washingtonmonthly--2020-10-07--James Baker Stood For Multilateralism and Order. So Why Is He Voting For Donald Trump?

Former Secretary of State James Baker “ is like a parable for the modern Republican Party , ” said New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker ( no relation ) in a recent interview promoting the biography of Baker he recently co-authored with his wife Susan Glasser .
The Man Who Ran Washington : The Life and Times of James A. Baker III , reports that Baker , a Bush family confidant , thinks Donald Trump is “ crazy.
” Despite that assessment , Baker remains appreciative of the president ’ s tax cuts , deregulation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him reelected .
This distinguishes him from the Bushes and many veterans of the family ’ s two administrations .
As Baker notes , George H.W .
Bush voted for Hillary Clinton , Barbara Bush wrote-in her son Jeb , and George W. Bush says he voted for “ none of the above.
” In recent days , Marc Racicot , a former governor of Montana , former Republican Party chair and campaign chair for George W. Bush in 2004 , endorsed Joe Biden , as did Bush ’ s first Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ridge .
Ridge and Raciot joined 73 Republican national security officials who came out for Biden in August .
But while there ’ s no shortage of Republicans who have split from Trump , the overwhelming majority of Republican voters either support the president enthusiastically or , like Baker , do so with some misgivings .
Baker ’ s case is especially glaring because of the contrasts between the two men–one known as a smooth operator , the other all bluster and ego .
Baker excelled at wooing and cajoling , while Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a master of the bureaucratic game , and Trump denounces “ the Deep State.
” Trump has torn down much of what the 90-year-old former White House Chief of Staff , Secretary of the Treasury , and Secretary of State built .
Trump ’ s contempt for NATO , for instance , should be an affront to Baker who kept the alliance together at the end of the Cold War and convinced Moscow to allow a unified Germany within the alliance .
Baker ’ s approach to managing the collapse of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-Cold War world , and building an international coalition to defeat Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War couldn ’ t be more different than Trump ’ s cozying up to Vladimir Putin or the president ’ s contempt for our allies .
Baker ’ s co-architect of that world , now deceased former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft , endorsed Clinton in 2016 .
Colin Powell broke with the GOP in 2008 and endorsed Barack Obama ’ s presidential bid and Biden ’ s this year , even speaking at the Democratic National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the party and to the president despite Trump ’ s assault on his legacy .
The president frequently exaggerates the percentage of support he retains from Republican voters , but it still stands at 94 percent in the most recent Gallup poll .
That ’ s partly because some defectors , like Powell , no longer self-identify or register as Republicans , but it still shows that many Americans will tolerate almost anything if it serves their self-interest .
When that interest is principled and genuine and of the utmost urgency , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , it ’ s more defensible than when it ’ s no more than a desire to pay fewer taxes and face less regulation .
Baker doesn ’ t have that excuse .
His contentious relationship with social conservatives goes back to the earliest days of the Reagan administration when he advised the president to nominate Sandra Day O ’ Conner to the Supreme Court over the objections of some pro-life advocates .
Yet , social conservatives aren ’ t exempt from the criticism that their principles are malleable .
Trump-appointed justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he makes a mockery of family values both in terms of his personal failings and also policies that are sure to cost lives , from his attempts to scuttle the Affordable Care Act without an alternative to countenancing the barbaric treatment of undocumented detainees .
Trump forces Republicans to make hard choices and the results are revealing .
In Baker ’ s case , his biographer put it this way : I think that Baker , in some ways , is like a parable for the modern Republican Party .
His struggle has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is not their cup of tea .
You know , they don ’ t particularly like him , they wouldn ’ t invite him to their country clubs , and they wouldn ’ t invite him to their homes for Thanksgiving dinner .
But , you know , he has been successful at what Jared Kushner told me a couple weeks ago was the hostile takeover of the Republican Party .
And they have found they ’ ve decided that they have to accommodate themselves to him for at least as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s campaign is struggling but Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight still gives a COVID-19 positive president a 21 percent chance of winning ( and a 54 percent shot if Biden carries the popular vote by fewer than 3 points ) .
Thanks to Republicans like Baker who “ accommodate themselves , ” it ’ s possible that Trump may win another term .

Former Secretary of State James Baker “is like a parable for the modern Republican Party,” said New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker (no relation) in a recent interview promoting the biography of Baker he recently co-authored with his wife Susan Glasser.
The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III, reports that Baker, a Bush family confidant, thinks Donald Trump is “crazy.” Despite that assessment, Baker remains appreciative of the president’s tax cuts, deregulation, and judicial appointments and would like to see him reelected.
This distinguishes him from the Bushes and many veterans of the family’s two administrations. As Baker notes, George H.W. Bush voted for Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush wrote-in her son Jeb, and George W. Bush says he voted for “none of the above.”
In recent days, Marc Racicot, a former governor of Montana, former Republican Party chair and campaign chair for George W. Bush in 2004, endorsed Joe Biden, as did Bush’s first Secretary of Homeland Security, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Ridge and Raciot joined 73 Republican national security officials who came out for Biden in August. But while there’s no shortage of Republicans who have split from Trump, the overwhelming majority of Republican voters either support the president enthusiastically or, like Baker, do so with some misgivings.
Baker’s case is especially glaring because of the contrasts between the two men–one known as a smooth operator, the other all bluster and ego. Baker excelled at wooing and cajoling, while Trump relies on insults and threats. Baker was a master of the bureaucratic game, and Trump denounces “the Deep State.”
Trump has torn down much of what the 90-year-old former White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State built. Trump’s contempt for NATO, for instance, should be an affront to Baker who kept the alliance together at the end of the Cold War and convinced Moscow to allow a unified Germany within the alliance. Baker’s approach to managing the collapse of the Soviet Union, the creation of a post-Cold War world, and building an international coalition to defeat Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War couldn’t be more different than Trump’s cozying up to Vladimir Putin or the president’s contempt for our allies. Baker’s co-architect of that world, now deceased former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, endorsed Clinton in 2016. Colin Powell broke with the GOP in 2008 and endorsed Barack Obama’s presidential bid and Biden’s this year, even speaking at the Democratic National Convention. Yet, Baker remains loyal to the party and to the president despite Trump’s assault on his legacy.
The president frequently exaggerates the percentage of support he retains from Republican voters, but it still stands at 94 percent in the most recent Gallup poll. That’s partly because some defectors, like Powell, no longer self-identify or register as Republicans, but it still shows that many Americans will tolerate almost anything if it serves their self-interest.
When that interest is principled and genuine and of the utmost urgency, as the abortion issue is to many voters, it’s more defensible than when it’s no more than a desire to pay fewer taxes and face less regulation. Baker doesn’t have that excuse. His contentious relationship with social conservatives goes back to the earliest days of the Reagan administration when he advised the president to nominate Sandra Day O’Conner to the Supreme Court over the objections of some pro-life advocates.
Yet, social conservatives aren’t exempt from the criticism that their principles are malleable. Trump-appointed justices may overturn Roe v. Wade, but he makes a mockery of family values both in terms of his personal failings and also policies that are sure to cost lives, from his attempts to scuttle the Affordable Care Act without an alternative to countenancing the barbaric treatment of undocumented detainees.
Trump forces Republicans to make hard choices and the results are revealing.
In Baker’s case, his biographer put it this way:
I think that Baker, in some ways, is like a parable for the modern Republican Party. His struggle has been the larger party struggle with Trump, who is not their cup of tea. You know, they don’t particularly like him, they wouldn’t invite him to their country clubs, and they wouldn’t invite him to their homes for Thanksgiving dinner. But, you know, he has been successful at what Jared Kushner told me a couple weeks ago was the hostile takeover of the Republican Party. And they have found they’ve decided that they have to accommodate themselves to him for at least as long as he’s in office.
Trump’s campaign is struggling but Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight still gives a COVID-19 positive president a 21 percent chance of winning (and a 54 percent shot if Biden carries the popular vote by fewer than 3 points). Thanks to Republicans like Baker who “accommodate themselves,” it’s possible that Trump may win another term.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-07--After Hospitalization, Trump’s Dominance Delusion Gets Crazier

Donald Trump ’ s latest delusion is that he can ignore science and dominate a virus .
