Democrat Bill Would Outlaw Fake Election News

It seems that President Trump regularly makes the news for his rhetorical attacks on the freedom of press and journalists. Now some Democrats, apparently eager to prove that they are ambivalent about the First Amendment as well, want to criminalize certain types of speech about elections.

The Huffington Post reports that Democrat Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Doug Jones (Ala.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.). plan to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to knowingly spread false information about voter registration and qualifications or the time and place of elections. Democratic Reps. A. Donald McEachin (Va.) and Jerry Nadler (N.Y.) will introduce companion legislation in the House.

“Misinformation campaigns intended only to suppress the vote and disenfranchise Missourians are crimes that run counter to our democratic values, and the punishment for those actions should fit the crime,” Sen. McCaskill said in a statement.

The Post cites several examples of election hoaxes from recent elections. Flyers in Maine in 2016 falsely told college students that they had to “pay to change your driver’s license to Lewiston” and “pay to re-register” their vehicles if they wanted to vote locally. The Republican mayor of Mansfield, Ga. posted a message to his Facebook page that read, “Remember the voting days: Republicans vote on Tuesday, 11/8 and Democrats vote on Wednesday, 11/9.”

Of the two examples, the first seems to be a serious attempt at voter suppression while the second is an obvious joke. I’ve heard the same joke in more elections than I can remember and no one ever seemed to take it seriously. It seemed funny when I first heard it about 20 years ago, but now seems as tired as, “That was no lady, that was my wife.”

In either case, the First Amendment defender in me argues that the best reaction to false speech and fake news is not criminalizing speech that we don’t like it, but in countering it with more speech that is good and true. There are ample opportunities for political groups to educate voters on the real election and voter registration rules in their state.

There is also the question of how effective such a “fake speech” law would be. The speech police might snare jokesters like the mayor of Mansfield, but it is less likely that they would catch the anonymous culprits who printed the flyers in Maine. Flyers printed cheaply on a home copier or printer would be hard to trace unless police nabbed someone in the act of handing them out.

When it comes to fake news, the Democrats need to remember that the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech.” It does not include exceptions for fake speech, hate speech or things that people find offensive.

Republicans should remember that the same guarantees apply to the freedom of the press as well. The last thing that proponents of small government should want is for government bureaucrats to determine what is true and what is fake or unfair.

In the end, it is a voter’s responsibility to register and educate themselves on candidates and elections. When there are real and serious attempts to mislead potential voters, these reprehensible acts make it more difficult to exercise the right to vote, but no one ever said that democracy was easy. One of the most difficult aspects of maintaining democracy may be guarding against well-intentioned but poorly thought out laws that erode our basic constitutional rights.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Analysis: GOP House Map Is Toughest Since 1930

With just over three months until Election Day, the question on everyone’s mind is whether there will be a blue wave or, as some Republicans suggest, a red wave. Perhaps the tsunami will simply peter out and preserve the status quo in Congress. A new analysis from the Cook Political Report offers Republicans the disquieting news that the House electoral map is their toughest in almost 100 years.

“With 102 days to go, Democrats remain substantial favorites for House control,” David Wasserman writes. “A big reason: Republicans are defending 42 open or vacant seats, a record since at least 1930.”

Republicans are defending 42 open seats this year. Of those, eight are in districts won by Hillary Clinton and another 13 are in districts in which President Trump received less than 55 percent of the vote.

“History is working against the GOP in many of those seats,” said Wasserman. We found that since 1992, in situations when a president's party was stuck defending an open seat two years after the president failed to carry it, that party has batted zero for 23 keeping it in their column.”

The current party breakdown in the House is 236 Republicans and 193 Democrats (with six vacancies). The 43-seat Republican margin means that Democrats need to win 22 seats to take control of the lower chamber. If, as history suggests, Republicans lose the eight seats in districts carried by Hillary, that would carry Democrats a third of the way to a majority before any other factors are considered.

Wasserman also points out that another ongoing trend within the Republican primary is to purge candidates who have shown insufficient loyalty to President Trump. Many Trump critics have chosen this year to retire, but some, such as Rep. Mark Sanford in South Carolina’s first district, have been fired by Republican voters in elections where support for the president is a “dominant theme.” The purge of non-Trumpers could come back to bite Republicans in November.

