... but Rich Lowry thinks Pence won't be much good at defending Trump.
Lowry thinks Christie — "comfortable at defending anything" — and Newt — "one of the most glib politicians of the last 30 years" — would be much better at defending Trump, but conservatives aren't "excited by Christie" and "Newt is famously ill-disciplined."
I'd say the problem with Christie and Newt is that they don't help normalize Trump. They don't envelop him in conventional politics. That could be okay if Trump's idea is — to steal an old Austin, Texas slogan — KEEP TRUMP WEIRD.
Pence seems to have a boring normalness about him, but the media will do all it can to deprive him of that. The gift he could bestow — assuming Trump wants it (normalness) — could explode in Trump's face. I'm picturing endless talk about Pence's dealings with gay people. Pence won't look like the steady, substantial statesman Trump needs to get to palatable normalization. Pence will supply a new element of bigotry to the media's Trump template.
Trump is tempted to appease those who think he's too weird, but whatever he chooses will be portrayed as a new dimension of weirdness. There's no getting to the illusion of normal. The trick, I think, is to be weird in the right way, the way that doesn't make us think: Why would we want a weird President?
July 12, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
185 comments:
I assume that Donald Trump pays top dollar for advice that he considers useful.
If I were Trump I would stay away from the establishment GOP. They do not wish him well, and they are disliked and distrusted by the general public. Chris Christie comes across as a bully time and time again. Newt comes across as a smart aleck. (sp?)
I would think his best shot is if he nominated Nikki Haley--she could fight back against the "anti-woman" charge and the "anti-immigrant" charge, plus she has governing experience and generally high positives.
Pence--he seems plain vanilla, as in he won't hurt. I disagree that his "anti-gay" stances would be a problem--if "anti-gay" was a problem for you, you wouldn't consider the GOP anyway (Trump is at least currently opposed to gay marriage). But does Trump seem cautious enough to go with "won't hurt"? No, he wants someone who will back what he says and praise him, no matter what. Loyalty is his number one consideration.
So I'm thinking Chris Christie has the best shot. Trump could run over a pack of nuns and Christie would be the first to go on TV and say they weren't real nuns.
Your views make complete sense, Professor Althouse, as a politically independent, socially liberal, vaguely libertarian, mostly fiscally conservative and financially secure academic. Someone who's long had a gripe with the Democrats' base-level identity group grievance politics. And also someone who could not abide the Republicans' opposition to same-sex marriage.
If, in Trump, you could get a strong leader with a number of Republican proclivities but who was also a thrice-married Manhattanite with lots of fabulous gay friends, you'd be all set, right?
You have seen all of this since the start of the Trump campaign, am I right?
Whoever he picks, should be less than 60 years old. We don't need two geezers running the country.
Maybe if Pence came out as a heretofor closeted trans-Indianan, the media would portray him as a much-needed voice of normalcy on the Trump ticket.
Sing a song of Mike Pence a pocketful of wry,
Five and thirty eight odds baked in the lie...
Sydney; no worries. I think the establishment GOP is going to stay away from Trump all on their own.
I wonder how small is the Trump-Veep list, by virtue of people declining any offer/request to be vetted?
Somebody please go pull Condi off the golf course...
Brando said...
I would think his best shot is if he nominated Nikki Haley-
Why would she agree to do it? She's well positioned for a future position already, so what does she gain to compensate for the risk of embracing Trump - who she already went out of her way to criticize? Trump is risky, he's only going to attract those who don't have better options.
I tend to agree. Let's be honest here, it really doesn't matter. Trump could pick the most bland, uninteresting person in America and the MSM would assail whomever this person is as a racist, sexist, bigoted, monster who eats babies. He may as well pick someone who is at least colorful, but not too much like himself. Not Chris Christie. Not another loud boorish lout.
How would Dr. Ben Carson be as his VP? Would the MSM demonize him?
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I assume that Donald Trump pays top dollar for advice that he considers useful.
...And thereby explaining Trump's record-low campaign spending.
"I would think his best shot is if he nominated Nikki Haley--she could fight back against the "anti-woman" charge and the "anti-immigrant" charge, plus she has governing experience and generally high positives."
