washingtonmonthly--2020-01-19--If the Senate Won’t Call Witnesses, The House Can Do So Again

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a difficult series of decisions to make about the extent and timing of impeachment .
I have argued throughout the process that the House should have considered many more counts of impeachment against Trump ranging from the Russia entanglements to emoluments to obstruction of justice and much more .
I have also argued that there was no particularly good reason to shorten the process , because swing voters wouldn ’ t really believe or care about whether Democrats returned to “ bread and butter issues ” beginning in January .
The Speaker had good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to narrowly focus impeachment on Ukraine and to do it quickly .
There is no point in second-guessing it now .
But it did mean that the House went forward before the legal wrangling over witnesses could be completed , and before a number of new bombshells landed , especially the public statements on cable news made by Mr. Lev Parnas , as well as his release of texts and documents showing outrageous actions against Ambassador Yovanovitch and complicity by essentially the entire Trump Administration .
Now it is absolutely essential that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House do so before the Senate , including Chief of Staff Mulvaney , Secretary Pompeo , White House lawyer Rudy Giuliani himself , Lev Parnas and many others .
Speaker Pelosi did very well to hold the articles of impeachment away from the Senate as leverage to encourage a better Senate process .
Any trial in the Senate that does not hear from these witnesses is a sham .
And if not even four Republican Senators will cross over with enough decency to demand that we hear from them , then the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this stuff and aside and demand to hear from the witnesses themselves .
Indeed , Democrats are already considering doing this : Yet even if McConnell has his way and prevents new witnesses from appearing , they may find a stage in the House , where a number of Democrats are already advocating for their testimony if they ’ re silenced by the Senate .
“ We would be remiss in the House of Representatives not to follow this trail to its conclusion .
And Parnas has emerged as an important figure in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a foreign government to help Trump ’ s reelection campaign , ” said Rep. Hank Johnson ( D-Ga. ) , a member of the Judiciary Committee , which drafted the impeachment articles late last year .
With Democrats hoping to maximize the pressure on Senate Republicans through the trial phase , Judiciary members have not discussed that strategy in any depth , Johnson emphasized .
But it ’ s likely to gain favor with committee leaders , he said , if Senate Republicans deny new and willing witnesses a voice .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson said .
Rep. Eliot Engel ( D-N.Y. ) , chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , which had some jurisdiction over Trump ’ s impeachment , stopped just short of saying Democrats would summon relevant witnesses if the Senate does not .
But he left the door wide open to doing so , vowing that Democrats will charge ahead with their Ukrainian investigation “ if we ’ re feeling that we ’ re being played and that they ’ re not being forthcoming with the truth.
” Indeed .
And we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new bombshells may emerge .
If enough evidence of new malfeasance arises , it may even become necessary to impeach again .
It seems impossible to avoid the reality that much of the 2020 election will come down to whether we actually still have a democracy in this country or not .
Trump can not be allowed to get away with imperial crimes just because holding him accountable for them would be electorally inconvenient in a few swing districts .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a difficult series of decisions to make about the extent and timing of impeachment. I have argued throughout the process that the House should have considered many more counts of impeachment against Trump ranging from the Russia entanglements to emoluments to obstruction of justice and much more. I have also argued that there was no particularly good reason to shorten the process, because swing voters wouldn’t really believe or care about whether Democrats returned to “bread and butter issues” beginning in January.
The Speaker had good reasons both practical and political for her decision to narrowly focus impeachment on Ukraine and to do it quickly. There is no point in second-guessing it now. But it did mean that the House went forward before the legal wrangling over witnesses could be completed, and before a number of new bombshells landed, especially the public statements on cable news made by Mr. Lev Parnas, as well as his release of texts and documents showing outrageous actions against Ambassador Yovanovitch and complicity by essentially the entire Trump Administration.
Now it is absolutely essential that witnesses who did not testify before the House do so before the Senate, including Chief of Staff Mulvaney, Secretary Pompeo, White House lawyer Rudy Giuliani himself, Lev Parnas and many others. Speaker Pelosi did very well to hold the articles of impeachment away from the Senate as leverage to encourage a better Senate process.
Any trial in the Senate that does not hear from these witnesses is a sham. And if not even four Republican Senators will cross over with enough decency to demand that we hear from them, then the House should correct its earlier haste to put this stuff and aside and demand to hear from the witnesses themselves. Indeed, Democrats are already considering doing this:
Yet even if McConnell has his way and prevents new witnesses from appearing, they may find a stage in the House, where a number of Democrats are already advocating for their testimony if they’re silenced by the Senate. “We would be remiss in the House of Representatives not to follow this trail to its conclusion. And Parnas has emerged as an important figure in this criminal conspiracy to force or coerce a foreign government to help Trump’s reelection campaign,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which drafted the impeachment articles late last year. With Democrats hoping to maximize the pressure on Senate Republicans through the trial phase, Judiciary members have not discussed that strategy in any depth, Johnson emphasized. But it’s likely to gain favor with committee leaders, he said, if Senate Republicans deny new and willing witnesses a voice. “They have their eye on it,” Johnson said. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which had some jurisdiction over Trump’s impeachment, stopped just short of saying Democrats would summon relevant witnesses if the Senate does not. But he left the door wide open to doing so, vowing that Democrats will charge ahead with their Ukrainian investigation “if we’re feeling that we’re being played and that they’re not being forthcoming with the truth.”
Indeed. And we still don’t know what other new bombshells may emerge. If enough evidence of new malfeasance arises, it may even become necessary to impeach again. It seems impossible to avoid the reality that much of the 2020 election will come down to whether we actually still have a democracy in this country or not. Trump cannot be allowed to get away with imperial crimes just because holding him accountable for them would be electorally inconvenient in a few swing districts.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-20--Parnas: Trump Became More Powerful When He Got William Barr

As Rudy Giuliani ’ s point man in the extortion scheme , Lev Parnas dealt with some pretty unsavory characters both in Ukraine and here in the United States .
But in coming forward to tell his story , it is not those criminals that Parnas is afraid of .
Here ’ s what he told Rachel Maddow .
Parnas made it clear that it is the U.S. Department of Justice that scares him .
We can dismiss that as an explosive statement from a grifter facing prosecution , but it helps answer the question of why Parnas decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of claim against the people who are prosecuting your case wouldn ’ t make much sense otherwise .
In talking about why more Republicans haven ’ t broken with Trump , Parnas said something even more explosive .
He suggested that Trump “ wasn ’ t so powerful in ’ 16 and ’ 17 .
He became that powerful when he got William Barr .
People are scared.
” Why would people be scared of William Barr ?
Perhaps it is because the attorney general is making it clear that he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice to investigate Trump ’ s enemies .
In noting that Barr has recently opened a new investigation into former FBI Director James Comey , Jonathan Chait identified the pattern .
In addition to Comey , Barr has now gone after former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Special Counsel Robert Mueller , and former CIA Director John Brennan .
Meanwhile , Barr attempted to cover up the whistleblower complaint that eventually led to Trump ’ s impeachment , failed to investigate whether Marie Yavanovitch was being surveilled , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation into reported anti-Clinton bias at the FBI that led Comey to announce an investigation into the former secretary of state in the days before the 2016 election .
As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said , the attorney general has gone “ rouge ” and will not announce a special prosecutor to investigate the Parnas accusations because he is implicated .
All of that is a reminder about how Barr stumbled out of answering a very direct question from Senator Kamala Harris .
In identifying the pattern of Barr ’ s selective prosecution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benjamin Wittes back in May 2016 , when it was becoming clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee .
Wittes was responding to the suggestion that it was presidential surveillance and war powers that should cause the most alarm about putting a would-be tyrant in the Oval Office .
Wittes goes on to explain that , in our justice system , prosecutors have been given the discretion to decide which cases to investigate and prosecute .
He then quotes Justice Robert Jackson , who served as attorney general under Franklin Roosevelt before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case , it follows that he can choose his defendants .
Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor : that he will pick people that he thinks he should get , rather than cases that need to be prosecuted .
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes , a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone .
In such a case , it is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime and then looking for the man who has committed it , it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books , or putting investigators to work , to pin some offense on him .
It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass , or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense , that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies .
It is here that law enforcement becomes personal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being unpopular with the predominant or governing group , being attached to the wrong political views , or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself .
In order to obtain that kind of power , Trump understood that both Jeff Sessions and James Comey had to go .
Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation , leading to the appointment of a special prosecutor , and Comey refused to pledge loyalty to the president .
Having gotten rid of them , Trump was then able to install his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With the power to ignore the president ’ s crimes and investigate his enemies , William Barr has put the Department of Justice at the disposal of the criminal cabal that has infected the federal government .
If Parnas is correct , Barr ’ s efforts have effectively silenced opposition to the president within the Republican Party .
That is precisely why the attorney general is the most dangerous member of Trump ’ s cabinet .

