Weaponized Agencies

Trim life shadows flicker and fall
But you still can't turn away
Get up and run before you stall
Before the edges fray
--Ric Ocasek

Given that the executive branch now includes dozens of agencies with strong armed capability, it should come as no surprised that influential politicians will seek to 'weaponize' those agencies against political opponents. The FBI, CIA, and IRS are particularly attractive in this regard.

McCarthy, JFK, Tea Party, et al.

In the recent years, there has been no better example of the weaponization of federal agencies than the concerted operations to take down Donald Trump. First as a candidate, then as sitting president, and now as a former president with future candidate potential. The FBI, CIA, DOJ, and even the military has been involved.

Yesterday's actions will be difficult for even many partisans to brush off as federal agents raided Trump's home in Florida.

Actions over the past few years have escalated to the stuff of authoritarian police states. The current administration is brazenly employing federal agencies to punish political opposition.

What authoritarians never seem capable of understanding is the extent to which their aggression strengthens the resolve of the liberty-minded.

Keep Him Out

But you won't get too far
'Cause you got to blame someone
For your own confusion
We're on guard this time
Against your final solution
--Red Rider

Interesting thesis about why leftists, including many on the conservative side, cannot let Trump back in the Oval Office. The primary answer is that it is not Trump, but the tens of millions of 'country class' that he represents. 

The elite cannot afford to have give those rubes, Clinton's 'deplorables,' a voice in the political process. And to keep that from happening, the ruling class will stop at nothing to keep that from happening.

The author suggests that leftists have a string of plans in the queue to keep Trump out of office.

Plan A. Use the Jan 6 show trials to keep Trump from running/winning. By most accounts, however, that isn't working.

Plan B. Indict Trump for 'seditious conspiracy' using the DOJ and other machinery of the deep state. Of course, it will be difficult to convince a large fraction of Americans that any such charges hold a modicum of legitimacy.

Plan C. Declare Trump ineligible to run under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. The legitimacy issue still holds.

Plan D. Simply beat Trump at the ballot box. The trouble is Democrats have no obvious candidate that could compete with Trump head-to-head this time around.

Plan E. Cheat (again) in the election. There is no question that Democrats will do what they can get away with (again) this time around. The issue is, given the heightened public awareness about election process shenanigans, how much they will truly be able to get away with in 2024.

Plan F. Take to the streets and riot. Do this until the 'proper' regime is secured in the White House.

It is easy to see why leftists are husting to grab guns ahead of this cycle.

Scandal Escalating

You run, run, run away
It's your heart that you betray
--Scandal

The Durham investigation into possible spying of the Trump campaign and presidency has filed a motion in which it was divulged that contractors and tech experts essentially spied on Donald Trump during his presidential campaign and while he was in office.

According to Durham, a tech company gained access to Trump servers and "exploited this arrangement by mining [Trump domain] traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump." Who precisely benefitted from this information was not specified in the filing, but dots can be readily connected between the tech firm and Hillary Clinton.

The implications were not lost on the former president, who issued a 'vindication' statement of sorts.

On in lead in to her Sunday morning program, Maria Bartiromo stated that she hopes "Donald Trump will sue them all for everything because they damaged his reputation throughout his four years in office. So much so that he was constantly on the defense...Every American should be outraged by this."

Of course, only some Americans will be outraged by this. Others will choose to look the other way. 

But as Durham continues to pile up the evidence, the scope of this scandal is growing toward proportions that will be difficult for all but the most partisan to ignore.

Maria made another nice point this morning. She wondered whether all of the noise being made by the Biden administration about a Ukraine invasion by Russia might be more fiction than fact--i.e., a distraction to keep public attention away from an escalating political scandal. 

Interesting speculation, particularly as new trickles out that Ukraine and Russian officials claiming that war is not imminent.

