Post by Old Badger on Dec 30, 2018 15:33:52 GMT -5
OK, this is like a bad political movie script, but this fantasy has been growing more detailed over recent weeks, and now is ripe for sharing:
Sometime in the next few months the Mueller investigation report will go to the A-G, either Whitaker or Barr. We already can predict it will be damning because "Individual-1" (elsewhere identified as a person in the NYC real estate industry who ran a successful campaign for the Presidency) has been named as participating in two conspiracy felonies by the Justice Department in the Southern District of New York. From other court filings we can infer that there almost certainly are more criminal actions that will be attributed to this individual. These charges will be serious, and likely involve money-laundering and conspiracy to defraud the United States during the 2016 election. This part takes no crystal ball to figure out. But what then?
Some think that Whitaker or Barr would bury the report once they get it from Mueller. This is a needless worry. Mueller's team has been completely impenetrable, so no leaks have come from there. But once he circulates his report within DOJ there is virtually no chance (approximately 0 percent) that it can remain under wraps for any length of time. Neither the acting nor permanent A-G is likely to feel so loyal to Trump as to take a risk of being charged with conspiracy to withhold the facts from Congress. The House will demand access to it, almost guaranteeing it leaks, or someone in DOJ almost certainly will make copies and get them to the media. Eventually, this is going to become public, and one or more of the following will happen: DOJ will decide that in extraordinary circumstances it actually can indict a sitting President; DOJ will seek a sealed indictment to prevent the clock from running out under the statute of limitations, with prosecution to come after Trump leaves office; or DOJ will recommend to the House that it conduct an impeachment proceeding against their own nominal boss. In any of these cases, we can anticipate a "Goldwater Moment" replicating the day that Barry G and other senior Republican Senators went to the WH to advice Nixon it was time for him to resign. One way or another, Trump is removed from office, along with Pence, who likely attended some of the meetings involving this conspiracy and therefore cannot remain, either.
Next in line for the Presidency is Nancy Pelosi, who has shown no interest in taking that office. Instead, she and the other congressional leaders organize the creation of what amounts to a coalition government to restore faith in the government. Before Trump's and Pence's resignations take effect the House quickly names Hillary Clinton Speaker (the Speaker need not be a Member, believe it or not). She succeeds to the Presidency, and nominates Paul Ryan as Vice-President through pre-arrangement with GOP leaders. Both announce that they will not be candidates in 2020, thereby leaving the 500 or so candidates no reason to oppose them. Some members of the Cabinet are retained, most importantly Elaine Chao (Mitch McConnell's wife) at Transportation, and Bob Barr at DOJ. In the end, a mix of Dem and GOP favorites remains.
Of course, there are after effects. Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes the opportunity to retire while Hillary's in the WH and the GOP in no position to fight. Hillary might well nominate former President Obama to the vacancy, just as Warren G. Harding appointed former President William Howard Taft in 1921. However, Taft insisted that, having appointed to Associate Justices still sitting on the Court, he could accept only the Chief Justice position. John Roberts, a Court institutionalist, knows this quite well and perhaps, for the sake of unity, he would agree to step down, allowing the appointment of Obama as Chief and a moderate Dem (like Merrick Garland, but probably a woman) to RBG's seat.
The outcome of all this maneuvering would result in a government that pretty nicely reflects the realities of current American politics, with its relatively close partisan divisions: a House controlled by Democrats, mostly from the urban and suburban districts where their voters tend to congregate; a Republican Senate dominated by more rural states; an Administration divided between both parties, with the top spot in Democratic hands (Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the past 7 elections); and a Supreme Court with a small Democratic majority. Neither party would be able to do much without cooperation across the aisle, and while it would last only for a bit over a year that could be a good time to demonstrate to voters to easily riled up by extremist TV, radio, and Internet screamers that most real policy problems are amenable to compromises that don't fully meet either side's preferences fully but do at least "satisfice", Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert A. Simon's wonderful invention that combines "satisfy" and "suffice" to describe a decision that may not be optimal for any party but reaches a threshold of acceptability that supports its adoption (basically, this characterizes most successful legislation).
OK, it's a fantasy, and highly unlikely. But for me it actually does "satisfice" in that the alternatives are much worse. If Mike Pence becomes President Democrats will go ballistic. After all, he's not some former congressional leader liked on both sides of the aisle, as was Jerry Ford; he's actually a far-right partisan whose policy choices reflect his fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. And unlike Ford, he's been part of this Administration from the outset, so is tainted by the rampant corruption, which he's never criticized, at least in public. Similarly, the accession of Nancy Pelosi would ignite a firestorm on the right, especially because she would have had to steer any impeachment hearings/actions, at least from behind the scenes. Sure, they'd hate Hillary ascending, too, but given that she got the most votes of any presidential candidate in history other than Obama in 2008, and that she was the candidate most affected negatively by Russian interference, it at least would have some justification.