Just before leaving Walter Reed Military Medical Center on Monday , the president tweeted that he felt “ really good ” and advised others not to let COVID “ dominate ” their lives .
He released a statement suggesting that contracting the disease was a sign of bravery .
Trump ’ s enablers followed suit .
Former Arkansas Gov .
Mike Huckabee said that Republicans are “ the party of the emancipation proclamation , not the emasculation proclamation.
” Rep. Matt Gaetz ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump won ’ t have to recover from COVID .
COVID will have to recover from President Trump.
” But the most bizarre pile-on came from Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) .
The president and his supporters will label Biden as weak if the former vice president follows CDC guidelines and refuses to debate before Trump ’ s quarantine period ends—just as they ’ ve ridiculed him for wearing a mask and practicing social distancing .
Even as COVID-19 spreads through The White House , Trump ’ s message is that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only dominate a virus , you don ’ t show your fear by being diligent about masks , joyrides , and campaigning .
In a sane world , that would be a skit on Saturday Night Live making fun of hyper-masculinity .
But the whole scene is more pathetic than parody .
The president ’ s response to contracting the coronavirus reminds us that , for him , every interaction in life is a test between dominance or submission .
It wasn ’ t that long ago that he was telling governors that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Going back to 2017 , Josh Marshall understood better than anyone when he wrote that “ Trump lives in a psychic economy of aggression and domination.
” But this isn ’ t just another indication of the president ’ s mental health issues .
It is also what animates his supporters .
That ’ s why “ owning the libs ” has become a rallying cry on the right .
As Eve Peyser explained in Rolling Stone , “ To ‘ own ’ someone on the internet is to dominate and humiliate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can loosely be defined as anyone to the left of Sean Hannity.
” In her book , The Chalice and the Blade , social systems scientist , cultural historian , and attorney Riane Eisler explored “ two very different ways of relating , viewing the world , and living in it , ” which she identified as the partnership model and the domination model .
After studying cultures worldwide , Eisler concluded that conventional differences such as religious versus secular , right versus left , East versus West , and developed versus developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarianism because they fail to distinguish those that rely on domination backed by fear and force .
That is the tie that binds Stalin ’ s Russia to Hitler ’ s Germany , as just one example .
What we are witnessing in this country ( and other places around the world ) is a resurgence of dominance and a rise in authoritarianism .
At the heart of that are Christian nationalists who , imbued in patriarchy , view all relationships as hierarchical , insisting that men must submit to God , women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must submit to their parents .
Here is Eisler talking about how that weaves dominance and control into gender stereotypes .
In dominator cultures , to accuse a man of exhibiting stereotypes commonly associated with femininity is the ultimate insult .
So , for example , when Tomi Lahren responded to Biden ’ s insistence on wearing a mask by tweeting that he might as well carry it in a purse , she was “ owning a lib ” with the ultimate put-down : he ’ s a wimp , just like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stewart pointed out , Trump ’ s embrace of dominance makes him the leader Christian nationalists have been seeking .
As the Trump presidency falls under siege on multiple fronts , it has become increasingly clear that the so-called values voters will be among the last to leave the citadel .
A lot of attention has been paid to the supposed paradox of evangelicals backing such an imperfect man , but the real problem is that our idea of Christian nationalism hasn ’ t caught up with the reality .
We still buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Christian right is just an interest group working to protect its values .
But what we don ’ t get is that Mr. Trump ’ s supposedly anti-Christian attributes and anti-democratic attributes are a vital part of his attraction… Today ’ s Christian nationalists talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and America ’ s founders , but at bottom , they sound as if they prefer autocrats to democrats…This isn ’ t the religious right we thought we knew .
The Christian nationalist movement today is authoritarian , paranoid and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t fighting a culture war .
They ’ re making a direct attack on democracy itself .
This country ’ s grand experiment with democracy was an attempt to break away from a long history of autocratic kings who ruled via dominance .
But it ’ s been a work in progress for almost 250 years because the marriage between patriarchy and dominance has been an immense challenge to overcome .
From labor rights to women ’ s rights to civil rights , every social justice movement has been rooted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the dominance of rich white men .
The reason that Barack Obama ’ s presidency ignited a backlash of dominance is not merely because he was our first African-American president .
Perhaps due to his history as a community organizer , his entire world view was shaped by the power of partnership .
That is why , when it became clear that we were in the midst of a pandemic , I pinned this quote from his 2009 speech in Cairo , which captures this pandemic moment so perfectly , to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country , prosperity is hurt everywhere .
When a new flu infects one human being , all are at risk…That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century .
That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings .
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace .
For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and , yes , religions — subjugating one another in pursuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new age , such attitudes are self-defeating .
Given our interdependence , any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail .
So whatever we think of the past , we must not be prisoners to it .
Our problems must be dealt with through partnership ; our progress must be shared .
For eight years , Obama challenged the dominance of white patriarchy .
The backlash delivered a delusional president who has convinced his supporters that manly men can ignore science and dominate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a country is whether we will continue perfecting our union via democratic processes that demonstrate the power of partnership .

Donald Trump’s latest delusion is that he can ignore science and dominate a virus. Just before leaving Walter Reed Military Medical Center on Monday, the president tweeted that he felt “really good” and advised others not to let COVID “dominate” their lives. He released a statement suggesting that contracting the disease was a sign of bravery.
Trump’s enablers followed suit. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said that Republicans are “the party of the emancipation proclamation, not the emasculation proclamation.” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- FL) opined that “President Trump won’t have to recover from COVID. COVID will have to recover from President Trump.” But the most bizarre pile-on came from Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA).
The president and his supporters will label Biden as weak if the former vice president follows CDC guidelines and refuses to debate before Trump’s quarantine period ends—just as they’ve ridiculed him for wearing a mask and practicing social distancing.
Even as COVID-19 spreads through The White House, Trump’s message is that to be a manly man, you not only dominate a virus, you don’t show your fear by being diligent about masks, joyrides, and campaigning. In a sane world, that would be a skit on Saturday Night Live making fun of hyper-masculinity. But the whole scene is more pathetic than parody.
The president’s response to contracting the coronavirus reminds us that, for him, every interaction in life is a test between dominance or submission. It wasn’t that long ago that he was telling governors that they needed to “dominate the streets.” Going back to 2017, Josh Marshall understood better than anyone when he wrote that “Trump lives in a psychic economy of aggression and domination.”
But this isn’t just another indication of the president’s mental health issues. It is also what animates his supporters. That’s why “owning the libs” has become a rallying cry on the right. As Eve Peyser explained in Rolling Stone, “To ‘own’ someone on the internet is to dominate and humiliate them, and the ‘libs’ can loosely be defined as anyone to the left of Sean Hannity.”
In her book, The Chalice and the Blade, social systems scientist, cultural historian, and attorney Riane Eisler explored “two very different ways of relating, viewing the world, and living in it,” which she identified as the partnership model and the domination model. After studying cultures worldwide, Eisler concluded that conventional differences such as religious versus secular, right versus left, East versus West, and developed versus developing don’t capture the trend towards authoritarianism because they fail to distinguish those that rely on domination backed by fear and force. That is the tie that binds Stalin’s Russia to Hitler’s Germany, as just one example.
What we are witnessing in this country (and other places around the world) is a resurgence of dominance and a rise in authoritarianism. At the heart of that are Christian nationalists who, imbued in patriarchy, view all relationships as hierarchical, insisting that men must submit to God, women must submit to men, and children must submit to their parents. Here is Eisler talking about how that weaves dominance and control into gender stereotypes.
In dominator cultures, to accuse a man of exhibiting stereotypes commonly associated with femininity is the ultimate insult. So, for example, when Tomi Lahren responded to Biden’s insistence on wearing a mask by tweeting that he might as well carry it in a purse, she was “owning a lib” with the ultimate put-down: he’s a wimp, just like a girl.
As journalist and author Katherine Stewart pointed out, Trump’s embrace of dominance makes him the leader Christian nationalists have been seeking.
