What does Flynn know that he will tell Mueller? Who will be hurt by it?

Michael Flynn appeared before a judge Friday and pled guilty of lying to the FBI, as part of a plea bargain with Mueller's investigation.   He is now a cooperating witness.   The following article by David Ignatius, of the Washington Post lays it out.

*     *    *     *     *

"It’s a truism of Washington scandals that it’s not the initial actions that lead to legal disaster, but the attempt to cover them up. It’s possible that is the case with Friday’s indictment of former national security adviser Michael Flynn . . . . But there is much we still do not know. . . . 

"Flynn’s catastrophic mistake was that he lied about the Dec. 29 calls, first in denials to Trump spokesmen that were shared with me and other reporters on Jan. 12, then to Vice President Pence and, most important, to FBI officials who interviewed him on Jan. 24. The indictment specified that Flynn made 'false, fictitious and fraudulent statements' when he told FBI agents he hadn’t urged Kislyak 'to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day.'

"Why was Flynn lying about the Kislyak calls? What was he covering up? We have one hint in the 'Statement of the Offense' that accompanies the plea agreement. The prosecutors say that Flynn cleared his comments to Kislyak beforehand with an unnamed official who is described as 'a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team' who was staying with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Only then, with top-level approval to discuss sanctions, did Flynn call the Russian ambassador.

"Say what you like about Flynn, but an ex-general follows the chain of command. Given his seniority as the designated national security adviser, there are only two people who would likely have authorized this contact with Russia: Jared Kushner . . . and the president-elect himself, who had said throughout the campaign that he wanted to improve relations with Russia.

"The public lies about the Dec. 29 call began to cascade. But the most senior levels of the Trump transition team were aware, from the first, what really happened. Their silence condoned the lies. Given that Trump publicly thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin on Dec. 30 for not retaliating, it has always been hard to believe that Trump wasn’t aware of the Flynn-Kislyak discussions. Now we’ll know the truth. . . . 

"And then, as happens in a coverup, the lies began to get twisted. Flynn resigned under pressure on Feb. 13, following The Post’s disclosure that he had, indeed, discussed sanctions. The next day, Trump met privately with then-FBI Director James B. Comey. According to a memo Comey wrote afterward, Trump said: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

"This attempt to curb prosecution of Flynn was part of the chain of events that led to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. This part of the circle closed Friday, as Mueller obtained a guilty plea from the man Trump had sought to protect from investigation.

"At the center of this story is a mystery that will propel the rest of the inquiry: What was Trump so worried about that it made him deny contacts with Russia and denounce attempts to investigate those contacts? What was he afraid might emerge? . . . Week by week, more pieces of this puzzle emerge."

 *     *     *     *     *

Numerous news outlets are now reporting that sources say that Jared Kushner was the "senior official" who actually instructed Flynn to call the ambassador.  But, here's the interesting thing that's coming out.   It may not have been as much about the Russian meddling and sanctions as about another issue.

 In December 2016, the United Nations was nearing a vote on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.   The Obama administration, in its final months, had decided not to follow U.S. tradition in protecting Israel from U.N. votes of disapproval.   It would not veto the resolution but rather abstain.

Trump had publicly urged Obama to veto the resolution;  and, we now know that behind the scenes the Trump team had been part of a campaign to get other countries to delay the vote until after Trump took office.

BuzzFeed has reported that a member of the Trump Transition Team was in the room at the time Kushner called Flynn and said:  "You need to get on the phone to every member of the Security Council and tell them to delay the vote."  Multiple other news sources are reporting the same thing:  that it was Kushner who gave Flynn the order to make the calls.

Flynn may also have discussed the Russian sanctions, possibly even as part of a quid pro quo.   But investigators now will be looking to see whether Flynn also made calls to other UN Security Council members about the Israel vote.  As the McClatchey news service put it:

"The disclosure provided concrete evidence that Trump's transition team twice sought secretly to undermine U.S. foreign policy decisions of President Barack Obama, even influencing Russia's response to sanctions Obama imposed in retaliation for the Kremlin's attempt to tilt the election to Trump."

Just to be entirely clear:   They took these actions while Obama was still the president.  What they did is illegal.  Now we also know that Trump himself met with the president of Egypt, who then used his position to delay the vote in the Security Council.

So what does this mean for Kushner?    The Logan Act makes it a crime for private citizens to negotiate with a foreign country to undermine the foreign policy of the U.S. government.  Kushner and the whole Trump team were private citizens at that point.  And it may be more than just Russia, if Flynn actually did call all the Security Council members about the Israel vote.

