[Winstonm]

And this is a really good explanation why the person in the White House does what he does.

Quote

The lesson of the Mueller investigation isn’t that Trump is less treacherous than his critics feared. It’s that he’s more treacherous. He’s been selling out his country to a series of dictators. Don’t take it from me. Don’t even take it from Mueller. It’s all in the public record, one damning story after another. Here are four of them....

....When Trump negotiates with men like Kim or Erdogan, he claims to do so on behalf of Americans. But in truth, he sees himself as part of a club of CEOs: heads of state. In that club, little people like Khashoggi and the Kurds don’t count. And helping your fellow CEO by hacking the Democratic Party of the United States—in Trump’s view, the real opposition—isn’t an assault on democracy or American sovereignty. It’s a favor.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2019-March-29, 11:54, said:

And this is a really good explanation why the person in the White House does what he does.

Obama bowed to King Faud, W held his hand. Superman doesn't appear to be available and Mother Theresa had a dark side so, Trump might actually be working for the US. Self-aggrandizement does not preclude that eventuality. Since no one kept their promise to leave the US if DT was elected, what will happen when he is re-elected? Is head-explosion insurance available?

[jjbrr]

jjbrr, on 2019-March-26, 20:45, said:

hrothgar, you are the smartest dumbass i've ever encountered. I know it's working for you, but lol...

I apologize about this comment. I thought I was being funny, but I realize I wasn't.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2019-March-29, 11:25, said:

So much of the problem with messaging in politics is due to the complexities of the message compared to the vehicles of delivery.

When we look at history, the 1700s and 1800s were periods where the written word dominated - and I would argue that the electorate was much better informed about their local and state politicians and what they stood for. Long essays were the norm. Try to present a lengthy essay today about any complex subject and I doubt more than 5% of the population would read it or even part of it.

Was that really the case?

The reason the Founding Fathers instituted a representative democracy was because they didn't expect the general electorate to be knowledgeable about all the things that are important when running a country. They just expected them to know their community, particularly the character of the people they voted for to represent them in Congress.

[awm]

barmar, on 2019-March-30, 01:27, said:

Was that really the case?

The reason the Founding Fathers instituted a representative democracy was because they didn't expect the general electorate to be knowledgeable about all the things that are important when running a country. They just expected them to know their community, particularly the character of the people they voted for to represent them in Congress.

In the early days of the US, each Congressman represented something like 30-50,000 Americans. Campaigning could mean actual one-on-one contact, and many people had met their Congressman face-to-face and could personally lobby him on issues. Today, each Congressperson represents 500,000 to a million Americans (the average is around 750k but it depends on the state). This is a big difference (caused by the combination of population growth and a 1929 law capping the size of the House). In fact the US has the largest number of citizens per representative in the federal government of any major democratic nation (we're number one!? but not really a good thing). I wonder what fraction of Americans can even name their representative, much less have met the person face-to-face.

The founders presumed that most voters would "know" their representative (and their elector in the electoral college), whereas the presidential candidates (who might be from far away) would be less known. These days it's the opposite; few people know their representative by more than a name and basically no one knows who the electors are -- but changes in technology combined with the two-party system (another thing the founders didn't want, but which happened within most of their lifetimes) mean that a lot of people know quite a bit about the presidential candidates. Good reason to get rid of the electoral college, but like most things that directly help one party and hurt the other it's basically a dead issue no matter how reasonable.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2019-March-30, 01:27, said:

Was that really the case?

The reason the Founding Fathers instituted a representative democracy was because they didn't expect the general electorate to be knowledgeable about all the things that are important when running a country. They just expected them to know their community, particularly the character of the people they voted for to represent them in Congress.

The written word was the only form of communicating ideas outside of the range of a person's voice. While it is true that the education level was such that not nearly as many people read well or at all, still, they could listen while someone else read out loud. This meant that information was slow moving - the spread of news took a person on horseback delivering hand-written letters.

