Bernie Sanders Wishes He Had The Opportunity To Run Against Trump (And So Do I)

sanders-conan

The nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party in 2016 was among the worst blunders in the history of politics. She was the about the most status-quo candidate possible in an election where voters wanted change, representing everything which is most reprehensible in our political system. She was shown to have engaged in serious corruption in a year in which voters wanted reform, but many partisan Democrats continue to ignore the well-established evidence against her. It was clear Clinton would have difficulties with young voters, independent voters, many Obama voters, Sanders voters, swing state voters,  and voters in rust belt states. (Yes, there is considerable overlap in these groups, and it should have especially been obvious that many of those who voted for Obama in 2008 or Sanders in 2016 were doing so because they did not want Hillary Clinton to become president).

Beyond Clinton’s corruption and being wrong on virtually every major decision in her career, Clinton is terrible at running political campaigns. She is totally out of touch with the voters, and her political instincts are awful. She could not beat Obama in 2008, and could not have won the nomination in 2016 if the party insiders hadn’t cleared the field for her, in a system already rigged to favor a centrist over insurgent candidate, and then further intervened to support her when there was an unexpected challenge. The failure of the Democratic Party to pay attention to the desires of the voters resulted in the election of Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders had double digit leads over Trump while Trump and Clinton were close in head to head polling. If Bernie Sanders was the nominee, Democrats, not Republicans, would have won the voters who wanted change. Sanders could get the young, independent, swing state, and rust belt voters to turn out for him in far larger margins than Clinton could. Sanders would have addressed issues of concern to voters while Clinton ran a dreadful campaign which never gave voters a reason to vote for her  beyond gender and the feeling that it was her turn. Sanders would have spoken to the press to get out his message, while Hillary Clinton avoided them as much as possible. With Sanders, there would have been no scandals, and no problems raised by being investigated by the FBI. Only partisan Democrats could think that she was exonerated after being exposed for conducting unethical and reckless behavior, and lying about it to the American people, because she was not indicted.

Bernie Sanders appeared on Conan (video above) and, while too modest to say he would win, showed that he regretted he did not have the opportunity:

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Tuesday said he wished he had the chance to run against Donald Trump.

In an interview on “Conan,” Sanders said that while he was unsure whether he would’ve defeated Trump, early hypothetical head-to-head matchups showed him far ahead.

“What the polling showed that early on was all the polls nationally and statewide, I was beating him by much larger margins, much more than Secretary Clinton, but you know, then you go through a three-month campaign,” Sanders told host Conan O’Brien.

“All I can tell you Conan: I wish to God I’d had the opportunity. I would’ve loved to have run against him,” he added.

During his appearance Tuesday night, Sanders also ruminated on the nature of Trump’s election victory. He suggested that Trump used rhetoric to inflame racial and ethnic tensions but successfully branded himself as an outsider who could relate to many voters’ frustration with established industries.

“What Trump managed to do was convince people that he was the antiestablishment candidate at the time when people really are not happy with the economic establishment, the political establishment, and the media establishment,” Sanders said. “I think, sadly, much of what he said will not be true — he will not keep his word.”

He added: “Not everyone who voted for Trump is a racist or a sexist or a homophobe. There are a lot of people who are hurting very badly. They saw him as a glimmer of hope. That’s why they voted for him.”

Today’s attempt in the House to replace the establishment candidate also failed, but the challenge did show signs of growing discontent over the failures of the Democratic Party under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi easily beat Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), a seven-term lawmaker who launched an upstart bid to lead House Democrats two weeks ago in response to the party’s disappointing November election results and concerns that Democrats have become out of touch with working-class voters in key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio.

But Pelosi’s margin of victory, 134 votes to 63 for Ryan, signaled a large degree of discontent with her leadership after 14 years atop the caucus and, more broadly, with the Democratic policy agenda that many lawmakers say has grown stale. While she cleared her self-declared margin of victory, a two-thirds majority, many Democrats were stunned that almost a third of the caucus was willing to vote for a backbench lawmaker with no major policy or political experience.

Many were left wondering whether a more seasoned Democrat could have actually toppled Pelosi, with several privately suggesting these next two years would have to be Pelosi’s last as leader. Ryan’s 63 votes marked the largest bloc of opposition Pelosi has faced since winning a deputy leadership position 15 years ago that set her on a course to become the first female House speaker.

Being “out of touch with working-class voters” is only part of the problem. Democrats are also out of touch with liberal voters, including many younger potential voters, on foreign policy, mass surveillance, civil liberties, and social/cultural issues. A Republican-lite party has little constituency beyond those content with voting for the lesser evil.

