My Crystal Ball

So, after two weeks of public testimony in the House and the House close to voting on Articles of Impeachment against the President, I thought I would write down what I have seen in my crystal ball. Understand, this is my crystal ball and there really is nothing special about it. Nevertheless, here it is.

• The house will vote along partisan lines to submit Articles of Impeachment to the U.S. Senate;
• the U.S. Senate will take up the Articles of Impeachment as required under the U.S. Constitution;
• The U.S. Senate will hear all the evidence against the President put together by the House but the fact will remain that the republicans in the Senate all already made up their mind – the President is innocent. 
• After two weeks of hearing overwhelming evidence that the President improperly used his office for personal gain, the Senate will vote not to remove the President along party lines. 

Now, what will the vote look like will be hard to tell. There are currently 51 republicans, 47 democrats, and 2 independents in the Senate. The Senate will vote 52 in favor of impeachment and 48 against but it takes 2/3 of the Senate, or 66 votes, to impeach and remove the President from office. Therefore, impeachment will fail, and the President will remain in officeIt should be noted that Clinton failed to be impeached and removed from office by a major vote…in other words in article one of the Articles of Impeachment, Clinton was found innocence with 47 guilty vs. 53 not guilty; and in article two the vote was 50 guilty and 50 not guilty. In President Jackson’s impeachment the majority voted guilty BUT was one vote short necessary to remove the President and, therefore, the President remained in office. If Trump remains in office based on 52 guilty and 48 not guilty, Trump will become the second President to be found guilty of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” by majority vote but failed to be removed from office because the vote fell short of the 66 required to remove from office. 

• But it won’t stop there. The republicans will run the 2020 campaign against the democrats accusing them of attempting to remove a president based on a “witch hunt” (in spite of the majority finding him guilty) while the democrats will run on the platform that the republican’s failed to faithful execute their duties under the constitution and placed party ahead of the constitution.
•  The campaign will be ugly, but the results will not be surprising. Democrats will retain a majority in the house and will take over the senate by a 54 to 46 majority. 
• Here is where my crystal ball gets muddy. If Trump gets re-elected, then nothing will get done during the next 4 years. The democrats will reject a supreme court nominee (because of Ginsburg’s retirement or death); they will attempt to increase the number of supreme court justices but that will fail because the president will veto it and there won’t be enough to override the veto; there will be a number of shutdowns in the government because the president will veto any measure coming out of the senate and the house and neither will have the necessary votes to override the veto; and the U.S. will become increasingly isolated from the rest of the world and WW III will break out (just as the U.S. period of isolationism between WW I and WW II). 

Or

• Trump will lose the election and there will be a clean sweep for the democrats in the house, senate and presidency. The democrats will increase the number of supreme court justices; the corporate income taxes will be rolled back; the stock market will go down because corporations will be paying more in income taxes; growth will slow; the economy will stagnate; and health care insurance will undergo fundamental, but positive, changes. 

So, there you have it…we are screwed either way. The question then becomes do we want some lube before getting screwed or not…

Rep. Steve Scalise spun two keys facts about Ukrainian

Some more fact checking, courtesy of factcheck.org:


Rep. Steve Scalise spun two keys facts about Ukrainian aid to defend President Donald Trump against accusations that Trump withheld that aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate the alleged Ukraine interference in the 2016 U.S. election, as well as former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

• Scalise claimed, “The law required that before any taxpayer money go to Ukraine, the president had to ensure that they are rooting out corruption, which ultimately they did.” Actually, the law required the Defense Department to certify that substantial progress had been made toward fighting corruption before releasing some of the money. That was done in May.
• Scalise argued that Trump did nothing wrong because “Ukraine got the money.” It’s true that the aid was released, but only after diplomats privately and the media publicly had begun to raise questions with Trump officials about the aid being tied to investigations, after the House intelligence committee officially learned about the existence of a whistleblower complaint, and after three House committees announced investigations into whether Trump and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, tried to pressure Ukraine into conducting “politically-motivated investigations.”

While the republican response to defend Trump has centered around the fact that the funds were release and therefore there was no qui pro quo an examination of the timeline clearly shows that it was NOT released until it became public that the funds were being withheld. It is kind of like bank robbers that attempt to rob a bank and get caught in the act. Because they were unable to complete their task of robbing the bank, because they got caught before they could take the money, they didn't rob the bank, and should be let free.

Did Trump's Tax Break help the Middle Class?

So does anyone still believe that the huge tax cut that Trump got passed really did the middle class a favor?


Look at FedEx…in 2017, FedEx owed and paid more than $1.5 BILLION in federal taxes. However, the company, and more specifically Founder and CEO Frederick Smith lobbied for a huge tax break based on the ‘promise’ that if corporations paid less taxes, they would invest more in the US, i.e. build factories, employee more people, improve benefits, etc.


So what happened the next year? FedEx’s tax liability went from 34% in 2017 to less than 0% in 2018 – the Federal Government technically owed FedEx money all as the result of the new corporate federal fax code passed by Trump and the Republican party.