Until the advent of the wire, the populace was dependent on the written word.

[Winstonm]

WaPo points out that the problem of the Mueller effort is that the most disturbing aspects of Individual-1 and his ties to Russia are not illegal:

Quote

That criminals with ties to Russia bought Trump condos, partnered with Trump and were based at Trump Tower — his home, his place of work, the crown jewel of his empire — should be deeply concerning. It’s not hard to conclude that, as a result, the president, wittingly or not, has long been compromised by a hostile foreign power, even if Mueller did not conclude that Trump colluded or conspired with the Russians.

Let’s go back to 1984, when David Bogatin, an alleged Russian gangster who arrived in the United States a few years earlier with $3 in his pocket, sat down with Trump and bought not one but five condos, for a total of $6 million — about $15 million in today’s dollars. What was most striking about the transaction was that at the time, according to David Cay Johnston’s “The Making of Donald Trump,” Trump Tower was one of only two major buildings in New York City that sold condos to buyers who used shell companies that allowed them to purchase real estate while concealing their identities. Thus, according to the New York state attorney general’s office, when Trump closed the deal with Bogatin, whether he knew it or not, he had just helped launder money for the Russian Mafia.

And so began a 35-year relationship between Trump and Russian organized crime. Mind you, this was a period during which the disintegration of the Soviet Union had opened a fire-hose-like torrent of hundreds of billions of dollars in flight capital from oligarchs, wealthy apparatchiks and mobsters in Russia and its satellites. And who better to launder so much money for the Russians than Trump — selling them multimillion-dollar condos at top dollar, with little or no apparent scrutiny of who was buying them.


Over the next three decades, dozens of lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, mortgage brokers and other white-collar professionals came together to facilitate such transactions on a massive scale. According to a BuzzFeed investigation, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the United States since the 1980s, were shifted “in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities.”

The Trump Organization has dismissed money laundering charges as unsubstantiated, and because it is so difficult to penetrate the shell companies that purchased these condos, it is almost impossible for reporters — or, for that matter, anyone without subpoena power — to determine how much money laundering by Russians went through Trump-branded properties. But Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist, put it this way to me: “Early on, Trump came to the conclusion that it is better to do business with crooks than with honest people. Crooks have two big advantages. First, they’re prepared to pay more money than honest people. And second, they will always lose if you sue them because they are known to be crooks.”

After Trump World Tower opened in 2001, Trump began looking for buyers in Russia through Sotheby’s International Realty, which teamed up with a Russian real estate outfit. “I had contacts in Moscow looking to invest in the United States,” real estate broker Dolly Lenz told USA Today. “They all wanted to meet Donald.” In the end, she said, she sold 65 units to Russians in Trump World Tower alone.

The condo sales were just a part of it. In 2002, after Trump had racked up $4 billion in debt from his disastrous ventures in Atlantic City, the Russians again came to his rescue, by way of the Bayrock Group. At a time when Trump found it almost impossible to get loans from Western banks, Bayrock offered him enormous fees — 18 to 25 percent of the profits — simply to use his name on its developments.

So how did all this go unchallenged? According to Jonathan Winer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement in the Clinton administration, one answer may be lax regulations. “If you are doing a transaction with no mortgage, there is no financial institution that needs to know where the money came from, particularly if it’s a wire transfer from overseas,” Winer told me in an interview for my book. “The customer obligations that are imposed on all kinds of financial institutions are not imposed on people selling real estate. They should have been, but they weren’t.”