Happy 2019!
Sometime in the next few months the Mueller investigation report will go to the A-G, either Whitaker or Barr. We already can predict it will be damning because "Individual-1" (elsewhere identified as a person in the NYC real estate industry who ran a successful campaign for the Presidency) has been named as participating in two conspiracy felonies by the Justice Department in the Southern District of New York. From other court filings we can infer that there almost certainly are more criminal actions that will be attributed to this individual. These charges will be serious, and likely involve money-laundering and conspiracy to defraud the United States during the 2016 election. This part takes no crystal ball to figure out. But what then?
Some think that Whitaker or Barr would bury the report once they get it from Mueller. This is a needless worry. Mueller's team has been completely impenetrable, so no leaks have come from there. But once he circulates his report within DOJ there is virtually no chance (approximately 0 percent) that it can remain under wraps for any length of time. Neither the acting nor permanent A-G is likely to feel so loyal to Trump as to take a risk of being charged with conspiracy to withhold the facts from Congress. The House will demand access to it, almost guaranteeing it leaks, or someone in DOJ almost certainly will make copies and get them to the media. Eventually, this is going to become public, and one or more of the following will happen: DOJ will decide that in extraordinary circumstances it actually can indict a sitting President; DOJ will seek a sealed indictment to prevent the clock from running out under the statute of limitations, with prosecution to come after Trump leaves office; or DOJ will recommend to the House that it conduct an impeachment proceeding against their own nominal boss. In any of these cases, we can anticipate a "Goldwater Moment" replicating the day that Barry G and other senior Republican Senators went to the WH to advice Nixon it was time for him to resign. One way or another, Trump is removed from office, along with Pence, who likely attended some of the meetings involving this conspiracy and therefore cannot remain, either.
Next in line for the Presidency is Nancy Pelosi, who has shown no interest in taking that office. Instead, she and the other congressional leaders organize the creation of what amounts to a coalition government to restore faith in the government. Before Trump's and Pence's resignations take effect the House quickly names Hillary Clinton Speaker (the Speaker need not be a Member, believe it or not). She succeeds to the Presidency, and nominates Paul Ryan as Vice-President through pre-arrangement with GOP leaders. Both announce that they will not be candidates in 2020, thereby leaving the 500 or so candidates no reason to oppose them. Some members of the Cabinet are retained, most importantly Elaine Chao (Mitch McConnell's wife) at Transportation, and Bob Barr at DOJ. In the end, a mix of Dem and GOP favorites remains.
Of course, there are after effects. Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes the opportunity to retire while Hillary's in the WH and the GOP in no position to fight. Hillary might well nominate former President Obama to the vacancy, just as Warren G. Harding appointed former President William Howard Taft in 1921. However, Taft insisted that, having appointed to Associate Justices still sitting on the Court, he could accept only the Chief Justice position. John Roberts, a Court institutionalist, knows this quite well and perhaps, for the sake of unity, he would agree to step down, allowing the appointment of Obama as Chief and a moderate Dem (like Merrick Garland, but probably a woman) to RBG's seat.
The outcome of all this maneuvering would result in a government that pretty nicely reflects the realities of current American politics, with its relatively close partisan divisions: a House controlled by Democrats, mostly from the urban and suburban districts where their voters tend to congregate; a Republican Senate dominated by more rural states; an Administration divided between both parties, with the top spot in Democratic hands (Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the past 7 elections); and a Supreme Court with a small Democratic majority. Neither party would be able to do much without cooperation across the aisle, and while it would last only for a bit over a year that could be a good time to demonstrate to voters to easily riled up by extremist TV, radio, and Internet screamers that most real policy problems are amenable to compromises that don't fully meet either side's preferences fully but do at least "satisfice", Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert A. Simon's wonderful invention that combines "satisfy" and "suffice" to describe a decision that may not be optimal for any party but reaches a threshold of acceptability that supports its adoption (basically, this characterizes most successful legislation).
OK, it's a fantasy, and highly unlikely. But for me it actually does "satisfice" in that the alternatives are much worse. If Mike Pence becomes President Democrats will go ballistic. After all, he's not some former congressional leader liked on both sides of the aisle, as was Jerry Ford; he's actually a far-right partisan whose policy choices reflect his fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. And unlike Ford, he's been part of this Administration from the outset, so is tainted by the rampant corruption, which he's never criticized, at least in public. Similarly, the accession of Nancy Pelosi would ignite a firestorm on the right, especially because she would have had to steer any impeachment hearings/actions, at least from behind the scenes. Sure, they'd hate Hillary ascending, too, but given that she got the most votes of any presidential candidate in history other than Obama in 2008, and that she was the candidate most affected negatively by Russian interference, it at least would have some justification.
Happy 2019!
