Another October Surprise

I had intended to write about the Supreme Court vacancy and the politics which would put the issue front and centre immediately after the inauguration of the new president. However, yesterday's revelation that the FBI is re-opening its investigation of the Clinton private email server matter is another staggering October surprise in this extraordinary election.

James Comey, the FBI director, wrote a bland but explosive letter to the chairs of various Congressional committees:

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server. Due to recent developments, 1 am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.

Hours later, John Podesta, chairman of Mrs Clinton’s 2016 Campaign, wrote:

Upon completing this investigation more than three months ago, FBI Director Comey declared no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with a case like this and added that it was not even a close call. In the months since, Donald Trump and his Republican allies have been baselessly second-guessing the FBI and, in both public and private, browbeating the career officials there to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen. Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is “reopening” an investigation but Comey’s words do not match that characterization. Director Comey’s letter refers to emails that came to light in an unrelated case, but we have no idea what those emails are and the Director himself notes they may not even be significant.

It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.

 

The action stems from an FBI investigation of Anthony Weiner, a former Congressman, who resigned amid a sexting scandal.  His ex-wife, Huma Anedin, is a Clinton insider and confidante. There seems to be a suspicion that she may have passed on confidential emails to her husband.  Whether Mrs Clinton is directly involved is unsaid by the FBI.

In July, the FBI closed its year-long investigation of Mrs Clinton, saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her. This is a legal euphemism for “we’ve got nothing.”  Assuming there is no politics involved in the FBI’s move last night, the Bureau had a difficult decision on the lines of ‘damned if we do and damned if we don’t.’ Had the FBI done nothing and it was discovered weeks or months later that there were indeed further questions for Mrs Clinton to answer, Republicans would scream “foul”, call the election a sham and seek to impeach the new President.

What I find positive is that the FBI, which is part of Homeland Security whose director reports to the President, was not prevented by political forces from taking this action. However, there must be concern that the new investigation is politically inspired by those who wish to damage Mrs Clinton, as well as harming the election process. Trump's reaction last night, gloating at Mrs Clinton's predicament, is truly appalling. After all, if Mrs Clinton has indeed broken national security rules, it is hardly a case for levity and high-fiving.

I doubt the outcome of the Presidential election will be much affected by what has happened. Most voters have already made up their minds. Clinton may drop some votes in the Presidential election but they won’t go to Trump. I cannot say the same for the Congressional elections, where people may decide to reject Democratic candidates because their leader may be flawed. If both Houses of Congress remain in Republican control because would-be Democratic voters were scared off, America will face two more years of gridlock government.

 

It is incumbent on the FBI to move quickly and express the extent to which the new investigation is germane to criminal or civil proceedings against Mrs Clinton. In addition, the evidence on which the FBI relies should be placed in the public arena. Only then would voters know what charges, if any, Mrs Clinton might face. The FBI will probably reject political and media pressure and say a criminal investigation cannot be influenced by an election. However, if it does not make adequate disclosure in the very near future, the voters, let alone Mrs Clinton, will have been treated unfairly.

 

 

 

 

Sailor Trump Fouls The Rigging.

Almost 50 years ago, Hunter Thomson wrote “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” In Wednesday night’s debate, there was certainly a lot of loathing on display. In a memorable outburst, Rotten Donald refused to say whether he would accept the result of the election, should he be the loser.  Hillary Clinton riposted, “Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, it is rigged against him. The FBI conducted a yearlong investigation into my emails that concluded there was no case. Trump has said the FBI was investigation was rigged. When Trump lost the Iowa caucus, he said that was rigged. When he lost the Wisconsin primary, he said that was rigged too. When he got sued over fraud for Trump University, he alleged the court system was rigged. There was even a time when he failed to win an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row. He tweeted that the Emmys were rigged.”