Donald Trump Is President-Elect Because The Democratic Establishment Picked The Wrong Candidate

sanders-clinton

Democrats might be doomed to continue to lose if they fail to understand why they lost the 2016 election. Hopefully Clinton aides are not typical of the party as they are now blaming everyone other than their candidate. Politco reports on how they blame James Comey, as well as other factors:

Most Clinton supporters agreed that was part of it. But it wasn’t just that.

So much of the campaign’s energy was spent explaining inherited issues, they said, like the paid speeches Clinton delivered to Wall Street banks, pay-to-play accusations about the Clinton Foundation, and fallout of Clinton’s decision to set up a private email server at the State Department. “They spent their time protecting her, explaining her, defending her, with all these issues, the speeches, the Foundation, the emails — that became the energy of the campaign,” sighed one longtime Clinton confidante.

The paid speeches and the glitzy fundraisers, they said, did not paint a picture of a woman connected to the real suffering in the country. But that, they said, was just who Clinton was after so many years in the spotlight. “Her outlook is, ‘I get whacked no matter what, so screw it,’” explained one longtime confidant. “I’ve been out here killing myself for years and years and if I want to give the same speech everyone else does, I will.”

What the Democratic establishment which rigged the system for Clinton miss is that all of these problems were predictable and should have been considered before giving Clinton the nomination. All of these problems are based upon Clinton’s actual actions. They are not fabrications of the right wing media as Clinton apologists often claim. I was writing blog posts for months before the nomination warning how risky it was to nominate Hillary Clinton. Michael Moore predicted Trump would beat Clinton in July. Among the major reasons was The Hillary Problem:

Our biggest problem here isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors, which has to hurt considering it’s the sacrifices and the battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so that this younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara Bushes of the world that they should just shut up and go bake some cookies. But the kids don’t like her, and not a day goes by that a millennial doesn’t tell me they aren’t voting for her. No Democrat, and certainly no independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn’t there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing — who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls — Trump right now is in the catbird seat.

Democrats clearly picked the wrong candidate. Bernie Sanders was beating Trump by double digits in head to head polls, while Hillary Clinton was at best barely beating him. If Sanders was the candidate we would not have faced any of these scandals. Bernie Sanders could have attracted the votes of those voting for change, including those voting due to economic anxieties.

Fredrik deBoer wrote in The Washington Post that Bernie Sanders Could Have Won.

Donald Trump’s stunning victory is less surprising when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician. She won a hotly contested primary victory against a uniquely popular candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders. In her place, could he have beaten Trump?

That Clinton has unusually high unfavorables has been true for decades. Indeed, it has been a steady fact of her political life. She has annually ranked among the least-liked politicians on the national stage since she was the first lady. In recent years, her low favorability rating was matched only by that of her opponent, animated hate Muppet Donald Trump. In contrast, Sanders enjoys very high popularity, ranking as the most popular senator for two years in a row. Nationally, his favorability rating is more than 10 points higher than Clinton’s, and his unfavorability rating is more than 15 points lower. This popularity would have been a real asset on the campaign trail…

But turnout matters in a close election, and here she suffered significantly compared with President Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties in Michigan, the heart of Detroit’s black voting bloc, Clinton won 55 percent of the vote — compared with 69 percent for Obama in 2012. Meanwhile, it was in Michigan that Sanders won his most shocking primary victory, probably through the same forces that hurt Clinton on Election Day: Her agenda did not seem to offer much hope to those hurt by deindustrialization and outsourcing. We can only guess how much better he might have performed there, or in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which he also won in a surprising primary upset) had he been the nominee. But there is little doubt now that his success in the Rust Belt was a canary in the coal mine for the Clinton campaign, a now-obvious sign that she was in trouble.

Indeed, turnout overall was a major problem for the Clinton campaign; though not all votes are yet counted, it’s clear that Clinton received millions fewer votes than Obama in several states, while Trump frequently received more than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Nor did Clinton enjoy the benefits of party crossovers. There was much talk of “Clinton Republicans” who would, in the spirit of the Reagan Democrats, cross party lines to oppose Trump. But according to the exit polling of the New York Times, more Democrats crossed over and voted for Trump than Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton. Sanders, notably, never had trouble drawing crowds, and in the Democratic primary campaign, turnout rebounded from 2012 lows. Whether that rebound was a result of voters’ enthusiasm for Sanders or the opposite is hard to say; what’s clear is that Clinton wasn’t able to get out the vote herself and that she lost both Democrats and independents to Trump, while Sanders had notorious luck with independent voters.