As Rudy Giuliani’s point man in the extortion scheme, Lev Parnas dealt with some pretty unsavory characters both in Ukraine and here in the United States. But in coming forward to tell his story, it is not those criminals that Parnas is afraid of. Here’s what he told Rachel Maddow.
Parnas made it clear that it is the U.S. Department of Justice that scares him. We can dismiss that as an explosive statement from a grifter facing prosecution, but it helps answer the question of why Parnas decided to publicly tell his story. Making that kind of claim against the people who are prosecuting your case wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.
In talking about why more Republicans haven’t broken with Trump, Parnas said something even more explosive. He suggested that Trump “wasn’t so powerful in ’16 and ’17. He became that powerful when he got William Barr. People are scared.”
Why would people be scared of William Barr? Perhaps it is because the attorney general is making it clear that he is willing to use the power of the Department of Justice to investigate Trump’s enemies. In noting that Barr has recently opened a new investigation into former FBI Director James Comey, Jonathan Chait identified the pattern.
The pattern of selective prosecution under Trump’s Department of Justice, and his fanatically partisan Attorney General William Barr, has become evident in a series of cases that all resemble this one. The connecting thread is that Trump’s enemies are scoured for any violation that can be found, and held to the strictest letter of the law, while his allies are given broad latitude.
In addition to Comey, Barr has now gone after former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and former CIA Director John Brennan. Meanwhile, Barr attempted to cover up the whistleblower complaint that eventually led to Trump’s impeachment, failed to investigate whether Marie Yavanovitch was being surveilled, and we still haven’t seen an investigation into reported anti-Clinton bias at the FBI that led Comey to announce an investigation into the former secretary of state in the days before the 2016 election. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, the attorney general has gone “rouge” and will not announce a special prosecutor to investigate the Parnas accusations because he is implicated.
All of that is a reminder about how Barr stumbled out of answering a very direct question from Senator Kamala Harris.
In identifying the pattern of Barr’s selective prosecution, Chait refers to an article written by Benjamin Wittes back in May 2016, when it was becoming clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee. Wittes was responding to the suggestion that it was presidential surveillance and war powers that should cause the most alarm about putting a would-be tyrant in the Oval Office.
Let me be blunt: The soft spot is not NSA and it’s not the drone program. The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government, not the most extraordinary ones.
Wittes goes on to explain that, in our justice system, prosecutors have been given the discretion to decide which cases to investigate and prosecute. He then quotes Justice Robert Jackson, who served as attorney general under Franklin Roosevelt before becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
In order to obtain that kind of power, Trump understood that both Jeff Sessions and James Comey had to go. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, leading to the appointment of a special prosecutor, and Comey refused to pledge loyalty to the president. Having gotten rid of them, Trump was then able to install his own Roy Cohn as attorney general.
With the power to ignore the president’s crimes and investigate his enemies, William Barr has put the Department of Justice at the disposal of the criminal cabal that has infected the federal government. If Parnas is correct, Barr’s efforts have effectively silenced opposition to the president within the Republican Party. That is precisely why the attorney general is the most dangerous member of Trump’s cabinet.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-20--How the U.S. Could be Vulnerable to an Iranian Attack

The pending confrontation between Iran and the United States seems to be on hold for now .
That said , Iran is very good at playing the long game .
Ayatollah Khamenei has decided that ramping up open hostilities with the U.S. is not in his best interest right now .
He has too many internal issues to worry about without starting a shooting war with America .
Even so , Iran retained its pride by making an unprecedented rocket strike against an American-occupied military base in Iraq .
Despite initial U.S. denials , 11 American service members were reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proportionate response that put the U.S. on notice that Iran would not be cowed by America and had the ability to strike back .
I hope that this is all there is for now , that Tehran has satisfied its domestic political needs and we can all just move on .
But hope never stopped a terrorist attack .
Iran was never going to confront the United States on an open battlefield with massed conventional armies squaring off on some vast desert plain , as we saw in Operation Desert Storm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No , Iran controls extensive , well-funded , and well-organized terrorist networks like Hamas and Hezbollah in the Levant , and various Shiite militias in Iraq .
They are also known to have covert operatives in many foreign countries , including the United States .
That is what keeps me up at night .
Americans do not have a very long attention span , and that is particularly true in matters of history and war .
We play the “ short game.
” It is easy for us to be lulled into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents occur on our shores .
Our sense of invulnerability kicks in pretty quickly .
I ’ m afraid the U.S. has now given Iran the green light to launch a full range of terrorist actions against “ soft targets ” within the United States ( civilians ) , actions that would have previously been off-limits .
But America crossed a red line for Iran in Baghdad with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani .
The average American probably believes that military bases located inside the United States are among the safest environments on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would be right .
Military facilities in CONUS , or the continental United States , are among the most secure places in the country .
These installations are usually surrounded by high fences and various security measures , including armed security officers at all main points of entry .
Sometimes electronic sensors , video surveillance systems , and specially trained dogs are deployed at these access points to detect weapons , explosives , or drugs .
A combination of uniformed military law enforcement and private security staff are used at base entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security personnel while others use only private security , or a combination of both .
Why then , have military bases in the U.S. been the recent scenes of mass shootings in Florida , California , and Hawaii ?
If American military installations are so heavily secured , how can anyone smuggle weapons onto a base ?
If someone does succeed in bringing unauthorized weapons or explosives onto a military installation , why isn ’ t there a response system in place to quickly apprehend or stop the assailant ?
Surely , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be easy to neutralize armed suspects before they can cause serious injury to service members , their families , or civilian workers .
These are important questions that all concerned Americans should be asking their local and national elected officials .
American military installations should be some of the safest locations on earth , not just in theory , but in reality .
Sadly , that is not always the case .
Even a cursory look at military base shootings over the past twenty-five years reveals that such a tragedy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might believe .
In just a little more than ten years ( including two incidents in one week last month ) there have been seventeen shootings on U.S. military facilities located in CONUS resulting in 50 fatalities and 63 wounded , with many of the victims being civilians .
I am a retired U.S. Army Counterintelligence ( CI ) Special Agent .
A significant role played by Army CI is Force Protection .
Army CI Force Protection planning is simply a review of existing physical security measures and procedures that are in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assets .
After conducting that review , the agents will make recommendations to improve that protection .
That review might involve security protocols and procedures at fixed military installations .
In at least 17 cases over the past 10 years , those protocols and procedures have failed .
It should be obvious to everyone , not just military security personnel , that the most important goal in protecting assets located on any military installation is keeping bad guys and lethal instruments that can destroy , injure , or kill those assets off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding of the role of CI Force Protection as well .
I just assumed that all military base commanders and their security forces shared that same understanding .
Starting in the spring of 2019 , I made three visits to a military facility near where I live in the Tampa , Florida area , including the MacDill Air Force Base , home to the United States Central Command , also known as CENTCOM .
MacDill is one of the most important American military installations in the world .
The war on Islamic extremists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are run from MacDill .
As such , one might suspect that the base was protected by the best security personnel , equipment , and procedures in the entire U.S. military inventory .
I was also of that opinion .
On my third visit to MacDill , in October 2019 , to renew my military ID , I was accompanied by my Russian wife and her 20-year-old son , recently arrived from Russia .
At that point , my wife had only been in the U.S. for about ten months and spoke good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also just say that my wife is no old babushka .
She appears as an attractive 30-something woman .
Her son had arrived here the prior month , only about three weeks before our visit .
He spoke almost no English and had only a Russian passport for an ID .
To the average person , the two of them might have appeared to be work associates or even brother and sister .
The main gate security officer was a uniformed civilian , possibly an Air Force civilian law enforcement officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He asked for my ID and I handed him my retired military ID card , which he scanned and handed back to me .
The security officer did not look at my wife .
He did not ask her for any ID or speak with her at all .
He did not look into the rear seating area of my vehicle , he did not ask for my wife ’ s son ’ s ID or speak with him at all .
The security officer also did not look into my vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a cursory check for anything prohibited or suspicious .
I did not observe any electronic detectors , sensors , or security dogs in the vicinity .
After handing me back my ID , the security officer said “ thank you ” and waved me through .
I then proceeded to drive onto the base while riding with two unidentified , unnoticed , young Russian national adults in an unsearched vehicle .
My wife ’ s son asked his mother in Russian , “ Why didn ’ t they ask for my ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no answer for him because her next words were the same question to me .
“ David , why didn ’ t they ask for our ID ?
” I also had no answer for either of them .
I actually felt embarrassed for our military and our country .
Having visited Russia several times , I was well aware of the kind of intense security surrounding their military installations .
What had just occurred at MacDill would be inconceivable in Russia .
For the next four to five hours , as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ID card office , my two comrades and I walked around MacDill anywhere and everywhere we felt like walking .
No one said anything to us .
We started out walking around the dormitory building that housed the ID office ; private quarters for Air Force service members are located in this building .
This is a particularly vulnerable area for service members as they feel comfortable in their own quarters and they let their guard down .
Eventually , we all got bored walking around the dorm , so I took them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s son asked if we could look inside one of the mammoth aircraft hangers .
So , off we went .
We spent 15-20 minutes roaming around one the immense hangars located along Hangar Loop Drive .
No one said anything .
Keep in mind : the two Russians were speaking in Russian and the young Spesnatz looking man was wearing a black backpack and looking around at everything .
Next , we toured a gym , bowling alley , movie theater , office building of some sort , looked into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , and ate lunch in a café while surrounded by soldiers , marines , sailors , and airmen from American and several foreign military forces .
Finally , I decided to see if we could get up close to the CENTCOM building .
Sure enough , all three of us walked around to the rear of the building and up to a door .
Several signs were posted warning that this was a secure area , but no security was present , other than some cameras .
Again , my Russian companions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk around the base unchallenged and even up to the walls of CENTCOM .
Again , I had no answer .
My wife ’ s son stated the obvious—that he could have had many different kinds of weapons or explosives in his backpack that had he wanted to , he could have caused a lot of damage or even killed a lot of military personnel .
He even mimed an explosion next to one the buildings .
I could only reply , “ I know , and I am embarrassed that you and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unchecked and allowed to wander around all afternoon unnoticed .
I am sorry for myself as an American veteran .
And I am sorry for America for allowing this to happen.
” Why were we allowed onto MacDill AFB with essentially no security checks ?
How could a military ( or intelligence service ) aged Russian man and woman be allowed to walk around this base unchallenged for several hours , speaking Russian , walking into restricted areas , while the Russian man wore a knapsack capable of holding weapons and explosives ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ military facilities , our nation may have just exposed a major security liability to our adversaries , including Iran .
My recent experience at MacDill is proof we still have not learned the lessons from those tragedies .
Our servicemen and women deserve better .
Much better .