Had Trump live a hundred years ago in Kansas City and run for office as a Republican in the City election, or a few years later had he sought office as a US Senator for Missouri, I would have felt sympathy for him because it was predictable he would lose. Boss Tom Pendergast had the state tied up. For twenty years, Boss Tom won city elections for the Democrats with consummate ease. He used all manner of election tricks to do so. In 1934, Harry Truman benefited from Tom’s patronage when winning the US Senate seat. The saying locally was that Tom watched the returns from St. Louis and decided how many votes would be needed in Kansas City to win!

Fast forward to 2000 when Al Gore lost Florida’s Electoral College votes through Republican rigging. Since then there have been a few localized electoral frauds. However, the days are over when election fraud is wholesale. Furthermore, even in the 1930s, Missouri had comprehensive election laws. Every state has them. The reason they weren’t enforced against the Pendergast Machine was simple. The judges were members of the machine!

America’s election system, whilst not perfect, can be compared favorably with those of all other free world nations. It is offensive for Trump to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, to make allegations that the election will be fraudulent without providing a shred of evidence in support may well be indicative of the kind of presidency America would endure under Trump. In many ways, he is the modern version of Joseph McCarthy, the man who demonized innocent Americans, wrongfully and systematically claiming they were communists. Does America really want Trumpism?

At the risk of gilding the lily from my last blog, the elections for President, the US Congress and the many state offices are regulated mostly by state law. The federal law deals with the rules on campaign finance but not the conduct of the elections themselves. The states, not the federal government, decide what happens under its own electoral laws. Which states does Trump say have wrongfully registered millions of voters? If there are indeed that many ‘ghosts’, how is it he is the only one saying so?

It is for each state to decide upon the election process. The 10^th Amendment regulates the process. This is why voting machines are not uniform in all the states. Furthermore, when the media reports results on election night, First Amendment rights permit broadcasts and predictions when the polls close in the east, regardless of the fact that the rest of the country is still voting. In 1980, Jimmy Carter conceded victory to Ronald Reagan when the California, Oregon and Washington polls had not closed.

Trump is hinting creation of post-election turmoil, without a shred of evidence to support his ‘rigging’ claim. What kind of leadership is this? Yet, Trump makes one telling point which should concern all of us, although I do not believe he has a viable solution. Mrs. Clinton’s economic policies indicate an increase in the deficit, although she denies it. At some stage, the American debt, which now runs well into double-digit trillions, will become unsustainable. It’s a bit like the emperor’s new suit of clothes. It can be ignored for only so long. If and when Mrs. Clinton announces her first budget, the brown stuff could well hit the fan if government spending is to rise again based on borrowing. Even if the Democrats regain control of Congress, will the legislators lie on their backs and nod through higher debt? The CR on the budget expires on 9^th January, 2017. A Democratic executive will have to work hard to avoid a government shutdown.

I cannot see any real circumstances where Trump ends up in the White House, except as an invited guest. The Washington Post runs 100 different simulations of the outcome of the election. In 5% Trump wins, which means a 95% probability for Hillary Clinton to be victorious. If this is right, I say a qualified “thank heavens.” But the world is awash with debt and America has to clean its own house. If nothing else, an American bankruptcy would take Brexit off the front pages of the British press.

Ken Bone Is Actually Kind of an Awful Guy

Why Trump Decided Not to Bring Up Monica Lewinsky at the Debate

Robert De Niro Lays Into Donald Trump Yet Again

 

Election Fraud? Prove it, Mr Trump.

Dear Mr Trump or should I say Rotten Donald?

In a recent tweet, you alleged: “The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD.”

Typically, you have not substantiated your claim in any way whatsoever, so let me raise some questions for you. First, do you really believe there will be systemic voting fraud on November 8^th? Are you truly saying this supposed fraud will be widespread throughout all American cities and states? If so, is the fraud campaign led and financed on behalf of Mrs Clinton? If your answer is “yes,” then you have to prove it. After all, you would be suggesting a conspiracy of massive proportions, so easy to prove.