This also might explain Kushner's recent, brief meeting (under an hour) with Mueller's investigators.   Perhaps he was being questioned about this conversation before it came out as public knowledge that Flynn was now a cooperating witness.

But, seriously, does anyone doubt that Trump himself was in on the decisions about both issues?   Was Kushner going rogue without mentioning it to his father-in-law and boss?   I'm betting that it was Trump's decision;   Kushner just made the call to Flynn.  Maybe that's what Mueller wanted to ask Jared.

Stay tuned.

Ralph

*News*: Flynn pleads guilty of lying to FBI

Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's major campaign adviser and National Security Adviser (until he was fired just a few weeks into the job) has pleaded guilty to one charge:  lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Gen, Flynn released a statement, which included this:  "My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country.  I accept full responsibility for my actions."

This is a huge development in Mueller's investigation.  Flynn was in positions to know very incriminating evidence against the president, as well as Kushner and others.

Trump's retweet has upset the world

Donald Trump saw something that he liked on his phone screen -- because it purported to be three video clips showing violence committed by Muslims.  The tweet came from a right-wing group in the U.K.    So he prompted retweeted it . . . to the world.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed the matter, saying:
"The fact that we work together does not mean that we're afraid to say when we think the United States has got it wrong, and to be very clear with them.  I'm very clear that retweeting from Britain First was the wrong thing to do."
["Britain First" is a nationalist political group that opposes multiculturalism, especially Muslims.  It has deployed "Christian patrols" and staged "invasions" of Mosques.]

There was a long, indignant discussion in the British Parliament, with comments such as:   "Donald Trump is now sowing seeds of hate in our country."  "What the president did was stupid."   Another called for cancelling the planned Trump state visit;   another said that, if he comes here, he should be arrested for incitement.  Others here in the U.S. have spoken about how this puts U.S. embassies and citizens overseas at risk, because it builds on Trump's anti-Muslim image for America.

Trump was unrepentent, returning a tweet to PM May:
@Theresa May, "Don't focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom.  We are doing just fine!"

Ralph

Open letter to Moore from 14 y. o. victim

Leigh Corfman, the woman who alleges that, at age 14, she was sexually molested by then 32 year old Roy Moore, posted an open letter to him on AL.com.

*   *   *

"Mr. Moore,
"When the Washington Post approached me about what you did to me as a child, I told them what happened, just as I had told family and friends years before  I stand by every word.

"You responded by denying the truth.  You told the world that you didn't even know me.  Others in recent days have had the decency to acknowledge their hurtful actions and apologize for similar behavior, but not you.

"So I gave an interview on television so that people could judge for themselves whether I was telling the truth.  You sent out your spokesmen to call me a liar.  Day after day.

"Finally, last night, you did the dirty work yourself.  You called me malicious, and you questioned my motivation in going public.

"I explained my motivation on the Today show.   I said that this is not political for me, this is personal.  As a 14-year old, I did not deserve to have you, a 32-year old, prey on me.  I sat quietly for too long, out of concern for my family.   No more.  I am not getting paid for speaking up.  I am not getting rewarded from your political opponents.   What I am getting is stronger by refusing to blame myself and speaking the truth out loud.   The initial barrage of attacks against me voiced by your campaign spokespersons and others seemed petty so I did not respond.

"But when you personally denounced me last night and called me slanderous names, I decided that I am done being silent.  What you did to me when I was 14-years old should be revolting to every person of good morals.  But now you are attacking my honesty and integrity.   Where does your immorality end?"

*   *   *

I have read the original Washington Post  detailed account of Ms. Corfman's description, and I have seen clips of her Today interview.  She is one of the most believable witnesses I have ever heard and watched.   She does not in the least try to sensationalize.  If anything she shows the restraint she has exerted all these years in not denouncing Moore -- and gives understandable reasons for not having done so.  But now that her children are older, she says, she talked with them about it;  and together they decided for her to tell her story.

As she says here, when Moore's spokesmen attacked her, she dismissed it as petty.   But when Moore himself defamed her, she is "done being silent."    To see excerpts of that Today interview and decide for yourself, go to:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/leigh-corfman-roy-moore-accuser-open-letter_us_5a1ec306e4b0cb0e917d1127?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Ralph

Conservative group tries to trap WaPo into reporting a fake story against Roy Moore. WaPo exposed the scam instead.

