All posts by Dr. ESP

Briefs or Boxers

Politics

Since 1952, beginning with Harry Truman, the president of the United States has authorized security briefings for the nominees of both parties by representatives of the government intelligence community.  This courtesy is intended to create “an even playing field,” particularly on occasions when, as is now the case, one candidate is the incumbent.  I refer to it as a courtesy because the practice is not required by law or by federal courts.

Never in the nation’s history has there been a situation when the potential recipient of these briefings is under indictment on 38 counts related to:

  • willful retention of national defense information,
  • conspiracy to obstruct justice,
  • withholding a document or record
  • corruptly concealing a document or record,
  • concealing a document in a federal investigation, and
  • false statements and representations.

Various Joe Biden advisors and supporters have urged the president to forego this tradition based on Jack Smith’s 44 page indictment which documents Trump’s alleged criminal activity.  Especially following the former president’s hosting of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, they suggest Trump would share the briefing contents with his political allies.  Relax!  Individuals who have participated in preparation of the briefings or conducted them describe the content as no different than that regularly provided to members of Congress.  It is limited to country by country assessments and includes no information related to administration responses, methods or sources.

Trump’s team, of course, argues he is entitled to such briefings (not true under any circumstances) because he has done nothing wrong.  What better time to call his bluff.  Therefore, I suggest the White House send the following letter to the presumptive Republican nominee.

White House Office of Presidential Correspondence - Wikipedia


March 11, 2024

Donald J. Trump
Palm Beach, Florida

Donald:

Congratulations on your showing in the Super Tuesday primaries.  With Nikki Haley  suspending her campaign, I have no doubt you will be the Republican nominee in 2024.  As much as I would like to honor the 70 year tradition of providing intelligence briefings to an opponent, I have a greater responsibility to honor my oath to defend and protect the Constitution.  Therefore, I have decided not to authorize such briefings while you are under indictment.

There is, however, a solution to this conundrum.  If you are correct that you have done nothing wrong, you have always had an opportunity to prove that in court.  I suggest, therefore, that you ask your lawyers to withdraw all their motions to dismiss the case and encourage Judge Cannon to schedule the trial as soon as possible.  If a jury of your peers finds you innocent of the charges in the indictment, I will authorize intelligence briefing immediately.  I make this recommendation knowing that, if you prevail, it will be to my electoral detriment, reinforcing your claims the indictment was a case of election interference.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.  I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
File:Joe Biden Signature.svg - Wikipedia

Trump’s choice is clear.  If he prefer BRIEFS he needs to face a panel of his peers, otherwise known as “Jury-BOXERS”.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

UPDATE/Bad Ad Timing

Random Thoughts

One of the sponsors of NBC’s presentation of the Arnold Palmer Invitational golf tournament was Chubb Insurance.  During the broadcast they ran a spot which included the following:

In this high stakes, high pressure world, we help protect our clients from risk. And always keep our eye on the ball.  Chubb, insurance that protects when it matters most.

If you do not believe them, just ask Donald J. Trump.  On Friday, Trump’s lawyers announced they had secured a bond from an entity called “Federal Insurance Company” for the $83.3 million awarded to E. Jean Carroll in the second defamation trial.  However, New York Daily News journalist Molly Crane-Newman reported:

The entity through which Trump secured the bond is a member of the Chubb Group, a property and casualty insurance giant whose CEO, Evan Greenberg, he tapped to serve on his presidential trade policy advisory committee in 2018.

When reporters asked representatives of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York if they knew the source of the funds for the Chubb bond, they said they were not privy to that information.  For argument’s sake, let’s assume Evan Greenberg used existing Chubb assets to cover the $83.3 million dollars.  In that case, we can be sure Donald Trump did not have what Chubb calls their “Elite V” protection for director and officers liability.  How do I know that.? The 20-page document which explains the policy’s benefits includes the following definition of bail bond costs.