The pending confrontation between Iran and the United States seems to be on hold for now. That said, Iran is very good at playing the long game. Ayatollah Khamenei has decided that ramping up open hostilities with the U.S. is not in his best interest right now. He has too many internal issues to worry about without starting a shooting war with America.
Even so, Iran retained its pride by making an unprecedented rocket strike against an American-occupied military base in Iraq. Despite initial U.S. denials, 11 American service members were reportedly injured. For Iran, it was a proportionate response that put the U.S. on notice that Iran would not be cowed by America and had the ability to strike back.
I hope that this is all there is for now, that Tehran has satisfied its domestic political needs and we can all just move on. But hope never stopped a terrorist attack. Iran was never going to confront the United States on an open battlefield with massed conventional armies squaring off on some vast desert plain, as we saw in Operation Desert Storm. That is not how they do business.
No, Iran controls extensive, well-funded, and well-organized terrorist networks like Hamas and Hezbollah in the Levant, and various Shiite militias in Iraq. They are also known to have covert operatives in many foreign countries, including the United States. That is what keeps me up at night. Americans do not have a very long attention span, and that is particularly true in matters of history and war. We play the “short game.” It is easy for us to be lulled into a sense of complacency if no major incidents occur on our shores. Our sense of invulnerability kicks in pretty quickly.
I’m afraid the U.S. has now given Iran the green light to launch a full range of terrorist actions against “soft targets” within the United States (civilians), actions that would have previously been off-limits. But America crossed a red line for Iran in Baghdad with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.
The average American probably believes that military bases located inside the United States are among the safest environments on earth. For the most part, they would be right. Military facilities in CONUS, or the continental United States, are among the most secure places in the country. These installations are usually surrounded by high fences and various security measures, including armed security officers at all main points of entry. Sometimes electronic sensors, video surveillance systems, and specially trained dogs are deployed at these access points to detect weapons, explosives, or drugs. A combination of uniformed military law enforcement and private security staff are used at base entry points. Some bases use only military security personnel while others use only private security, or a combination of both.
Why then, have military bases in the U.S. been the recent scenes of mass shootings in Florida, California, and Hawaii? If American military installations are so heavily secured, how can anyone smuggle weapons onto a base? If someone does succeed in bringing unauthorized weapons or explosives onto a military installation, why isn’t there a response system in place to quickly apprehend or stop the assailant? Surely, with so many armed military personnel around, it should be easy to neutralize armed suspects before they can cause serious injury to service members, their families, or civilian workers.
These are important questions that all concerned Americans should be asking their local and national elected officials. American military installations should be some of the safest locations on earth, not just in theory, but in reality. Sadly, that is not always the case. Even a cursory look at military base shootings over the past twenty-five years reveals that such a tragedy is not as rare an occurrence as one might believe. In just a little more than ten years (including two incidents in one week last month) there have been seventeen shootings on U.S. military facilities located in CONUS resulting in 50 fatalities and 63 wounded, with many of the victims being civilians.
I am a retired U.S. Army Counterintelligence (CI) Special Agent. A significant role played by Army CI is Force Protection. Army CI Force Protection planning is simply a review of existing physical security measures and procedures that are in place to protect U.S. Army personal and other assets. After conducting that review, the agents will make recommendations to improve that protection. That review might involve security protocols and procedures at fixed military installations. In at least 17 cases over the past 10 years, those protocols and procedures have failed.
It should be obvious to everyone, not just military security personnel, that the most important goal in protecting assets located on any military installation is keeping bad guys and lethal instruments that can destroy, injure, or kill those assets off the installation. That has always been my understanding of the role of CI Force Protection as well. I just assumed that all military base commanders and their security forces shared that same understanding.
I was wrong.
Starting in the spring of 2019, I made three visits to a military facility near where I live in the Tampa, Florida area, including the MacDill Air Force Base, home to the United States Central Command, also known as CENTCOM. MacDill is one of the most important American military installations in the world. The war on Islamic extremists and many covert special operations missions worldwide are run from MacDill. As such, one might suspect that the base was protected by the best security personnel, equipment, and procedures in the entire U.S. military inventory. I was also of that opinion.
Again, I was wrong.
On my third visit to MacDill, in October 2019, to renew my military ID, I was accompanied by my Russian wife and her 20-year-old son, recently arrived from Russia. At that point, my wife had only been in the U.S. for about ten months and spoke good, but heavily accented English. Let’s also just say that my wife is no old babushka. She appears as an attractive 30-something woman. Her son had arrived here the prior month, only about three weeks before our visit. He spoke almost no English and had only a Russian passport for an ID. To the average person, the two of them might have appeared to be work associates or even brother and sister.
The main gate security officer was a uniformed civilian, possibly an Air Force civilian law enforcement officer or even a contracted civilian security officer. He asked for my ID and I handed him my retired military ID card, which he scanned and handed back to me. The security officer did not look at my wife. He did not ask her for any ID or speak with her at all. He did not look into the rear seating area of my vehicle, he did not ask for my wife’s son’s ID or speak with him at all. The security officer also did not look into my vehicle through any of the windows to do even a cursory check for anything prohibited or suspicious. I did not observe any electronic detectors, sensors, or security dogs in the vicinity. After handing me back my ID, the security officer said “thank you” and waved me through. I then proceeded to drive onto the base while riding with two unidentified, unnoticed, young Russian national adults in an unsearched vehicle.
I was dumbfounded.
My wife’s son asked his mother in Russian, “Why didn’t they ask for my ID?” Of course, she had no answer for him because her next words were the same question to me. “David, why didn’t they ask for our ID?” I also had no answer for either of them. I actually felt embarrassed for our military and our country. Having visited Russia several times, I was well aware of the kind of intense security surrounding their military installations. What had just occurred at MacDill would be inconceivable in Russia.
For the next four to five hours, as we waited to be seen by the base ID card office, my two comrades and I walked around MacDill anywhere and everywhere we felt like walking. No one said anything to us. We started out walking around the dormitory building that housed the ID office; private quarters for Air Force service members are located in this building. This is a particularly vulnerable area for service members as they feel comfortable in their own quarters and they let their guard down.
Eventually, we all got bored walking around the dorm, so I took them near the flight line where my wife’s son asked if we could look inside one of the mammoth aircraft hangers. So, off we went. We spent 15-20 minutes roaming around one the immense hangars located along Hangar Loop Drive. No one said anything. Keep in mind: the two Russians were speaking in Russian and the young Spesnatz looking man was wearing a black backpack and looking around at everything.
Next, we toured a gym, bowling alley, movie theater, office building of some sort, looked into the local Air Force Office of Special Investigations office, and ate lunch in a café while surrounded by soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen from American and several foreign military forces. Finally, I decided to see if we could get up close to the CENTCOM building. Sure enough, all three of us walked around to the rear of the building and up to a door. Several signs were posted warning that this was a secure area, but no security was present, other than some cameras. Again, my Russian companions asked me why we were able to walk around the base unchallenged and even up to the walls of CENTCOM. Again, I had no answer.
My wife’s son stated the obvious—that he could have had many different kinds of weapons or explosives in his backpack that had he wanted to, he could have caused a lot of damage or even killed a lot of military personnel. He even mimed an explosion next to one the buildings. I could only reply, “I know, and I am embarrassed that you and your mother were allowed onto this base unchecked and allowed to wander around all afternoon unnoticed. I am sorry for myself as an American veteran. And I am sorry for America for allowing this to happen.”
Why were we allowed onto MacDill AFB with essentially no security checks? How could a military (or intelligence service) aged Russian man and woman be allowed to walk around this base unchallenged for several hours, speaking Russian, walking into restricted areas, while the Russian man wore a knapsack capable of holding weapons and explosives?
With all the recent shootings on American military facilities, our nation may have just exposed a major security liability to our adversaries, including Iran. My recent experience at MacDill is proof we still have not learned the lessons from those tragedies. Our servicemen and women deserve better. Much better.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-20--No One Has a Clue Who Will Win the Iowa Caucuses