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2019-March-30, 08:12, said:

WaPo points out that the problem of the Mueller effort is that the most disturbing aspects of Individual-1 and his ties to Russia are not illegal:

Wasn't Mueller, despite being a typical career insider, considered a paragon of virtue as well as a hard-edged investigator who would tenaciously get to the bottom of all wrong-doing? (Mostly Trump's but even others if so involved...) Perhaps the whole idea, assuming he would know about legalities and such having been head of the FBI, was to mud-sling as much as possible and sully Trump to the extent that his Presidency would be completely tainted?
Business, as a corporate-legal-political function, is pretty low down and dirty (Blankfein and Paulsen etc) so this "investigation" may well have succeeded if not with the results hoped for.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-30, 09:39, said:

Wasn't Mueller, despite being a typical career insider, considered a paragon of virtue as well as a hard-edged investigator who would tenaciously get to the bottom of all wrong-doing? (Mostly Trump's but even others if so involved...)

Mueller is an institutionalist and, as such, restricted the scope of his investigation quite narrowly.
The only things that he reported on was

• Did the Russian government attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 Election?
  
• Did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russian government in any such efforts
  
• Did Trump attempt to obstruct justice

To which Mueller answered

Yes
Not willing to bring charges
Not willing to bring charges

In the course of these investigations, Mueller and Co identified a whole bunch of other stuff that Mueller choose to remand to other organizations such as the SDNY and Virginia.
While some of this is public, there's a whole lot else that isn't.

Simply put, your claim that Mueller was expected to get to the bottom of all wrong doing seems specious...

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on 2019-March-30, 09:39, said:

Wasn't Mueller, despite being a typical career insider, considered a paragon of virtue as well as a hard-edged investigator who would tenaciously get to the bottom of all wrong-doing? (Mostly Trump's but even others if so involved...) Perhaps the whole idea, assuming he would know about legalities and such having been head of the FBI, was to mud-sling as much as possible and sully Trump to the extent that his Presidency would be completely tainted?
Business, as a corporate-legal-political function, is pretty low down and dirty (Blankfein and Paulsen etc) so this "investigation" may well have succeeded if not with the results hoped for.

You seem to be relying on the carefully crafted disclaimer from AG Barr "that the SCO did not establish an coordination between any member of the campaign and the Russian government."

It is interesting to note that Konstantin Kolimnik is not a member of the Russian government, but Paul Manafort met with him in a clandestine manner and handed over campaign polling data that the SC attorney in court said, "goes to the very heart of the Special Counsel's investigation."

Roger Stone was not a "campaign member". Julian Assange is not a part of the Russian government.

In short, just with these people mentioned there could have been enormous coordination and "links" that do not match Barr's definition.

Finally, I am not surprised by the findings of the SCO - this was, as Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare wrote, a counterintelligence investigation and any criminal matter would have arisen from that.

In other words, Mueller wasn't charged with looking for crimes - he was only allowed to prosecute crimes he found through his counterintelligence investigation.

Which then goes to my post above - unless Mueller found the attack on our election was somehow related to the Russian mafia laundering money there would be no reason from Mueller to look at those claims - not true of the many other investigations that are still open, though.

Bottom line: we will see. But the Barr non-summary summary was created to bait the media into a premature announcement of vindication. That's why he is already backing off from it.

A very troubling aspect we should all care about is Barr's claims that private individuals information should be redacted - who makes that call of what can be seen and what cannot? And into what category would someone like Erik Prince fall into?

The only genuine solution is for Barr to go to court and authorize the release of GJ testimony to Congress, and allow Congress to see everything that Mueller found. In only that way can checks and balances work.

[Winstonm]

This is also good to know considering the current AG.

Quote

Ken Starr’s 440 page report was released concurrently with his report to Congress, including all grand jury transcripts.

Also, recall: Brett Kavanauagh leaked secret Grand Jury transcripts to the media during the Ken Starr investigation to embarrass President Clinton.

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2019-March-30, 10:36, said:

Mueller is an institutionalist and, as such, restricted the scope of his investigation quite narrowly.
The only things that he reported on was

• Did the Russian government attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 Election?
  
• Did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russian government in any such efforts
  
• Did Trump attempt to obstruct justice

To which Mueller answered

Yes
Not willing to bring charges
Not willing to bring charges

In the course of these investigations, Mueller and Co identified a whole bunch of other stuff that Mueller choose to remand to other organizations such as the SDNY and Virginia.
While some of this is public, there's a whole lot else that isn't.