Some Clinton apologists are blaming her loss on third party votes, but most of these votes were not from people who would have ever considered voting for Clinton. Many of those making the argument use bogus assumptions that Clinton would have received the third party vote if they were not on the ballot while Trump was not affected by votes for Gary Johnson and Evan McMullen. In reality Trump lost around the same number of votes to third party candidates as Clinton did.

Aaaron Blake looked at how the math does not support the claims that Stein and Johnson cost Clinton the election. Besides, Clinton was never going to get the votes of most of those who voted for Stein and Johnson. To argue that Clinton could have won with their votes is as nonsensical as saying Clinton could have won if she received the votes of those who voted for Donald Trump. Mathematically true, but the argument makes no sense in the real world.

Those who made the mistake of backing Clinton for the nomination need to learn from their mistake and look at why people felt that Hillary Clinton was too abhorrent to consider voting for. Stein and Johnson were both on the ballot in 2012 but they did not stop Barack Obama from winning. Clinton’s bigger problem were not those who voted for third parties, but Democratic voters who either voted for Trump or stayed home. As Paul Waldman pointed out, “She got 6 million fewer votes than Barack Obama did in 2012, and nearly 10 million fewer than he did in 2008.” That is despite everything we know about Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton thought she could get people to turn out to vote for her by showing how awful Donald Trump is. Her campaign centered on attacks on Trump, rarely providing any good arguments to support her. While she was right that voters had a low opinion of Trump, she failed to recognize that voters had a comparable view of her. This was a no-win strategy with Clinton as the nominee.

America Rejects Clinton And The Establishment

nope

In an election in which both candidates were dreadful, unfortunately only one could lose. Democratic Party leaders rigged the system to nominate the one candidate who could not even beat Donald Trump. If the Democratic Party was democratic during the primaries we could have woken up today to a President-elect Sanders and a Democratic Senate. Instead, in a year in which the voters wanted change, the Democrats picked the most conservative, establishment choice imaginable. Clinton would have been the best president that money could buy. That is a key reason why she lost. Clinton epitomizes everything which is rotten in our system, and in the end that mattered more than even the racism, xenophobia, and shear idiocy of Donald Trump.

We have seen many versions of Donald Trump over the years, and hopefully we will see one of the better versions of Trump in the White House.  He has been inexcusably racist, but has also sought the support of minorities. While he offers no concrete plans for accomplishing these things, he has differed from Republican orthodoxy in expressing support for providing health care to all, preserving Social Security and Medicare, and rebuilding infrastructure. The extreme social conservatism he has expressed as a candidate may have been motivated by political expediency and hopefully will be abandoned. Many past Republicans have appealed to the religious right to get elected, and ignored them once in office. While Trump often appears dangerously incoherent on foreign policy, he could conceivably be an improvement over the neoconservative interventionism of Hillary Clinton. Better relations with Russia could be a favorable outcome of a Trump presidency, not something to oppose as Clinton has. Trump has even supported an end to the drug war in the past, but that was not heard during this campaign.

Even if Trump does turn out to be more moderate than he has been as a candidate, we will see a turn to the right and many undesirable outcomes of his presidency. However, we would also see a sharp turn to the right with Hillary Clinton, who might have been the lesser evil, but who also could have done more harm. Partisan Democrats ignore how much conservative Bill Clinton’s record actually was.This year they fooled themselves into thinking both that Hillary Clinton is a progressive, and that she is not corrupt. They fell for the claims in their echo chamber and sold their souls in the hopes of winning, and did not even wind up with an election victory.

A Clinton presidency would have meant a return to Cold War relations with Russia, and probably surrogate hot wars–at the very least. Clinton has already indicated a willingness to entertain a grand bargain which would cut Social Security, comparable to how the Clinton’s “reformed” welfare. While she would keep abortion legal, she would also probably make it more rare, having indicated a willingness to cooperate with Republicans to enact further restrictions on its availability. Her far right views on civil liberties, and her support for an increased role of religion in public policy, should have been alarming to more on the left.

This would have been a sad day regardless of who won the presidency. The one good thing to come out of this is that there is now hope that the Democratic Party will not remain under the control of neocons and DLC conservatives like Clinton and Kaine. It has been discouraging to see Democrats justify, and even defend, Clinton’s conservative record. Even worse, many have ignored the overwhelming amount of evidence of corruption on Clinton’s part, and how both Clintons have used their government positions to amass great personal wealth. Lack of an indictment is not a sign of innocence. It is an example of  how rotten the system is, and a Clinton victory would have further institutionalized such corruption.

