The plight of Puerto Rico - one year later

Last Thursday, Sept. 20th, was the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Maria's devastation of the island of Puerto Rico, the worst storm to hit the island in 100 years, according to some estimates.

Now remember that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States;  it's people are citizens of the United States -- and as such entitled to the full services of agencies such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).   President Trump claims his administration should get an A+ for its performance in assisting Puerto Rico's recovery.   According to most of the residents this is a bad joke.

In many ways, FEMA did a lot.   But there was so much to be done . . . and so much still left to be done.   According to the New York Times, $1.6 billion was allocated to funding for direct emergency home repairs;   and another $1.4 billion was made available in the form of grants to make home repairs and pay for temporary lodging.  And that's only looking at individual residences.   There's also the whole infrastructure, including a totally destroyed electric grid.

But of the 1.1 million people who requested FEMA help for housing repair, about 58% were denied.  Inability to produce a deed was a common cause of denial.   The median grant that was given, $1,800, compared with about $9,127 given out to the victims of the Hurricane Harvey in Texas.

Again, from the Times, "A new roof of cheap corrugated zinc typically starts at about $5,ooo [in Puerto Rico] and might blow off again in the next hurricane;  a concrete roof that could survive future storms costs about $15,000.

Meanwhile, the island is still dotted with at least 60,000 blue tarps as temporary roofs covering damaged homes . . . one year later.    It's true that part of the problem is the low rate of homeowners who had insurance, plus a general lack of infrastructure and excessive bureaucracy in the local government.   And, yes, President Trump, it is an island surrounded by lots and lots of water, which makes getting in supplies and workers a little more difficult.

But let's be honest, even if our president won't be:    Puerto Ricans are treated as second class citizens, even though they are entitled to all the rights as any other U.S. citizens.   Would these conditions be acceptable in Texas -- or, this year, in North Carolina?

Ralph

PS:   I just read in the New York Times that, due to the tariffs imposed by President Trump, construction costs to rebuild in North and South Carolina following Hurricane Florence's devastation will be 20 to 30 percent higher than last year.  Much of that is from the tariff on Canadian wood prices, which are up by 40 percent.  Presumably, the same will be true for the continued rebuilding costs in Puerto Rico.

Kavanaugh's behavior toward women

[This discussion assumes familiarity with the accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that, when he was 17 and drunk at a party, he sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl, who has now come forward to tell her story on the eve of the confirmation vote to give him a life-time seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.]

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a conservative who is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, and has given some indication that he would vote to give the broadest approval of executive power if questions about a subpoena or about charging a sitting president came before the court.    His would be the possible fifth vote, giving a majority, to overturn Roe vs. Wade, thus leaving it up to states to decide to completely outlaw abortions in their state.

Now I do not know whether he is guilty of the teenage assault, but everything I've heard and read about his accuser's account -- and how it has affected her through the years -- makes her a very credible accuser.  She's asking for an FBI investigation;  false accusers don't do that.  I certainly agree that the FBI should re-open it's background check on Judge Kavanaugh in order to investigate this claim, even though it occurred more than three decades ago.

If he is innocent, as he says he is, then it is a smear of his good name -- and one would think he would like to have that cleared up by an investigation.   If he is guilty, then senators should know this before they give him a life-time Supreme Court appointment.

His accuser says that, at a party, he pushed her into a bedroom and locked the door, threw her on the bed and jumped on top of her, grinding his body into hers.   When she tried to scream and call for help, he firmly placed his hand over her mouth.  It was only when his male friend, who was also in the room, jumped on top of both of them and they rolled off the bed that she was able to get away.

Now, here's why I tend to believe that Brett Kavanaugh was capable of behaving that way.    Within the past year, a teenage girl who was pregnant as the result of a rape, as she explained, wanted to get an abortion.  The problem was that she was one of the immigrant teens who were here in the U.S. and in custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.    She had already gone through all the requirements for a minor, and had gotten the approval from a judge (not Kavanaugh), to have an abortion.