Second, fraud in the administration of elections and voter registration has to be multifaceted. Has there been bullying, such as threats of future tax investigations? Will there be civil disorder and intimidation, where Clinton people have used or will use violence to scare voters? What about illegal voting methods including “ghosting”, where names appeared on the electoral roll even though such persons were ineligible to vote? Do you allege the Democrats are engaging in “repeating”, “personation” and “endless chain”, where voters falsely register themselves to vote, or where they vote more than once, using of false names and impersonating others? Maybe you suggest voters are bribed to vote more than once? Just say what you think is happening.

Third, do you say the election boards, which are state administered agencies, are crooked? If so, which states are involved? How do you know? Does the allegation apply to election judges? If so, how to Republican and Independent judges get hoodwinked by Democratic judges? Do the latter collude with Clinton operatives to alter ballot papers or engage in “ballot-box stuffing”, namely replacing completed boxes with ones already prepared? Are you saying there will be false counting of votes and false certification of results?

Mr Trump, it’s very easy to throw out allegations of fraud but if you don’t back those allegations with anything, how do you expect anyone to believe you? Do you not know that Presidential elections are administered state by state, where rules and processes differ from one state to another? Do you not realise it is for each state to choose the type of voting machine, the design of the ballot paper itself and to enforce that state’s election laws?

If your theory of a fraudulent election had any merit, there would have to be a conspiracy of thousands of people. I challenge you to name two such people in any of the 50 states.

In the past, there have been Presidential election frauds. In 2000, the fraud was committed not just in Florida where Jeb Bush used all sorts of methods to ensure that state’s Electoral College votes went to his big brother but also in D.C where the Supreme Court’s ruling was plain wrong. Why else did the Court express the decision could not serve as a precedent?

Forty years earlier, John Kennedy’s father stole Illinois’ Electoral College votes for his son, securing the win. Richard Nixon was urged strongly by Republican Party leaders to challenge the Illinois result but he rejected the advice. “I won’t put the country in turmoil for weeks on end.”

It’s a pity that you, Mr Trump don’t know your history. The nation comes before personal interests. Mind you, the words, “it’s a pity” seem to apply to so many things for which you stand.        

Faithfully, Dr John Matlin.

The October Surprise

The October surprise is a phenomenon of American politics, a news event deliberately or spontaneously created or timed to influence the outcome of an election, especially the Presidency. Events that take place in October are thought to be more likely to influence the decisions of prospective voters.

The expression first came into use in the 1972 election when the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the Vietnam War. A mere twelve days before the election, Henry Kissinger appeared at a press conference held at the White House and announced, "We believe that peace is at hand." Nixon was already expected to win big against McGovern. Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration gave Nixon a slam-dunk.

Four days before the 1980 presidential election, Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls but he was to suffer from an October surprise. Internal polls by the DNC told Carter he would lose. Ronald Reagan had benefited from press coverage of the Iranian government's July decision, as well as Carter's honest announcement, that hostages would not be released until after the election. In fact, the hostages were not released until 20^th January, 1981, minutes after Carter left office.

Just four days before the vote in the 1992 election, Reagan's defence secretary, Caspar Weinberger, was implicated in the Iran–Contra affair. Though he claimed to have been opposed to the sale of weapons on principle, Weinberger participated in sending United States missiles to Iran. Republicans accused the Independent Counsel, Lawrence Walsh, of timing the indictment to damage Bush’s (senior) re-election chances. However, Bush’s own statements on “no new taxes” did far more damage. Incidentally, Bush pardoned Weinberger, just days before his trial was scheduled to begin.

I am not aware of an October surprise in 2000 but it has been claimed that in 2004, Saudi Prince Bandar cut the price of oil, reducing US gas prices to help ensure a Bush (junior) victory. According to a 60 Minutes broadcast after the election, Bandar had enjoyed easy access to the Oval Office and promised Bush that Saudi Arabia would lower oil prices before the election to ensure the U.S. economy was strong on Election Day.  

On October 31, 2008, just before the 2008 presidential election, the Associated Press reported that Zeituni Onyango, half-aunt of Democratic candidate Barack Obama, was living as an illegal immigrant in Boston. She had been denied asylum and ordered to leave the United States in 2004. McCain was a poor candidate and no “October Surprise” would have saved him.