Democrats deserved to lose by nominating Hillary Clinton, but the failure of the party establishment provides an opportunity to change leadership and reform the party. We are already seeing Clinton supporters blaming Bernie supporters, Stein supporters, Russians, the FBI, misogyny, the electoral college for Clinton’s defeat. They blame everyone except those who deserve the blame: Democrats who rigged the nomination for a candidate who is unfit to be president, and of course Hillary Clinton.  Clinton is both unfit to be president, and she ran a terrible campaign. Her message basically consisted of claims of “it’s my turn” and attacks on Donald Trump. She offered very little in terms of a positive message to support her. Trump’s message that the system is corrupt and needs change resonated far more.

While Trump won as the change candidate, much of the change he offers is not the kind of change we need. We must keep a check on Donald Trump. Fortunately our system does provide mechanisms to do so. The chances of doing so are greater if Democrats now defend liberal principles and do stand up to him when needed. They must behave more as they did during George Bush’s second term, and not as they did during his first. The ACLU is already preparing to challenge Donald Trump if he goes through with his promises which would restrict civil liberties.

There are Americans who want better than what both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have offered. It is looking like a majority might have voted for Clinton over Trump, with most voters not liking either choice. While more voted for third parties than in the past, the number was still small. Unfortunately most people only saw the choice as Trump or Clinton, so many voted for the only change candidate they saw–but did not necessarily agree with his positions. They voted for the wrong type of change, but still change. At least we end the election with a result few would have predicted–the defeat of both the Clinton and Bush families.

FBI Dominating Election News Going Into Final Weekend Of Campaign

fbi

In an election in which the issues have received far too little attention, it is now news regarding the FBI which is dominating the election news. One key development is that CBS News reports that the FBI has found email related to Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department on the computer used by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner:

The FBI has found emails related to Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on the laptop belonging to the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, according to a U.S. official.

These emails, CBS News’ Andres Triay reports, are not duplicates of emails found on Secretary Clinton’s private server. At this point, however, it remains to be seen whether these emails are significant to the FBI’s investigation into Clinton. It is also not known how many relevant emails there are.

This provides some vindication for James Comey, who has been attacked by Clinton and her allies for sending the letter to Congress advising them of the change in status of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home email server.

Reuters also provided further confirmation that, as I have suggested earlier, that one reason it was best for Comey to make the letter public was that it was likely that news of the investigation of Weiner’s computer would leak out. A leaked report of an FBI investigation, or allowing the news to be released by Congressional Republicans, who would have spun it even more unfavorably towards Clinton, could have been more harmful.

It remains unclear as to how much the tightening in the polls have been related to this as the polls were already getting closer before last Friday. I suspect that most voters’ minds had already been made up regarding the email scandal and that it would take bigger news than this to alter the election results.

It does appear that the report I mentioned yesterday from Bret Baier of Fox News claiming an indictment is likely regarding the pay-for-play activities involving the Clinton Foundation have not been substantiated, with other sources calling the report baseless. While Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State were highly unethical, and in violation of the ethics agreements she entered into, I have doubted that they will be able to get sufficient evidence to prosecute this many years later, especially as the political appointees in the Justice Department have opposed such an investigation (creating friction with career officials).

Regardless of how much impact the FBI’s actions have on the election, at this point Clinton continues to hold a narrowing lead in the polls. After it looked like Clinton might win by a landslide a couple of weeks ago, Nate Silver now finds Clinton to be in a worse position compared to Obama in recent elections. When looking at electoral maps, it no longer looks as impossible for Trump to win, but it would be difficult. Trump would have to win in all the toss-up states, and likely will need at least one blue state. Instead of Clinton fighting for upsets in red states, she now has to concentrate on holding onto states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, with her especially vulnerable in the last. As Nate Silver put it:

If Clinton lost New Hampshire but won her other firewall states, each candidate would finish with 269 electoral votes, taking the election to the House of Representatives. Or maybe not — if Clinton also lost the 2nd Congressional District of Maine, where polls show a tight race and where the demographics are unfavorable to her, Trump would win the Electoral College 270-268, probably despite losing the popular vote.

On the other hand, states such as Florida, North Carolina, and Florida remain competitive, and a win for Clinton in just one could clinch the election. These are definitely states to watch Tuesday night. As Silver has also suggested, there is a real possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. She could exceed Obama’s popular vote numbers by doing better than he did in red states such as Texas, but this will probably not translate into electoral votes.

Update: As expected, the resumed investigation has changed nothing. We continue to have evidence of Clinton violating the rules intended to increase government transparency, that she handled classified information improperly, and that she has lied on multiple occasions regarding the scandal, but there will be no prosection.

FBI Twitter Feed Gone Rogue?

fbi_logo_twitter_400x400

Following the controversy regarding James Comey after last week’s announcement, there was a much stranger development as an FBI twitter feed started dumping links to a large amount of old material. This included material related to Donald Trump’s father and Bill Clinton’s controversial pardon of Marc Rich, along with a large amount of other material. Many pro-Clinton sites posted misleading accounts making it appear that the feed was releasing links related to Clinton alone.