The loyalty test puts Republican candidates in a similar position to Democrats during the Obama Administration. Recent headlines have trumpeted the president’s recent rise in approval ratings, but the buried lede is that Mr. Trump’s approval is still in the low 40s per the FiveThirtyEight average of polls, similar to Barack Obama’s approval in the last six years of his presidency.

Even though both Obama and Trump are immensely popular within their own parties, they are unpopular with voters at large. This meant that Democrats had to run close to Obama in the primary and then distance themselves from him in the general election. The fact that Republicans won control of both houses of Congress (as well as many statehouses) during the Obama years shows how difficult this is to accomplish. This year, Republicans face the same challenge of proving loyalty to President Trump in the primary and then facing an electorate that disapproves of the president.

Republicans candidates also face a fundraising gap, Wasserman notes. The leading Democrat raised more than the Republican in 20 of the 42 Republican open seats between April and June. This was not only true in all but one of the districts carried by Hillary, but also in 13 of 34 districts carried by Trump.

As noted previously in The Resurgent, Republican super PACs are expected to make up some of the fundraising difference. The down side, however, is that PAC money may be spread thin due to the large number of vulnerable Republicans.

Donations to candidates are a measure of voter excitement as well as financial strength. The fact that Democrats are outraising Republicans, including some incumbents, at the district level is indicative of an enthusiasm gap that could spell disaster for the GOP in November.

In all, the current Cook analysis shows 37 tossup seats, 34 of which are Republican. Another 53 Republicans seats are rated as “likely” or “lean” as opposed to 11 Democrat seats. Cook rates 153 Republican and 181 Democrat seats as “solid.”

The next race to watch is the special election in Ohio’s 12^th district on August 7. The race for an open Republican seat pits Republican Troy Balderson against Democrat Danny O’Connor in a district that Trump won by 11 points. Cook currently rates the race as a tossup even though Balderson led in two June polls. If Balderson is unable to muster a strong win in this solidly red district, it could be a bellwether for other Republican candidates with less favorable circumstances.

There are many pieces of evidence that point individually to a looming Republican disaster. No one of them is conclusive evidence of a blue wave, but, when taken together, they paint a picture that should make the GOP very uneasy.

Nevertheless, all is not lost for Republicans. Good candidates can overcome financial disadvantages and bad ones can blow an easy opportunity, something that Republicans should have learned in the Obama years as well.

“If you really want to track 2018, do yourself a favor,” Wasserman said on Twitter. “Go beyond fancy models/big data. Get to know the people running.”

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1022112407064403976

Originally published on The Resurgent

Did President Trump Just Win The Trade War?

President Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker backed away from the brink of trade war yesterday. In an apparent victory for Trump’s hardline trade policies, the two leaders agreed to put new tariffs on hold and to reopen talks in hopes of reaching a permanent agreement.

The precise details of the preliminary agreement are not known, but Mr. Trump said that the EU had agreed to buy “a lot of soybeans” and increase imports of liquified natural gas from the US. There was also an agreement to meet further and seek a resolution to Mr. Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. There was no timetable set for future talks.

While the reprieve from the trade war – one of them at least – is welcome, the extent of Mr. Trump’s trade victory is uncertain. While trade détente seems to be in favor with Europe, the European Union is only one of the markets with whom President Trump has threatened to launch a trade war. Talks seem to still be stalled with Canada, Mexico, China and others.

There is also the looming question of steel and aluminum. The trade crisis began when President Trump imposed protective tariffs on imports of those metals and that issue has yet to be resolved. The Wall Street Journal reports that there is no timetable or agenda for further talks and notes that any agreement must include a consensus with all 28 members of the EU. A permanent written agreement most likely won’t be reached anytime soon and the truce could fall apart at any time.

The truce may reflect a political calculation by President Trump. A few hours before the announcement of the deal, CNBC reported that Republicans in Congress were openly critical of the president’s moves on trade. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) called the tariffs “basically taxes” while Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “We've been arguing aggressively that this is the wrong path for us.”

If past performance is any indication, it seems likely that President Trump and his supporters will declare victory in the trade war and then move along to other priorities. This occurred in June when the president said he had “solved that problem” of North Korea’s nuclear program after meeting with Kim Jong Un. After the meeting, North Korea faded from the headlines and there seemed to be no progress on more substantive talks.