Except that Nikki Haley can't stand Trump. She endorsed Rubio and said some not so nice stuff about Trump. I doubt she would wan to be associated with him in any way.
"How would Dr. Ben Carson be as his VP? Would the MSM demonize him? "
Who'd have to demonize him? He looks half asleep in the debates. Talk about "low energy".
Plus, Trump needs someone more loyal than that. Carson has at times disagreed with what Trump had to say. He's out!
She endorsed Rubio and said some not so nice stuff about Trump
...like the kiss of death- Bless Your Heart.
"The trick, I think, is to be weird in the right way, the way that doesn't make us think: Why would we want a weird President?'
It worked for Bernie, with a certain group of people. But it was a group that thought he was not wierd.
Has there ever been a less-meaningful Veep selection? In modern American history, has there ever been a more inconsequential political decision?
I want to say up front, that if by some weird turn of events, Trump were elected President of the United States, it might be important. Because Trump is old, and his health is a virtual unknown, and there would be about 100 million people in the United States who might like to see him die ASAP. In which case, Trump's Veep pick is important, as a next-POTUS. But otherwise, Trump just sucks all the political air out of any room he's in. There's no state that a Veep pick will help Trump to win, and the states that Trump loses will be ones he can lose very handily on his own, thank you very little.
Rich Lowery? The head of the failed #NeverTrump Crusaders? Why is he still opining on anything political this season?
I love him, but he needs to pipe down and quietly vote for Trump.
Yes, he should choose Dr.Ben Carson. He's not weird at all.
"Why would she agree to do it? She's well positioned for a future position already, so what does she gain to compensate for the risk of embracing Trump - who she already went out of her way to criticize? Trump is risky, he's only going to attract those who don't have better options."
Yeah, it would depend on him being able to convince her which looks iffy. Part of the problem for anyone not of the lickspittle variety (cough cough, Christie) is that the job requires a few intense months of answering media inquiries about the latest stupid thing Trump says or does. Who'd need that?
The possible upside of course is that if Trump somehow does win, there's a decent chance he will have proven whatever he needs to prove to himself and will resign immediately after the swearing in, and the VP gets a nearly full term as president.
"Pence--he seems plain vanilla, as in he won't hurt. I disagree that his "anti-gay" stances would be a problem--if "anti-gay" was a problem for you, you wouldn't consider the GOP anyway (Trump is at least currently opposed to gay marriage)."
If you are correct, I should just stop wasting my time taking the GOP seriously. I put up with a lot of social conservative stuff I think should not be part of decent politics because overall I might think the GOP candidate will do a better job on the issues that he'll actually be dealing with.
To me, the anti-gay stuff from Pence is beyond the normal traditional-morals positioning. It's aggressive and stupid. The media will kill him with it and it will merge with the way they're already trying to kill Trump.
But some of you conservatives are so bent on getting back to traditional morality and using political power to do it that you're ready to leap into the risk that is Pence. I think Trump is smarter than that. I see Trump as pro-gay and being cagey about it.
Pence will supply a new element of bigotry to the media's Trump template.
Why do you imply that Trump's bigotry, and that of his most ardent supporters, is a creation of the media. Trump's bigotry is a well established fact, it is not something that he has been unfairly tagged with.
I'd pick some Hollywood screenwriter.
"Has there ever been a less-meaningful Veep selection? In modern American history, has there ever been a more inconsequential political decision?"
Not consequential to the election itself--the VP will not hurt or help Trump--but there is a minority chance that Trump pulls out a win this fall. If that happens, I wouldn't be too surprised if Trump agrees to step down immediately, making the whole affair about (1) him proving he's a winner; and (2) getting a GOP president in there. It could be something he secretly promised to get Ryan and McConnell's endorsement (which frankly, is not otherwise rational for either of them--it's not like Trumpists would start liking them any better).
Trump can't choose Mike Pence. Pence is from Indiana. And, as Mr. Trump has informed us, Indiana = Mexico.
I see Trump as pro-gay and being cagey about it.
Trump is not pro-gay. The only people he is "pro" is his immediate inner circle and those who adore him.
Pro-gay is not incompatible with anti gay-marriage.
Brando if Trump promised to resign immediately after his inauguration, I would happily vote for him. But of course I'd want that promise in writing, and I'd budget a significant amount for the usual Trump post-deal litigation phase.