Parabolic Decline

And there's some chance we could fail
But the last time someone was always there for bail
When will, when will we fall down?
--Toad the Wet Sprocket

Nice depiction of the gravity of our fiscal situation. Yes, debt is 'soaring,' but its actual effect is to pull progress downward--as in negative net worth.

btw, if you're wondering what the secret sauce was that brought about a brief reported surplus in the late 1990s, it was a combination of a capital gains tax windfall from the dot.com stock market runup and an accounting change engineered by the Clinton administration to count payroll taxes collected for Social Security as revenue (in reality they are trust payments). The key tell is that debt continued to increase during the 'surplus' period.

The days of smoke and mirrors surpluses are long gone, however, as even the boldest accounting chicanery cannot obscure the parabolic decline in financial position augured by our reckless borrowing behavior.

Dot Plots

Sam Gerard: Cosmo, this guy's dirty.
Cosmo Renfro: Yeah he is, Sam.
--The Fugitive

If you're connecting dots to picture what has truly gone on over the past year and a half, then it seems likely that an image of Dr Anthony Fauci will appear in the middle of it. A public health sector bureaucrat for more than 50 yrs, Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). He has been the chief mouthpiece of CV19 public health measures since the pandemic began.

It did not take long for Fauci to blow his credibility with anyone with reasoning capacity. His stance on several matters (e.g., travel policy, masking) flip flopped. He promoted policies grounded in dogma rather than in science. He failed to advocate for projects to obtain better understanding of the situation (e.g., seroprevalence studies, randomized trials evaluating effectiveness of various PPE). He ignored data that contradicted his viewpoints.  

Because Fauci has been an active member of the Democratic Party who strongly supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, it is easy to construe his actions as politically motivated. Indeed, failing to remove Fauci from his position of influence may have been Donald Trump's most glaring error.

Evidence is emerging that Fauci received information about the potential origin of the virus in a Wuhan lab. He also knew that the research was funded in part by US tax dollars. In both cases his subsequent actions suggest coverups. Yesterday he failed to appear before a House panel hearing to answer questions about these matters.

Undoubtedly, Fauci is seeking political cover while it is still available for him. But it will be hard to hide from what the dots plot.

Druck Tape

You always feel misunderstood
But you did the best you could
--Ric Ocasek

The always interesting Stan Druckenmiller did two sit downs this week. First was the Economic Club of New York on Monday. Then came CNBC Squawk Box on Friday. Although he covered a similar range of topics both days, including the Fed, trade wars, measuring GDP and inflation, his current investment positioning, entitlements, education, tax rates, capitalism vs socialism, upcoming election, both interviews are worth listening to.

Druck seems an enigma to me. His views on some issues seem true and difficult to counter while he clearly contradicts even himself on other issues. Monitor, for example, the contradictions spread across the threads on capitalism, the need to 'raise revenue,' and 'inequality' during the CNBC discussion.

Regardless, Druck's comments are always thought provoking and help build better thought process.

Of Pots and Kettles

And once you're gone
You can't come back
When you're out of the blue
And into the black
--Neil Young

Brazenness of politicians never ceases to amaze.

Pot, kettle, black...

Epic Media Bias

I've been trying oh so long to let you know
Let you know how I feel
--Phil Collins

Although 'never before' statements carry the risk of recency bias, President Trump's claim may be correct, at least with respect to the mainstream media.

Never in the history of our Country has the “press” been more dishonest than it is today. Stories that should be good, are bad. Stories that should be bad, are horrible. Many stories, like with the REAL story on Russia, Clinton & the DNC, seldom get reported. Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2018

Seems ripe for academic research. It would be interesting, for example, if Groseclose's (2011) methodology were applied to panel data.

Suspect that a beta coefficent estimating the relationship between media bias and time would be positive and significant, which would position recent slant at top of trend.

Straight Up, Straight Down

Christy Wills: There is no right or wrong. There is only opinion.
Brantley Foster: You know, in some states you can get arrested for saying that.
--Secret of My Success

Sheryl Attkison discusses why the production of fake news, which involves so called news professionals committing gaffes that would not be tolerated in journalism school, is widespread today. She focuses on three factors.