I need to be careful about believing that I can accurately remember anything that happened 16 years ago , but my recollection is that John Kerry unexpectedly won the Iowa caucuses and that many people attributed his victory to a last-minute spat between the camps of Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean that turned off the voters and sent them looking for an alternative .
If that history repeats , the blowup between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could wind up benefitting one of the other candidates and boosting them beyond what the polls predict .
On the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideological matter than the dispute over whether or not Sanders once told Warren that a woman can not beat Trump .
A fight between the two leftmost candidates won ’ t send their supporters in search of a moderate in-between choice because there is no in-between candidate in the race .
What it might do is drive down their favorables among non-ideological voters or cause them to lose out on second-choice votes .
In the latter scenario , supporters of Sanders won ’ t vote for Warren or vice-versa if their candidate fails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus .
In this way , compromise candidates might benefit , but it won ’ t make much difference if this lost progressive support is spread around .
Two weeks out from the caucuses , about the only thing I ’ m sure about is that Gephardt and Dean won ’ t win .
As Gabriel Debenedetti writes for New York , the polls are all over the place .
From the outside , the race for the nomination can look exhaustingly ( or maddeningly ) stable—Sanders and Joe Biden are nearly exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year ago , before either even entered the race .
But the four leading candidates have , in fact , been trading places atop the bewildered first-to-caucus state ’ s polls for months , most often within the margin of error .
The three most recent surveys have seen Biden narrowly leading , with Sanders in second ; Sanders barely leading , with Elizabeth Warren in second ; and Biden and Sanders tied with Pete Buttigieg , with Warren just behind .
The campaigns are in a frenzy , and nobody working on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Caucus Night… Not long ago , Buttigieg was on top in a couple of polls .
There is really no information in the polls that can help us determine a clear favorite .
The best signal will probably be late movement in the last set of polls , although it doesn ’ t help Sens .
Klobuchar , Sanders , and Warren that they have been called for jury duty in the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump .
It might not help Joe Biden if the Democrats agree to allow Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange for the testimony of people like John Bolton , who actually have some relevant information to share .
Maybe Pete Buttigieg is going to get a lucky break by comparison , but then maybe he ’ ll suffer because no one will be thinking about him .
Of course , I can ’ t write about the Iowa caucuses without pointing out that they are a fraud and should be doomed .
The best example is from the 2012 Republican caucuses when there were arguably four equally plausible results or interpretations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person who gets the delegates is the winner , and Ron Paul won the delegates when they were actually assigned at later state and county party meetings .
In reality , Romney got the bounce out of winning Iowa and thus was the one whose campaign came out on top .
This was unfair to Santorum because when all the dust settled , it looked like he actually got the most votes and should have been the one getting a bounce .
Except , some votes were simply missing , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Romney and Santorum since it wasn ’ t technically possible to know .
Hopefully , the Democratic results in 2020 will be more orderly and decisive , but the delegates at stake are insignificant compared to the perception that someone won or “ exceeded expectations.
” And the winner on caucus night is not guaranteed to actually be awarded the most delegates .
To assure that , they need to stick in the race and they need to be organized when Iowa Democrats actually meet to award the delegates .
Personally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the others .
If she loses there , I don ’ t know if she ’ ll ever win a state .
Sanders still looks strong in New Hampshire and Nevada , and Biden looks very formidable in South Carolina .
I guess I could make the same argument about Buttigieg , but I ’ m still having trouble envisioning a road for him regardless of what happens in Iowa .
If anyone can shake the world with an upset , it ’ s Amy Klobuchar .
She might even get some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other than Tom Steyer topping two percent , the other result that could really change the future of the campaign is a horrible performance by Biden .
He doesn ’ t need to win in Iowa , but a fifth-place finish would be hard to explain .