As the Trump presidency falls under siege on multiple fronts, it has become increasingly clear that the so-called values voters will be among the last to leave the citadel. A lot of attention has been paid to the supposed paradox of evangelicals backing such an imperfect man, but the real problem is that our idea of Christian nationalism hasn’t caught up with the reality. We still buy the line that the hard core of the Christian right is just an interest group working to protect its values. But what we don’t get is that Mr. Trump’s supposedly anti-Christian attributes and anti-democratic attributes are a vital part of his attraction… Today’s Christian nationalists talk a good game about respecting the Constitution and America’s founders, but at bottom, they sound as if they prefer autocrats to democrats…This isn’t the religious right we thought we knew. The Christian nationalist movement today is authoritarian, paranoid and patriarchal at its core. They aren’t fighting a culture war. They’re making a direct attack on democracy itself.
This country’s grand experiment with democracy was an attempt to break away from a long history of autocratic kings who ruled via dominance. But it’s been a work in progress for almost 250 years because the marriage between patriarchy and dominance has been an immense challenge to overcome. From labor rights to women’s rights to civil rights, every social justice movement has been rooted in the power of partnership and taken direct aim at the dominance of rich white men.
The reason that Barack Obama’s presidency ignited a backlash of dominance is not merely because he was our first African-American president. Perhaps due to his history as a community organizer, his entire world view was shaped by the power of partnership. That is why, when it became clear that we were in the midst of a pandemic, I pinned this quote from his 2009 speech in Cairo, which captures this pandemic moment so perfectly, to the top of my Twitter feed.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk…That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and, yes, religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.
For eight years, Obama challenged the dominance of white patriarchy. The backlash delivered a delusional president who has convinced his supporters that manly men can ignore science and dominate a virus. The inflection point we face as a country is whether we will continue perfecting our union via democratic processes that demonstrate the power of partnership.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-08--John Roberts Ponders Partisanship. (Cue the groans.)

If Fate has a sense of humor , it amused itself Monday at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts .
The Chief and his seven associates began the 2020-21 Term ( without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ) .
Their first case presented an argument about bipartisanship and political neutrality on the bench .
Technically , the question is whether Delaware can forbid partisan capture of its judicial branch .
But because it is 2020 , that question echoed on the live feed like lines from a Harold Pinter play where even innocuous phrases carry a hidden meaning .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mind .
Roberts tries to maintain an image of the Court as a neutral body that simply calls “ balls and strikes , ” as he famously said in his 2005 confirmation hearings .
Meanwhile , his party has proclaimed partisan domination of the courts as its number one objective—one so paramount that the Senate majority is planning confirmation hearings , with infected members present , that sounds like a remake of Edgar Allan Poe ’ s “ Masque of the Red Death.
” The Republican president explains without shame that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court to prevail in any election dispute .
At stake in Carney v. Adams are two provisions of the Delaware Constitution : one says that no political party can hold more than a “ bare majority ” of the judges on any of the top five state courts ( the “ bare majority ” rule ) —meaning , for example , that on the five-member state supreme court , no more than three judges can belong to the same party ; the second requires every appointee to the top three courts—the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the court of common pleas—to be either a Republican or a Democrat , but not an Independent or third-party member ( the “ major party ” rule ) .
The “ bare majority rule ” was created when the state rewrote its constitution in 1897 .
At that time , the Democratic Party had held the governorship for 30 years .
( One Republican was elected during that stretch but died after a year and a half in office . )
Delegates to the state convention charged that the bench had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cronies .
As the “ bare majority ” rule took effect over the next half-century , Delaware ’ s state courts become the most important corporate courts in America , and Delaware became our Cayman Islands , a banking hub .
Part of the reason was the state ’ s business-friendly corporate statutes , but another part was their growing reputation for efficient , fair settlement of disputes .
In 1951 , the state legislature ( which can amend the state constitution on its own ) added to the “ bare majority ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the top courts must belong to one major party or the other .
The reason , the current Governor John Carney , a Democrat , explained in his brief in Monday ’ s case , was to prevent an overreaching governor from dominating the courts by appointing “ Independents ” who had until recently been fellow partisans .
In 2017 , a Delaware lawyer named James R. Adams challenged both requirements in federal court .
Adams , a disillusioned Democrat , supported Bernie Sanders and then became an Independent .
Thus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the top courts .
This , he argued , violated his First Amendment rights of speech and association .
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held both rules unconstitutional .
When the Supreme Court accepted the case in 2019 , it attracted briefs from First Amendment heavyweights on both sides .
Refreshingly , there ’ s no clear “ liberal ” or “ conservative ” position .
Delaware was represented by Michael McConnell , a conservative Stanford professor appointed to the Tenth Circuit by George W. Bush and resigned in 2009 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , spoke for Adams .
“ Delaware ’ s courts are widely regarded as the least partisan and most professional in the nation , ” McConnell said on behalf of the state .
“ [ T ] he Delaware provisions serve a compelling interest in creating a uniquely balanced and nonpartisan judiciary.
” The rank partisanship across the U.S. of the past two decades makes that “ balance ” particularly important , he added later .
Delaware has become a solid-blue state ( the last Republican statewide officeholder , state auditor Tom Wagner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without the “ bare majority ” rule , the Court would probably consist of five Democrats .
That would have unbalanced the Court to the left , he implied .
In case the Justices hadn ’ t noticed , McConnell pointed out , “ today the most liberal Republican is at least similar to but , you know , probably more conservative than the most conservative Democrat ” —a particularly Pinteresque statement .
As each of the Justices knows well , that polarization has been true of their Court at least since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2010 .
McConnell ’ s argument seemed to leave the justices two unappealing choices : either affirm that Delaware ’ s courts are fairer than they would be without political balance—a balance the federal courts conspicuously lack–or rule for Adams and insist that the Constitution requires Delaware ’ s judicial nominations to be the spoils of partisan warfare—the warfare that has consumed appointments to the federal courts .
A few of the Justices seemed interested in a third option : flushing the case on technical grounds .
Adams hadn ’ t actually applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” judgeships , several justices pointed out—so why should he have “ standing to sue ” at being excluded from jobs he never sought ?
“ For at least three of the five courts , he can ’ t even apply , ” Finger responded to Roberts .
“ [ O ] r he can apply , but what ’ s the point ?
” After the argument , the Justices seemed to be leaning toward one of two alternatives : either strike the entire case on “ standing ” grounds , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is , or strike down the “ major party ” rule but leaving the “ bare majority ” rule in place .
McConnell concluded his argument by saying that the authors of the two rules “ wanted the judiciary to remain stable , balanced , and nonpartisan , even when elections go all for one party for a period of time .
Now their decision has survived the test of fire .
For the last 27 years , one party has held both the governorship and the Senate in Delaware , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is a remarkable achievement.
” No one said , “ I wonder if the federal courts can say the same.
” But I am not the only person who wondered .
Whatever they decide about the “ First State , ” few observers today would call this Court “ non-partisan.
” On Monday night after argument , without comment , the Justices blocked part of a lower court order that would have made it easier to vote in South Carolina—an order that would have helped the campaign of Democratic challenger Jaime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Senator Lindsey Graham .
By my count , that marks seven emergency appeals on voting disputes the Court has intervened in ; score to date , Republican 6 , Democrats 1 .
Meanwhile , across First St N.E .
from the Court , Senate Republicans were working into the night to ensure that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed before the voters can say boo about it .
After all , those balls and strikes aren ’ t going to call themselves .

If Fate has a sense of humor, it amused itself Monday at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief and his seven associates began the 2020-21 Term (without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Their first case presented an argument about bipartisanship and political neutrality on the bench.
Technically, the question is whether Delaware can forbid partisan capture of its judicial branch. But because it is 2020, that question echoed on the live feed like lines from a Harold Pinter play where even innocuous phrases carry a hidden meaning. No one talks about what is on everyone’s mind.
Roberts tries to maintain an image of the Court as a neutral body that simply calls “balls and strikes,” as he famously said in his 2005 confirmation hearings. Meanwhile, his party has proclaimed partisan domination of the courts as its number one objective—one so paramount that the Senate majority is planning confirmation hearings, with infected members present, that sounds like a remake of Edgar Allan Poe’s “Masque of the Red Death.” The Republican president explains without shame that he needs a 6-3 Republican majority on the Court to prevail in any election dispute.