The same conservative activist, James O'Keefe -- who tried to trap Planned Parenthood staff by secretly filming them and then using a misleadingly edited version for political purposes -- has now tried to scam the Washington Post with a fake story.  Instead, the whole incident backfired on O'Keefe's organization and wound up showing what careful, authentic journalists the Post reporters are.   Instead of getting "caught" printing "fake new," they reported the scam and exposed that instead.

Here's what happened.   Someone working for Project Veritas, which O'Keefe heads, contacted the Post reporters who had just broken the story of Roy Moore's accusers.  She was trying to get them to run her claim that she had a sexual affair with Roy Moore and got pregnant when she was 15 -- and that he helped her get an abortion.

Being thorough journalists, doing background-checking and fact-checking, and paying attention to their own suspicions about this woman and the inconsistencies in her story, they did not believe her story.

Part of their checking included following her and seeing her enter the offices of Project Veritas.   The journalists also found evidence that she was applying for a job that sounds just like what O'Keefe and his group do.

So, in the end, the Washington Post did not run her fake, sensational story about Roy Moore, thus foiling their plan to then expose the Post as a purveyor of fake news to smear Moore.  Instead, they published the story about this attempted sting operation to by a right-wing group to embarrass and defame the newspaper that upheld the highest journalistic and ethical standards in publishing the real story.

Who was behind this, and whether Roy Moore knew about it, has not yet been revealed.   When it does come out, I hope the Washington Post gets the scoop.  It has been reported that Donald Trump donated $10,000 to Project Veritas a while back and that some Moore supporters are somehow connected.   But I have no verified details.

One conspiracy theory widely believed among Moore supporters is that George Soros is behind it, paying these women to accuse Moore.  For years, the right-wing and its outlets (talk radio, Alex Jones, Fox News, Breitbart) have been drilling into listeners the idea that the mainstream media (with the New York Times and Washington Post as ringleaders) are totally evil purveyors of fake news.

That has become so deeply ingrained that, for some, just mention the name and they are convinced that whatever comes next is fake.  No amount of proof is going to change their minds.   The very attacks on Moore make him a martyr and a hero to them for standing up to the fake media.

Polling is sparse and not very reliable;  but the Real Clear Politics poll aggregator shows Moore has reversed his slide and is now back in the lead by 6% in the latest Emerson poll.  What we don't know is how many will choose not to vote or will write in another name.   Stay tuned.   It could go either way.

Ralph

Too many news stories to cover in depth

1.  Two bosses at CFPB:  Elizabeth Warren worked diligently to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that oversees how banks, credit card companies, etc. treat their customers, the millions of American consumers.   Richard Cordray, the good-guy who has been the first and only director, has just resigned.  According to the law that created the Bureau, he names a deputy director who becomes Acting Director when he leaves.  But the Trump Administration, using another law that gives him the right to appoint acting directors of agencies when there is a vacancy, assigned Mick Mulvaney, its Budget Director, to be Acting Director.  Mulvaney is on record as saying the agency should be abolished.   So for the past few days, the CFPB has had two people claiming to be in charge -- and they have diametrically opposing views of the agency.   It's now in the hands of a federal court to sort out the two conflicting laws of succession.

Late Note:   A federal judge has decided in favor of Trump's argument and denied the request to block Mulvaney's taking control.   As I understand it, the case can still go forward, and the trial decision might be different (if Mulvaney doesn't completely dismantle the agency beforehand).  I think this was just a ruling on what happens prior to a trial.   We like to think judges are impartial;  but I will note that this judge is a brand new Trump appointee, having only become a federal judge in September.

2.  The "Trump" name is being removed from two hotels -- the Trump Soho in New York and another high rise hotel in Panama.   Both hotels are said to have ties to money laundering and organized crime among their investors.   Trump does not own the Panama Hotel but only leases his name and manages it through the Trump management team.   The owners of the Panama Hotel, in addition to removing the name, have also dismissed the Trump management team.  Not sure what the Trump objective is here, but it couldn't hurt to get rid of any financial crime and mob connections before facing Bob Mueller's financial crimes investigative team.