Simply put, your claim that Mueller was expected to get to the bottom of all wrong doing seems specious...

Mueller's main focus was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. To wit, the Mueller report quote provided in the Barr summary said "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its interference activities."(1)

In the footnote Barr further explained --

(1) In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

Barr went on to further elaborate on what the Special Counsel found on Russian interference activities. He summarized that the Special Counsel found two areas of interference:

1) The Russians attempted to spread disinformation through an entity called the Internet Research Association. Barr summarized Mueller's finding about any Trump campaign involvement (Barr's words) -- " As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person, or, Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts although the Special Counsel brought charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these charge."

2) The Russians hacked and disseminated e-mails from the DNC and various other Democrats. Barr summarized Mueller's finding about any Trump campaign involvement with this (Barr's words) -- "But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, associated, conspired, or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

Mueller didn't just not "charge" the Trump campaign, but affirmed that the campaign rebuffed efforts by the Russians to get them to "collude" with them. No collusion. No conspiracy. No credibility for the collusion mongers.

In any case, the major claim of the left for the past 2 years has been that it was a slam dunk that Trump colluded with Russia. Robert Mueller's investigation has apparently found that those claims were baseless. Fortunately, I think the country may be able to recover from the damage foisting this hoax on our country has done to our democracy.

If you want to claim that Barr is misleading the public with his summation, go ahead. Barr impresses me as a very straight shooter who wouldn't tarnish his already illustrious reputation by trying to hoodwink the public about what Mueller came up with when that information will eventually become public.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2019-March-30, 19:52, said:

If you want to claim that Barr is misleading the public with his summation, go ahead. Barr impresses me as a very straight shooter who wouldn't tarnish his already illustrious reputation by trying to hoodwink the public about what Mueller came up with when that information will eventually become public.

Barr just invented a legal claim that there can not be obstruction without an underlying crime.

His reputation has long been that of a hack who was best known for covering up the Iran Contra affair.

It will be interesting to see what the Mueller report actually says and how much of it gets released.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2019-March-30, 19:52, said:

Mueller's main focus was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. To wit, the Mueller report quote provided in the Barr summary said "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its interference activities."(1)

In the footnote Barr further explained --

(1) In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement -- tacit or express -- between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

It is interesting to not that Konstantin Kilimnik, whom Manafort passed internal polling data to, Julian Assange, who released the hacked emails, Erik Prince, who met with Rwssians in the Seychelles, or Roger Stone, who may have coordinated with Assange, nor any other Russian cutout are not part of the "Russian government" and thus by Barr's definition coordination by or with them would not count.

Barr went on to further elaborate on what the Special Counsel found on Russian interference activities. He summarized that the Special Counsel found two areas of interference:

1) The Russians attempted to spread disinformation through an entity called the Internet Research Association. Barr summarized Mueller's finding about any Trump campaign involvement (Barr's words) -- " As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person, or, Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts although the Special Counsel brought charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these charge."

Quote

2) The Russians hacked and disseminated e-mails from the DNC and various other Democrats. Barr summarized Mueller's finding about any Trump campaign involvement with this (Barr's words) -- "But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, associated, conspired, or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

Again, notice the quite lawyerly way in which Barr really says nothing - the campaign did not conspire with the Russian government - but not not a word whether the campaign conspired with the "Russian-affiliated individuals".

Quote

Mueller Barr claimed didn't just not "charge" the Trump campaign, but affirmed that the campaign rebuffed efforts by the Russians to get them to "collude" with them. No collusion. No conspiracy. No credibility for the collusion mongers.

FYP

Quote

In any case, the major claim of the left for the past 2 years has been that it was a slam dunk that Trump colluded with Russia. Robert Mueller's investigation has apparently found that those claims were baseless. Fortunately, I think the country may be able to recover from the damage foisting this hoax on our country has done to our democracy.