At stake in Carney v. Adams are two provisions of the Delaware Constitution: one says that no political party can hold more than a “bare majority” of the judges on any of the top five state courts (the “bare majority” rule)—meaning, for example, that on the five-member state supreme court, no more than three judges can belong to the same party; the second requires every appointee to the top three courts—the state supreme court, the court of chancery, and the court of common pleas—to be either a Republican or a Democrat, but not an Independent or third-party member (the “major party” rule).
The “bare majority rule” was created when the state rewrote its constitution in 1897. At that time, the Democratic Party had held the governorship for 30 years. (One Republican was elected during that stretch but died after a year and a half in office.) Delegates to the state convention charged that the bench had become a dumping ground for partisans and cronies. As the “bare majority” rule took effect over the next half-century, Delaware’s state courts become the most important corporate courts in America, and Delaware became our Cayman Islands, a banking hub. Part of the reason was the state’s business-friendly corporate statutes, but another part was their growing reputation for efficient, fair settlement of disputes. In 1951, the state legislature (which can amend the state constitution on its own) added to the “bare majority” rule a new dictum that each judge on the top courts must belong to one major party or the other. The reason, the current Governor John Carney, a Democrat, explained in his brief in Monday’s case, was to prevent an overreaching governor from dominating the courts by appointing “Independents” who had until recently been fellow partisans.
In 2017, a Delaware lawyer named James R. Adams challenged both requirements in federal court. Adams, a disillusioned Democrat, supported Bernie Sanders and then became an Independent. Thus, he was not eligible for any seat on the top courts. This, he argued, violated his First Amendment rights of speech and association. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held both rules unconstitutional.
When the Supreme Court accepted the case in 2019, it attracted briefs from First Amendment heavyweights on both sides. Refreshingly, there’s no clear “liberal” or “conservative” position. Delaware was represented by Michael McConnell, a conservative Stanford professor appointed to the Tenth Circuit by George W. Bush and resigned in 2009. David Finger, a prominent Delaware lawyer, spoke for Adams.
“Delaware’s courts are widely regarded as the least partisan and most professional in the nation,” McConnell said on behalf of the state. “[T]he Delaware provisions serve a compelling interest in creating a uniquely balanced and nonpartisan judiciary.” The rank partisanship across the U.S. of the past two decades makes that “balance” particularly important, he added later. Delaware has become a solid-blue state (the last Republican statewide officeholder, state auditor Tom Wagner, left office in 2019). Without the “bare majority” rule, the Court would probably consist of five Democrats. That would have unbalanced the Court to the left, he implied.
In case the Justices hadn’t noticed, McConnell pointed out, “today the most liberal Republican is at least similar to but, you know, probably more conservative than the most conservative Democrat”—a particularly Pinteresque statement. As each of the Justices knows well, that polarization has been true of their Court at least since the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010.
McConnell’s argument seemed to leave the justices two unappealing choices: either affirm that Delaware’s courts are fairer than they would be without political balance—a balance the federal courts conspicuously lack–or rule for Adams and insist that the Constitution requires Delaware’s judicial nominations to be the spoils of partisan warfare—the warfare that has consumed appointments to the federal courts. A few of the Justices seemed interested in a third option: flushing the case on technical grounds. Adams hadn’t actually applied for any of the “major party” judgeships, several justices pointed out—so why should he have “standing to sue” at being excluded from jobs he never sought? “For at least three of the five courts, he can’t even apply,” Finger responded to Roberts. “[O]r he can apply, but what’s the point?”
After the argument, the Justices seemed to be leaning toward one of two alternatives: either strike the entire case on “standing” grounds, which would leave the Delaware peculiar system as it is, or strike down the “major party” rule but leaving the “bare majority” rule in place.
McConnell concluded his argument by saying that the authors of the two rules “wanted the judiciary to remain stable, balanced, and nonpartisan, even when elections go all for one party for a period of time. Now their decision has survived the test of fire. For the last 27 years, one party has held both the governorship and the Senate in Delaware, but the courts have remained balanced and nonpartisan. That is a remarkable achievement.”
No one said, “I wonder if the federal courts can say the same.” But I am not the only person who wondered.
Whatever they decide about the “First State,” few observers today would call this Court “non-partisan.” On Monday night after argument, without comment, the Justices blocked part of a lower court order that would have made it easier to vote in South Carolina—an order that would have helped the campaign of Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison and hurt the re-election chances of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. By my count, that marks seven emergency appeals on voting disputes the Court has intervened in; score to date, Republican 6, Democrats 1.
Meanwhile, across First St N.E. from the Court, Senate Republicans were working into the night to ensure that Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed before the voters can say boo about it.
After all, those balls and strikes aren’t going to call themselves.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-08--Pence Was Pretty Good. Harris Was Better.

It was historic .
The vice presidential debate was the first between an African-American woman and a Vulcan , and an albino Vulcan at that .
To be fair , Mike Pence ’ s annoyance through the evening was very un-Spock .
That irritability didn ’ t yield what needed to be a great performance to alter the election trajectory .
For her part , Kamala Harris conducted herself with poise , clarity , and deft evasion .
When she said in her first answer , “ Here are the facts , ” the former prosecutor offered the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden displayed in their scrum .
Many precise hand gestures and competent pivots to what she wanted to discuss , like Amy Coney Barrett and the Affordable Care Act instead of Amy Coney Barrett and abortion .
Like the veep ’ s office itself , vice presidential debates are second-tier , ill-defined , and kind of an appendage .
They ’ re not the “ warm bucket of piss ” in the famed phrase of Franklin Roosevelt ’ ’ s first running mate , John Nance Garner , about the office he won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not election turning .
Bob Dole ’ s jab about “ Democrat Wars ” triggered a backlash in 1976 .
( Yes , sounds quaint now . )
But it didn ’ t end Gerald Ford ’ s campaign .
And Dan Quayle not only lost the you ’ re-no-Jack-Kennedy exchange but was lame enough to have compared himself to JFK .
That cringe-worthy moment didn ’ t doom George H.W .
Bush ’ s march to the White House .
There were no screw-ups on that order at the Pence-Harris debate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
If anything , many Republicans and Democrats must be wondering why Harris and Pence aren ’ t topping their ticket of choice .
For Harris , one challenge was to seem ready to step into the Oval Office and not seem like the radical GOP caricature .
She did well on both counts , defending fracking like Pennsylvania pol instead of a Brentwood one .
Her prosecutor ’ s brief against Trump ’ s cozying up to dictators was more elegant and practical than Pence ’ s quip that Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and it made her look stronger .
Pence ’ s charge was to change the weather , which is a lot to ask of one Hoosier .
He had to upend the dynamics of this race , and he couldn ’ t do it .
No veep really could .
His brief was much better than Trump ’ s Catskills cavalcade of insults in the first debate .
Yes , his argument against Biden/Harris had its moments .
The two Democrats haven ’ t been consistent on fracking .
Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – but it ’ s not a satisfying one .
By contrast , Pence ’ s strengths as a former radio broadcaster , congressman , and governor helped him a lot in his 2016 debate with Sen. Tim Kaine .
That face-off reminded me of Dick Cheney , who took apart the supposedly silver-tongued John Edwards in the2004 vice presidential debate and dispatched Joe Lieberman in 2000 .
Sometimes dull and pissy is winning .
But this time , it just didn ’ t play as well for Pence .
Maybe it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tired reddish hampster eyes , or the duty to defend the indefensible .
Pence is unctuous , where Cheney is grouchy .
I once asked a very stiff southern congressman what they thought of Pence .
“ He ’ s a stiff , ” the stiff congressman replied .
Pence ’ s capacity to keep Trump from never having blown up at him shows a lot of obsequiousness .
( A “ poodle.
” said George F .
Will . )
But Pence has a certain EQ ( Emotional Intelligence ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his tightly-wound demeanor might not suggest .
This time he showed some excellent EQ–the tip of the hat to the friendship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg , acknowledging Harris ’ s “ historic ” candidacy , and thanks for their good wishes for Trump during his illness .
That bit of ( artificial ) bonhomie goes a long way , and Harris probably should have tossed some bouquet to his beautiful family .
But Pence ’ s attempts to administer the stiletto never really hit an organ .
Calling Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was lame .
Panders to fracking , dairy farming in the upper Midwest , and Catholics were too pandering .
Sometimes the targeted appeal lands with precision , but these were more napalm .