I need to be careful about believing that I can accurately remember anything that happened 16 years ago, but my recollection is that John Kerry unexpectedly won the Iowa caucuses and that many people attributed his victory to a last-minute spat between the camps of Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean that turned off the voters and sent them looking for an alternative.
If that history repeats, the blowup between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could wind up benefitting one of the other candidates and boosting them beyond what the polls predict. On the other hand, the Gephardt/Dean fight was more of an ideological matter than the dispute over whether or not Sanders once told Warren that a woman cannot beat Trump. A fight between the two leftmost candidates won’t send their supporters in search of a moderate in-between choice because there is no in-between candidate in the race. What it might do is drive down their favorables among non-ideological voters or cause them to lose out on second-choice votes.
In the latter scenario, supporters of Sanders won’t vote for Warren or vice-versa if their candidate fails to meet the minimum threshold in their caucus. In this way, compromise candidates might benefit, but it won’t make much difference if this lost progressive support is spread around.
Two weeks out from the caucuses, about the only thing I’m sure about is that Gephardt and Dean won’t win. As Gabriel Debenedetti writes for New York, the polls are all over the place.
From the outside, the race for the nomination can look exhaustingly (or maddeningly) stable—Sanders and Joe Biden are nearly exactly where they were in national polling a year ago, before either even entered the race. But the four leading candidates have, in fact, been trading places atop the bewildered first-to-caucus state’s polls for months, most often within the margin of error. The three most recent surveys have seen Biden narrowly leading, with Sanders in second; Sanders barely leading, with Elizabeth Warren in second; and Biden and Sanders tied with Pete Buttigieg, with Warren just behind. The campaigns are in a frenzy, and nobody working on them believes the winner will be clear before Caucus Night…
Not long ago, Buttigieg was on top in a couple of polls. There is really no information in the polls that can help us determine a clear favorite. The best signal will probably be late movement in the last set of polls, although it doesn’t help Sens. Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren that they have been called for jury duty in the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump. It might not help Joe Biden if the Democrats agree to allow Hunter Biden to testify in the trial in exchange for the testimony of people like John Bolton, who actually have some relevant information to share. Maybe Pete Buttigieg is going to get a lucky break by comparison, but then maybe he’ll suffer because no one will be thinking about him.
Of course, I can’t write about the Iowa caucuses without pointing out that they are a fraud and should be doomed. The best example is from the 2012 Republican caucuses when there were arguably four equally plausible results or interpretations of what happened.
Thus, you can justifiably say that [Rick] Santorum won Iowa because he had the most votes in the certified count, or that Romney won because he [was the announced winner and] benefited the most from the result, or that Ron Paul won because he actually got almost all the delegates, or that no one won because the party refused to declare a winner.
In my mind, the person who gets the delegates is the winner, and Ron Paul won the delegates when they were actually assigned at later state and county party meetings. In reality, Romney got the bounce out of winning Iowa and thus was the one whose campaign came out on top. This was unfair to Santorum because when all the dust settled, it looked like he actually got the most votes and should have been the one getting a bounce. Except, some votes were simply missing, and so the party refused to say who won between Romney and Santorum since it wasn’t technically possible to know.
Hopefully, the Democratic results in 2020 will be more orderly and decisive, but the delegates at stake are insignificant compared to the perception that someone won or “exceeded expectations.” And the winner on caucus night is not guaranteed to actually be awarded the most delegates. To assure that, they need to stick in the race and they need to be organized when Iowa Democrats actually meet to award the delegates.
Personally, I think Elizabeth Warren needs Iowa more than the others. If she loses there, I don’t know if she’ll ever win a state. Sanders still looks strong in New Hampshire and Nevada, and Biden looks very formidable in South Carolina. I guess I could make the same argument about Buttigieg, but I’m still having trouble envisioning a road for him regardless of what happens in Iowa. If anyone can shake the world with an upset, it’s Amy Klobuchar. She might even get some juice out of a strong second-place finish.
Other than Tom Steyer topping two percent, the other result that could really change the future of the campaign is a horrible performance by Biden. He doesn’t need to win in Iowa, but a fifth-place finish would be hard to explain.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-21--What Did African Americans Have to Lose With a Trump Presidency?

During the 2016 campaign , Donald Trump ’ s attempt to appeal to African-American voters was to simply ask them , “ What have you got to lose ?
” It was meant to suggest that previous administrations—particularly his predecessor—had done nothing for them .
We see the same claims made in the endless stream of articles from right-wing media suggesting that Trump is going to win over a large share of African American voters in the 2020 election .
Of course , to believe that is to live in an epistemic bubble where facts don ’ t intrude .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ left who , when confronted with the overwhelming support for Biden among African Americans , claim that the Obama-Biden administration did nothing for black people .
Since that claim has surfaced on Twitter several times , perhaps it is time to remind everyone of some facts .
The first place to start would be to acknowledge that every item on the list of Obama ’ s top 50 accomplishments that was compiled by Paul Glastris and myself applied to African Americans .
That would include things like saving the automobile industry and avoiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their nuclear weapons program .
But many of the things that directly affected African Americans were accomplished via work done by Eric Holder at the Justice Department—particularly with regards to the Civil Rights Division , which was initially led by Tom Perez and later by Vanita Gupta .
Many of those efforts went to the heart of the issues that are a major concern in the African-American community , such as investigating police abuse and negotiating consent agreements .
Perez and Holder were able to defend disparate impact as the standard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Supreme Court .
Other federal departments worked with the Justice Department to accomplish things like : • winning settlements from banks for reverse redlining with mortgages .
Those are just a few of the things that the Obama-Biden administration accomplished to address the concerns of African Americans .
But this week we learned about another item we can add to the list .
Here are some of the highlights of a study done by the Commonwealth Fund on the impact of Obamacare .
* The ACA ’ s coverage expansions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in access to health care since 2013… * The gap between black and white adult uninsured rates dropped by 4.1 percentage points… * Five years after the ACA ’ s implementation , black adults living in states that expanded Medicaid report coverage rates and access to care measures as good as or better than what white adults in nonexpansion states report .
It is important to note that this study also found that , when it comes to the reduction in racial disparities , “ progress has stalled and , in some cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything else the previous administration accomplished , the gains are being reversed by this president .
So obviously , African Americans had a lot to lose when it came to a Trump presidency .
One could make the case that the Obama-Biden administration should have done more to address the issues faced by African Americans .
But the claim that they did nothing is simply preposterous .

During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump’s attempt to appeal to African-American voters was to simply ask them, “What have you got to lose?” It was meant to suggest that previous administrations—particularly his predecessor—had done nothing for them. We see the same claims made in the endless stream of articles from right-wing media suggesting that Trump is going to win over a large share of African American voters in the 2020 election. Of course, to believe that is to live in an epistemic bubble where facts don’t intrude.
More than 8 in 10 black Americans say they believe Trump is a racist and that he has made racism a bigger problem in the country. Nine in 10 disapprove of his job performance overall.
Similarly, there are people on the left who, when confronted with the overwhelming support for Biden among African Americans, claim that the Obama-Biden administration did nothing for black people. Since that claim has surfaced on Twitter several times, perhaps it is time to remind everyone of some facts.
The first place to start would be to acknowledge that every item on the list of Obama’s top 50 accomplishments that was compiled by Paul Glastris and myself applied to African Americans. That would include things like saving the automobile industry and avoiding war with Iran by negotiating an end to their nuclear weapons program.
But many of the things that directly affected African Americans were accomplished via work done by Eric Holder at the Justice Department—particularly with regards to the Civil Rights Division, which was initially led by Tom Perez and later by Vanita Gupta. Many of those efforts went to the heart of the issues that are a major concern in the African-American community, such as investigating police abuse and negotiating consent agreements. Perez and Holder were able to defend disparate impact as the standard for investigating discrimination in a case that went before the Supreme Court.
Other federal departments worked with the Justice Department to accomplish things like:
ending the school to prison pipeline,
prosecuting cases of redlining, and
winning settlements from banks for reverse redlining with mortgages.
Those are just a few of the things that the Obama-Biden administration accomplished to address the concerns of African Americans. But this week we learned about another item we can add to the list. Here are some of the highlights of a study done by the Commonwealth Fund on the impact of Obamacare.
* The ACA’s coverage expansions have led to historic reductions in racial disparities in access to health care since 2013… * The gap between black and white adult uninsured rates dropped by 4.1 percentage points… * Five years after the ACA’s implementation, black adults living in states that expanded Medicaid report coverage rates and access to care measures as good as or better than what white adults in nonexpansion states report.
It is important to note that this study also found that, when it comes to the reduction in racial disparities, “progress has stalled and, in some cases, eroded since 2016.” As with everything else the previous administration accomplished, the gains are being reversed by this president. So obviously, African Americans had a lot to lose when it came to a Trump presidency.
One could make the case that the Obama-Biden administration should have done more to address the issues faced by African Americans. But the claim that they did nothing is simply preposterous.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-21--Here’s Why Mitch McConnell Is Giving Us a Scam Trial