While there were legitimate reasons for Comey to have sent the letter to Congress regarding new evidence related to Hillary Clinton’s email, there would be no legitimate reason to release information related to Bill Clinton’s pardon of Rich at this particular time. This is old news and the release could have been kept separate from the election. The question is whether this is an intentional attempt to harm Hillary Clinton or some sort of misguided release of large amounts of information to the public at an inopportune time.

If intentional, this would also strengthen an argument I previously made that Comey could not have avoided discussion of the resumption of the investigation into Hillary Clinton as it was likely the information would have come out regardless of what Comey had done.

The FBI has responded to questions regarding the Twitter releases with a statement: “Per the standard procedure for FOIA, these materials became available for release and were posted automatically and electronically to the FBI’s public reading room in accordance with the law and established procedures.” However, that does not explain the timing.

Think Progress reports that the FBI is initiating an investigation, as it should. It would be improper, and very likely a crime, if someone did release this old information now with the intent to affect the election.

Besides coming during the debate over Comey’s announcement, there are also a number of questions being raised about inside disputes between the Department of Justice and the FBI, reportedly with disagreements between career and political appointees as to whether Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted. This infighting includes  questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation in addition to the email scandal. While Clinton clearly violated the ethics agreements she entered into before being confirmed as Secretary of State, it is a different question as to whether her actions, and actions of others at the Foundation, could be successfully prosecuted. Bret Baier of Fox News claims that “sources in the FBI have told him that indictment is likely in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation” unless prevented by the Justice Department. This cannot be independently verified.

Hillary Clinton’s Nixonian Attacks On The Rule Of Law

nixon-clinton

There have been many disturbing things to come out of this election, from both sides. This includes the racism, xenophobia, and misogyny from Donald Trump, and the McCarthyism from Hillary Clinton in her attempts to distract from her own transgressions and attacks on opponents by raising Russia. The latest outrage of the campaign has been the attacks on James Comey from Clinton and her supporters after last week’s announcement.

The Clinton attacks on Comey are a direct attack on the rule of law. They remind me of the Saturday Night Massacre when Richard Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox, attempting to block the Watergate investigation. The attacks are purely politically motivated. There is no doubt that if Comey had made a statement regarding an investigation into Donald Trump, the same Democrats would be applauding Comey, and would have been appalled if Trump had criticized Comey. The Clintons had no objection when a Republican was indicted four days before the election in 1992, in what was seen by some as an attempt to sway the election in Bill Clinton’s favor.

The partisan nature of how Comey’s announcement is being interpreted is verified in a Morning Consult poll. The New York Times reports:

In an online Morning Consult poll of approximately 3,200 registered voters, only 19 percent agreed with the statement that prosecutors should wait until after Election Day to make announcements about investigations concerning political figures or elected officials. Instead, 60 percent agreed that prosecutors should be able to make announcements about investigations concerning political figures or elected officials close to Election Day even if it might affect the election. (Another 21 percent said they don’t know or had no opinion.)

Not surprisingly, these results differ along partisan lines. Democrats were five times more likely than Republicans to say prosecutors should wait to make announcements about political figures (33 percent versus 6 percent). Conversely, people who identified as Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to endorse the idea of announcing cases before elections (79 percent versus 47 percent).

To understand the extent to which partisanship affects people’s opinions on the issue, Morning Consult asked the same question to three randomly selected groups. The first group saw a generic statement without reference to Mrs. Clinton or Donald J. Trump, which yielded the results described above. Other groups were prompted with either a statement about the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton or one about the New York attorney general’s investigation into the practices of Mr. Trump’s foundation.

When the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was mentioned before the question, partisans differed by almost 50 percentage points in their attitude toward pre-election disclosures, which were endorsed by 83 percent of Republicans but just 34 percent of Democrats — an even larger gap than observed with the generic prompt. By contrast, mentioning Mr. Trump’s foundation eliminated the gap between the parties in support for publicizing investigations, which was backed by 57 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans.

The lesson from these findings is clear: The public wants to know everything it can about the candidates in advance, especially if they are from the other party.

***

In related news, Jon Stewart attacked Donald Trump at a charity event over the matters I mentioned in the opening paragraph.

In follow-up of a post yesterday, Foreign Policy columnist James Bamford, provides further reason to cast doubt on the Clinton conspiracy theories linking Donald Trump and Russia.