The head of this agency is staunchly opposed to abortion, and he has tried, in her case as well as others, to put up roadblocks to allowing this to happen, even when approved by a judge.  That was the case with this girl.

This obstruction of the court-approved abortion was appealed to the Appeals Court on which Judge Kavanaugh sits.    The final decision of this court of judges was to allow the abortion;   but Kavanaugh wrote a stinging dissent., which also reflected his egregious, dismissive attitude toward the girl's plight.

In other words, he was opposed to allowing a teen age girl, pregnant from rape, to have an abortion.    That is a position that I assume follows a deeply held belief by the judge.  But is it what we want in the deciding vote on the Supreme Court, which already has four conservative justices who might vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

A letter writer to the New York Times, Victoria Hochberg, put it this way:

"A 17 -year-old boy, holding his hand tightly over the mouth of a 15-year-old girl to silence her protests, allegedly tried to rape her.  If he had succeeded and she became pregnant, that boy's 53-year-old self, now a nominee to the Supreme Court, would today probably vote to prevent his 15-year-old  victim from getting an abortion.

"Is this the country that American women must live in?   Have we learned nothing?  Have our leaders learned nothing?

"This man must not be allowed to rule on the bodies of women."

*   *   *

Well said.   Brett Kavanaugh looks like a mild and reasonable man -- just from seeing him in the televised hearings.    But reports of his drunken, wild partying behavior in prep school are reinforced by the principles he seems to have formed in his adult life.   That men have control over women's bodies.

I vote No on Kavanaugh for SCOTUS -- and not only because of this alleged attempted rape when he was 17.

Ralph

Paul Manafort's choice

For a while there, it seemed that Paul Manafort had a choice, despite having been convicted of felonies in his first trial -- and days away from his second trial, which would have had even more serious implications, both for him and for president Trump.   Manafort faced spending the rest of his life in jail, given his age.

The choice:   A plea deal to cooperate with the Mueller investigation versus a pardon from President Trump.   In the end, he went with Mueller.   Trump had given hints of a pardon, but could Manafort trust him to follow through?    Might it become politically unfeasible -- or even be evidence of obstruction of justice?    Might Trump simply decide it wouldn't serve Him well and renege?   Besides, he would still be vulnerable to state charges on his financial crimes.

Or -- and I haven't seen anyone else advance this idea -- the possibility that, with the mounting evidence, Trump might resign from office -- or Congress could begin impeachment proceedings.   Either would obviate a pardon.

Whatever combination of reasons, Manafort chose to go with a plea deal and full cooperation with the Mueller investigation.   His part of the bargain requires that he truthfully and completely answers any and all questions, that he testify under oath whenever needed, and that he forfeit large amounts (multi-millions of dollars) of his real estate holdings.

So what does Mueller get?   A trio of criminal law experts -- Noah Bookbinder, Barry Burke, and Norman Eisen -- summarized it in a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday.  As they point out, Manafort has already had some sessions with the Mueller team and has already told them enough that they considered it a deal worth doing.   Some pundits on TV have called what Manafort has to offer, "the keys to the kingdom."

For starters, he is the first member of the Trump campaign team who was in that infamous Trump Tower meeting with the Russians and who has now broken with Trump -- and who will now tell what that was all about and whether Trump knew about it in advance.

In addition, as head of the Trump campaign during several crucial months, including the Republican convention, he will know who ordered and who knew about changing the GOP platform to favor Ukraine interests.

But all that pales in comparison with Manafort's connections with Russia and Russian oligarchs and their connections with Vladimir Putin.  According to these authors, there were more than 80 contacts between members of the campaign and others associated with it and the Russians.   Manafort is a key in understanding all that.  In addition, he is a former business associate with Roger Stone, who seems to be in Manafort's cross-hairs as a possible link with the Russians, the campaign, and Wikileaks.   In short, if there was any collusion/conspiracy with the Russians, Manafort probably knows about it.

Another vulnerability for Trump -- if there was any dangling of a pardon as an inducement to keep quiet by the president or his lawyers, that would be another count of obstruction of justice.

The authors conclude:
"For the president, it is ominous.  Yet another person who was in Mr. Trump's immediate orbit has fallen to the rule of law.  Now that Mr. Manafort is helping the investigation and may testify in future criminal proceedings --- not to mention congressional ones -- Mr. Trump cannot be resting easy.

"But most important, for the American people, Friday's outcome is further proof that no one -- no matter how important or powerful -- is immune from justice.  Mr. Trump would do well to study the heights from which his former top aide has fallen, and the depth of his plunge."

*   *   *

Look at the body count of those who were once in the inner circle who have either been convicted or have pled guilty to felonies:    His one-time campaign chairman (Paul Manafort), his deputy campaign chairman/deputy transition team chairman (Rick Gates), his first National Security Adviser (Michael Flynn), his personal lawyer (Michael Cohen), a former campaign foreign policy adviser (George Papadopoulos), plus a few other minor players.

In all, the count of the indicted or guilty-plea includes:  four former Trump advisers, his personal lawyer, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer (who has already served his one-month jail time for lying to the investigators.

A witch-hunt, Mr. President?    You'd better get out they broomstick, because they're coming for you.

Ralph

Whatever happened to the political wisdom: "It's the economy, stupid"?

Remember during the Bill Clinton campaign for president that his campaign strategist James Carville summed it all up with that pithy phrase:   "It's the economy, stupid."

I've been wondering about that, when we talk about the blue wave expected in November -- yet the economy is doing very well by most measures.   True, real wages for workers have barely increased, while the wealthy have raked in fortunes on top of their fortunes.

Still, by all other measures, the economy is somewhere between healthy and booming.  Unemployment is only 3.9%, the gross domestic product is soaring to new heights, and the stock market breaks new records week by week.

So, why are we so confident that the Democrats will take control of the House and possibly the Senate too?    Should we be this confident?   Or should we pay attention to James Carville's warning?

The first, short answer has been offered that Carville was referring to presidential year elections, not to midterms.   The president tends to get rewarded or blamed for the economy, more than congress.

Second, there's much being said and written -- at least in the liberal media -- that puts the blame squarely on the unpopularity of Donald J. Trump.    His approval ratings are dropping . . . fast.   And party leaders are attributing this to Trump's inflammatory moves on immigration, especially the separation of parents from their children, and on Trump's inexplicably favoring of Vladimir Putin over our close allies.

Oklahoma Republican Congressman Tom Cole told the New York Times that "This is very much a referendum on the president."   He added, however:  "If we had to fight this campaign on what we accomplished in Congress and on the economy, I think we'd almost certainly keep our majority."

The Times also quoted a leading Republican pollster, Glen Bolger, saying:  "People think the economy is doing well -- but that's not what they're voting on -- they're voting on the chaos of the guy in the White House."

It shows in what the Republican campaigns are focusing on.   Instead of being able to crow about the 3.9% unemployment, their campaign is a negative one of slamming Democrats.

With Paul Manafort's flipping to cooperate with the special counsel in a plea deal just announced, shouldn't we be even more confident that Trump will be dealing with even more negative media coverage?

Let's hope so.    I'm still reluctant to ignore James Carville.   I'd be more comfortable if a couple of those economic indicators start to reverse before November 6th.   I'm not wishing for anyone to suffer regarding jobs or wages -- but we're expecting the good numbers to start reversing soon -- so I'm just wishing for it to be noticeable before, rather than after, the election.

James Carville, himself, had a simpler explanation.   According to the Times:   "He [Trump] has made himself bigger than the economy.   Every conversation starts and ends with Trump."

Ralph

Breaking News: Manafort to cooperate.

It has been rumored for days that Paul Manafort was involved in negotiating some sort of plea deal with the Special Counsel's office.   What wasn't known until Friday afternoon was whether this would include a cooperation agreement.

The answer came:  Yes, the deal does require Manafort to cooperate and to answer any and all questions about any of his activities, as well as other things he knows, what others did or said, as well as all he knows about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians -- and all his connections with Russian oligarchs and whether there was any conspiracy between Russian and the Trump campaign.

This is huge !!!   We'll hear a lot of pundit and expert legal analysis of this.   But, assuming from what the early readings of the agreement seem to suggest:  Mueller now can get any information that Mueller has.    And if he does not fully cooperate, then he doesn't get the reduced sentence that's pending.

A cooperating plea deal also does not allow him to take the 5th amendment.  Some have even opined that it also makes a pardon impossible.   Perhaps not technically impossible;  but it would make Trump liable to charges of attempting to obstruct justice.    Besides, we can assume that Manafort has already told Mueller's team a lot of what he knows as part of negotiations about the plea deal.

Ralph

Trump is "not all that different now, but the stakes are higher."

In an op-ed in the New York Daily News, former long-time Trump Organization vice president Barbara Res says that Trump is "not all that different now, [from when she worked for him] but the stakes are higher."

Res, who was in charge of construction for the Trump Organization, gives an example when Trump Tower was being built.   Trump ordered an architect to "get rid of the [expletive] Braille" on the elevator button pads.   "No blind people are going to live in Trump Tower.  Just do it," Res quotes Trump as having said.

Then she explains that Trump likely knew the architect would never remove the Braille.  It's required by law.    But ordering "an underling to do something that was impossible" was a win-win situation for him.   He could bash his workers for disobeying his orders and blame them if anything later went wrong.

She was also critical of the anonymous op-ed writer from the Trump staff.    She wrote:   "The self-aggrandizing Anonymous wants the world to know that there are adults in the room.   Really?   What the hell are they doing?"

Ralph

Why not invoke the 25th amendment?

The Republicans, of course, have their reasons for not invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president from office as unfit to carry out his duties.    Those reasons are political expediency.  Donald Trump's support among Republican voters is enough -- and his retribution against candidates who don't go along is so fierce -- that they will put our democracy at danger rather than act to protect it.

But there are two other reasons for not invoking the 25th amendment to the Constitution to remove Trump from the office for which he is so manifestly unfit.

1.  The first is a matter of numbers.  It is an even more difficult process than impeachment, which requires a simple majority in the House to vote to impeach;  then a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict and remove the president from office.  It does not require the vice president and the cabinet to agree, and it requires only a simple majority of the House to initiate impeachment, followed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

In contrast, the 25th amendment route requires, initially, an initiative from the vice president and a majority of the cabinet.   If there is no objection from the president, then that's all it takes.  But, if the president files an objection, declaring that he is in fact fit, it then requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress.


2.  The other is a more nuanced matter.  Being declared unfit for the office implies that something has changed about the president.  He has become ill, or been injured in an accident -- something has happened that wasn't there when he was elected.   People who make this point also make the valid point that Donald Trump has always operated in this way.    Maybe he's worse now under all the stress -- but voters had a good idea of who he was and voted for him anyway. 

One can also make the argument that he has gotten much worse -- or at least he is much worse in office than was anticipated.   Any hope that he would listen to advisers, or that he would learn in office -- that fantasy has been proven to be fairy dust.  But, in some people's thinking anyway, it's a dubious claim that now he's unfit and the voters were wrong when they put him in office.

There's also the practical matter.   With the midterm election less than two months away, that's the focus now.   They're not going to impeach him or use the 25th amendment now.    But a sound defeat of Republicans, especially if the Democrats take control of both the House and Senate -- which now looks do-able -- then that is a loud and clear message that will shake up even the Republicans.

Ralph