3. Definitions/Subsection 3.2

Bail Bond Costs mean the reasonable premium (not including any collateral) for a bond or other financial instrument to guarantee an Insured Person’s contingent obligation for bail or equivalent in any jurisdiction required by a court in respect of any Claim. The sub-limit of liability for Bail Bond Costs is 10% of the Limit of Liability.

Subsection 3.35 defines Limit of Liability as “the amount stated in Item 3 of the Insurance Policy.”

In other words, Chubb and Trump’s good friend Evan Greenberg violated two corporate rules.  First, they covered the entire bond, not just the “reasonable premium.”  Second, for them to put down $83.3 million, under the rules, Trump must have a policy with a “limit of liability” of (drum roll) $833 million dollars. [NOTE:  There is no truth to the rumor Barack Obama went on Fox News and demanded Trump release his “long-form policy.”]

Will Chubb also buy time during cable coverage of the election interference and business fraud case involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels?  If so, I suggest, in the interest of truth in advertising, Chubb revise its March 9, 2024 advertisement as follows.

If you are a former U.S. president who appointed our CEO to a White House advisory board, regardless of our internal procedures and regulations, we will bail you out.  And always make sure you can make your morning tee-off time instead of holding a fire sale of your assets.  Chubb, insurance that protects Donald Trump anytime our CEO says so.

Disclaimer: This service is not available to any other policy holder so don’t ask.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

NASCAR SOTU Update

Media

Final Nielsen numbers show that Joe Biden‘s State of the Union address drew 32.3 million viewers, an 18% increase from last year. (Ted Johnson/DEADLINE.COM)

The numbers were reported based on data from 14 broadcast networks and cable channels.  What’s more, my wish came true.  Fox News drew more viewers than any other single outlet with 5.84 million.  As mentioned in the last blog, their commentators promoted the event as though it was going to be “Biden’s Last Stand.”  This was akin to promoting “Oppenheimer” as a comedy.  Unsuspecting viewers did not get what they came to see.

Want more good news.  While Fox News led for a single entity, MSNBC and CNN had a total viewership of 7.06 million (4.43 and 2.63 million respectively).  From a network perspective, Fox Broadcasting drew 1.78 million viewers while their three competitors–ABC, NBC and CBS–pulled in a combined total of 13.8 million.

Does it make a difference when more viewers get their news from sources other than Fox, Newsmax and OANN?  I’ll let Tommy Christopher of MEDIAITE.COM answer that one.

A CNN flash poll shows President Joe Biden (his emphasis) gained massively on a key question asked before and after his State of the Union address: will the president’s policies move the US in the right direction or the wrong direction?

While 64  percent had a positive view of the speech, there was a dramatic swing from before the speech.  On the “right/wrong direction” question, the difference between the pre-speech number on the question — 45 percent “right direction” — and the post-speech number of 62 percent — was a swing of 17 points.

Keep in mind, until Nikki Haley suspended her campaign on Wednesday, the election coverage was largely on the GOP horse race with all the contenders bashing Biden.  It is now mano-a-mano, and if Thursday night viewer metrics are any indication, the reigning champ opened his defense with a first round knock-down.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

SOTU Random Thoughts

Politics, Random Thoughts

I just received a phone call from my 101 year-old mother.  “Did you see the president last night?”  I had just spent two days with her during which she once again reminded me of my obligation to her.  “If Trump wins and you decide to leave the country, you know you have to take me with you.”  I joked, “That’s why I’m doing everything I can to make sure Biden wins.” This morning, I wondered if someone had switched out her Ambien for some “happy pill.”  So goes my mother, so goes America.