Walker Bragman  looks at the reaction to Comey’s statement for Paste Magazine and wrote, If Trump Wins Due to the FBI’s October Surprise, Hillary Clinton Has Nobody to Blame But Herself. He pointed out how Clinton did this to herself by using the private server (violating rules then in effect), the DNC made matters worse in how they tilted the election towards Clinton (in violation of party rules), that Comey had no better options than to handle this as he did, and that Clinton is setting a dangerous precedent in her attacks on Comey. He concluded:

Put another way, an embattled candidate for public office who happens to be under criminal investigation by the FBI for mistakes she made is using the court of public opinion to intimidate the agency’s director. If Clinton succeeds, and the agency is in any way influenced in its investigation, she will have truly damaged American democracy, establishing different rules for public figures. The whole point of our justice system is its impartiality, and it will be utterly compromised.

Even if Comey’s actions turn out to be politically motivated—in which case he will have committed an egregious offense—Clinton’s actions are troubling.

Save

Clinton Joins Trump In Claiming Rigged Election While Both Have Email Problems

trump-clinton-wedding

Hillary Trump and Donald Trump are far more alike than supporters of either candidate will acknowledge. Heading into the final week of the campaign we have two more similarities: both are having problems with email, and both now claim the election is rigged.

Donald Trump has made a fool of himself for months talking about the general election being rigged when the most serious obstacles to his candidacy have been his own mouth and his Twitter account. Now Clinton has joined Trump in making unfounded complaints of election rigging. From The Note:

Who thinks the system is “rigged” now? The Clinton campaign responded to the unusual letter from FBI Director James Comey by unloading on the messenger with an argument that carries troubling implications. The Clinton campaign is suggesting that political motivations were behind Comey’s move. Clinton Tweeted (in an unsigned message posted from her account) that Comey “bowed to partisan pressure and released a vague and inappropriate letter to Congress.” Eric Holder and nearly 100 former Justice Department officials wrote a letter calling Comey out from their perspective. Then there’s Harry Reid, unleashing the sort of campaign tactic he brought in 2012 when he said (falsely) on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney didn’t pay any taxes. The Senate minority leader wrote a letter to Comey saying he may have violated federal law with a “clear intent to aid one political party over another.” Reid also did his best Roger Stone in writing that Comey is withholding “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors and the Russian government.” The Clinton camp may have had no choice this late than to go to war with Comey. But what shouldn’t be lost is this means the campaign of the Democratic nominee for president – the candidate who wasn’t complaining about a rigged election– is now asking voters to question whether the director of the FBI is trying to influence the election’s outcome.

While Harry Reid has no qualms about making such absurd allegations, the White House does not agree that Comey was trying to influence the election:

The White House on Monday said James Comey is not trying to tip the scales in the presidential election, amid criticism from Democrats over the FBI director’s decision to inform Congress about a new probe into emails possibly related to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

“The president doesn’t believe Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. “The president doesn’t believe he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.”

Earnest called Comey “a man of integrity” and a “man of good character” but acknowledged that “he’s in a tough spot” when it comes to the Clinton email probe.

Hillary Clinton is understandably upset that the email scandal continues to haunt her, but she brought this upon herself. While unusual for such an event as Comey’s letter to come this close to the election, the Democratic Party acted irresponsibly in nominating Clinton with all we knew about her unethical conduct well before the convention. It was as if the Republicans had nominated Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal broke, or nominated Dick Cheney following the abuses of the Bush administration. They created this unique situation in which we have the FBI director talking about an investigation into one of the candidates.

After having testified before Congress that the investigation was concluded, Comey was obligated to inform Congress when new information led to resumption of the investigation into Clinton and her private server. As Marc Ambinder wrote, “Comey had a duty to inform Congress if the FBI developed information about the case that was at odds with his testimony on September 28.” The public also has a right to know. If he had waited until after the election to make the announcement, there would have been an even stronger argument that he was being influenced by politics. It is doubtful he could have kept it quiet even if he desired to. Someone would have noticed, for example when the FBI requested the warrant to review Huma Abedin’s email.

The attacks on Comey from Clinton and her supporters (who are also trying to drag Russia into the discussion with rather questionable arguments) are clearly based upon partisanship and not principle. If the FBI was investigating George Bush and his administration, Democrats would be applauding the FBI director and would have been appalled if Republicans attacked the FBI in response. Once again, tribalism and party over principle.