Did FedEx invest more in the US as the result of all this tax savings? Nope – they didn’t. In fact, a review of the largest corporations showed that there was “no statistically meaningful relationship between the size of the tax cut that companies and industries received and the investments they made. If anything, the companies that received the biggest tax cuts increased their capital investment by less, on average, than companies that got smaller cuts.” (Capital IQ, New York Times, 2019)


In fact, FedEx spent much of the $1.6 BILLION it saved in Income Tax liability “…to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017.” (MSN.Com, Jim Tankersley, Peter Eavis and Ben Casselman, 2019)


Now there is some indication that FedEx in 2018 did make some moderate increases in investments, however, those increases where actually less than what was planned and in 2019 (the current year), they are reducing the investments by reducing staffing and cutting bonuses. So, what they giveth they are taking away – but they are on track not to pay any income taxes again this year…

So do you still believe the Trump tax break helped the middle class? If so, I have a small island about 50 miles East of Jacksonville, Florida for sale…real cheap - $1.6 BILLION!

Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch Public Testimony

November 15^th public impeachment hearing featured the former ambassador to the Ukraine, Maria Yovanovitch, a seasoned diplomate for the United States for 33 years of service and experience. One of the focus points of the GOP side of the committee kept insisting that the President of the United States as the untether right to assign and re-assign ambassadors and they are correct. Let’s be clear it is the right of the President to assign and reassign ambassadors at will.


The critical point, in the discussion, however, was lost. The issue was not if the President has the right to re-assign ambassadors, but, in this case, what was the President’s motive or reason. Now, under normal circumstances, the President does not need to justify why an ambassador gets re-assigned, however, this situation is much different.


The case was made by the Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Schiff, that if Ambassador Yovanovitch was re-assigned in order to get her out of the way because she was an impediment to getting the Ukraine government to conduct an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, then the President over stepped his authority for nefarious intentions. HOWEVER, if she was re-assigned because she was an impediment to the President to negotiate an agreement that served the national security interest – then the President was right into make the re-assignment.


So, the question goes to the motive and intent, and not if the President has the authority. But, during this hearing, the GOP insisted on making the point that it is the right of the President to make this re-assignment.

What is the President Hiding?

So, I am accused to robbing a bank but insist I am innocent. There are a number of people that can vouch for my where abouts and prove my innocence but I am refusing to tell law enforcement who those friends are.

What am I hiding?

That's the question I have for Mr. Trump - what are you hiding? If there are members of your staff which could testify that the phone conversation you had on July 25th was a "perfect call" why don't you let them testify instead of claiming 'executive privilege" - unless you are afraid those individuals may let some dirty little secret slip out and make things worst?

So, what are you hiding?

The Whistleblower

So there is this theory that if the Trump administration can out the Whistleblower that they can attack his (or her) creditability and discredit the whole Ukraine/Impeachment “Witch Hunt.” So, let's look at this logically in a different context.

Lets say that citizen A calls Crime line and says that he suspects that Citizen B murdered someone. In response, the police department goes out and investigates the lead. Their investigation indicates that the victim was murdered with a 22 Cal gun which was found in the house of Citizen B. Furthermore, upon fingerprint analysis, they find Citizen B’s fingerprints on the 22 Cal gun, and gun powder residue on Citizen B’s hand.

When the police department went to see Citizen A to find out what else he knew, they found Citizen A in a back-ally high on drugs and alcohol.

By the Trump administration logic, because Citizen A was so unreliable and failed to be a fine, and upstanding citizen, that Citizen B in fact did not kill the person despite the evidence that indicates otherwise, and the investigation should be stopped.

It no longer matters what the motivation was on the part of the Whistleblower, or even how reliable the Whistleblower’s story may or may not have been. Since the complaint made by the Whistelblow, an investigation has uncovered sufficient evidence to suspect that there may be grounds for impeachment of the President of the United States for his failure to uphold his oath of office.

Despite the analogy above, it is important to also remember that the case of impeachment of the President is NOT a criminal proceeding but is a political proceeding and, therefore, not subject to the same rules of criminal law. There will be plenty of time for build a criminal case when Mr. Trump is elected out of office in 2020 - which is critical to Trump. Because, if he is re-elected, the Statutes of Limitations will be exceeded for whatever crimes may have been committed that he could not be prosecuted for those crimes. So, as you can see, Trump has a lot more motivation to be re-elected then just simple patriotism.

No Due Process

According to the Associated Press:

TRUMP: "It was just explained to me that for next weeks Fake Hearing (trial) in the House, as they interview Never Trumpers and others, I get NO LAWYER & NO DUE PROCESS." — tweet Thursday.

THE FACTS: The hearing is a hearing, not a trial, and it is unfolding according to the usual process.

Trump is correct that he and his legal team are excluded from public hearings that begin next week, but he hasn't been charged with anything and has no constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer in this proceeding.

In that sense, his position is not much different from criminal suspects who are being investigated but haven't been charged, or from past presidents at this stage of impeachment proceedings.

*Associated Press, 11/07/19

Right to Confront Accuser

Per the Associated Press (AP):

SEN. RAND PAUL: "Enshrined in the 6th Amendment is the right to confront your accuser." — tweet Tuesday.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "We're not going to try the president of the United States based on hearsay. Every American has a right to confront their accuser." — interview on Sept. 29 on CBS' "Face the Nation."

THE FACTS: Graham and Paul are omitting key words from the start of the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions."

Trump is not facing an accuser in a criminal proceeding. The hearings are a political proceeding.

*Associated Press, 11/07/19