Pence ’ s efforts to imply that Biden/Harris would hike middle-class taxes weren ’ t artfully done as they could have been .
And he left some money on the table : Harris never used the phrase Green New Deal .
Pence could have hit her on that sidestep .
Many MSM reporters applauded Susan Page afterward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist and Washington fixture .
( I like her , too . )
But c ’ mon .
Her questions were probing , and her delivery was appealing , maybe even soothing .
But she allowed Pence to violate the rules every single time .
Even after the Chris Wallace debacle , Page and , by extension , the presidential debate commission , couldn ’ t find a way to take control even knowing bullies loomed .
It was an abdication of responsibility when Trump was allowed to filibuster , and the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a human face .
The White Man hogged time like The Orange Man .
Personal confession : I spent some time with Mike Pence in 2005 when he tried to push through a shield law to protect journalists ’ confidential sources .
His background as a radio host and perhaps ambitions for higher office made him a friend to the press .
( Again , a quaint memory . )
Since I was involved in a court case about confidential sources , he and I both testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is gone , of course .
But I confess to having a certain admiration for him at the time .
Way to the right , yes , but with a certain go-his-own-way quality .
He ’ s much-derided .
( See my lead . )
But someone who was raised an Irish-Catholic Democrat and has become an Evangelical Republican and has risen from a middle-class background to the vice presidency is a formidable and very American figure .
Harris ’ s journey to the debate stage is , of course , much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swift path from Oakland to Howard University and back to the Bay Area , where her rise was brisk in a region not hurting for aspiring politicians .
In the Democratic Primary debates , she landed a blow on Biden with that school busing riposte .
But she wasn ’ t ready for Day Two when Biden pushed back .
She never had a great moment save for that .
( Tulsi Gabbard drew blood when she went after Harris on drug crimes . )
Harris showed tremendous growth since the Spring .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adroit–and , yes , evasive .
Harris didn ’ t need to be that good .
She was .

It was historic. The vice presidential debate was the first between an African-American woman and a Vulcan, and an albino Vulcan at that.
To be fair, Mike Pence’s annoyance through the evening was very un-Spock. That irritability didn’t yield what needed to be a great performance to alter the election trajectory. For her part, Kamala Harris conducted herself with poise, clarity, and deft evasion. When she said in her first answer, “Here are the facts,” the former prosecutor offered the kind of clarity that neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden displayed in their scrum. Many precise hand gestures and competent pivots to what she wanted to discuss, like Amy Coney Barrett and the Affordable Care Act instead of Amy Coney Barrett and abortion.
Like the veep’s office itself, vice presidential debates are second-tier, ill-defined, and kind of an appendage. They’re not the “warm bucket of piss” in the famed phrase of Franklin Roosevelt’’s first running mate, John Nance Garner, about the office he won. But they’re lesser, not election turning. Bob Dole’s jab about “Democrat Wars” triggered a backlash in 1976. (Yes, sounds quaint now.) But it didn’t end Gerald Ford’s campaign. And Dan Quayle not only lost the you’re-no-Jack-Kennedy exchange but was lame enough to have compared himself to JFK. That cringe-worthy moment didn’t doom George H.W. Bush’s march to the White House.
There were no screw-ups on that order at the Pence-Harris debate and nothing that’ll decisively change the election. If anything, many Republicans and Democrats must be wondering why Harris and Pence aren’t topping their ticket of choice.
For Harris, one challenge was to seem ready to step into the Oval Office and not seem like the radical GOP caricature. She did well on both counts, defending fracking like Pennsylvania pol instead of a Brentwood one. Her prosecutor’s brief against Trump’s cozying up to dictators was more elegant and practical than Pence’s quip that Biden has been a “cheerleader of Communist China,” and it made her look stronger.
Pence’s charge was to change the weather, which is a lot to ask of one Hoosier. He had to upend the dynamics of this race, and he couldn’t do it. No veep really could. His brief was much better than Trump’s Catskills cavalcade of insults in the first debate. Yes, his argument against Biden/Harris had its moments. The two Democrats haven’t been consistent on fracking. Biden and Harris have a court-packing answer–It depends!– but it’s not a satisfying one.
By contrast, Pence’s strengths as a former radio broadcaster, congressman, and governor helped him a lot in his 2016 debate with Sen. Tim Kaine. That face-off reminded me of Dick Cheney, who took apart the supposedly silver-tongued John Edwards in the2004 vice presidential debate and dispatched Joe Lieberman in 2000. Sometimes dull and pissy is winning.
But this time, it just didn’t play as well for Pence. Maybe it was the weird fly on his head, the tired reddish hampster eyes, or the duty to defend the indefensible. Pence is unctuous, where Cheney is grouchy. I once asked a very stiff southern congressman what they thought of Pence. “He’s a stiff,” the stiff congressman replied.
Pence’s capacity to keep Trump from never having blown up at him shows a lot of obsequiousness. (A “poodle.” said George F. Will.) But Pence has a certain EQ (Emotional Intelligence), an ability to read the room, that his tightly-wound demeanor might not suggest. This time he showed some excellent EQ–the tip of the hat to the friendship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, acknowledging Harris’s “historic” candidacy, and thanks for their good wishes for Trump during his illness. That bit of (artificial) bonhomie goes a long way, and Harris probably should have tossed some bouquet to his beautiful family.
But Pence’s attempts to administer the stiletto never really hit an organ. Calling Biden “a cheerleader for Communist China,” was lame. Panders to fracking, dairy farming in the upper Midwest, and Catholics were too pandering. Sometimes the targeted appeal lands with precision, but these were more napalm. Pence’s efforts to imply that Biden/Harris would hike middle-class taxes weren’t artfully done as they could have been. And he left some money on the table: Harris never used the phrase Green New Deal. Pence could have hit her on that sidestep.
Many MSM reporters applauded Susan Page afterward, befitting her likeability and talents as a journalist and Washington fixture. (I like her, too.) But c’mon. Her questions were probing, and her delivery was appealing, maybe even soothing. But she allowed Pence to violate the rules every single time. Even after the Chris Wallace debacle, Page and, by extension, the presidential debate commission, couldn’t find a way to take control even knowing bullies loomed. It was an abdication of responsibility when Trump was allowed to filibuster, and the same was true of Pence’s Trumpism with a human face. The White Man hogged time like The Orange Man.
Personal confession: I spent some time with Mike Pence in 2005 when he tried to push through a shield law to protect journalists’ confidential sources. His background as a radio host and perhaps ambitions for higher office made him a friend to the press. (Again, a quaint memory.) Since I was involved in a court case about confidential sources, he and I both testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the bill. The press-admiring Pence is gone, of course. But I confess to having a certain admiration for him at the time. Way to the right, yes, but with a certain go-his-own-way quality. He’s much-derided. (See my lead.) But someone who was raised an Irish-Catholic Democrat and has become an Evangelical Republican and has risen from a middle-class background to the vice presidency is a formidable and very American figure.
Harris’s journey to the debate stage is, of course, much more captivating and impressive. She beat a swift path from Oakland to Howard University and back to the Bay Area, where her rise was brisk in a region not hurting for aspiring politicians. In the Democratic Primary debates, she landed a blow on Biden with that school busing riposte. But she wasn’t ready for Day Two when Biden pushed back. She never had a great moment save for that. (Tulsi Gabbard drew blood when she went after Harris on drug crimes.) Harris showed tremendous growth since the Spring. Tonight she seemed more assured, presidential, adroit–and, yes, evasive. Harris didn’t need to be that good. She was.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-08--What Joe Biden Could Learn From Abraham Lincoln About White-Collar Crime

Elizabeth Holmes .
Roger Stone .
Michael Cohen .
Bumble Bee Foods .
Purdue Pharma .
Deutsche Bank .
They have something in common .
Each was charged with white-collar criminal offenses , a category that many consider to be a “ victimless ” crime .
And each has treated prosecution as persecution .
This perpetrator-as-victim posture has been fairly successful for affluent individuals and powerful businesses in a criminal justice system that often ignores or erases the actual victims of white-collar crime .
Holmes , a Stanford University dropout who built her endlessly lauded blood-testing firm Theranos into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foundation of lies , fawning funders , falsified blood tests and financial reports , settled civil charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2018 .
