DonnyBragg

 It's Game ON in the battle between Alvin Bragg and Donald Trump.  One might call it a "donnybrook," but maybe the word will be replaced by "DonnnyBragg."  

It appears early on arraignment day that Bragg has taken an early lead.  First, he had Trump thinking the indictment was coming weeks ago.  This allowed Bragg to see Trump's arraignment playbook.  After the big day passed, Bragg lulled the Trump legal team into complacency, thinking there would be no indictment until the Grand Jury met in a month.  When the indictment came immediately instead, it was leaked to the New York Times, it seemed, before Trump's team was notified.  The WSJ was quite a bit behind the NYT on running the story.

The indictment was sealed, which means the Trump team has to prepare for more contingencies at the arraignment. This didn't have to happen.  Bragg is pulling out all the stops.  This is war.

There have been leaks about there being over thirty counts.  There is some talk about there being some non-felony counts.  Despite a defendant's right to a fait trial, prosecutors routinely try to constructively eliminate it. They do this by charging every act in a possible crime sequence as a separate crime, with each count carrying a potential multi-year sentence.  Faced with the risk of a 20-50 year sentence, what defendant really wants to go to trial when offered a much more moderate plea deal?  This technique makes it much easier for prosecutors to pad their conviction rate.  If some of the counts are misdemeanors, that's another prosecutorial trick.  If the jury doesn't like the defendant, but doesn't believe a felony conviction is warranted, they have a way out--convict on a misdemeanor, thereby justifying the entire prosecution.

Bragg gets a break from another plea deal.  A few years ago, key witness Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 charges in federal court.  Among them was a count alleging a campaign finance violation in the Stormy Daniels incident.  From a defendant's standpoint, once the sentence has been established, there is little reason to object to the number of charges included in the plea.  So prosecutors get defendants to make admissions they seek to make in other questions.  Since the Trump campaign was never prosecuted for this, the Cohen "admission" will now be used by Bragg.  Surely Trump will try to suppress it, as there was never any "proof" other than Cohen's plea.  At the time, I saw the potential for this plea to be used against Trump.

There will certainly be issues over whether Trump can get a fair trial in a jurisdiction when a key plank  of Bragg's campaign was prosecuting Trump.  So Bragg may go for a gag order to protect Trump's right to a free trial.  There is a presumption that prior restraints on speech violate the first amendment, so the Supreme Court has established criteria that must be met in order for them to be enforceable.  A broad gag order might be harmful to Trump's campaign, as a key element of his candidacy is the weaponization of the justice system by his opposition.  There are good arguments on the Trump side that there will be so much media coverage regardless that a gag order would be ineffective at preserving a fair trial.  The very question of fairness could be used as an argument for Trump to argue that the only way to get an unbiased jury wold be a change of venue.  There is a good discussion of the legality of gag orders here.

Commentators have noted that key witnesses may have low credibility, but that's for a jury to decide, and a biased jury can make a biased decision.  So Trump has real risk here.  

 The Western governments have apparently decided they will not engage even in conventional attacks on nuclear powers--they don't want to risk even the slightest chance of nuclear war. They refuse to call Putin's bluff--or, he has succeeded in making them think he is crazy enough and powerful enough to launch mutually assured destruction--or at least take out major Western cities with WMD. This This doesn't bode well for Ukraine, and it doesn't bode well for Taiwan. It means there is essentially no defense, at least in the short-term, against the territorial excursions of these powers. The West is experimenting with a long-term solution, exclusion of bad actors form the financial system. The problem is, that may be only a short-term solution. The Russians have already developed alternative financial transaction structures, and could use them with their ally China. Russian oil is excluded from the sanctions. The world may also need to exclude Ukrainian wheat in a few months. The US has a monopolistic position in the global financial system, the reserve currency status. China would like to replace the dollar, and this is a step toward, if not that, at least turning that monopoly into an oligopoly. Right now the free world is building semiconductor plants outside Taiwan, to replace the Taiwan technology with production in more politically stable countries. Are we willing to replace Russian oil production--we likely can't do it with solar and wind in the next 30 years--and Chinese production of all sorts of essential daily products? What would the planet-savers and race-baiters say? Think of the Chinese-Russian partnership, self-sufficient in oil and food--and that ever-present threat of nuclear destruction. The West needs to move from single-issue politics to a more holistic approach. Will the single-issue gang give up their power?

Goodbye to the Vaccine Mandate?