After several weeks of the most depressing correspondence and phone calls with family, friends and colleagues, I feel no need this morning to talk anyone off the ledge.  Joe Biden did that for all of us last night.  Instead, with the extensive coverage of the State of the Union address, I decided to look for those things that were not mentioned.  Here are my six takeaways to add to the general euphoria.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE TRAMP

The one thing Mom did not like about the broadcast was the number of times they showed Marjorie Taylor Greene.  She wondered why they promote her.  This was the one “off the ledge” moment in our discussion.  I told her I thought they did not show her or the other MAGA lemmings enough.  Biden was making contrasts in policy, but he also talked about decency and playing by the rules.  I want MTG to be the face of Donald Trump’s MAGA party.  She is uncivil, she is dishonest and she does not play by the rules including House rules which forbid partisan attire.  More importantly, she will remind voters that it is MTG and her MAGA colleagues who have blocked legislation that deals with the border, national security, codifying Roe v. Wade and inflation.  That she would rather pursue impeachments without evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors for political theater than do the people’s business.  She is a walking billboard why the MAGA party has proved it cannot govern and why we must return the majority and speakership to the Democrats.

TLAIB OR NOT TLAIB

Photos: Republicans Wear Pins Honoring Laken Riley at Joe Biden's State of the UnionLast week, Representative Rashida Tlaib encouraged Michigan voters to send Joe Biden a message on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  The punditry was awash with the implications for the November election if Muslin-Americans and Palestinian sympathizers stayed home.  Did Joe Biden or Michigan Governor Gretchen Witmer tell those voters, “We don’t need you,” a la Trump’s response to Haley supporters or Kari Lake’s 2022 rejection of McCain Republicans.  Many Democrats, knowing that a Biden win in Michigan was a foregone conclusion, accepted those voters’ chose as an appropriate opportunity to signal their concern for family and friends living in the war zone.  Last night she and other members of the Democratic conference held up signs that said  “Lasting Ceasefire Now” and “Stop Sending Bombs.”  Some may have been offended, but what better place than Congress to generate an actual policy debate.  Compare that to Congressman Troy Nehls (R-TX) who wore a tee-shirt under his jacket with the Trump mug shot and the words, “Never Surrender!”

Where was Congresswoman Tlaib following Biden’s address?  Did she walk out of the chamber like so many disgruntled (and hopefully embarrassed) members on the other side of the aisle?  No, as this picture shows, she is standing behind the president (literally).  She had to know there would be video and images of her with Biden.  The message.  We may still be unhappy, but this is someone who at least is trying to avoid a humanitarian crisis as evidenced by his announcement of the makeshift port to speed delivery of food and other necessities to Palestinian civilians.  On a night when Biden made the election about clear choices, I have no doubt Tlaib, given the alternative of a second Trump administration, will encourage her constituents to make the right choice.  (For the record, Representative Ilhan Omar encouraged a similar protest in the Minnesota primary though she endorsed Biden the day after he officially announced he was running for reelection.)

THE NASCAR SOTU

The overnight TV ratings for last night’s State of the Union are not yet available, but I predict the total may top Biden’s two previous addresses.  In 2022, over 38 million viewers tuned in.  Last year that number declined to 27.3 million.  The forthcoming number to watch is the Fox News viewership.  For weeks, right wing media promised their viewers a NASCAR race with Joe Biden driving a dilapidated late model vehicle which would be involved in multiple car wrecks.  Hopefully, the promotion worked. The only car wrecks were those occasions when Speaker Mike Johnson had to decide if stopping fentanyl at the board was worth a standing ovation (he chose NO) or every time Republican senators and representatives had their heads bowed in shame when Biden reminded them they were on the wrong side of virtually every issue and history.

BAD AD TIMING

This morning the Make America Great Again super PAC ran an ad titled “Jugular” on MSNBC, CNN, Fox NEWS and Newsmax.  It shows the president stumbling on the stairs up to Air Force One, verbal gaffes and asks the question, “Can Joe Biden survive until 2029?”  That might have played well a month ago, but not the morning after the State of the Union which produced the following headlines.