What of the present election? Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia supposedly came as a surprise but undoubtedly the most damaging development was last week’s revelation of the Trump tape when he used graphic language about his sexual advances on women and that he could get away with his actions because of his celebrity status. It is likely that this revelation will do more than others to destroy Trump’s run for The White House. And yet, according to The Washington Post, if only American men voted in the election, Trump would probably win. If this is right, this is a serious reflection of the gender preferences in America.

If this year’s October Surprise kicks Trump into the long grass, I, for one, will be delighted. He has no place in serious politics, let alone The Oval. By all means, let Mr Trump keep his disgusting ideas and views and voice them if anyone wants to hear them. After all, he has 1^st Amendment rights.

I do not suggest that the “October Surprise” is anything more than political coincidence but I would argue that this year it has benefited both the American political process and the free world.

The 2016 Debates

The name, Elmer Lower, will probably not ring a bell with many readers of this blog. Nor should it. Except in newspaper circles, Lower hardly ranked as a celebrity. His career as a journalist reached its heights in 1963 when he was named president of ABC News. During his tenure, he was responsible for hiring Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Frank Reynolds, and Sam Donaldson. In that time, the ABC News division grew from 250 to 750 employees, and the NBC television evening news expanded from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. Lower was honoured with a lifetime achievement Emmy award in 1975.

However, there was so much more to Elmer. He and I corresponded for several years until 2011 when he died. He had a breadth and depth of knowledge in American journalism, politics and history that was unsurpassed in my experience. I met him first in 2003 when I was researching Watergate. He told me he couldn’t really help as he was out of the Washington loop by the beginning of Nixon’s second term. However, he had met and interviewed all US Presidents since Hoover. During a long, warm afternoon in the Hamptons, I was given the best history lesson of my life.

Elmer talked quite a bit about the 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy. He told me that he had suggested the debates to his ABC masters but other networks also cottoned on to the idea. He didn’t comment much on the first debate but here is an unedited extract of my taped interview about the second debate:

“The debates, I’m sure you’ve got plenty of stuff on the debates.  I was the host to the second one and timekeeper. Well, the second debate was at WRC at Washington. I think this is something that probably hasn’t been fully reported. The Kennedy camp knew they’d won the first debate and they were sure that NBC was going to do something to even up the odds and make it even for Nixon. So when they came in they wanted to see every little detail in the whole studio, the whole station, and first Jack Kennedy would get up and stand at his lectern and Bobby would go into the control room and look at every picture, every lens, every change of lens and they did this for half an hour and then Jack would go in and look at the pictures and Bobby would stand at the lectern.  They were so afraid they were going to lose their advantage. When Nixon’s people came in they were greatly relaxed. They didn’t ask anything, they said hello, we’re off to the Green Room to prepare and relax until it was time to go on. 

“Nothing really much happened in the debate. They did a lot of arguing about two islands off the coast of China and they went on from there.  But anyway Ross Tulliver and I were there as timekeepers.  It was a fairly simple system though, no crisis or anything but it was a lot of fun doing it.  The two people who I consider the authorities on that first debate that CBS carried because they drew the straw on it were Don Rather of 60 Minutes, he was the director on that occasion. The producer in fact was my old boss, Sid Nicholson, who is now dead, but the guy who asked the dirty questions of Nixon in that debate was a guy who worked in England for a long time going way back in the 50s. He was asking the dirty questions.

How interesting that the Kennedys were onto the importance of image even in 1960. I wonder what

Elmer would think of Monday night’s debate. I’m pretty sure I know what he would say about Trump

as a candidate. But what of Trump and Clinton as debaters? Had I asked him the question, In suspect

Elmer would have given me an old-fashioned look, reminded me he reported news, not gossip. and

would have limited any comment to a mild criticism of the moderator for letting both candidates,

especially Trump, off the hook.  

I am sad I cannot correspond with Elmer about this election. His insight would be so valuable, not so much for the race for the Presidency but how the new Congress might look and how the parties might move from partisan politics and get round to the business of governing.

 

 

 

I am taking a break until the third week of October.