On Monday , after I saw Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s proposed rules for the impeachment trial , I sat with that information for about five hours .
Then I wrote a piece for my subscribers called “ Mitch McConnell is Weak and Stupid.
” My basic point was that if McConnell was correct when he told Sean Hannity that there was “ zero chance ” that Donald Trump would be convicted and removed from office , then the real battle is over whether that outcome is accepted by the American public .
From that perspective , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over backward to make the process look fair .
But McConnell took the opposite approach .
Either this is a dumb political decision , or McConnell is afraid that the evidence against the president is so strong that his caucus would find it very difficult to acquit him if it were presented at the trial .
But I should have thought about it for just a little bit longer .
It may not be that McConnell is primarily worried that his caucus will defect and find the president guilty , but that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This would be for two reasons .
First , and most obviously , if the evidence is overwhelming and the president is still found not guilty , the Trump-supporting senators who are up for reelection in 2020 will be very vulnerable to defeat .
This might include some folks who are considered very safe at the moment .
Second , the damage to Trump would be severe and present a huge problem for the party because they plan on renominating him and having him run at the top of their ticket .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long , and you can imagine how painful it would be to hold the Republican National Convention in an environment where everyone is constantly being asked how they can be celebrating an obvious criminal who the American people want to be removed from office for abuse of power and contempt of Congress .
For McConnell , the best option is to limit the evidence even if the process is seen as illegitimate .
He ’ s going to take a big hit either way , but protecting Trump from the truth is preferable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full and fair trial .
I ’ m still not sure how solidly McConnell has this sewn up .
He could wind up with the worst of both worlds if he can ’ t prevent witnesses , and yet the trial is still seen as a clear scam on the American people .
But I think people need to focus a bit more on the fact that this trial isn ’ t just about winning an acquittal for Trump , but also about keeping him minimally viable as the Republican presidential nominee @

On Monday, after I saw Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s proposed rules for the impeachment trial, I sat with that information for about five hours. Then I wrote a piece for my subscribers called “Mitch McConnell is Weak and Stupid.” My basic point was that if McConnell was correct when he told Sean Hannity that there was “zero chance” that Donald Trump would be convicted and removed from office, then the real battle is over whether that outcome is accepted by the American public. From that perspective, it would make the most sense to bend over backward to make the process look fair.
But McConnell took the opposite approach. Either this is a dumb political decision, or McConnell is afraid that the evidence against the president is so strong that his caucus would find it very difficult to acquit him if it were presented at the trial.
But I should have thought about it for just a little bit longer. It may not be that McConnell is primarily worried that his caucus will defect and find the president guilty, but that the process would destroy his Senate majority. This would be for two reasons.
First, and most obviously, if the evidence is overwhelming and the president is still found not guilty, the Trump-supporting senators who are up for reelection in 2020 will be very vulnerable to defeat. This might include some folks who are considered very safe at the moment.
Second, the damage to Trump would be severe and present a huge problem for the party because they plan on renominating him and having him run at the top of their ticket. They need to sing his praises all year long, and you can imagine how painful it would be to hold the Republican National Convention in an environment where everyone is constantly being asked how they can be celebrating an obvious criminal who the American people want to be removed from office for abuse of power and contempt of Congress.
For McConnell, the best option is to limit the evidence even if the process is seen as illegitimate. He’s going to take a big hit either way, but protecting Trump from the truth is preferable to giving the impression that there was a full and fair trial.
I’m still not sure how solidly McConnell has this sewn up. He could wind up with the worst of both worlds if he can’t prevent witnesses, and yet the trial is still seen as a clear scam on the American people.
But I think people need to focus a bit more on the fact that this trial isn’t just about winning an acquittal for Trump, but also about keeping him minimally viable as the Republican presidential nominee.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-21--How Negative Is Sanders Willing to Go?

How Negative Is Sanders Willing to Go?

Last week Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren became embroiled in a rift about whether or not he told her that a woman couldn ’ t win the presidency .
Supporters on both sides claimed that the other side had lied about the exchange .
We can all leave the resolution about that particular exchange aside , but Sanders affirmed his position when he went on to suggest that being a woman is a “ negative.
” As a woman , that literally felt like a punch in the gut .
To basically affirm that being a woman is a negative—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot that , for most of us , has been festering all of our lives .
To hear it come from a liberal is both hurtful and enraging .
But I ’ d also like to focus on what Sanders said at the end of that clip .
He talked about the importance of looking at the totality of a candidate ’ s record .
That is actually good advice .
It is too bad that he isn ’ t doing that in his recent attacks against Joe Biden .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcript of something Biden said about Social Security , claiming that he agreed with former Republican Speaker Paul Ryan .
Politifact rated that statement false .
Here is the part of the speech they left out .
Now , I don ’ t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire .
I don ’ t know a lot of them .
Maybe you guys do .
So we need a pro-growth , progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creators , as well , not just investors ; that gets rid of unprotective loopholes like stepped-up basis ; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay , it still needs adjustments , but can stay ; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country .
Since the campaign got caught in that lie , Sanders supporters have attempted to claim that Biden has been advocating for cutting Social Security for 40 years .
As is often the case with disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To solve a budget impasse in 1995 , Biden supported a freeze on all federal spending , including cost of living adjustments to Social Security .
Then there was his support for an Obama proposal to change the way cost of living increases were calculated , including both the income tax tables and Social Security .
But the Sanders campaign turned those positions into an accusation that Biden attempted to “ slash Social Security.
” An honest look at the totality of Biden ’ s position on Social Security would come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economist who served as an advisor to the former vice president .
Bernstein linked to an article by Lorie Konish that outlines Biden ’ s current proposal to increase Social Security benefits .
In the end , Sanders could have honestly said that he disagreed with Biden ’ s positions in the past about how cost of living increases are calculated for Social Security .
While that would have had the benefit of being true , it doesn ’ t have the same punch as accusing Biden of wanting to “ slash Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gone with the latter and a disinformation campaign .
Meanwhile , the Sanders campaign seems to be in a bit of disarray about how negative to go against Biden .
They put out an email blast lauding an op-ed by a surrogate , Zephyr Teachout , titled .
“ ‘ Middle Class ’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem—it makes him a weak candidate.
” The email blast was written by Sanders ’ speechwriter , David Sirota , who also tweeted the article .
The reaction was immediate and overwhelming .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to apologize .
But the issue wasn ’ t the op-ed by Teachout .
It is common for a candidate to have to distance themselves from something one of their surrogates said .
The issue is that a high level staff person in the Sanders campaign promoted the article , indicating that it had been endorsed by the candidate .
Some of us spoke up when Sanders hired David Sirota because his modus operandi was obvious to anyone who knew his history .
Sirota has a reputation of being a ruthless attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when they hired him .
But now it seems that Sirota went too far with his attacks and his boss has been forced to apologize .
It is clear that the Sanders campaign will rely on attacks against his opponents .
But this latest incident demonstrates that they are still struggling with where the boundaries are for those negative attacks .
It is good to know that , at least for the candidate himself , accusing Biden of being corrupt is outside the boundary .