~Fiery Biden takes on GOP, makes case for second term (Washington Post)
~A Forceful Biden Takes On Trump and His Own Doubters (New York Times)
~State of the Union Shows There’s Life in the Old Boy Yet (Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal)
~Biden Roars on Big Night, Faces Down Critics (Drudge Report)
~He Nailed It (GOP Strategist Sarah Longwell/CNN)

Noonan’s op-ed was not just a kudos on Biden’s performance.  It was a change of heart.  On February 22, she wrote:

A good thing for the president: If he does a perfectly adequate job, the press will be inclined to call it brilliant. Expectations are low. There’s a politesse about State of the Union coverage, nobody wants to pounce. The media have been slapped around recently for taking notice of Mr. Biden’s age after three years of ignoring it.

Bad news: People won’t be impressed if anchors call it brilliant, because our media world is all broken up in pieces and anchors speak to mere shards. And most Americans aren’t watching. Viewership declines each year.

This morning she revised her assessment.

The great question the past month was about his persona. Would he walk in shakily? When he was done, would we be using words like old, frail, incapable, embarrassing? We won’t. People will say that guy has a lot of fight in him. He was wide awake, seemed to be relishing the moment, did not seem to tire much, and in fact improved as the speech moved along.

There are 10 to 13 percent undecided voters if the polls are accurate.  As you know, I have also argued Trump’s 45 percent is a ceiling.  Biden’s 43 percent is a floor.  Prior to last night’s speech, a March 6 Emerson poll now has Biden at +2.  The March 3 Morning Consult survey now has Biden +1.  Even in those polls where Biden still trails, most of which were completed before the end of February, the contest in now within the margin of error. 

Historically, an incumbent running for a second term gets a bump from their election year SOTU address.  Bill Clinton did in 1996 as did Barack Obama in 2012.  There was a lot of Democratic handwringing back then as the polls showed both behind to their opponents.  In the post-SOTU polls, the actual numbers are noise.  The trends are the signal.

YOU CALL THAT LEADERSHIP?

House Speaker Mike Johnson gave his team a pep talk at a closed-door meeting of the GOP conference the day before the SOTU.  He told his colleagues:

Decorum is the order of the day.  We don’t need to be shrill, you know, we got to avoid that. We need to base things upon policy, upon facts, upon reality of situations. Let them do the gaslighting, let them do the blaming.

How did that work out, Mikey?  Even when he signaled for rowdy GOP members to tamp it down, they did not respond.  If Johnson’s world view is what he says it is, I guess it was God’s plan for there to be such an ineffective speaker of the house to remind us what true leadership looks like.

I WISH I COULD DO THAT

I wonder how many people stayed tune to watch Biden try to leave the House chamber.  Even when Speaker Johnson ordered the lights dimmed, the celebration did not end.  Joe Scarborough compared it to football players lingering in the locker room after a Super Bowl victory.  You don’t want to lose that great feeling.  There was one moment, however, where I found myself admiring Joe Biden for his physical ability.

An African-American, female representative wanted to take a selfie with the president.  She was so nervous her hand was shaking.  Biden took her hand and steadied the cell phone.  I suffer from a familial tremor.  When I saw that I thought, “Hell, I’m seven years younger and I couldn’t do that.”  And then I remembered, that was the perfect metaphor for “the steady hand at the helm” he promised in 2020 and will again this election cycle.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

 

WE, The Jury

Politics

Today’s post is directed to those Americans who think that Donald Trump committed crimes but plan to pass on the general election for president. By their action yesterday, in the case of Trump, Donald J. v. United States,  at least five members of the Supreme have both granted certiorari (i.e. to hear the case) and extended the stay imposed by the Circuit Court when Trump appealed the unanimous decision that a president has no immunity from alleged criminal acts performed while in office.