In fact, I'd worry that on his way out, Trump would file for national bankruptcy, and take a $10 billion golden parachute for himself.
"Freder Frederson said...
Trump's bigotry is a well established fact..."
I don't think you know what the word "fact" means.
Brando said...
The possible upside of course is that if Trump somehow does win, there's a decent chance he will have proven whatever he needs to prove to himself and will resign immediately after the swearing in, and the VP gets a nearly full term as president.
I don't see this as a plausible outcome. Trumps puts in all the work but then won't spend the 4 years doing a victory lap - for example by appearing on Megan Kelly's show whenever he wants to rub it in?
So for the Veep candidate to benefit Trump would first have to win and then serve a largely acclaimed Presidency - knowing the government itself will do everything it can to thwart him and the media will portray the results unfairly. Even if you assume her criticism was 100% risk management (which seems unlikely) this is not a good bet.
I would think his best shot is if he nominated Nikki Haley--she could fight back against the "anti-woman" charge and the "anti-immigrant" charge, plus she has governing experience and generally high positives.
Even though she is term-limited, I get the impression Nikki was zero desire to do so. She endorsed Rubio and later Cruz. She seems quite opposed to Trump and I'm not sure she'd climb on board.
Trump is not pro-gay. The only people he is "pro" is his immediate inner circle and those who adore him.
You spelled Clinton wrong.
Yes, he should choose Dr.Ben Carson. He's not weird at all.
Yes, he should choose Unknown. (S)he's not accomplished at all.
This will be about the first consequential decision Trump will make as candidate. He has been able to double-back on statements saying he's not president yet. I thought converting loans to donations would be consequential but he appears to have even double-backed on that.
"If you are correct, I should just stop wasting my time taking the GOP seriously."
Some of us have stopped taking the GOP seriously already. If their embrace of a nominee who flouts everything they stand for wasn't enough to do it, what would?
"To me, the anti-gay stuff from Pence is beyond the normal traditional-morals positioning. It's aggressive and stupid. The media will kill him with it and it will merge with the way they're already trying to kill Trump."
How will this do any more than the campaign has already? For crying out loud, what shoe is left to drop? I can't imagine "oh yeah, his VP is anti-gay too" is going to be the last straw for anyone who was okay with his retweeting alt-right Jew-bashing memes, proposing putting Muslims on a national registry (hey, what's the harm in that?), and refusing to denounce David Duke or the Klan (and implausibly saying he didn't hear the question, even though his actual answer at the time was 'I don't know anything about David Duke'). If you're okay with all that, what's one more?
"But some of you conservatives are so bent on getting back to traditional morality and using political power to do it that you're ready to leap into the risk that is Pence. I think Trump is smarter than that. I see Trump as pro-gay and being cagey about it."
Don't count me in with those types--I'm fine with gay rights and unlike Trump's public persona I'm fine with gay marriage. I just don't see how any nominee would hurt Trump at this point, as he's already broken the public's ability to be shocked anymore. And maybe you like Trump because he's secretly pro-gay, and think he has the good character to stand up for gay people when it counts, because he's shown such good character so far. If you have to tell yourself that to justify casting a vote this fall that disgusts you, I'm not judging--this year is going to make a lot of people come out of the voting booths feeling nausea.
What's Susana Martinez's take on Trump?
Border state, Latina, female, Governor of "Blue" state.
Check ALL OF THOSE BOXES!
Ann Althouse said...
To me, the anti-gay stuff from Pence is beyond the normal traditional-morals positioning. It's aggressive and stupid. The media will kill him with it and it will merge with the way they're already trying to kill Trump.
I sort of agree with this. That is, Mike Pence has never been a clever advocate for a number of conservative legal positions. I was actually surprised, when I learned that he had a law degree and had actually practiced for a while before going into radio and politics.
Pence's bumbling of the George Stephanopoulos interview on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a minor (at least) disgrace for him personally.
So I think you are right, Professor, in that Mike Pence has something of a distasteful approach to gay rights issues. But it's only because he's not terribly good at making the better arguments.
Trump-Pence sounds too much like tuppence. We'd be drowning in Mary Poppins memes.