Nevertheless, the tariff truce with Europe could give American companies the break they have been hoping for. Europe is America’s largest export market and ranks second in imports to the US. Neither country would benefit from a trade war. American companies from Coca-Cola to Whirlpool have been hit by the tariffs already. If the deal encourages President Trump to declare victory and end his tariff offensive, American business would breathe a sigh of relief.

And that is the real value of the deal between Presidents Trump and Juncker: It gives the president a way out of the trade quagmire in which he has become embroiled. What appear to be token concessions by the EU give Mr. Trump the opportunity to save face and claim a victory for his base and then reverse his potentially ruinous tariff policy.

President Juncker reportedly came to President Trump bearing a gift in addition to the EU’s trade concessions, a picture of the US military cemetery in Luxembourg where Gen. George Patton is buried. The picture was inscribed with the words, “Dear Donald, let’s remember our common history.” If the EU deal leads to both sides standing down, other trade partners may follow suit when they find that small concessions and flattery go a long way when dealing with President Trump.

Regardless of the outcome of the new trade talks with Europe, it must be remembered that the crisis, which has already hurt American companies and led to layoffs of American workers, was entirely avoidable. When the headlines of an agreement are written, they should read, “President Trump solves trade crisis caused by President Trump.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Four Key Takeaways From The Carter Page FISA Application

If you’ve been out of the news loop over the weekend you may have missed the long-awaited declassification of the FBI’s application for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. The heavily censored document was unveiled in a rare Saturday afternoon information dump and left both sides scrambling to mine the report for favorable talking points.

The declassified application does not answer all questions about the FBI surveillance of Page. Entire pages are blacked out by the DOJ censor and unreadable, giving the impression that the agency declassified only the portions of the application that had already been reported in the media. Nevertheless, there are four key takeaways from the portions of the document that are legible.

First, the most serious allegations of the much-ballyhooed Nunes memo from February are proven false or without context. In its first point against the FBI, the Nunes memo stated:

Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

In context, the application does not mention Hillary Clinton or the DNC, but neither does it mention Donald Trump. Most individuals and organizations named in the document are deidentified. Donald Trump is referred to as “Candidate # 1” while Clinton is “Candidate # 2.”

In contrast to Nunes’s claim that the application did not disclose the political background of the intelligence from “Source # 1,” Christopher Steele, the application says, “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person [who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate # 1’s [Trump's] campaign.”

“Notwithstanding Source # 1’s reason for conducting research into Candidate # 1’s ties to Russia,” the application continues, “based on Source # 1’s previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source # 1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source # 1’s reporting herein to be credible.”

In a footnote, the FBI went into more detail. “Source # 1, who now owns a foreign business/financial intelligence firm, was approached by an identified US person, who indicated to Source # 1 that a US-based law firm had hired the identified US person to conduct research regarding Candidate # 1’s ties to Russia (the identified US person and Source # 1 have a long-standing business relationship). The identified US person hired Source # 1 to conduct this research. The identified US person never advised Source # 1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate # 1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate # 1’s campaign.”

The application makes it abundantly clear that the intelligence obtained by Steele was political research. Nunes supporters are reduced to claiming that the memo was correct because the FISA application did not name the DNC, Hillary Clinton or Glenn Simpson, the principal of Fusion GPS and the “US person” who hired Steele even though this was not Nunes’s original claim. This is a classic logical fallacy called moving the goalposts. Even without specifically naming Clinton, it would be obvious to anyone with a minimal knowledge of US politics that the most likely organization to hire someone to discredit Donald Trump would be the Democrats.

Republicans conceded the existence of the footnote shortly after the release of the memo, but now some are belaboring the point once again. The unredacted portions of the application show that the FBI gave far more details about the origins of Steele’s intelligence than Nunes led Americans to believe.

An additional claim by Nunes undercuts itself:


Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

The memo claimed that the FBI should have terminated Steele in September for unauthorized media contacts, but, by Nunes’s own admission, Steele concealed the transgression from the FBI. Logically, the FBI could not fire Steele if they didn’t yet know that he had broken the rule. That the FBI did later fire Steele is a point in favor of the FBI’s credibility.

The second major point made by the FISA application is that it undercuts President Trump’s claims that the FBI had “wiretapped” Trump Tower and members of his campaign. The exact date of the FISA application was redacted, but the “October 2016” is visible. This is important because Carter Page stepped down from his role as a foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign in September 2016. Page was not a member of the Trump campaign when he was under FBI surveillance.