Excellent breakdown of how #FakeNews is made.@SharylAttkissonhttps://t.co/7m1L7VaKCB

— PragerU (@prageru) November 8, 2018

First, firewalls that used to strictly separate news from opinion in media organizations have become blurred. Previously forbidden practices such as editorializing in straight news reports and the inclusion of opinion as fact are not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Second, regardless of their like or dislike for a politician, journalists are obligated to treat all politicians the same. Unfortunately this obligation has been discarded in favor of a double standard. Coverage with kid gloves for friendlies; hostile coverage for enemies.

Third is what Attkison calls transactional journalism. Journalists have become willing to slant coverage in order to get something in return--like favorable access to a particular person or information worthy of a scoop. Doing so, of course, constitutes a violation of basic ethics.

Because they can no longer get their news straight up, many information consumers are pointing their thumbs straight down at mainstream media sources that have completely abdicated their responsibility for objectivity.

Partial Justice

"If this thing reaches as deep and goes as high as we think it does, they'll do anything not to be exposed."
--Gray Grantham (The Pelican Brief)

Kim Strassel discusses the uneven hand of justice as it pertains to the Trump and Clinton campaigns.

"The country has watched the FBI treat one campaign with kid gloves, the other with warrants, wiretaps, and eavesdropping. They've seen the Justice Department resist all efforts at accountability, even as it fails to hold its own accountable. And don't get them started on the one-sided media.

"And now they are witnessing unequal treatment in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe."

As she correctly observes, Mueller's blindness to the national expectation of equal application of the law is undermining the legitimacy of his team's findings.

No Rabbi, No Respect

What you want
Baby I got it
What you need
Do you know I got it
--Aretha Franklin

A former CIA analyst observes that former CIA director John Brennan lacks a 'Rabbi.' In Washington-speak, a Rabbi has the political capacity to advance your interests and to protect you if things get dicey. Brennan, as well as his FBI/CIA/DOJ co-conspirators, surely expected that the Rabbi would be President Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, that wasn't to be.

As the emails, memos, and other shreds of evidence accumulate unabated, Brennan and his Deep State gang are coming to the realization that without a Rabbi, you get no respect.

Cover-Up

The times are tough new
Just getting tougher
This whole world is rough
It's just getting rougher
--Bruce Springsteen

It is increasingly clear that the 'Russia collusion' investigation against Donald Trump is nothing more that an attempt to deflect and cover up wrongdoings by Hillary Clinton and the Obama administrations.

Statists were confident that the Clinton email scandal, the Clinton-Russia uranium deal, and associated lawlessness by State and Justice depts would never see the light of day because a Clinton presidential victory in 2016 was a sure thing. When that turned out not to be the case, statists scrambled to construct the Russia collusion narrative to divert attention from their crimes. A complicit media has gladly pushed the story.

In the best case scenario, they hoped (and still hope) that their fabricated narrative, if given enough legitimacy and time, could unseat Trump--and forever bury their wrongdoings in the tomb of the Deep State.

If they can only extend the witch hunt to the mid term elections, then their cover-up wishes will come true.

So goes the thought process.

What's New?

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
--The Who

The left is holding up Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as an up-and-coming face of the Democratic Party after her surprise victory in a recent New York congressional primary. Her self-described program of 'democratic socialism' is all the rage among progressives.

However, as discussed here, the socialist policies described by Ocasio-Cortez are nothing new. They are the same tired authoritarian programs that have impaired prosperity and ruined lives for decades (centuries) in socialist regimes.

What is new is Ocasio-Cortez's youth--which comes in handy when you need to phase out an aging Bernie Sanders as your socialist spokesperson.

It is also noteworthy that the excitement surrounding Ocasio-Cortez and her socialist policies provides more evidence that a large chunk of the Democratic Party appears to be moving further left ideologically. How that plays with voters remains to be seen.

Kennedy to Retire

Jake Lo: What judge is going to believe that?
Agent Wesley: My judge.
--Rapid Fire

Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that he would retire. Kennedy has often played the role of swing or wildcard voter on high court rulings otherwise divided along predictable ideological lines given the makeup of the other eight supremes. Should his replacement carry more commitment to one of those competing ideologies, then the balance of justice, at least the current high court version, will tilt accordingly.

Because they currently hold enough executive and congressional power to get it done, many on the right are relishing at the spectre of such a rebalancing. Conversely, many on the left are cursing the process that permits a president that they did not support to nominate another judge who could move the court further from progressive sympathy.

The roles would be precisely reversed, of course, if the 2016 presidential election turned out differently.

The frenzy that Kennedy's announcement has already created is but a harbinger of the political theater that will take the stage as the nomination process for a replacement justice unfolds.

As the theater plays out, I will be remembering this. It is unlikely that our founding ancestors fought a bloody revolution to ultimately concentrate so much political power in the hands of nine (or really five) lawyers who are tenured for life.

Unfortunately, when positivism trumps the rule of law, the modern translation of the framer's original design should not be surprising.

Maximizing Trump

"You arrogant ass. You've destroyed US!"
--Bonavia (The Hunt for Red October)

Of the many ironies springing from the 2016 presidential election, few are more glaring than the strategy of the Clinton campaign to push candidate Donald Trump during GOP primaries. Because the Clinton campaign viewed other Republican candidates as greater threats, it thought that 'maximizing' Trump would eliminate competition.

Several times during the campaign, I heard DNC pundits echo the thought that they would love to see Donald Trump as the GOP nominee because he could easily be beaten in the general election. Be careful for what you wish, I remember thinking.

Call it what you want. Underestimating your opponent. Recklessly pursuing a flawed 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' policy.

But by 'maximizing' Trump, the Clinton campaign helped destroy itself.

Why Hillary Wasn't Indicted

I want to know 
What you're thinking
There are some things you can't hide
--Information Society

Article proposes that primary reason why FBI Director Comey did not indict Hillary Clinton was that subsequent prosecution would have revealed former President Obama knowingly participated in the unsecured information exchange and then could be implicated in the coverup.

Here's hoping that the investigation gets to the bottom of the previous administration's lawlessness.

Bucking Tribal Bias

King Henry VIII: It's my bounded duty to put away the Queen. And all the popes back to Peter shall not come between me and my duty. How is it that you cannot see? Everyone else does.
Sir Thomas More: Then why does your Grace need my poor support?
King Henry VIII: Because your honest. And what's more to the purpose, you're KNOWN to be honest.
--A Man for All Seasons

On the surface, attorney, law professor, and political analyst Alan Dershowitz would seem no friend of freedom. He is an avowed Democrat who endorsed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in recent presidential elections.

Over the years, however, I have found some value in Dershowitz's viewpoints. Because he is a constitutional scholar, Dershowitz's take on related issues can be interesting. Some of his arguments, such as those involving gun control and Israel, miss the mark. Many of his civil liberty opinions, on the other hand, are grounded in a libertarian-minded reading of the Constitution.

Dershowitz is also interesting because he has demonstrated that he has not afraid to break from the pack on controversial issues. As suggested by signaling theory, a message is often seen as more credible when it conflicts with the ideologies of the sender's home 'tribe.' Because the sender is not toeing the party line as expected, receivers reason, then the information may contain more truth and less 'tribal bias.'

This is what I’ve been arguing for months. Finally someone agrees @WSJopinion https://t.co/eiDgTlbKYn

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 11, 2017

For some time now, Dershowitz has been arguing (as indicated in the Tweet above) against the legal investigations into Donald Trump's alleged Russian collusion and associated obstruction of justice charges. His basic argument is that no credible evidence of collusion has been brought forth, and that the Constitution grants presidents broad discretionary powers in staffing his agencies.

Pushback by his home tribe has been significant, as Dershowitz notes below.

.@AlanDersh: "I call it the Donald Trump Diet. I've lost 7 pounds because my liberal friends have stopped inviting me to dinner parties." pic.twitter.com/Bc8jkJhRlb

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 8, 2017

Dershowitz likely knows from experience that when you buck tribal bias, you will incur the wrath of the tribe.

Election Rallies

"Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does."
--Lou Mannheim (Wall Street)

As we close in on the one year anniversary of arguably the most incredible presidential election in US history, Donald Trump reminds us almost daily about how high the stock market has lifted since election night. The S&P 500 is up about 21% in the last year.

However, that twelve month performance places the Trump election rally only fourth on the list since 1936. Clinton 1996 (32%), JFK 1960 (29%), and George H.W. Bush 1988 (23%) all rank higher.

One thing we can be sure of. All of these administrations, and their supporters, were prone to tout what they saw as the executive office's positive influence on markets. And you can bet that many of Trump's detractors who see higher stock market prices as completely unrelated to Trump were chatting up Bill Clinton's market magic during the dot.com era.

Taking credit for stock market gains is extremely bad mojo. From the above graph, the JFK and Bush rallies both fizzled in subsequent months. Clinton was fortunate enough to jump ship before the dot.com bust really got going.

Rest assured that the wrath of the trading gods will rain down upon Donald Trump's swagger as well. When the storm hits, this president, like his predecessors, will quickly move from owning market increases to disowning market declines.

no positions

Cancer of Compromise

"And so, one by one, these compromises, these small corruptions, destroy character. To want power is corruption already."
--President Art Hockstader (The Best Man)

Former DNC chair Donna Brazile authored a piece yesterday claiming that the party's presidential primary was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. To informed observers, this is of little surprise. In fact, it was Brazile herself caught red-handed for passing cheat sheets to the Clinton campaign during the presidential debates.

And the timing of Brazile's release is no accident as it amounts to an excerpt from her upcoming book on the subject to be released in a few days. For a political hack turned author, an article like this is cheap advertising.

What I found most interesting in her expose was near the end where she says that after telling Bernie Sanders about the rigged arrangement, both he and she decided to keep their mouths shut and campaign for Clinton. She writes:

"I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril." [emphasis mine]

What she describes is not just a Democratic Party issue. Rather, it is a problem that all politically motivated people regularly face in elections determined by democratic (i.e., majority) vote. Set aside what is right and take one for the team. Don't break ranks, because if we can't band together to support our candidate, the option being put forth by the other side will win and it is far worse.

This is the cancer of compromise in democracies.

Looking Away

Drawn into the stream
Of undefined illusion
Those diamond dreams
They can't disguise the truth
--Level 42

If the mainstream media were anywhere close to 'fair and balanced,' then the story that should be making front page headlines is the report that the Clinton campaign in conjunction with the DNC funded the research that produced the infamous dossier that dubiously linked Trump to Russian-sponsored collusion in the presidential election.

Dot connectors now have more data to work with. Clinton and the DNC paid 'deep' sources in UK spy apparatus and in Russia, to dig up dirt on Trump. After the election, the FBI, via James Comey and possibly others, was instrumental in subsequently leaking the dossier to the media.

Reporters at Politico and the NYT are now claiming that Clinton/DNC officials lied about the sources of this funding for over a year.

This story continues to merge with the thread involving Clinton's possible involvement with Russia over US nuclear assets. The central story line here is that in 2010 Russia was able to obtain purchase U.S. uranium operations, with the approval of Hillary Clinton's State Department, in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and possibly a $500,000 speaking engagement in Moscow by Bill Clinton.

This deliciousness of the irony not only places the Clinton front and center in 'Russian collusion,' but it also implicates the FBI's role in facilitating it.

As discussed in the WSJ, the FBI had uncovered bribery and kickback schemes associated with Russia/US nuclear business, but did not disclose this criminal activity to agencies vetting the 2010 uranium transfer until years later. The head of the FBI during that time? Robert Mueller, now the special investigator of the Trump collusion case.

One doesn't need a PhD to conclude that Mueller has the motivation and means to deflect investigation away from himself and his agency while pleasing a large portion of the political spectrum.

Yet, headlines continue to look away from the role of the Clintons and the FBI apparatus in sponsoring 'Russian collusion.'