Following that , the oft-photographed wunderkind was indicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy .
She pleaded not guilty and is out on bail , awaiting her criminal trial , which was scheduled to start this October .
It ’ s been indefinitely postponed due to the coronavirus .
A close associate revealed that “ Elizabeth sees herself as the victim.
” In February , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s longtime ally , Roger Stone , to more than three years in prison after a jury convicted him on seven felony counts , including witness tampering , obstruction , and lying to Congress ( a violation of the False Statements Act ) .
These are all go-to-tools for a federal prosecutor where evidence of a more complex crime is well-hidden .
Recall that Martha Stewart was convicted of both obstruction and making false statements .
She was not even charged with insider trading .
In commuting Stone ’ s sentence this July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a “ victim ” of a politically motivated investigation .
This August , the Justice Department demanded $ 6.2 billion to settle criminal claims against Purdue Pharma related to OxyContin –– the opioid that at one time represented 90 percent of the company ’ s sales .
( Just this week , news broke they are nearing a settlement . )
Back in 2007 , Purdue and three executives entered guilty pleas for illegally misbranding .
The firm pled to a felony and paid a fine , but the managers only to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Purdue continued to push OxyContin , earning more than $ 35 billion selling the “ less addictive ” painkiller .
The owners , the Sackler family , took home $ 14 billion .
Despite the apparent repeat offending , CEO Richard Sackler claims he has been unfairly “ pilloried ” by the press .
In June , Christopher Lischewski , the former CEO of Bumble Bee , was sentenced to 40 months in prison and ordered to pay a small fine in connection with a canned tuna price-fixing conspiracy involving rivals StarKist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company also pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $ 25 million fine .
Lischewski asserted that “ I was found guilty of a crime I did not commit and a crime where there is no victim.
” This winter , the president granted clemency to a slew of mainly affluent felons .
Their offenses ?
Bribery , investment fraud , tax evasion , Medicare fraud , public corruption , an extortion cover‑up , money laundering , conspiracy to defraud the federal government , obstruction of justice , mail fraud , wire fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ successful ” four times to describe those receiving pardons but made no mention of their victims .
Who are the victims ?
Let ’ s start with Holmes .
According to the indictment , in one fraud scheme , the alleged victims were Theranos investors , and for the other : doctors and patients .
The government described one patient who received a lab report falsely stating that he was HIV-positive .
Another was given a test result that said she was not pregnant , only to learn from another lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet in February , the judge ruled that allegations that Holmes had defrauded doctors could not go forward .
The only patients who can be counted in the defrauding case were those who paid for their blood tests out of pocket , not those with insurance coverage .
As for Purdue , the pharmaceutical at the center of the opioid epidemic , victims include a share of the 232,000 Americans who died of prescription opioid overdoes between 1999 and 2018 .
Thousands of these addicts initially were prescribed OxyContin based on misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each new patient was allegedly worth around $ 200,000 to Purdue .
The addicts paid the price in prison or with their lives .
Surrounding communities also suffered the ravages from crime .
The damage from a drug manufacturer extends in insidious ways .
“ Eliminated ” diseases like measles re-emerged because too many parents believe vaccines are unsafe .
The anti-vaxxers ’ irrational skepticism stems in part from an understandable mistrust of Big Pharma , a more salient concern as we pin our hopes on a coronavirus vaccine to help us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The harm goes beyond these examples .
White collar crime in America , such as fraud and embezzlement , costs victims an estimated $ 300 billion to $ 800 billion per year .
Yet street-level “ property ” crimes , including burglary , larceny , and theft , cost far less— around $ 16 billion annually , according to the FBI .
A 2019 Federal Trade Commission report estimated that in 2017 , around 40 million Americans fell prey to mass-market consumer fraud schemes .
But no government agency measures and reports full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to piece it together .
Even the science of victimology , devoted to studying individuals and communities harmed by crime , neglects white-collar crime victims .
A rare survey from 2010 of 2,500 adults revealed that nearly a quarter of households had been victimized by white-collar crime .
Even when victims are revealed , it ’ s easy to get distracted by the money , audacity , and even the glamour of elite offenders .
Theranos ’ s Holmes ’ s blonde hair , raspy voice , and Steve Jobs-style black turtlenecks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deceptions .
Researchers and readers long to get inside the minds of sophisticated con artists .
Hearing stories about ordinary victims , not so much .
Victims come in all shapes and sizes .
The elderly couple who loses nearly their entire life savings to a trusted big-shot money manager running a Ponzi scheme .
The honest local storefront business that can not stay afloat in the face of competitors who peddle shoddy goods online and are nowhere to be found for refunds .
Think of the trustworthy employees who refuse to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired workers whose pension fund is plundered by corporate mismanagement .
In a city where money launderers do a lot of cash sales , home prices become inflated .
The launderers overpay for properties because they don ’ t care about the value , or they get cash kickbacks from the complicit sellers .
These inflated prices make it harder for families to try to buy into the market .
In that Hollywood scam to get rich kids into college , all the attention goes to the actors who committed fraud , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior rejected from college because a classmate ’ s family paid off a coach to gain admission .
What can be done ?
Measurement and exposure of white-collar offenders is the place to start .
We can help protect victims by establishing a nationwide registry of offending individuals and businesses , including those who have settled civil charges with federal agencies .
Congress should provide funding without content control to independent journalists and ban forced arbitration of workplace legal disputes ( which help discourage both resisting unlawful orders and whistleblowing ) .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Claims Act , which gives special standing to regular people to bring legal cases on behalf of the U.S. against corrupt government contractors .
Once known as “ Lincoln ’ s Law , ” it originally targeted businesses that were using wartime shortages to overcharge and provide shoddy goods , including poorly made uniforms to the federal government .
Enhanced greatly beginning in the mid-1980s , the FCA allows an ordinary person to start a case for the government and collect a bounty fee even if they have not been harmed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company in question .
The Justice Department can take over the case as a civil or criminal matter if it wishes , or pass and let the private party pursue the matter directly .
In 2014 , the high-water mark for False Claims Act settlements , the Department of Justice recovered $ 5.69 billion , $ 3 billion of which were cases initiated by whistleblowers .
A carefully tailored expansion of the False Claims law could give standing to ordinary people ( whether employees or consumers ) to bring cases on behalf of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public .
This would go a long way to empowering victims directly .
But we need much more action than that .
To stem the current white-collar crime epidemic , we must change our mindset and put our resources toward protecting the public .
Curing this problem and inoculating the public could be a perfect day one project for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and prove to be a lasting legacy .

Elizabeth Holmes. Roger Stone. Michael Cohen. Bumble Bee Foods. Purdue Pharma. Deutsche Bank. They have something in common. Each was charged with white-collar criminal offenses, a category that many consider to be a “victimless” crime. And each has treated prosecution as persecution. This perpetrator-as-victim posture has been fairly successful for affluent individuals and powerful businesses in a criminal justice system that often ignores or erases the actual victims of white-collar crime.
Holmes, a Stanford University dropout who built her endlessly lauded blood-testing firm Theranos into a $9 billion market valuation on a foundation of lies, fawning funders, falsified blood tests and financial reports, settled civil charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2018. Following that, the oft-photographed wunderkind was indicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy. She pleaded not guilty and is out on bail, awaiting her criminal trial, which was scheduled to start this October. It’s been indefinitely postponed due to the coronavirus. A close associate revealed that “Elizabeth sees herself as the victim.”
In February, a federal judge sentenced Donald Trump’s longtime ally, Roger Stone, to more than three years in prison after a jury convicted him on seven felony counts, including witness tampering, obstruction, and lying to Congress (a violation of the False Statements Act). These are all go-to-tools for a federal prosecutor where evidence of a more complex crime is well-hidden. Recall that Martha Stewart was convicted of both obstruction and making false statements. She was not even charged with insider trading. In commuting Stone’s sentence this July, the president said that Republican operative was a “victim” of a politically motivated investigation.
This August, the Justice Department demanded $6.2 billion to settle criminal claims against Purdue Pharma related to OxyContin –– the opioid that at one time represented 90 percent of the company’s sales. (Just this week, news broke they are nearing a settlement.) Back in 2007, Purdue and three executives entered guilty pleas for illegally misbranding. The firm pled to a felony and paid a fine, but the managers only to misdemeanors and served no prison time. Purdue continued to push OxyContin, earning more than $35 billion selling the “less addictive” painkiller. The owners, the Sackler family, took home $14 billion. Despite the apparent repeat offending, CEO Richard Sackler claims he has been unfairly “pilloried” by the press.
In June, Christopher Lischewski, the former CEO of Bumble Bee, was sentenced to 40 months in prison and ordered to pay a small fine in connection with a canned tuna price-fixing conspiracy involving rivals StarKist and Chicken of the Sea International. The company also pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $25 million fine. Lischewski asserted that “I was found guilty of a crime I did not commit and a crime where there is no victim.”
This winter, the president granted clemency to a slew of mainly affluent felons. Their offenses? Bribery, investment fraud, tax evasion, Medicare fraud, public corruption, an extortion cover‑up, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the federal government, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud. The White House announcement used the word “successful” four times to describe those receiving pardons but made no mention of their victims.
Who are the victims?
Let’s start with Holmes. According to the indictment, in one fraud scheme, the alleged victims were Theranos investors, and for the other: doctors and patients. The government described one patient who received a lab report falsely stating that he was HIV-positive. Another was given a test result that said she was not pregnant, only to learn from another lab that she had a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. Yet in February, the judge ruled that allegations that Holmes had defrauded doctors could not go forward. The only patients who can be counted in the defrauding case were those who paid for their blood tests out of pocket, not those with insurance coverage.
As for Purdue, the pharmaceutical at the center of the opioid epidemic, victims include a share of the 232,000 Americans who died of prescription opioid overdoes between 1999 and 2018. Thousands of these addicts initially were prescribed OxyContin based on misleading marketing to physicians. They got hooked. Each new patient was allegedly worth around $200,000 to Purdue. The addicts paid the price in prison or with their lives. Surrounding communities also suffered the ravages from crime.
The damage from a drug manufacturer extends in insidious ways. “Eliminated” diseases like measles re-emerged because too many parents believe vaccines are unsafe. The anti-vaxxers’ irrational skepticism stems in part from an understandable mistrust of Big Pharma, a more salient concern as we pin our hopes on a coronavirus vaccine to help us return to a semblance of normalcy.
The harm goes beyond these examples. White collar crime in America, such as fraud and embezzlement, costs victims an estimated $300 billion to $800 billion per year. Yet street-level “property” crimes, including burglary, larceny, and theft, cost far less— around $16 billion annually, according to the FBI. A 2019 Federal Trade Commission report estimated that in 2017, around 40 million Americans fell prey to mass-market consumer fraud schemes. But no government agency measures and reports full white-collar crime statistics. Individual private researchers try to piece it together.
Even the science of victimology, devoted to studying individuals and communities harmed by crime, neglects white-collar crime victims. A rare survey from 2010 of 2,500 adults revealed that nearly a quarter of households had been victimized by white-collar crime. Even when victims are revealed, it’s easy to get distracted by the money, audacity, and even the glamour of elite offenders. Theranos’s Holmes’s blonde hair, raspy voice, and Steve Jobs-style black turtlenecks were endlessly scrutinized as much as her deceptions. Researchers and readers long to get inside the minds of sophisticated con artists. Hearing stories about ordinary victims, not so much.
Victims come in all shapes and sizes. The elderly couple who loses nearly their entire life savings to a trusted big-shot money manager running a Ponzi scheme. The honest local storefront business that cannot stay afloat in the face of competitors who peddle shoddy goods online and are nowhere to be found for refunds. Think of the trustworthy employees who refuse to follow unlawful orders and get fired or the retired workers whose pension fund is plundered by corporate mismanagement. In a city where money launderers do a lot of cash sales, home prices become inflated. The launderers overpay for properties because they don’t care about the value, or they get cash kickbacks from the complicit sellers. These inflated prices make it harder for families to try to buy into the market. In that Hollywood scam to get rich kids into college, all the attention goes to the actors who committed fraud, not to the unknown, hardworking high school senior rejected from college because a classmate’s family paid off a coach to gain admission.
What can be done? Measurement and exposure of white-collar offenders is the place to start. We can help protect victims by establishing a nationwide registry of offending individuals and businesses, including those who have settled civil charges with federal agencies. Congress should provide funding without content control to independent journalists and ban forced arbitration of workplace legal disputes (which help discourage both resisting unlawful orders and whistleblowing).
Most promising would be to expand the False Claims Act, which gives special standing to regular people to bring legal cases on behalf of the U.S. against corrupt government contractors. Once known as “Lincoln’s Law,” it originally targeted businesses that were using wartime shortages to overcharge and provide shoddy goods, including poorly made uniforms to the federal government.
Enhanced greatly beginning in the mid-1980s, the FCA allows an ordinary person to start a case for the government and collect a bounty fee even if they have not been harmed by the misconduct or are an employee of the company in question. The Justice Department can take over the case as a civil or criminal matter if it wishes, or pass and let the private party pursue the matter directly. In 2014, the high-water mark for False Claims Act settlements, the Department of Justice recovered $5.69 billion, $3 billion of which were cases initiated by whistleblowers.
A carefully tailored expansion of the False Claims law could give standing to ordinary people (whether employees or consumers) to bring cases on behalf of the government against businesses that contract with the public. This would go a long way to empowering victims directly. But we need much more action than that. To stem the current white-collar crime epidemic, we must change our mindset and put our resources toward protecting the public. Curing this problem and inoculating the public could be a perfect day one project for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and prove to be a lasting legacy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-08--Is Trump Chickening Out of More Debates?

Thursday afternoon , the campaigns of Donald Trump and Joe Biden sparred over the dates and formats of any future presidential debates .
The Biden camp insisted that they keep to the established schedule , which calls for an October 15 townhall debate in Miami , and a traditional lectern debate on October 22 , in Nashville .
The Trump camp wants the Miami debate delayed to the 22nd , and the third debate rescheduled for the 29th .
The dispute began on Thursday morning when Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien issued a combative formal statement announcing that his candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ President Trump won the first debate despite a terrible and biased moderator in Chris Wallace , and everybody knows it .
For the swamp creatures at the Presidential Debate Commission to now rush to Joe Biden ’ s defense by unilaterally canceling an in-person debate is pathetic .
That ’ s not what debates are about or how they ’ re done .
Here are the facts : President Trump will have posted multiple negative tests prior to the debate , so there is no need for this unilateral declaration .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieved without canceling a chance for voters to see both candidates go head to head .
We ’ ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead.
” This confirmed what Trump told Maria Bartiromo of the Fox Business Channel shortly before Stepien ’ s statement : “ I ’ m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate.
” Trump and Stepien , who have both tested positive for COVID-19 , were responding to a decision the Commission on Presidential Debates ( CPD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health advisers at the Cleveland Clinic , to change the format of the second debate : “ In order to protect the health and safety of all involved… the second debate will take the form of a town meeting , in which the candidates would participate from separate remote locations.
” The CPD was formed in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties .
It has organized every presidential and vice-presidential debate since 1988 .
While the CPD has been criticized , especially for making it difficult for third-party candidates to meet their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in stabilizing debate seasons in presidential election years .
The first televised presidential debates occurred in 1960 .
But no debates were held in 1964 , 1968 , and 1972 .
In 1976 , the League of Women Voters organized three debates between President Gerald Ford and former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter , and one debate between vice-presidential candidates Senator Bob Dole and Senator Walter Mondale .
The CPD later adopted this 3:1 formula , and it ’ s been their standard in every election since 2000 .
The most chaotic debate season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the participation of independent candidate John Anderson , a former Republican congressman from Illinois .
The latter gave up his house seat in 1979 to run for the White House .
As a result , the first debate was a one-on-one between Anderson and the Republican Party ’ s nominee , Ronald Reagan .
The second debate was canceled , and the third included Carter but not Anderson .
There was no debate between vice-presidential candidates Mondale and George H.W .
Bush .
The last cycle before the CPD took over , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one vice-presidential debate .
Under the CPD ’ s leadership , the debates have often included both the traditional format where candidates stand at a lectern and answer a moderator ’ s questions and the more informal town hall setting where the candidates field queries from the audience .