Last week Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren became embroiled in a rift about whether or not he told her that a woman couldn’t win the presidency. Supporters on both sides claimed that the other side had lied about the exchange. We can all leave the resolution about that particular exchange aside, but Sanders affirmed his position when he went on to suggest that being a woman is a “negative.”
As a woman, that literally felt like a punch in the gut. To basically affirm that being a woman is a negative—in politics or any other endeavor—hits a sore spot that, for most of us, has been festering all of our lives. To hear it come from a liberal is both hurtful and enraging.
But I’d also like to focus on what Sanders said at the end of that clip. He talked about the importance of looking at the totality of a candidate’s record. That is actually good advice. It is too bad that he isn’t doing that in his recent attacks against Joe Biden.
For example, the Sanders campaign sent out an edited transcript of something Biden said about Social Security, claiming that he agreed with former Republican Speaker Paul Ryan. Politifact rated that statement false. Here is the part of the speech they left out.
Now, I don’t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire. I don’t know a lot of them. Maybe you guys do. So we need a pro-growth, progressive tax code that treats workers as job creators, as well, not just investors; that gets rid of unprotective loopholes like stepped-up basis; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay, it still needs adjustments, but can stay; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country.
Since the campaign got caught in that lie, Sanders supporters have attempted to claim that Biden has been advocating for cutting Social Security for 40 years. As is often the case with disinformation, that is based on a half-truth. To solve a budget impasse in 1995, Biden supported a freeze on all federal spending, including cost of living adjustments to Social Security. Then there was his support for an Obama proposal to change the way cost of living increases were calculated, including both the income tax tables and Social Security. But the Sanders campaign turned those positions into an accusation that Biden attempted to “slash Social Security.”
An honest look at the totality of Biden’s position on Social Security would come from listening to Jared Bernstein, a progressive economist who served as an advisor to the former vice president.
Bernstein linked to an article by Lorie Konish that outlines Biden’s current proposal to increase Social Security benefits.
In the end, Sanders could have honestly said that he disagreed with Biden’s positions in the past about how cost of living increases are calculated for Social Security. While that would have had the benefit of being true, it doesn’t have the same punch as accusing Biden of wanting to “slash Social Security.” So instead, he’s gone with the latter and a disinformation campaign.
Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign seems to be in a bit of disarray about how negative to go against Biden. They put out an email blast lauding an op-ed by a surrogate, Zephyr Teachout, titled. “‘Middle Class’ Joe Biden has a corruption problem—it makes him a weak candidate.” The email blast was written by Sanders’ speechwriter, David Sirota, who also tweeted the article.
The reaction was immediate and overwhelming.
By Monday night, Sanders had apologized.
Senator Bernie Sanders apologized to former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday for an op-ed written by one of his campaign surrogates that claimed Biden has a “big corruption problem.” “It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I’m sorry that that op-ed appeared,” Sanders told CBS News.
The senator is to be commended for being willing to apologize. But the issue wasn’t the op-ed by Teachout. It is common for a candidate to have to distance themselves from something one of their surrogates said. The issue is that a high level staff person in the Sanders campaign promoted the article, indicating that it had been endorsed by the candidate.
Some of us spoke up when Sanders hired David Sirota because his modus operandi was obvious to anyone who knew his history. Sirota has a reputation of being a ruthless attack dog. The campaign had to know that when they hired him. But now it seems that Sirota went too far with his attacks and his boss has been forced to apologize.
It is clear that the Sanders campaign will rely on attacks against his opponents. But this latest incident demonstrates that they are still struggling with where the boundaries are for those negative attacks. It is good to know that, at least for the candidate himself, accusing Biden of being corrupt is outside the boundary.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-22--How Trump Is Broadcasting His Own Guilt

How Trump Is Broadcasting His Own Guilt

For the sake of argument , allow me to stretch your imagination a bit .
Let ’ s pretend that the president and his enablers are not lying : Trump ’ s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky was “ perfect ” and he did nothing wrong .
Having been impeached wrongly and facing a Senate trial that could remove him from office , wouldn ’ t any human being pull out all the stops in their defense ?
Nothing demonstrates Trump ’ s guilt more powerfully than his attempt to obstruct Congress and stop any of his staff from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just common sense .
And yet , we seem to be living in an era when that kind of rational argument makes no difference to the president ’ s enablers .
It ’ s , frankly , a bit crazy-making .
The case of John Bolton is a perfect example .
During the House hearings , the White House issued a directive banning all administration staff from testifying—including Bolton .
The claim was that impeachment was a hoax and the president exerted executive privilege to shut down any attempts to investigate what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House , John Bolton announced that he was willing to testify in the Senate trial .
Now Senate Majority Leader McConnell is doing everything he can to block that from happening .
To justify those attempts , the president simply lied , unabashedly .
It was the president and his lawyers that blocked Bolton from testifying in the House .
But Trump is counting on his supporters ’ willingness to believe anything he says ( or tweets ) .
There is no reason to block Bolton from testifying , except that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is guilty .
You don ’ t need a degree in logic to understand what ’ s going on .
Here is what Rep. Adam Schiff said about that during the Senate trial on Tuesday .
But it gets even worse .
Knowing that McConnell might not be able to block Bolton from testifying , Trump ’ s legal team has come up with a plan B .
President Trump ’ s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight , according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions… One option being discussed , according to a senior administration official , would be to move Bolton ’ s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns , ensuring that it is not public .
Some of us remember that it was only three months ago that Republicans protested the fact that the House Intelligence Committee was taking depositions in a secure setting behind closed doors .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those depositions were eventually released and the House held open hearings for the witnesses to testify publicly—something Republicans always knew was going to happen .
But if 51 members of the Senate vote to hear Bolton ’ s testimony , plan B from Trump ’ s lawyers is to take it behind closed doors so that the public can ’ t hear it , once again demonstrating their hypocrisy .
To reiterate , none of that makes any sense if Trump is innocent .
The only reason to be that scared of Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sure that it will be the linchpin that forces even the Republicans to admit that Trump is guilty .

For the sake of argument, allow me to stretch your imagination a bit. Let’s pretend that the president and his enablers are not lying: Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky was “perfect” and he did nothing wrong. Having been impeached wrongly and facing a Senate trial that could remove him from office, wouldn’t any human being pull out all the stops in their defense?
Nothing demonstrates Trump’s guilt more powerfully than his attempt to obstruct Congress and stop any of his staff from testifying during the Senate trial. That is just common sense. And yet, we seem to be living in an era when that kind of rational argument makes no difference to the president’s enablers. It’s, frankly, a bit crazy-making.
The case of John Bolton is a perfect example. During the House hearings, the White House issued a directive banning all administration staff from testifying—including Bolton. The claim was that impeachment was a hoax and the president exerted executive privilege to shut down any attempts to investigate what happened.
After Trump was impeached by the House, John Bolton announced that he was willing to testify in the Senate trial. Now Senate Majority Leader McConnell is doing everything he can to block that from happening. To justify those attempts, the president simply lied, unabashedly.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1219285375736328192
It was the president and his lawyers that blocked Bolton from testifying in the House. But Trump is counting on his supporters’ willingness to believe anything he says (or tweets).
There is no reason to block Bolton from testifying, except that he will probably make it clear that Trump is guilty. You don’t need a degree in logic to understand what’s going on. Here is what Rep. Adam Schiff said about that during the Senate trial on Tuesday.
But it gets even worse. Knowing that McConnell might not be able to block Bolton from testifying, Trump’s legal team has come up with a plan B.
President Trump’s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions… One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton’s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public.
Some of us remember that it was only three months ago that Republicans protested the fact that the House Intelligence Committee was taking depositions in a secure setting behind closed doors. They were demanding transparency.
The transcripts from those depositions were eventually released and the House held open hearings for the witnesses to testify publicly—something Republicans always knew was going to happen. But if 51 members of the Senate vote to hear Bolton’s testimony, plan B from Trump’s lawyers is to take it behind closed doors so that the public can’t hear it, once again demonstrating their hypocrisy.
To reiterate, none of that makes any sense if Trump is innocent. The only reason to be that scared of Bolton’s public testimony is if you are sure that it will be the linchpin that forces even the Republicans to admit that Trump is guilty.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-23--The Republicans Struggle to Keep Their Base in a Bubble

Fox News broadcast the first two hours of the impeachment trial on Wednesday in a normal manner , but after that , they turned off the sound : Starting with The Five , the network ’ s early evening roundtable commentary show , and continuing throughout the evening , Fox News broadcast portions of screen-in-screen video of the trial .
But instead of playing the audio , network hosts provided the normal Trumpian spin .
So while someone who just looked at the screen may have concluded Fox News was covering the trial , in fact it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business model couldn ’ t withstand the House Managers ’ methodical destruction of their viewers ’ hero , so this is telling but not at all surprising .
Just don ’ t call them a news network , or treat them like one .
Meanwhile , the president was so desperate to distract his base from hearing the truth that he set a personal tweeting record .
As he flew back to Washington on Air Force One , Trump stirred up a veritable Twitter storm as he tweeted and retweeted messages primarily about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrage that marked the most tweets of any day of his presidency , with 142 as of 10 p.m. , according to Factba.se , a website that tracks Trump ’ s tweets and speeches .
None of this was likely to have much immediate effect inside the Senate chamber where a captive audience was subjected to a spectacularly well-prepared and delivered case against Donald John Trump .
Some Republican senators abandoned their posts and left the audience for extended periods , but the vast majority honored their duty as jurists and heard a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removal from office .
It remains to be seen if it will have a meaningful effect on Mitch McConnell ’ s tenuous control of the process .
He already beat a retreat once , on his rules package , in order to maintain unity within his caucus .
But he and the White House desperately want to avoid allowing witnesses .
Now , Mr. McConnell is working to convince his colleagues that expanding the trial to include witnesses—a prospect Mr. Trump ’ s team wants to avoid at all costs—would be more trouble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those witnesses could indefinitely delay the Senate trial and draw our body into a protracted and complex legal fight over presidential privilege , ” he said .
That message could well prevail .
Yet , the House Managers did a masterful job on Wednesday of providing a different message .
The Republican base probably heard little of it , but McConnell ’ s colleagues were impressed .
Even Sen. Lindsey Graham stopped Adam Schiff in the Senate hallways to compliment his performance .