That would mainly be Hannity's claim about those with whom he disagrees.

Quote

If you want to claim that Barr is misleading the public with his summation, go ahead. Barr impresses me as a very straight shooter who wouldn't tarnish his already illustrious reputation by trying to hoodwink the public about what Mueller came up with when that information will eventually become public.

Then you are really naive if you think Barr is a straight shooter. Do you also believe in an imperial presidency, which is close to what you get if you accept Barr's unitary executive theory, which is the basis for his claim that no obstruction occurred.

It will be interesting to see whether or not Barr's claims are substantiated when we actually get to read the report. For now, though, ask yourself why Barr is refusing to release the entire report to Congress? Congress has a duty to oversee the executive branch, and without the totally unredacted reported, to which they are entitled, including Grand Jury testimony, they are unable to come to any decisions.

Congress can't reach a decision? Perhaps that is the reason Barr is blocking the release.

And it is not "the left" who thinks this stinks. Here is what conservative write Jennifer Rubin says:

Quote

The weeklong, premature victory lap by Trump and his vicious assault on Congress and the press were possible only because Barr made it seem as if Trump had gotten a clean bill of health. Tribe argues that, in his first letter, Barr was “exploiting legalistic formulas — like saying Mueller hadn’t been able to ‘establish’ conspiracy with Russia — to help Trump create the impression that no treacherous collusion took place and that there is no substantial evidence of Trump’s improper coordination with the Kremlin — much of it in plain view.”

When the entire report comes out, both Barr and Trump may appear to have misled the public. Mueller, we know, did not exonerate Trump of obstruction and his report will provide us with hundreds of pages explaining why and, further, enlighten us as to why Trump, for example, hid from voters his attempt to pursue a lucrative deal with Russia during the campaign and why so many in his campaign had so many contacts with Russians, contacts they tried to cover up.


Whatever the temporary political benefits to him and his boss, Barr has permanently stained his reputation and politicized the Justice Department. He adds his name to a long list of people who have tossed away their credibility to protect the most unfit president in history.

[Al_U_Card]

Despite the redactions, Rosenstein got pretty specific in his recommendations

https://www.document...of-Mueller.html

Based on the leanings of the investigators, if they failed to find "something" it was likely not there.

[y66]

Is capitalism committing suicide? From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

Peter Georgescu — a refugee-turned-C.E.O. who recently celebrated his 80th birthday — feels deeply grateful to his adopted country. He also feels afraid for its future. He is afraid, he says, because the American economy no longer functions well for most citizens. “For the past four decades,” Georgescu has written, “capitalism has been slowly committing suicide.”

Those are some strong words, so I want to tell you Georgescu’s story – and about what he thinks needs to be done.

He was born just before World War II in Romania, where his father was a businessman and his maternal grandfather was a politician opposed to both the Nazis and Communists. His parents were traveling in the United States in 1947 when the Iron Curtain came down, and American officials told them they would be killed if they returned home. Peter and his brother went to live with their grandparents in Romania’s Transylvanian countryside.

One day a couple of years later, they found their dogs dead, from poisoning. The next night, government agents entered their home and arrested Peter’s grandfather. “We never saw him again,” Georgescu told me recently. “They killed him in prison.”

Peter was 10 years old, and his brother, Constantin, was 15. The government moved them and their grandmother to a town near the Russian border. They slept on hay in a single room, inside an otherwise normal house, watched by a guard. Instead of going to school, Peter cleaned sewers. He was later promoted to a job turning off streetlights before dawn and digging holes for electric poles.

In the early 1950s, a Romanian diplomat approached Peter’s father in New York, where he was living with Peter’s mother. The diplomat brought a recent photo of the boys, both teenagers, and pressured the father to spy for Romania. He went to the F.B.I. instead, and the F.B.I. encouraged him to go public with the blackmail attempt. It would make the Soviet empire look bad.