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama excelled in the town hall format , while Mitt Romney performed better at a podium .
Having the CPD establish and enforce a standard for debates brings order to the process .
It will often be the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see no advantage in debating or insist on a format that favors them .
After 20 years of a consistent formula , the public knows what to expect , and there ’ s a high cost for any candidate who wants to bow out or set conditions for their participation .
Trump undermined the order of the process in the first debate , after which the CPD responded to his constant interruptions by promising to revisit the rules : Now Trump is testing the costs of non-participation .
While initially refusing to participate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposes to delay that debate a week .
The Biden campaign has rejected this out of hand , with spokeswoman Katie Bedingfield insisting , “ Donald Trump doesn ’ t make the debate schedule ; the Debate Commission does…Trump chose today to pull out of the October 15 debate .
Trump ’ s erratic behavior does not allow him to rewrite the calendar and pick new dates of his choosing.
” If Trump doesn ’ t back down , he ’ ll appear to be ducking a challenge , especially because surveys show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop in the president ’ s poll numbers followed .
Perhaps worst of all , however , is the reasoning behind Trump ’ s decision .
He told Bartiromo there ’ s no reason to change the debate format because “ I don ’ t think I ’ m contagious at all.
” Yet , he quickly changed course and assented to a virtual debate provided that it is delayed .
That ’ s perhaps a reluctant concession to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , which says patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onset of symptoms and as many as 20 days in severe cases .
The second debate is scheduled for October 15 , a mere 12 days after Trump was hospitalized and given treatment consistent with a severe case of COVID-19 .
Necessary precautions suggest Trump should remain isolated past the 15th .
Given that Trump lost the first debate , he may not be eager for more punishment .
The town hall format of the second debate ( whenever it is scheduled ) is not favorable to the strategy he used initially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking to a voter will be more abrasive than when he ’ s talking to a moderator .
For both of these reasons , Trump may be seizing on the CPD decision to avoid future debates he doesn ’ t believe will help his reelection chances .
The problem is , the American people will sense this , and he may lose more from chickening out than he would if he showed up .
The president has no legal obligation to debate , and there is as yet no word on what will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It makes little sense to refuse a virtual debate on the 15th and agree to one on the 22nd .
It ’ s also hard to understand why he ’ d refuse to debate again if a third debate isn ’ t scheduled for the 29th .
Biden has to like how he ’ s positioned .
If Trump backs down , the president will look weak .
Speaking to reporters in Arizona on Thursday , Biden said , “ We don ’ t know what the president ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second.
” Asked what ’ d he do if Trump decides to hold a rally on the 15th instead of debate , Biden wasn ’ t sure how he ’ d react .
Actor Clint Eastwood famously debated an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention , but I ’ m not sure Biden wants to emulate that performance .

Thursday afternoon, the campaigns of Donald Trump and Joe Biden sparred over the dates and formats of any future presidential debates. The Biden camp insisted that they keep to the established schedule, which calls for an October 15 townhall debate in Miami, and a traditional lectern debate on October 22, in Nashville. The Trump camp wants the Miami debate delayed to the 22nd, and the third debate rescheduled for the 29th.
The dispute began on Thursday morning when Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien issued a combative formal statement announcing that his candidate will not participate on October 15.
“President Trump won the first debate despite a terrible and biased moderator in Chris Wallace, and everybody knows it. For the swamp creatures at the Presidential Debate Commission to now rush to Joe Biden’s defense by unilaterally canceling an in-person debate is pathetic. That’s not what debates are about or how they’re done. Here are the facts: President Trump will have posted multiple negative tests prior to the debate, so there is no need for this unilateral declaration. The safety of all involved can easily be achieved without canceling a chance for voters to see both candidates go head to head. We’ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead.”
This confirmed what Trump told Maria Bartiromo of the Fox Business Channel shortly before Stepien’s statement: “I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate.” Trump and Stepien, who have both tested positive for COVID-19, were responding to a decision the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), made in consultation with its health advisers at the Cleveland Clinic, to change the format of the second debate: “In order to protect the health and safety of all involved… the second debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which the candidates would participate from separate remote locations.”
The CPD was formed in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties. It has organized every presidential and vice-presidential debate since 1988. While the CPD has been criticized, especially for making it difficult for third-party candidates to meet their standard for participation, it has succeeded in stabilizing debate seasons in presidential election years.
The first televised presidential debates occurred in 1960. But no debates were held in 1964, 1968, and 1972. In 1976, the League of Women Voters organized three debates between President Gerald Ford and former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, and one debate between vice-presidential candidates Senator Bob Dole and Senator Walter Mondale. The CPD later adopted this 3:1 formula, and it’s been their standard in every election since 2000.
The most chaotic debate season occurred in 1980 when then-President Carter objected to the participation of independent candidate John Anderson, a former Republican congressman from Illinois. The latter gave up his house seat in 1979 to run for the White House. As a result, the first debate was a one-on-one between Anderson and the Republican Party’s nominee, Ronald Reagan. The second debate was canceled, and the third included Carter but not Anderson. There was no debate between vice-presidential candidates Mondale and George H.W. Bush.
The last cycle before the CPD took over, in 1984, had two presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. Under the CPD’s leadership, the debates have often included both the traditional format where candidates stand at a lectern and answer a moderator’s questions and the more informal town hall setting where the candidates field queries from the audience. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama excelled in the town hall format, while Mitt Romney performed better at a podium.
Having the CPD establish and enforce a standard for debates brings order to the process. It will often be the case that one candidate or the other will see no advantage in debating or insist on a format that favors them. After 20 years of a consistent formula, the public knows what to expect, and there’s a high cost for any candidate who wants to bow out or set conditions for their participation.
Trump undermined the order of the process in the first debate, after which the CPD responded to his constant interruptions by promising to revisit the rules:
“Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues,” the CPD said in a statement. “The CPD will be carefully considering the changes that it will adopt and will announce those measures shortly.”
Now Trump is testing the costs of non-participation. While initially refusing to participate in a virtual debate, he now proposes to delay that debate a week. The Biden campaign has rejected this out of hand, with spokeswoman Katie Bedingfield insisting, “Donald Trump doesn’t make the debate schedule; the Debate Commission does…Trump chose today to pull out of the October 15 debate. Trump’s erratic behavior does not allow him to rewrite the calendar and pick new dates of his choosing.”
If Trump doesn’t back down, he’ll appear to be ducking a challenge, especially because surveys show he lost the first debate and a drop in the president’s poll numbers followed.
Perhaps worst of all, however, is the reasoning behind Trump’s decision. He told Bartiromo there’s no reason to change the debate format because “I don’t think I’m contagious at all.”
Yet, he quickly changed course and assented to a virtual debate provided that it is delayed. That’s perhaps a reluctant concession to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which says patients remain contagious for 10 days after the onset of symptoms and as many as 20 days in severe cases. The second debate is scheduled for October 15, a mere 12 days after Trump was hospitalized and given treatment consistent with a severe case of COVID-19. Necessary precautions suggest Trump should remain isolated past the 15th.
Given that Trump lost the first debate, he may not be eager for more punishment. The town hall format of the second debate (whenever it is scheduled) is not favorable to the strategy he used initially, as interrupting Biden while he’s talking to a voter will be more abrasive than when he’s talking to a moderator. For both of these reasons, Trump may be seizing on the CPD decision to avoid future debates he doesn’t believe will help his reelection chances. The problem is, the American people will sense this, and he may lose more from chickening out than he would if he showed up.
The president has no legal obligation to debate, and there is as yet no word on what will happen if he refuses to show up. It makes little sense to refuse a virtual debate on the 15th and agree to one on the 22nd. It’s also hard to understand why he’d refuse to debate again if a third debate isn’t scheduled for the 29th.
Biden has to like how he’s positioned. If Trump backs down, the president will look weak. Speaking to reporters in Arizona on Thursday, Biden said, “We don’t know what the president’s going to do. He changes his mind every second.” Asked what’d he do if Trump decides to hold a rally on the 15th instead of debate, Biden wasn’t sure how he’d react.
Actor Clint Eastwood famously debated an empty chair at the 2012 Republican National Convention, but I’m not sure Biden wants to emulate that performance.