Fox News broadcast the first two hours of the impeachment trial on Wednesday in a normal manner, but after that, they turned off the sound:
Starting with The Five, the network’s early evening roundtable commentary show, and continuing throughout the evening, Fox News broadcast portions of screen-in-screen video of the trial. But instead of playing the audio, network hosts provided the normal Trumpian spin. So while someone who just looked at the screen may have concluded Fox News was covering the trial, in fact it wasn’t covering it at all.
Their post-truth business model couldn’t withstand the House Managers’ methodical destruction of their viewers’ hero, so this is telling but not at all surprising. Just don’t call them a news network, or treat them like one.
Meanwhile, the president was so desperate to distract his base from hearing the truth that he set a personal tweeting record.
As he flew back to Washington on Air Force One, Trump stirred up a veritable Twitter storm as he tweeted and retweeted messages primarily about impeachment, particularly from his Republican defenders—a barrage that marked the most tweets of any day of his presidency, with 142 as of 10 p.m., according to Factba.se, a website that tracks Trump’s tweets and speeches.
None of this was likely to have much immediate effect inside the Senate chamber where a captive audience was subjected to a spectacularly well-prepared and delivered case against Donald John Trump. Some Republican senators abandoned their posts and left the audience for extended periods, but the vast majority honored their duty as jurists and heard a compelling case for the president’s removal from office.
It remains to be seen if it will have a meaningful effect on Mitch McConnell’s tenuous control of the process. He already beat a retreat once, on his rules package, in order to maintain unity within his caucus. But he and the White House desperately want to avoid allowing witnesses.
Now, Mr. McConnell is working to convince his colleagues that expanding the trial to include witnesses—a prospect Mr. Trump’s team wants to avoid at all costs—would be more trouble than it was worth. “Pursing those witnesses could indefinitely delay the Senate trial and draw our body into a protracted and complex legal fight over presidential privilege,” he said. That message could well prevail.
Yet, the House Managers did a masterful job on Wednesday of providing a different message. The Republican base probably heard little of it, but McConnell’s colleagues were impressed. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham stopped Adam Schiff in the Senate hallways to compliment his performance.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-23--The Attorney General Lays the Groundwork to Carry Out His Threat

Last October , Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to establish a Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice .
As Tom Jackman reported , this is something that both police and civil rights groups have sought for years .
Nevertheless , concerns emerged almost immediately .
Those who had advocated for such a commission were concerned about “ overburdened courts , unsustainable incarceration costs , national security , prisoner reentry , victims ’ rights , and civil rights and liberties.
” But the tasks assigned to this commission are completely police-centric .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness , homelessness , substance abuse , and other social factors that influence crime and strain criminal justice resources ; • The recruitment , hiring , training , and retention of law enforcement officers , including in rural and tribal communities ; • Refusals by State and local prosecutors to enforce laws or prosecute categories of crimes ; • The need to promote public confidence and respect for the law and law enforcement officers ; and • The effects of technological innovations on law enforcement and the criminal justice system , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Tuesday , Attorney General William Barr announced the formation of this commission .
Here are the members he chose .
The first thing to notice is that there is no one on the commission representing civil rights , public defenders , or community groups .
Seven of the members are employees of the Justice Department , including the chair , and all of them were appointed during the Trump administration .
For example , David Bowdich became deputy director of the FBI when Andrew McCabe was fired .
He then went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the group ’ s members are either law enforcement officers or prosecutors .
For those who have publicly identified their party affiliation , all are Republican .
For example , former Florida Governor Rick Scott first appointed Robert Gualtieri as interim sheriff of Pinellas County and Ashley Moody replaced Pam Bondi as Florida ’ s Attorney General .
I suspect that this commission will probably be better-managed than the one Trump appointed to study voter fraud .
But what the two have in common is that they have been established with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal will be to find a rationale to justify conclusions they already have in common .
The same attorney general who appointed these commissioners is the one who recently said that communities that don ’ t show enough respect for law enforcement could find themselves without police protection .
I don ’ t mean to be too alarmist , but I don ’ t think that William Barr is the kind of man who makes idle threats .
It is very possible that this commission could lay the groundwork for him to carry @ @ @ @

Last October, Trump signed an executive order directing the attorney general to establish a Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. As Tom Jackman reported, this is something that both police and civil rights groups have sought for years. Nevertheless, concerns emerged almost immediately.
A number of groups that might be expected to be part of the discussion said they had not yet been invited, including the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
Those who had advocated for such a commission were concerned about “overburdened courts, unsustainable incarceration costs, national security, prisoner reentry, victims’ rights, and civil rights and liberties.” But the tasks assigned to this commission are completely police-centric.
The challenges to law enforcement associated with mental illness, homelessness, substance abuse, and other social factors that influence crime and strain criminal justice resources;
The recruitment, hiring, training, and retention of law enforcement officers, including in rural and tribal communities;
Refusals by State and local prosecutors to enforce laws or prosecute categories of crimes;
The need to promote public confidence and respect for the law and law enforcement officers; and
The effects of technological innovations on law enforcement and the criminal justice system, including the challenges and opportunities presented by such innovations.
On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr announced the formation of this commission. Here are the members he chose.
Chair: Phil Keith, Director, Community Oriented Policing Services
Vice-Chair: Katharine Sullivan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs
David Bowdich, Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Donald Washington, Director, United States Marshals Services
Regina Lombardo, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
Erica Macdonald, United States Attorney, District Of Minnesota
D. Christopher Evans, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration
James Clemmons, Sheriff, Richmond County, North Carolina
Frederick Frazier, City Council, McKinney, Texas/ Police Officer, Dallas Police Department
Robert Gualtieri, Sheriff, Pinellas County, Florida
Gina Hawkins, Chief of Police, Fayetteville, North Carolina
Ashley Moody, Florida Attorney General
Nancy Parr, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Chesapeake, Virginia
Craig Price, South Dakota Secretary of Public Safety
Gordon Ramsay, Chief of Police, Wichita, Kansas
David B. Rausch, Director, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
John Samaniego, Sheriff, Shelby County, Alabama
James Smallwood, Police Officer, Nashville Metropolitan Police Department
The first thing to notice is that there is no one on the commission representing civil rights, public defenders, or community groups. Seven of the members are employees of the Justice Department, including the chair, and all of them were appointed during the Trump administration. For example, David Bowdich became deputy director of the FBI when Andrew McCabe was fired. He then went on to fire Peter Strzok.
The rest of the group’s members are either law enforcement officers or prosecutors. For those who have publicly identified their party affiliation, all are Republican. For example, former Florida Governor Rick Scott first appointed Robert Gualtieri as interim sheriff of Pinellas County and Ashley Moody replaced Pam Bondi as Florida’s Attorney General.
I suspect that this commission will probably be better-managed than the one Trump appointed to study voter fraud. But what the two have in common is that they have been established with an end product in mind. The goal will be to find a rationale to justify conclusions they already have in common.
The same attorney general who appointed these commissioners is the one who recently said that communities that don’t show enough respect for law enforcement could find themselves without police protection. I don’t mean to be too alarmist, but I don’t think that William Barr is the kind of man who makes idle threats. It is very possible that this commission could lay the groundwork for him to carry that one out.