 I think it's highly likely we won't have a national vaccine mandate as we enter the New Year of 2022.  The government has read the mood of a vocal minority in the country, and delayed the implementation date of much of the mandate until January 4th.  The government knew it's mandate would create a disaster scenario for the holiday season.  It will never admit the mandate was a mistake.  But by January, the government will be able to claim that along with the development of new medications the mandate created additional vaccinations that reduced or eliminated the need for a mandate.  So it will claim that it is "following the science" which would actually be a first in the pandemic. The President will be able to claim victory over the pandemic.  That will likely work out as well as a previous President proclamation from an aircraft carrier that we had won the Iraq war.

The lesson, in case we need reminding, is that the federal government has become a bloated bureaucracy that will never admit its mistakes. And we can tell a governmental directive is a mistake when ordinary citizens are conscripted to enforce it, because the government's own law enforcement personnel know it's too dangerous.

John Lewis Disses American Voters

John Lewis, I'm sorry you feel Trump is not a legitimate President due to Russian hacking.  However, voters knew of the Russian hacking, and do have the ability to discern fact from fiction, fake from real news.  We also knew that European leaders "meddled" in our election by expressing their feelings about Trump.  The Europeans and Russians are all expected to act in their own best interests, not ours.  Even the candidates seem often to lie or misrepresent facts.  But Congressman Lewis, you insult me and other voters by asserting we are not smart enough to figure all this out and make our own voting decision.  Our responsibility as citizen voters is fundamental to our Republic.  Today the internet gives us a fire hose of information.  Yet we elected officials early in the 19th century when news traveled slowly, and citizens voted with outdated information.  We never have perfect information.  We always have to use our independent judgment to decide.  It's no different today, and this election is no less legitimate because of it's unique set of issues.  I'm sorry that one of our elected officials does not believe in the ability of our citizens to make voting decisions.  If I lived in your district, I certainly would not vote for you because of your disrespect for the abilities of your constituents.

Obama and the Keystone Pipeline

It was pretty cowardly for Obama to hide behind the State Department's decision that the Keystone Pipeline was not in our national interests. I mean, those guys work for him. No question John Kerry does what he's told. The rest of his speech was even more bizarre. He admonished Congress to pass an infrastructure bill that would create more jobs and long-term benefits for America. Gee, I thought a pipeline was an infrastructure project, that like most infrastructure projects, creates lots of short-term economic activity followed by years of service revenue and added value to infrastructure users, both direct and indirect. Obama also pooh-poohed the effect on energy prices and energy security. Security is enhanced because we have reduced dependence on imports from unstable ares. Without this pipeline we'll need to replace the Canadian oil with foreign oil. And the recent Russian plane crash raises all sorts of questions about the growing risks from ISIS. That Canadian oil may be headed for China now. The oil will still be moved, but it will be moved across territory we don't have real control over. There's really not much effect on the environment either way, and that's the really disturbing thing here. Is Obama such a poor trader he couldn't convince the green lobby to let this one go and save their chits for something that really matters? What does that say for his Iranian nuclear deal?

Public Debt Levels and the Presidential Campaign

Leading up to the 2012 election I wrote about concerns over the structure of federal spending and its effects on total public debt in the US. I was concerned that the administration had built structural spending to 24-25% of GDP, while we had never been able to generate more than 18% of GDP in federal revenues. The good news is that the economic recovery has brought tax receipts up to that 18% level, as well as lowered expenses to the 21% level. So deficits are running 3% of gdp or less. This may be as good as it gets, however. Our public debt is now at 100% of GDP. We can get away with this at zero interest rates, but if rates rise 2% structural spending will increase. Another recession or slower growth could also affect the deficit by increasing social services costs and reducing revenue as a percent of gdp. The good news is that the administration has taken advantage of lower rates to push treasury debt maturities to near record long levels. This will insulate us to some degree from rising interest rates at some point. It would seem to me that the presidential candidates should debate the desired ratio of public debt to gdp. If we want it less than 100%, we are going to have run deficits that are smaller than gdp growth. And how will we go about that? By spending cuts, tax increase, tax cuts. Donald Trump, could you please raise this issue while you're still relevant?

The US Government Puts Citizens at Risk For Identity Theft

Is it really any wonder the US Government is the victim of huge hacks? When you get your Medicare card, your identification number is your social security card, printed right on the card, and part of every doctor's records. Who really knows the security standards they hold themselves to. This is a disgrace, as private insurers haven't used social security numbers on their statements in decades, for the most part, and they don't require you to provide them to doctors. Our own government is putting every senior at risk of identity theft. A bill was recently passed that orders HHS to provide cards to new beneficiaries within 4 years, and an additional four years for existing beneficiaries. This is a disgrace. If the government is so far behind on this issue, what does that mean for the future cybersecurity of anything government touches or regulates? Elizabeth Warren should forget the banks and go after HHS.