3.  This is long-term one of the biggest stories of the Trump Administration:   what Rex Tillerson is doing to destroy the State Department as we knew it.  Before he even was confirmed, a whole tier of top career diplomatic positions were simply eliminated.   That has continued on down the line.  Over the holiday weekend, another whole raft of senior career diplomats found their positions eliminated.   Decades of expertise, with deep and specialized knowledge of a region's history, culture, politics are simply being thrown out the window as so much trash.  It will take decades to rebuild such professional knowledge and experience.   We have no experts left at any level of seniority for certain parts of the world.    As important as the Korean peninsula is right now, with Kim and Trump taunting each other with threats, we have not had an ambassador in South Korea for nearly a year.   Not even anyone nominated.   Tillerson came in with a plan to make the sprawling department more streamlined and efficient.   That might work for Exxon, but you need depth and breath of knowledge and experience in world affairs to be effective on the world stage.  It all seems part of Trump's retreat from the world into an autocratic regime-in-the-making.   The person Tillerson hired to remake the department abruptly resigned Tuesday, after only three months in the job.   She and Tillerson reportedly had very different views about the need for keeping those experts with decades of experience and knowledge.  The Guardian reported that two former senior diplomats warned that Tillerson's "dismissive attitude toward our diplomats and diplomacy" threaten to dismantle the US foreign service, "just when we need it most."

4.  The Senate tax bill passed out of the Budget Committee today on a party line vote of 12 to 11.   It now heads for a floor vote, probably next week.  It's passage is still uncertain, although some of the wavering Republican senators have now said their concerns have been addressed.   Interestingly, a new Republican waverer has emerged:   Sen. Jim Langford of Oklahoma is concerned about the increase to the debt and says (quite correctly) that growth will not make up for the revenue decline from tax cuts.  Paul Krugman calls it "the biggest tax scam in history . . . .  The only big winners would be the wealthy -- especially those who mainly collect income from their assets rather than working for a living -- plus tax lawyers and accountants. . . .  [It would be a] huge redistribution of income from lower- and middle-income families to corporations and business owners."

5.  North Korea launched another ICBM missile today that, according to Defense Secretary Mattis, rose higher than any of their previous ones before falling into the sea off Japan.   A late report, not now confirmed [by a nuclear arms expert, who estimated its range as over 8,000 miles], estimated that they are now probably capable of reaching Washington, D.C.   [However, the expert said it may not yet be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that far, since it weights around 1,000 pounds and would reduce the range capability.]

Donald Trump better rethink his disdain for diplomatic negotiations.  If he tries to bully his way out of this, we will face a nuclear war.   A pragmatic alternative may be to accept North Korea into the group of nuclear armed states and work for its  agreements to the limits and inspections that others do.

Ralph

Winning on gun decisions, for a change

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has declined to hear an appeal from the NRA of a 2013 Maryland ban on assault weapons.   The Appeals Court, whose decision was being appealed, said it has "no power to extend constitutional protections to weapons of war."

If SCOTUS declines to hear an appeal, the lower court ruling stands.   Thus Maryland's ban of assault weapons remains the law of that state.  Last year SCOTUS also left in place assault weapons bans in New York and Connecticut.

SCOTUS also declined to hear an appeal from a Florida man who was convicted of openly carrying a firearm,   His permit to carry a concealed weapon did not include the right to open-carry.  The decision under appeal was from the Florida Supreme Court, which had ruled that the state's open-carry ban does not violate the right to bear arms.

Both of these appeals were backed by the NRA lobby.   And they lost.  Is the court shifting?    It's great to be on the winning side on gun control cases for a change.

Ralph

House tax bill would blur lines of church/state separation

This has gotten almost no publicity -- although it made Monday's New York Times' front page.    In 1954, the Johnson amendment was enacted that bans churches and other non-profit groups from engaging in political activity.

The House-passed tax bill repeals that law.  So far, it's not in the Senate bill, but attempts are being made to include it, with voting on the Senate bill just days away.

Since 1954, churches can encourage members to vote;  they can provide information on candidates;  but they cannot actively endorse or campaign for a particular candidate.   The penalty for violations is the organization's loss of tax-exempt status. That would change.

But that's not the only reason the religious right has been pushing for this.  Money is involved.  Big money.

Donations to a church or other nonprofit group are tax deductible;  political contributions are not.   So, instead of giving their political donations to campaigns or Super-PACS, they could donate to these non-profits and take a tax deduction.  The church or non-profit could then turn around and use the fund for political purposes.

Think of it!   Instead of giving $100,000 after-tax dollars to some Republican Super PAC, you give it to the Liberty Church Fund, say.   And you get to deduct $100,000 from your taxes.  Critics are even suggesting that it could lead to "sham churches" set up solely to take advantages of such provisions.

Of course, legally, you could do the same thing by giving it to the ACLU or the Boy Scouts -- or, for that matter, to the Unitarian Church.   But those groups are not going to be doing something shady like that.   Religious right leaders say they are not either.  Politicians say that the bill was narrowly crafted to avoid such tricks.

I'm not willing to take their word for that.   Why is it that mainstream religious groups -- Methodists, Baptists -- as well as sectarian non-profit groups are against repealing this ban, while groups like the conservative Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition are pushing it?

Candidate Donald Trump promised in July 2016 to repeal this ban.  It's one of the ways he has solidified his support among conservative religious groups.   And he's trying to made good on this promise.

So he wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out;  but he wants to tear down the wall between church and state, one of the foundational concepts of our democracy.

Ralph

About that Republican "tax reform"

Saturday, Nov. 25th I wrote about economists' views of the Republican tax reform plan.   They were responding to questions that were limited to effects on economic measures.   But there's another thing to consider.

Although Republicans are trying to sell these changes as a boost to the economy and claiming that the tax cuts to the wealthy will pay for themselves with growth stimulus -- it's just a false myth they like to believe.  As I wrote two days ago, 41 of the 42 economists in the survey agreed.

What is going to happen, if this tax bill passes, is that, come spring, Congress will have to pass a spending bill.   And that's where things get tough.   Because the result of the tax cuts is going to be far less revenue coming in.

And you know how Republicans like to solve a problem like that.   In fact, their mantra is "cut taxes and cut spending."    So they will use the reduced revenue that they have intentionally created in order to "justify" their slashing social security, welfare, and Medicaid.   I'd bet the farm on it.   That''s been part of their plan all along.

Friends, we are seeing snake oil salesmen in the process of scamming the public before our very eyes.  Paul Ryan can still say, with a straight face, that their tax bill is all about giving tax relief to the struggling middle class.

Ralph

New scoring shows Senate tax plan worse than expected

Matthew Iglesias of Vox,com has looked deeper into the Republicans' proposed tax bills and found that they won't raise nearly as much revenue as they claim;  nor will they provide a meaningful boost to economic growth.

He turns to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model, a project of the Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania (President Trump's alma mater).   It is a non-partisan, fact-based, interactive model that prioritizes transparency, easy access. and data-driven results.

According to analyses using this model, the Senate bill would increase the federal debt by more than they admit;   and, over the ten year period, interest on this debt would offset whatever growth might have been stimulated by the tax cuts.  In addition, there would likely be "lower incomes for the bottom half of the income distribution even before considering the negative impact of inevitable spending cuts to offset the surprisingly low federal tax intake."

According to the Penn-Wharton model, the Senate bill as now written would not even qualify as a budget reconciliation, because it would continue to increase the deficit beyond the 10th year.  If they don't fix that, it would be subject to a filibuster and require 60 votes, not 51.

Iglesias concludes that "Not even Republicans can make the math work out when they need to plug it into a rigorous model" like the Penn-Wharton Budget model.

There's a lot more technical stuff in Igresias' article.   The bottom line is that the rich get richer, while working people barely hold their own, with a paltry long-range income rise of between 0.2% and 1.2%.   Even with minimal inflation, they will be worse off than before.  And that doesn't even count the very likely cuts in social programs that they benefit from -- or the long-range tax increases on the middle class.

Or the loss of medical insurance to 13 million people if they follow through with cutting the individual mandate and subsidies, which they proposed as a way to find some savings to offset the tax cuts.   In other words, they would take away health care to millions to help pay for the tax cuts demanded by the super-rich.

Paul Ryan is either lying when he says they're doing this to help the working people . . . or he's stupid and shouldn't be hawking tax reform bills.

Bah humbug !

Ralph

Roy Moore's defeat will require choosing integrity and morality over tribal loyalty.

Pulitzer Prize winning, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson weighed in on Roy Moore's campaign for Jeff Sessions' old senate seat.  It's worth reading.

*     *     *     *     *

"Can the descent of American political culture into ugly tribalism be halted? Alabama voters will give their answer when they decide whether to send Roy Moore to the U.S. Senate.

"Moore, 70, has built a long, disgraceful career out of smarmy religiosity spiked with tribal grievance. Having posed for years as the most pious of Christians, he now stands accused by nine women of shockingly un-Christian behavior: They claim convincingly that Moore, when he was in his 30s, aggressively pursued romantic or sexual relationships, including with teens barely half his age.

"One woman says Moore molested her when she was 14. Another says Moore called her at her high school — during trigonometry class, she recalls — to plead with her to go out with him. Residents of Gadsden, Ala., where Moore was working at the time, say he was well-known for lurking around places where teenagers hung out, such as the local mall, and approaching young girls.

"Moore denies everything — but without specifically denying much of anything. In one interview, he said that while in his 30s he did not "generally" date teenage girls. He added that he cannot "remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother." How weaselly does all of this sound? How creepy?

"Hardly any officeholders have said they believe Moore is innocent of — at a minimum — serious moral transgressions. Even Alabama's Republican governor, Kay Ivey, said she has "no reason to disbelieve" any of Moore's accusers. But Ivey said she nevertheless plans to vote for Moore in the Dec. 12 special election, and her reasons sound more tribal than political.

"'We need to have a Republican in the United States Senate,'  Ivey said. But Moore has been as strident in his attacks against the establishment wing of the Republican Party as against the Democrats. He has been a grandstanding maverick for decades, and there is no reason to believe he will change. Having Moore in the Senate would probably mean more grief for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) than losing the seat to Moore's Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.

"Ivey's problem is that Moore defeated her hand-picked candidate, interim Sen. Luther Strange, in a bitterly contested primary. Moore pulled this off by positioning himself as the self-anointed voice of Christian grievance and resentment. "Populist" is too neutral a description. Moore is really a tribal leader, claiming that his followers are the only true Americans — while disqualifying his opponents as illegitimate.

"The problem with tribalism is that it is absolute. In Rwanda in 1994, you were either identified as Tutsi or as Hutu; there was no in-between. For Moore, you are either among the good people or among the evil.

"Moore's philosophy is properly seen as Manichaean, not Christian; it has no room for universal love. The fact that most of his supporters, thus far, are sticking with him — enough to cow the state Republican Party into sticking with him, too — means he has convinced many Alabamians that child molestation is a lesser sin than believing in the Constitution's separation of church and state.

"Successful demagogues can use tribal enmities to blind their followers to such moral and logical contradictions. Some of Moore's followers have told reporters they believe all the accusers are lying for partisan political reasons, which seems unlikely given what we know about the women's politics; most describe themselves as conservative and several said they voted for President Trump. Some Moore supporters charge that the women are seeking publicity, which is ridiculous; reporters sought the victims out and convinced them to tell their stories, and the women must have had some idea of the kind of vicious attacks that would follow.

"Moore uses his angry Christianity as a tool of self-aggrandizement. He uses the trust and passion of the Alabamians he defrauds to sully the reputations of women who bravely testify to his allegedly vile and creepy behavior. He rages about filing lawsuits, but don't hold your breath. Lawyers for potential defendants can't wait to see what the discovery process might unearth.

"Alabama's three major newspapers ran rare front-page editorials Sunday imploring voters not to send this unworthy man to Washington. It is a sad sign of the times that I am not sure whether that hurt Moore's prospects or helped them. The "mainstream media" is an enemy whose disapproval Moore cultivates to make his supporters love him more.

"Moore is not invincible. He can be defeated — but only if Alabamians decide that honor, integrity and morality are more important than tribe."

*     *     *     *     *

I agree that Moore can be defeated.   There's been little note taken of the fact that he ran twice for governor and was defeated both times.   On the other hand, he also ran twice for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court -- and won -- but only to be officially ousted both times after defying federal court decisions and orders.

There are definitely many many members of the Roy Moore tribe.   But there is also a growing number of educated, more liberal Alabamans who are tired of their state being the laughing stock of the country -- and who do not have that tribal loyalty that leads them to overlook multiple, credible accusations of sexual abuse.   If they will come out and vote -- and if the African American voters will come out and vote -- Jones will win.

It's worrying that the latter group is not already mobilized, given that Jones was the hero of the prosecution that convicted those KKK murderers who bombed the church and killed four little girls.   Jones has put his very liberal position on abortion front and center, which has perhaps lost him some more moderate Republican voters.

And then there are some national Republicans who have overcome their moral compass -- and would choose even a child molester over a Democrat, just to hold that seat and its vote to keep their narrow majority . . .  to vote in tax "reform" that would hurt most of those in Alabama who, ironically, would put Moore in office to cast that vote.

It's really unpredictable at this point.  Pay no attention to the polls.   It's going to be decided by who feels most motivated to vote on December 12th.   Here's my prediction:   Enough Republican women will either write in another name or just not vote;  and the Democrats will be motivated to vote in just enough numbers to eke out a narrow victory.   We'll see.

Ralph