Page was also the subject of an earlier FISA warrant in 2014 based on his contacts with Russian intelligence officials. The earlier surveillance was ended prior to Page joining the Trump campaign in March 2016.

Third, the Nunes claims that the FISA warrant was based solely on Steele’s intelligence remain unverified. In particular, Nunes cites a September 23, 2016 article in Yahoo News that was sourced back to Christopher Steele, the same informant who provided information directly to the FBI. This claim is impossible to verify because of the large amount of information that is still classified.

The prominent position of Steele as “Source # 1” does lend credence to the argument that his information was very important, but it is impossible to know what other information was provided that has not been declassified. The picture above is a screenshot of page 19 of the application and gives an idea of how much information the FBI has held back.

The fourth point is the warrant was not a partisan hit job. The four FISA judges who signed off on the warrant were all appointed to the federal judiciary by Republican presidents. Two were George W. Bush appointees, one was appointed by George H.W. Bush and one dated back to the Reagan Administration. All four were appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice John Roberts, also a Republican and a conservative.

The FISA application leaves a lot of unknowns, but it does answer a few questions. Unfortunately for President Trump and Devin Nunes, the answers given show that Republican claims about the FBI’s corruption are not on the level. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Review: 'The President Is Missing' By James Patterson And Bill Clinton

You may have seen James Patterson and Bill Clinton making the rounds on the talk show circuit to promote their book, “The President Is Missing.” The news centering around the interviews has mainly involved the former president having to defend his sexual misbehavior in the #MeToo era. The message of the book has largely escaped media notice on both the right and the left.

I didn’t intend to read the book. Normally anything that involves the Clintons pegs low on my interest meter and despite being a lifelong bookworm I had never read anything by James Patterson. I picked up the book out of curiosity when my son pointed it out at our local library. After perusing it for a few minutes, it piqued my interest enough to check it out.

To those who would argue that my conservative credentials are suspect because I read a book coauthored by Bill Clinton, I say that it isn’t healthy to wall yourself off from all opposing viewpoints. The insular echo chambers of social media in which we hear only a distorted view of the other side’s beliefs are a major problem of modern American life. Besides, I checked the book out from a library so no Clintons were enriched by my reading of the novel.

To my surprise, “The President Is Missing” is a very good book. It is a fast-paced and very believable thriller that is difficult to put down. Despite fears to the contrary, the book does not preach about the liberal point of view any more than average Hollywood movie and probably less so. There are references to traditional Democratic talking points, but that is to be expected from a book that centers around a president who assumed to be a Democrat.

The central character of the book is the president, who tells the story from his point of view. Although a Democrat, the president seems to be a moderate and the character is likable. Like a few modern Democrats from the real world, he is a veteran of Desert Storm. Unlike many from both sides of the aisle, the fictional president puts partisanship aside to act in the best interests of the country at great personal risk to himself.

The plot involves the reliance of modern America on electricity and the internet, a threat that I have been concerned about for years. For a long time, I was concerned that a rogue state such as North Korea or Iran could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack. In such a scenario, a nuclear weapon would be detonated high over the central US and the resulting EMP would fry the electrical grids and devices for most of the country. Such an attack could lead to mass starvation and the collapse of the economy.

More recently, I’ve realized that it would be much easier for cyber attackers to simply switch off the electrical grids and lock out the “white hat” hackers defending them. Given the ubiquitous nature of the internet in modern life, malware and viruses could infest everything from household appliances to defense computers and cause havoc.

If you think it can’t happen, it already has… at least on a smaller scale. Russia has launched cyber-attacks on Ukrainian power plants that caused extensive blackouts as far back as 2015. In 2014, a botnet hijacked 100,000 internet-connected devices including a smart refrigerator and used it send 750,000 spam emails. In October 2016, a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack crashed the sites of such internet giants as Twitter, CNN and Netflix. At about the same time, Russian hackers were attacking numerous state and local election administration sites.

The possibilities for nefarious internet schemes with catastrophic outcomes are limited only by the imaginations of cyber terrorists, but there are many defensive strategies as well. One of the most obvious is limiting exposure. Just because something can be connected to the internet doesn’t mean it should be. Is it really in our best interests to have our refrigerators and toasters online? When it comes to voting, paper ballots, even with all their problems, seem immeasurably more secure than a computer-based voting system.

