.

In the Electoral College, Donald Trump has 290 Electoral College votes. Hillary Clinton has 228 Electoral College votes.

President Obama met Donald Trump at the White House today for an initial meeting to begin administrative transition.

Donald Trump is not yet President, nor is he technically President-elect. It does seem, however, that he has it in the basket.

Here’s how.

On December 19th, electors in the Electoral College will meet in their respective states’ capitols to

Hillary & Trump: Two Deeply Flawed Candidates

By many accounts, the 2016 Presidential Election year is a complete campaign in the ass. Two deeply flawed candidates manipulated and exposed deeply flawed processes in both major political parties, not the least of which is for the GOP, how to vet their candidates more thoroughly, and have the ability to remove them from official party candidacy, and for the Democrats, how to maintain candidate neutrality, and prevent party officials from influencing candidates of the top officials’ choosing toward nomination. I predict many much-needed changes on the horizon for both parties… following the November General Election.

—/—

by Gary Cosby, Jr.
Used with permission

WARNING:  This is a long post. It is also my final political post before the election.

I am not an editorial writer but today I am going to play one on Facebook. First, let me say, everyone is welcome to comment; however, if your comment uses foul language or is abusive to anyone else, your comment will be deleted. One of the great problems we have today is our lack of ability to disagree and still have civil discourse; therefore, we will practice it or be censured. Keep in mind, this is my opinion and you do not have to agree with it. Thank your First Amendment rights for that.

By now, we all know this presidential election cycle has presented us with the two poorest candidates in memory, perhaps in all of American history. Certainly there have been poor candidates running for one party or the other throughout our history but not facing one another in the same election.

They have turned the presidential debates into bad Saturday Night Live skits. In fact, I doubt the writers of SNL would have been able to dream up anything this hideous. The American political scene will never be the same and

Known vs Unknown: A Voting Rationale

Someone opined that they hoped the 2016 GOP Presidential nominee would be elected.

I couldn’t disagree more.

Here’s why:
As we have suffered, never before has there been a more grotesque figure campaigning for the noble office of the President.

The candidate has never served in an office of Public Trust, nor ever served in any Elected Office. There is literally no shred of evidence of governing competency, much less experience, in any Public Office, and though our Constitution states that the minimum eligibility requirements for the office are to be “a citizen of the United States… the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States,” we have never elected an individual as President whom has never served in any capacity of Public Trust, nor Elected Office.

And so, in that regard, the candidate is a significantly Unknown Quantity. That can be, and often is, fraught with enormous peril.

We expect