There are three issues associated with this ruling that should worry all Americans.  First, despite the public’s interest in quickly resolving this issue, the Court took 15 days to draft a less than one page justification for their action.  On top of that they scheduled the hearing for April 22, delaying the trial for a minimum of 54 additional days plus the time to issue a decision which could come as late as June 30, at the end of the current Court term.

Additionally, the presiding trial judge Tanya Chutkan initially gave Trump and his defense team 88 days to prepare their case.  Even if the Supreme Court rules on immunity as early as May 1, the preparation timeframe would put the earliest trial date in late July.  Jack Smith has estimated the trial would take three months excluding a prolongated jury selection process, illness of any participants, etc.  That means closing argument and jury deliberations would begin in late October.  This is problematic since early voting in some states will have already begun.  And the whiner-in-chief would love nothing better than to have a reason to again claim he was the winner, if only the outcome had not been rigged.

Second, Trump’s immunity claims beg for a broad nullification of his legal team’s theory that a sitting president can do anything and escape prosecution for any criminal act unless he impeached and convicted of a “high crime or misdemeanor.”  Sadly, the certiorari ruling states the Supremes will take a much narrower approach.

[The] petition is granted limited to the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

The word “alleged” is used to described Trump’s contention that his actions were part of his official duties.  Isn’t that backwards?  The proper use of the word would be, “To what extent does a former  president enjoy immunity from alleged criminal activity during his tenure in office?”  In other words, the Court is saying, “We will decide if engagement in a conspiracy to overturn a secure and safe election is among the chief executives official acts.”  Rather than a constitutional issue, this sounds like a defense to be presented at trial, equivalent to a murderer pleading self defense.  Even if they rule in favor of the trial going forward, they will have given one of Trump’s defense arguments more credence than the Constitution or any other document affords it.

Finally, it’s time to call the conservative justices’ bluff that they are wedded to the original language drafted by the Founding Fathers.  The headline in many of this morning’s papers was some variation of “SCOTUS Hits the Brakes.”  It should have instead read, “Faux Originalists EXPOSED!”  There are few instances in the Constitution which are as clear as Article I, Section 3 which lays out the penalty for impeachment and conviction.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

During arguments before the 3rd District Court of Appeals, Trump lawyer John Sauer argued a president could not be charged with a crime unless he was first impeached and convicted.  It should take a TRUE originalist less than a New York minute, much less 70 days, to understand the penalty for impeachment is only removal from office.  Fines and incarceration remain the purview of the judicial system.  If the constitutional language was insufficient to guide these hypocrites, the 57 page unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals, which relied on previous decisions, should have.  Their inability to accept the Appeals panel findings exposes the Republican judges, all of whom pledged deference to judicial precedence during their confirmation hearings, as bold-faced liars.  And Chief Justice John Roberts still does not understand why approval of the Court is at a historic low.

In closing, the super majority of Republican appointed liars, grifters, cowards, incompetents or hypocrites (you choose which are which) on the Supreme Court, by likely denying the American people the right under our system of justice to know whether Donald J. Trump is innocent or guilty of one or more crimes, have left his fate up to voters this November.  During his February 24 speech at CPAC, Trump said:

For hardworking Americans, Nov. 5 will be our new liberation day. But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and imposters who have commandeered our government, it will be judgment day.

It may be the only occasion during this election cycle he has NOT lied.  November 5 will be “judgment day.”  Why?  Because each of us is now an empaneled juror.  Unfortunately, we will not have the benefit of seeing all the evidence or deciding which witnesses are credible.  But we all have access to special counsel Jack Smith’s filings and Trump’s defense team’s responses.  Therefore, I implore you not to read either candidates’ emails, go to their rallies or watch their commercials.  Instead, take your civil duty seriously and review the available public record of Trump’s alleged crimes and his defense.  That is the only way we can make the informed decision with which the Supreme Court, having shirked its own responsibility, has charged us.  A vote for Biden equals guilty.  A vote for Trump equals innocent.  As a juror, you do not have the option of staying home or voting “present.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP