Federal District judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional. Decision to be appealed.

This just came in as i was about to close up for the night, so I will simply copy the article rather than trying to digest it for readers.   It's pretty clear and straight-forward.   It appeared on line from "Politico," and was written by Adam Cancryn and Paul Demko.

==========

"A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage.

"The invalidation of the landmark 2010 law is certain to send shock waves through the U.S. health system and Washington after a midterm election seen in part as a rebuke to Republican efforts to tear down Obamacare.

"The decision will be immediately appealed, said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of blue states in intervening to defend the law. It could ultimately become the third major Obamacare case to be taken up by the Supreme Court, which has twice voted to uphold the law.

"U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee in Fort Worth, Texas, issued the decision gutting the law in response to a lawsuit from 20 conservative-led states that sought to have the Affordable Care Act tossed out. They successfully argued that the mandate penalty was a critical linchpin of the law and that without it, the entire frameworks is rendered unconstitutional.

“In sum, the Individual Mandate ‘is so interwoven with [the ACA’s] regulations that they cannot be separated. None of them can stand,’” O’Connor wrote in his decision.
The decision came a little more than 24 hours before the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage is set to close.

"Republicans zeroed out the mandate penalty as part of their 2017 overhaul of the tax code. It’s slated to disappear next year.

"The Justice Department took the unusual stance of partially siding with the conservative states seeking to strike down the law. As a result, 16 mostly Democratic-led states intervened in the case to try and save Obamacare. But O’Connor didn’t agree with their argument that by striking the tax penalty but leaving the rest of the federal health care law in place, Congress had clearly indicated its belief that they weren’t inseparable.

"Many legal experts are skeptical that the lawsuit will ultimately succeed. But the victory at the lower court level means that there will be a cloud hanging over the future of the law for months, if not years, to come.

"House Democrats, who won back the chamber after campaigning heavily on defending protections for pre-existing conditions, have been weighing different options for saving Obamacare when their new majority is seated early next month. One possibility is passing a resolution authorizing the House general counsel to defend the health care law on the chamber's behalf.

"The ruling puts the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in a bind. They've promised to save pre-existing condition protections if the court threw them out, but for years been unable to agree on an Obamacare alternative that would maintain the law's stringent safeguards.

"Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who oversees Obamacare's insurance marketplaces, told reporters late last month the administration had a back-up plan if the court overturned the law. She declined to provide specifics at the time.

"Neither the White House nor HHS immediately responded to requests for comment."

===============

This is bad news, but do not be too discouraged.   I'm sure the courts will not allow this to go into effect immediately, because it would create chaos in the health care system.   And remember that Chief Justice Paul Roberts has already been the swing voter to save Obamacare when another decision came to SCOTUS that would have killed it.

Ralph

Jail time for Trump . . . a possible scenario

Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's long-time personal lawyer;  but, in truth, he was more "fixer" than lawyer.   Today, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, plus a hefty fine and restitution for failure to pay taxes.

Of interest here is this fact we should keep in mind:    a good part of what Cohen is going to do time for is illegal work he did for Donald Trump, as well as helping cover it up.

What does that say about Trump?    Already, the indictment of Cohen states clearly that Trump "directed" the illegal campaign finance violation that Cohen carried out, which arguably makes Trump also guilty of a crime.

Let's stipulate for the moment that, although his lawyer will go to jail, Trump himself will not be indicted as long as he is serving as president.    Legal scholars disagree about this;  but the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion that upholds the indictment prohibition.   But, even so, he could be indicted the day he left office.

Michelle Goldberg, in her New York Times opinion column, has another scenario in mind, however.    The statute of limitations for campaign finance violations is five years, so if Trump runs and is re-elected in 2020, it would have run out by the time he is out of office.

But if he loses -- or does not run -- then on the day his term is up in January 2021, he could be indicted.   This sets up not just an election but the prospect that Trump could be literally running for his freedom, not just running for another four years in the Oval Office.

To be a bit cute about it:   regardless of who is the Democratic candidate in 2020, for Trump it will literally be a contest between the White House and the Big House.

We need to go beyond cute, however.    Trump is a dirty fighter;  and this will be a desperate Trump, fighting dirty.   Like trying to destroy his opponent, like having a compliant Justice Department prosecuting them for a trumped-up crime.  In addition, Trump, as president, has a great deal of power to do unspeakable damage to our nation, our standing in the world, and to our democracy.

Representative Eric Swalwell  (D-CA), who is himself considering a presidential run, foresees "a dangerous situation," in which Trump could become ever more erratic in making decisions to save himself that involve "our troops or internal domestic security."

The Democrat Jerry Nadler, who will become chair of the House Judiciary Committee in January, plans to introduce legislation that would freeze the statute of limitations for crimes committed by presidents, so that they could not avoid charges simply by being re-elected.

Goldberg ends her column with the hope for "the emergence of irrefutable evidence of further presidential crimes, enough to finally test the tolerance of at least some fraction of Republicans," so that impeachment by the House, with conviction in the Senate, becomes the solution.

I think that's what will happen.   But, if it doesn't, then Plan B would also be satisfying:  Let him run for re-election in 2020 -- and be rejected by voters in the BIGGEST LANDSLIDE EVER SEEN IN OUR HISTORY.

Then, finally, Trump would get his wish to have had something that was genuinely, honestly the BIGGEST EVER.

Ralph

Trump is in a big heap of trouble

I had not fully understood or appreciated the gravity of what the Southern District of New York's (SDNY) federal prosecutors are looking at in implications for Trump in Michael Cohen's revelations.

The focus on the hush money payments to women, while legally a campaign finance violation -- and therefore a felony -- still seemed a relatively minor part of the crimes of Donald Trump.   Surely it wouldn't be that, that brought down a presidency.   Evidence of obstruction of justice and violation of the emoluments clause seemed more serious to me.

But insiders say that it is the revelations from Michael Cohen that have Republicans most worried.   And, after all, Bill Clinton's impeachment charges were not for sex with a White House intern -- but for lying to Congress.

On Nicole Wallace's "Deadline: White House" news show on MSNBC Monday afternoon, former Assistant FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi put it this way, clarifying two points:   first, it's because these charges are the easiest to prove;  and, second, it's not just hush money payments to women.    Here is Figliuzzi speaking:

"With regard to the Southern District of New York filing, let's understand something:   If Donald Trump was not currently the President of the United States, he'd be looking at an indictment in a matter of weeks, not months.  In fact, he might already have been indicted, if he were not the President.

"The New York charges are the simplest set of facts to get your hands around legally.  He was directing this activity, allegedly.   And the activity is far more, Nicole, than simply trying to keep women quiet that you've had an affair with.

"W're talking about directing things like bank fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, federal campaign election violations;  and then, perhaps, using you own company, your own organization, as a slush fund for your campaign.

"All this is deeply problematic. . . . "

We've heard so much detail about the hush money payments -- and almost none about the financial crimes;   so we political observers have more or less equated "Michael Cohen" with the one issue we've heard about.    But Cohen was a Trump insider and fixer for decades, and he's undoubtedly revealed much more than has been publicly revealed.

Figliuzzi and Wallace went on to discuss the fact that prosecutors at the Southern District of New York are already talking about when to send their report to Congress.   They do not have to go through and get approval from the Justice Department, as Special Counsel Mueller does.   They can send a report directly to Congress, which could then begin impeachment proceedings . . . or not.

The question of indicting a sitting president remains the same as it does for Mueller.   But impeachment, of course, is another matter and could proceed.

In my opinion, they should not use the big stick of impeachment if all they have is paying hush money to women.   But apparently they have much much more than we yet know about.  If there is evidence of money laundering, bank fraud, etc. . .  . then it may not be premature.

Ralph
Fiogliuzzi also told Wallace that he continues to be concerned about Trump's being influenced by whatever compromising control the Russians had over him.  Even if they no longer have that control, because so much has been exposed and is therefore useless as blackmail, Figliuzzi points out that Trump might be inclined to over-react to "prove" to us that he is not under their control.   For example, he might order an over-reaching response to some Russian aggression that would be better handled another way -- in order to "prove" that he's not controlled by Putin.    So Figliuzzi says that it still makes Trump incapable of making good decisions.

In other words, the effects of blackmail do not all end when the blackmail is exposed and rendered useless itself.

Mueller's sentencing memos put Trump in more legal jeopardy.

Mueller filed the sentencing memos on Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort on Friday.   The Manafort document was filed under seal, so we don't know a lot about what's in it.  And there are a lot of redactions in the Cohen memo;   but enough of it is readable that Ari Melber had six guests, including lawyers, prosecutors, and a judge, who were able to discuss some quite significant findings on Ari's MSNBC TV show.

The one that best sums it all up was that Ari asked all six of them, at the end, for a quick either/or answer to this question:    Do these documents pose a greater legal threat to Donald Trump than he faced before these filings?

It was unanimous -- and definitive.   All six said, without a hint of doubt, that he was in more legal jeopardy than before.   These were no weak, I-think-so, answers.   Several answered, simply:   "absolutely."    One said:   "Yes, 100%."

One fact is that the Federal Court in the Southern District of New York (the one that handles most of the big financial crimes cases in New York) is saying that Donald Trump directed his attorney Michael Cohen to commit a felony.   This involves the hush money payment to women -- a campaign finance violation and a felony.

But there are also a lot more problems for Trump, much having to do with illegal financial ties with Russians.   It's looking like the conspiracy with Russia may be a viable charge, as well as the obstruction of justice.

Ralph

Two big Mueller sentencing memos expected today: on Cohen and Manafort

Republicans leaders in Congress still refuse to advance a bill that would protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.    However, Mueller is finding creative ways to get more and more of his findings into the judicial records in the form of sentencing memos and on indictment charges.

Sentencing memos on Michael Flynn, released last week, gave some valuable information, not only about Flynn's own illegal activities, but also of others as well -- including most significantly "Individual 1," who is clearly president Trump.
"
For example:   a reporter who had seen the report wrote that:   "Flynn admitted in his plea that he spoke to the Russians at the direction of Trump transition team officials."   Now, if there is evidence of what they spoke about, and if they spoke about the Russians helping Trump's campaign, especially if there was a quid pro quo about sanctions being lifted --- then that seems enough for conspiracy charges violating the federal election laws.

Much of the 13 page memo was redacted, presumably because it involves investigations that are still ongoing;   but the judge got the unredacted version, and this puts the information into the justice system and protects it from attempts by Trump and his sycophntic Acting Attorney General to suppress the information.

Two more important sentencing memos are to be released today:   one on Michael Cohen and one on Paul Manafort.     These are being eagerly anticipated for what they may contain, as well as indications of the direction the investigation is going.    However, depending on how much redacting is done, they may not actually give us much new information.

Mueller will presumably have to explain why he revoked Manafort's plea deal, which should reveal a lot about Manafort's double-dealing, appearing to be working with the investigators, while feeding information to Trump's lawyers.

Despite Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani's unreliable prattles to the press and TV, Mueller is not in fact winding this up.    There is still a great deal to be done, and I'm more persuaded by those analysts who say it may be in the beginning of the end stages.

But it is heartening to see that Mueller seems to be following the strategy that I first picked up from former Assistant FBI Director Frank Figliuzzi on MSNBC -- that of putting as much as he can into court filings and grand jury testimonies so that he gets it into possession of the court system, so it will be preserved even if Trump does try to fire Mueller.

So today's releases will be combed over in minute detail -- and we may know a lot more tomorrow than we do today.

Ralph

CIA Director convinces senators MbS responsible for having Khashoggi killed

The Hill is reporting on the reactions of a group of Senate leaders from national security-related committees who had a special closed-door briefing about the Jamal Khashoggi killing from CIA Director Gina Haspel.   She had not participated in the briefing last week from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Several influential senators in the group spoke with reporters Rebecca Kheel and Jordain Carney from The Hill, saying that they were now more certain than ever that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) was responsible for the killing.    Sen. Lindsey Graham said:   "You have to be willfully blind not to come to the conclusion that this was orchestrated and organized by people under the command of MbS and that he was intricately involved."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker said:  "I have zero question in my mind that the crown prince directed the murder and was kept apprised of the situation all the way through."   Corker added that, "If MbS was in front of a jury, he would have a unanimous verdict in about 30 minutes. . . .  a guilty verdict."

So what happens now?    This puts Republican senate leaders at odds with President Trump, who has refused to acknowledge the crown prince's role, saying that "we may never know all the facts. . . .  maybe he did and maybe he didn't."  Instead, he has focused more or the Saudi kingdom as a good customer for our military hardware that we don't want to alienate or lose.

Trump sees this only in his usual transactional terms, essentially saying that 'one murder is not worth the loss of all those business deals.'    He has no concept of values as part of the equation.

Last week, the Senate voted for a resolution requiring the president to remove any U.S. troops involved in the Saudi war in Yemen, unless they are fighting al Qaeda.   The sponsors are now considering whether any changes need to be made to this, while Sen. Graham plans to introduce a separate resolution that would put the Senate on record as blaming the crown prince for the murder -- a major rebuke to a U.S. ally.

In short, a battle is looming between Senate leaders of both parties and the president.   It's unlikely that the lame-duck House Republicans will allow this to pass . . .  but it's only a few weeks until Democrats will take control of the House.

Ralph

President George H. W. Bush, 1924 - 2018.

"George H.W. Bush, who died Friday at age 94, served one term as president and was defeated for re-election in 1993 by Bill Clinton.  Derided by critics at the time as a well-meaning but ineffectual leader, he is now regarded with affection and respect as a dedicated public servant and a man of character and decency.

Leaving aside for now some of the controversial positions he took, while also acknowledging some successes as well -- overseeing the end of the Cold War and the end of the Soviet empire, for example -- I would add to the comparison Bush's experience, his preparation for the job, and his good advisers to whom he listened.

George H.W. Bush had more government experience to prepare him for the office than any other person who has run for president.   Following service in the U.S. Navy during World War II, he became a success in the oil business of Texas.   His subsequent career in public service included the following:    U.S. House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, the equivalent to Ambassador to China (before we had formal diplomatic relations with China).   He was then appointed Director of the CIA, served eight years as Vice President to Ronald Reagan's administration, and then was elected president to succeed Reagan.

Every word of praise for George H.W. Bush -- in our present context -- seems like an unspoken criticism of Donald J. Trump, . .  . because Trump is none of those things that we praise the elder Bush for.

I watched the televised moment Monday night when President and Mrs. Trump came into the Capitol rotunda to pay their respects to Bush lying in state.    The other VIP guests had mostly left and the pomp and circumstance and the brief commentaries had all been completed.

The two, Donald and Melania, walked in together holding hands.    She look inscrutable but appropriate.    At least he kept a somber expression, but it was more of an angry scowl than a reverent silence.    They stood there for an awkward moment, unmoving and unmoved, then she place a hand on her heart and he gave a quick salute to the casket.   They turned and walked out.   The whole thing took perhaps 60 seconds.

Now I acknowledge that there is probably nothing Donald Trump could have done in this moment that would have seemed right.   After all the criticism and insult he has thrown at the Bush family -- and all that they represent that he lacks -- it could only be an awkward moment.   

How does a vulgar grifter like Trump pay respect to a man of such decency, kindness, civility, and yes class (in the best sense of the word)?    The contrast was stark.

Ralph