The plan worked. The “Georgescu boys” became a media sensation. Frances Bolton, an Ohio congresswoman, took up their cause and interested President Dwight Eisenhower in it. Romania eventually freed the boys, as part of a prisoner exchange, and they landed in New York at Idlewild Airport — today’s J.F.K. — on April 13, 1954. (Their grandmother was not allowed to leave until years later.)

From there, Georgescu’s life moved quickly. The headmaster of Phillips Exeter offered him a spot at the school even through he spoke no English and hadn’t attended any school for much of his boyhood. After college and business school, Georgescu joined the advertising firm Young & Rubicam. He spent 37 years there, the last seven as chief executive.

“The hero of my story,” Georgescu said to me “is America.” Over and over, he said, people who didn’t have any obvious reason to care about him helped him: the congresswoman who didn’t represent his parents’ district; the headmaster who’d never met him; the ad executives who mentored him.

All of them, he believes, were influenced by a post-World War II culture that (while deeply flawed in some ways) fostered a sense of community over individuality. Corporate executives didn’t pay themselves outlandish salaries. Workers enjoyed consistently rising wages.

Things began to change after the 1970s. Stakeholder capitalism — which, Georgescu says, optimized the well-being of customers, employees, shareholders and the nation — gave way to short-term shareholder-only capitalism. Profits have soared at the expense of worker pay. The wealth of the median family today is lower than two decades ago. Life expectancy has actually fallen in the last few years. Not since 2004 has a majority of Americans said they were satisfied with the country’s direction.

“Capitalism is a brilliant factory for prosperity. Brilliant,” Georgescu says. “And yet the version of capitalism we have created here works for only a minority of people.”

In his retirement, when he’s not spending time with his family, Georgescu has been trying to agitate other corporate leaders. He has published a book, called “Capitalists, Arise!” He has written op-eds and given talks. He talks about the signs of frustration, in both the United States and Europe. He has seen societies fall apart, and he thinks many people are underestimating the risks it could happen again. “We’re not that far off,” he told me.

Some other business leaders are also worried about rising inequality. Warren Buffett is. So are Martin Lipton, the dean of corporate lawyers, and Laurence Fink, who runs the investment firm BlackRock. “There’s class warfare, all right,” Buffett has said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning,”

Georgescu believes that business, more than government, can solve the problem. He told me that executives should resist pressure to maximize short-term profits. Companies could make even more money if they invested in their workers and became more productive and innovative, he says. Costco is a favorite example of his.

I’m skeptical that corporate America will voluntarily fix the situation, because the last four decades have been very lucrative for top executives and investors. To my mind, government action — including higher taxes on the rich and more bargaining power for workers — is necessary to bring back broad-based prosperity.

But I am grateful for Georgescu’s efforts, because the culture and values of corporate America have a big effect on society. Not so long ago, top executives made decisions that took into account not just their own bank accounts but also their workers, their communities and their country. Georgescu is asking them to do so again.

[y66]

Guest post from Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

It terms of substance, the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was good news for Donald Trump. Not as good as Trump claimed. Not, perhaps, as good as Attorney General William Barr suggested in his summary of the case. Overall, though, the story of Mueller’s probe surely looks better for Trump now than it did 10 days ago.

But the politics? There the news is all bad for Trump. A week after Barr’s summary – and after some pretty successful spin from the Trump team that produced a lot of favorable coverage – there’s been no reaction at all from the electorate.

On March 22, the day Mueller’s report was delivered, FiveThirtyEight estimated that Trump’s approval rating was at 41.9 percent and his disapproval at 52.9 percent. By March 31, he had inched up to 42.1 percent approval and stayed flat at 52.9 percent disapproval. It’s possible that the mix of polls or random fluctuations are masking a small improvement. It’s also possible that the news has been slow to reach those who pay less attention to politics. But those theories are increasingly difficult to buy as the days go on and the story fades. Nor are polls about the investigation showing any radical shift toward Trump. So it seems likely that Mueller’s report isn’t changing many minds.