“The President Is Missing” was a quick and enjoyable read. If you like political thrillers and want to escape the crazy news of the day to a world where problems can be wrapped up in 500 pages, don’t be put off by the former president’s name on the cover. Check it out at your local library and you won’t even have to feel guilty.

Originally published on The Resurgent

FBI Releases Carter Page FISA Warrant

On Saturday, the FBI released a heavily redacted version of the FISA warrant application for Donald Trump's former campaign advisor, Carter Page. President Trump and other Republicans had charged the FBI with illicit spying on members of the Trump campaign.

The document (available here), which is 412 pages, is heavily censored with entire pages blacked out. The application was from October 2016, but even the exact date was redacted.

”The FBI believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian Government, ” the application says and then continues after a redaction, “[to] undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in violation of criminal law.”

“Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers,” the application states, but the evidence supporting these claims is censored.

”Source # 1” appears to be Christopher Steele, the author of the controversial Steele dossier. Republicans had alleged that the FBI did not disclose that the dossier was commissioned by Democrats as opposition research into Donald Trump.

In contrast to these claims, the application states, ”The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person [who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate # 1’s [Trump's] campaign.”

”Notwithstanding Source # 1’s reason for conducting research into Candidate # 1’s ties to Russia,” the application says, based on Source # 1’s previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source # 1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source # 1’s reporting herein to be credible.”

The uncensored parts of the application detail the allegations from Steele that Page had been told by the Russian government there was ”kompromat” on Candidate # 2, Hillary Clinton. The application says that the kompromat could possibly be released to the Trump campaign.

The application also contains background material on Page’s prior connections to Russia and cites several media reports that detailed alleged meetings between Page and representatives of Vladimir Putin's government. There is a reference to a letter written by Page to then-FBI Director James Comey. In the letter, Page, who was fired from the Trump campaign in September 2016, denied wrongdoing and called the allegations against him ”completely false media reports.”

Nevertheless, the FBI said that there was ”probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities)” for a foreign power.

The redacted application strikes a blow at Republican claims that the FBI did not disclose the political nature of the information from Christopher Steele to the FISA court judge who issued the warrant. Less clear is how much evidence the FBI already had against Page before the warrant was issued. The Steele dossier and news reports were previously known, but a large part of the application is still classified.

Carter Page has not yet been indicted by the Mueller investigation even though he was questioned extensively in June 2017. This raises the possibility that either the surveillance did not uncover any criminal acts by Page or that he has been cooperating with investigators.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Food Stamp Use Remains High Long After The Recession

The economy is growing and unemployment is decreasing, but one thing hasn’t changed since the Obama era and that is historically high levels of food stamp use. While enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is down from its 2013 peak, participation in the program is near levels that were last seen just after the end of the Great Recession.

Government figures show that SNAP enrollment fell to 39.6 million in April, which is near 2010 levels. USDA tables show that the enrollment in the program reached its height in 2013 at 47.6 million. Prior to 2008, SNAP enrollment was below 27 million.

SNAP is available to families below 130 percent of the poverty level. For a family of four, that works out to $2,665 per month or $31,980 annually.

In the aftermath of the recession, the Obama Administration increased welfare state programs dramatically. In 2012, CNN admitted that “spending on income-based programs, such as food stamps, has increased by one-third to $900 billion under Obama” after Newt Gingrich called Obama the “food stamp president.” Part of the post-recession growth was due to states expanding eligibility for SNAP, which led to more enrollees and increased costs. In 2016, the New York Times reported that states were returning to pre-recession eligibility requirements.

Another reason that SNAP enrollment is still higher than pre-recession levels is that many workers who left the work force never returned. Despite recent drops in the unemployment rate, the labor force participation rate is still far below 2008 levels. The rate has not yet changed from the Obama era levels despite the growing economy.

House Republicans have proposed stricter work requirements to further trim food stamp rolls. The SNAP provisions in the 2018 farm bill have led to a significant dispute between the House and Senate. The two chambers have not yet agreed on a final version of the bill.

Food stamp usage is declining, but it may be years before it returns to pre-recession levels, assuming it ever does. The Trump Administration’s trade war could very well lead the economy into a new recession that increases SNAP enrollment once again.

Originally published on The Resurgent