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump is hoping to take advantage of this politically, but it is questionable if it will change many votes at this stage. Trump can hardly take the high moral ground here either, despite his claims. As Raw Story reminds us, Donald Trump still has to appear in court regarding matters ranging from racketeering to child rape. While Clinton destroyed over 30,000 emails, Newsweek reports on Trump’s companies destroying emails and other documents prior to court hearings:

Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump. In each instance, Trump and entities he controlled also erected numerous hurdles that made lawsuits drag on for years, forcing courtroom opponents to spend huge sums of money in legal fees as they struggled—sometimes in vain—to obtain records…

Trump’s use of deception and untruthful affidavits, as well as the hiding or improper destruction of documents, dates back to at least 1973, when the Republican nominee, his father and their real estate company battled the federal government over civil charges that they refused to rent apartments to African-Americans. The Trump strategy was simple: deny, impede and delay, while destroying documents the court had ordered them to hand over.

The article has multiple examples–which sound rather similar to the stonewalling during past investigations of Hillary Clinton’s financial dealings. Clinton and Trump are far more alike than they are different.

Update: Despite Clinton Conspiracy Theories, FBI Finds No Clear Link Between Trump And Russia

Email Scandal Again Affecting Clinton And Election

Clinton Email

This unpredictable election race suddenly became more complicated on Friday. For months I had been warning that nominating Hillary Clinton, with her history of serious ethical transgressions, was not only an improper move by the Democratic establishment, but also a politically risky move. While it is doubtful she could have beaten any other Republicans, the repeated acts of self-destruction by Donald Trump appeared to placed Clinton on path for a safe victory. The race had already become tighter, with Trump narrowing the gap in some polls, pulling within two percent in the Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll. A dramatic new development in the email scandal now means that Clinton cannot run on the clock, and might not win by the margins predicted just a few days ago.

We actually know very little other than that material found during the FBI probe into Anthony Weiner sexting a minor has led the FBI to reopen their investigation of Hillary Clinton and her private server. It is hard to believe that the James Comey would have made such an announcement this close to the election unless there was something significant. We have no meaningful information yet and and at this point it is all speculation. Among the possibilities are that classified information might have turned up on a computer or phone used by Weiner and/or his wife Huma Abedin. Possibly there might be email exchanges which shed more light on the question of intent. While the law does not stipulate that intent is a factor, the double standard applied to Hillary Clinton, as opposed to others who have mishandled classified information, has required evidence of intent in her case.

As is typical of Clinton and her supporters, the immediate response was to attack the messenger, with attacks on James Comey for sending his letter this week. In reality, Comey had no choice. He had testified before Congress that the investigation was closed, making him obligated to inform Congress of the change in status. If he failed to divulge this until after the election he would have been accused of playing politics. It is also questionable if this could have been kept secret. Many career officials at the FBI and Department of Justice have reportedly been upset with Comey’s decision not to recommend indictment of Clinton, and might have leaked the fact they are now looking into new evidence.

Unless there is a bigger bombshell, Clinton will most likely still win, with tribalism leading most traditional Democratic voters to stick with her. Trump has also alienated far too many people, for good reason, to fully capitalize on this development. Still, we have an unusual election in which the majority dislikes and distrusts both major party candidates. Whichever has their negatives most strongly in the minds of the voters on election day will suffer. Clinton is faced not only with the email scandal, but with a steady release of embarrassing information from Wikileaks, including most recently how the Clinton Foundation was used to sell influence for the personal financial gain of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The headlines shifting from Trump bragging about assaulting women to the Clinton scandals can have an impact, both on the presidential election and on down ticket Democratic candidates. It also also likely that Clinton’s opposition researchers will release something new this week to attempt to put the attention back on Trump.

While James Comey previously said that no prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton, his statement was quite harmful to Clinton, showing both that she was extremely careless with classified information and that her defense of her actions in statements to the American people and before Congress were not truthful. The mishandling of classified information is only one aspect of the scandal, with the State Department Inspector General report also showing that she violated the rules put into effect to promote government transparency, failed to cooperate with the investigation, and has repeatedly lied about her actions. Clinton also violated the ethics agreements she entered into before being confirmed as Secretary of State, casting considerable doubt as to whether she should subsequently be trusted with another government position especially the presidency.

Clinton very well could still win due to all the problems with Donald Trump, but hopefully voters will realize that, even if they see Clinton as the lesser evil, she still deserves an extraordinary degree of scrutiny should she become president.

Wikileaks Exposes Clinton, Inc

clinton-foundation-800x416

Defenders of the Clintons and the shady operations surrounding the Clinton Foundation have often defended their actions with claims that the Clintons did not profit personally from money raised by the Foundation. Such arguments were always questionable considering the vast fortune accumulated from speaking fees, but now Wikileaks has provided evidence of even more direct financial benefits for the Clintons. The Note reports:

–A PEEK INSIDE ‘CLINTON, INC.’: A 12-page memo attached to an email released on Wikileaks Wednesday from a longtime aide to President Bill Clinton seems to provide a step-by-step road-map to how advisers raised millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, former President Clinton, and the Clinton family after he left the White House, ABC’s MARYALICE PARKS notes. The purported memo from Doug Band details how he and his team locked in lucrative speaking deals for Bill Clinton and how he leveraged his work at his global consulting firm, Teneo Strategies, to persuade clients to also contribute to the Clinton Foundation. Band describes his work lining up for-profit business and in-kind services for Clinton as essentially running “Bill Clinton, Inc.” “We also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family – for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like,” Band purportedly wrote in the document.

–BACKSTORY: Previously released emails, dated just days prior to this memo, seem to show Band expressing concern over the conflated, tangled and confused web of personnel roles and money in the Clinton world, citing, for example, his opinion that Chelsea Clinton was running a business out of the family foundation office. He seems to urge more clearly defined roles and conflict of interest documents.

–ANALYSIS –ABC’s RICK KLEIN: John Podesta’s hacked emails have provided enough raw material to fill a bookshelf with campaign retrospectives. We now have a picture of fierce internal debates over how to handle Hillary Clinton’s paid-speech transcripts, emerging primary challenges from the left, and of course how to handle the matter of her email server. (“There Is Just No Good Answer,” Philippe Reines wrote to Podesta and several other top aides, with dramatic spacing for effect.) But the peek behind the curtain is perhaps nowhere more revealing than in the warfare revealed between Chelsea Clinton and top Bill Clinton aide Doug Band over the Clinton Foundation and the web of personal and business connections that grew around it. A memo out this week via Wikileaks has Band describing what he labeled “Bill Clinton Inc.,” describing his work to secure “in-kind services for the President and his family – for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like,” in addition to highly paid speeches to private enterprises. This is the kind of operation the Clintons’ critics have long warned about – with revolving doors, intersecting public and private interests, and opportunities for lined pockets all around. Donald Trump this week was criticized for taking a break from his campaign to attend to and hype business matters. Inside Clinton Inc., that doesn’t look so out of the ordinary.

It was probably not illegal to solicit gifts in exchange for access to Bill Clinton when he was a private citizen, but it was a different matter when he was married to the Secretary of State and receiving payments from parties which Hillary Clinton was making decisions regarding. Many also made unprecedented payments for speeches to Bill Clinton. It was also rather shady to be soliciting gifts when his wife was planning to run for president.

Trump Campaign Tarnishing Trump Name And Harming His Business Interests

trump-international-hotel

The current campaign between two of the most disliked people in America is taking its toll on the reputations of the candidates, but it appears to be hurting Donald Trump more. Not only have his chances of winning the election become astronomically low with under two weeks ago, the campaign appears to be hurting Donald Trump’s business empire. For example, AP reports Trump brand loses luster with affluent:

Event planner Beth Bernstein decided she had had enough with Donald Trump after his 2005 hot-mic boasts about groping women came to light earlier this month. She removed photos of weddings she had thrown at a Trump hotel in Chicago from her website, wrote to hotel staff to remove her from the list of “preferred vendors” and posted a sort of call to arms on her blog.

“I simply cannot bring myself to walk in the door there any longer,” wrote the owner of SQN Events.

Bernstein is not alone. Rates for rooms at Trump’s new D.C. hotel are being slashed as travelers weigh their options, and smartphone data suggest fewer people are visiting his properties compared to rival venues nearby.

The Republican nominee for president is in danger of losing not just the election, but something dear to a man who claims the marketing value of his name alone is worth $3 billion: the many customers, mostly wealthy, who have stayed at his hotels, played a round at his golf courses or held galas at his oceanside resorts.

Experts say the Trump brand is tarnished and at a tricky crossroads as his appeal shifts from the well-heeled, high-income people he has long courted to a more middle-class base, including the fervent fans he cultivated during the campaign.

The tarnishing of his name is very likely the reason that his newest hotel brand will be called Scion rather than use the Trump name, and raises further questions as to the value of the Trump name.

The New York Times reports on tenants who want to drop the Trump name from their buildings.

Many women are saying they will not buy clothes from the Ivanka Trump brand, although there appears to be a discrepancy between what women are saying and what they are buying.

Donald Trump’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame has even been vandalized.

Racism, xenophobia, and bragging about assaulting women is just not good for public relations. If Trump were a smarter businessman (or a less terrible human being), he might have realized this.

On the other hand, it is too early to tell whether this will be a long term trend, or if views of Trump will soften when we are faced with the probable reality of a Clinton presidency. There has been speculation that Trump has been using his presidential campaign to develop an audience for a new right-wing network to the right of Fox, even if Trump denies having interest in this. If this does come about, this may or may not change Trump’s position. There is no doubt that there will be many opposing Clinton, on both the right and left.