Here’s why that’s bad news for Trump. His approval rating is the second-worst of any president on record after 801 days in office, which is where Trump was on Sunday. Only Ronald Reagan, at 41.1 percent, was worse. Trump is dead last in disapproval rating. No other president was over 50 percent. He’s also last in net approval (that is, approval minus disapproval) at -10.7.

Trump’s numbers have been unusually steady. His poor rating, and his low ranking among the 13 presidents of the polling era, isn’t a temporary fluke caused by recent bad news. It’s just where he always is. He’s been net negative since the earliest days of his presidency, and his disapproval has been over 50 percent for two years now. In fact, he’s been last in disapproval for all but about a month of his presidency.

Things could change, of course. When Reagan’s numbers dipped to this level, he had just started a comeback, which eventually delivered him a huge landslide in 1984. Bill Clinton’s comeback was well underway by April 1995. Barack Obama still hadn’t hit his first-term low at this point in 2011, but he too rallied and his ratings were pretty good by Election Day in 2012.

So there’s plenty of time for Trump to recover. It’s just hard to imagine what exactly could spark a strong approval rally for him. Reagan, Clinton and Obama were all hurt by the economy early in their terms, then benefited from recoveries. It’s technically possible that the economy will improve in 2020, but it doesn’t seem likely that such a long expansion will suddenly pick up steam. Nor is it likely that perceptions of the economy – already strong – will start to improve dramatically.

Clinton also benefited when some scandals from the early days of his administration started to fade away. That’s why I think it’s a particularly bad sign for Trump that good news on his most visible scandal had no immediate effect.

The truth is, we don’t know why Trump is so unpopular, especially at a moment of relative peace and prosperity for the U.S. It could be the various scandals. It could be his refusal to behave like a normal president. It could be that his divisive campaign permanently alienated a lot of people. It could also be the specific unpopular public-policy positions he holds, whether it’s the tax law, health care, immigration, his border wall or some combination.

But whatever the reason, it’s hard to believe that a president could be reelected when more than half the country thinks he’s doing a bad job. And if nothing so far has shaken Trump’s unpopularity, what’s going to happen in the next 19 months to do so?

What's going to happen in the next 19 months? Perhaps Trump's past behavior is a clue.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2019-March-31, 20:55, said:

Is capitalism committing suicide? From David Leonhardt at NYT:

I really liked this article. My immediate reaction was that Peter Georgescu and I would get along just fine. That doesn't mean we would always agree, of course not.

I share Leonhardt's skepticism that corporate America will voluntarily fix the situation. He speaks of Georgescu's view of corporate America of the 50's. : "All of them, he believes, were influenced by a post-World War II culture that (while deeply flawed in some ways) fostered a sense of community over individuality.". This could be overstating history a bit. I do believe that there was a different culture, but let's not get too rosy about it.

At any rate, I had not previously heard of him and I appreciate the article.

[hrothgar]

jjbrr, on 2019-March-29, 21:37, said:

I apologize about this comment. I thought I was being funny, but I realize I wasn't.

FWIW, I found it amusing....

[y66]

NYT reported this today:

Quote

President Trump on Monday is expected to host about 300 guests, including convicted felons, at the White House for the “First Step Act Celebration,” a party intended to bring attention to a rare piece of bipartisan legislation he passed last year, and which he plans to highlight on the campaign trail.

But some activists who helped work on the legislation — which would expand job training and early-release programs, and modify sentencing laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders — have expressed concern that Mr. Trump is more attuned to the political opportunities the law offers him, rather than with ensuring it is enacted effectively.

Despite the high-profile party and round tables — and the White House releasing a presidential proclamation declaring April “second chance month” — Mr. Trump’s budget, released last month, listed only $14 million to pay for the First Step Act’s programs. The law passed in December specifically asked for $75 million a year for five years, beginning in 2019. The funding gap was first reported by The Marshall Project.