Though I did a google search on tuppence and found Tuppence Middleton. Wow, I'd vote for her. Whatever her platform is, I'm for it.
"I thought converting loans to donations would be consequential but he appears to have even double-backed on that."
I don't get the hubbub over this if it's his money. Can someone please explain to an idiot like me?
Also, compared to the Clinton Global Initiative (which is still under FBI investigation, mind you) this seems small potatoes.
If Trump wants someone from Indiana it should be Mitch Daniels.
"Wow, I'd vote for her."
Early and often.
"... but Rich Lowry thinks Pence won't be much good at defending Trump."
Too funny as who in the galaxy would be good at said proposition. Trump's god awful at defending himself so why would anyone else be good at it.
hmm, maybe he should pick Katrina Pierson ie one train wreck trying to endorse/defend another train wreck, but she could do it with a smile on her face!
"Brando if Trump promised to resign immediately after his inauguration, I would happily vote for him. But of course I'd want that promise in writing, and I'd budget a significant amount for the usual Trump post-deal litigation phase."
I'd feel the same--problem is trusting a guy like Trump just puts you in the line behind his Trump University marks. The difference being, we have them as an example that we should have learned from.
"I don't see this as a plausible outcome. Trumps puts in all the work but then won't spend the 4 years doing a victory lap - for example by appearing on Megan Kelly's show whenever he wants to rub it in?"
Well, maybe a few months of victory laps, but sitting through briefings and having to actually go through policy? I can't see the actual work of being president being interesting to him.
Susana Martinez thinks Trump's mama should have taught him better manners.
"I don't get the hubbub over this if it's his money. Can someone please explain to an idiot like me? "
The issue is if he still considers them loans, then any amount a donor decides to give him will first go to pay back Trump. If I were a donor, I'd be more likely to donate to someone if I thought my donation would go towards helping him win, not paying back his personal loans. It'd be one thing if we were talking about smaller amounts, but when it's the lion's share of what he's spending it seems to be more about helping out the candidate than helping the campaign.
And that doesn't excuse the graft operation that is the Clinton Global Initiative (which Trump also donated too, so in a way, Trump donors are funding Clinton's campaign! What a swell bunch of people we have on the ballot this fall)
Nothing Trump does is ever going to get the Democrat Party, the Media, NAACP, La Raza, or CAIR to declare that Trump is actually an all right guy. Trying to pander to them will not only be an exercise in futility, it will show his supporters that he seeks legitimacy in their eyes, which will ruin his legitimacy in our own.
So a pro-immigrant minority woman is an excellent choice if you want to see Clinton sweep the board.
Go with someone who is on-point with the big message, who's not so outrageous that he harms his image without any media involvement whatsoever, and keep the Trump train moving forward.
I would love Sessions. But my support would not waver with Christie, Gingrich, Pence... or any GOPe that's willing to at least tolerate the populist shift and not sabotage it, even if they aren't true believers. I would be wary (and would not want to set them up as the next guy, a la Reagan-Bush), but it would have no impact on my vote.
But prance around a "I hit all the boxes the progressives tell me I must hit, and they're going to keep coming after me anyway!" VP choice? That's not what I signed up for.
Jeff Sessions as running-mate would keep the focus on the immigration issue.
Ann Althouse said...
...
... I think Trump is smarter than that. I see Trump as pro-gay and being cagey about it.
So I was right. I've been right for about six months now; in my understanding why Trump was so quietly favored by Althouse. There were few Republicans, about whom it could have been said, "I see ______ as pro-gay and being cagey about it." (Kasich, notably, might have been one. But of course Kasich's State Solicitor, Eric Murphy, represented Ohio and its Director of the Department of Public Health Richard Hodges in the Obergefell case.)
It also explains the Althouse support for Obama. His being "pro-gay and being cagey about it" part.
Trump holds no principled stance on any social issue. He will gladly throw gays under the bus if it serves him to do so. Cagey is not an attribute.
Im one of those people who is interested in Trump's VP pick. I believe with the rhetoric going around now from the Democrats, by which I mean the media, there is a pretty solid chance Trump gets attacked and maybe even worse, before the election. In which case the VP position will be hugely important.
I think we will all be surprised by who he ultimately picks. I'm hoping it's Ted Cruz.
"After weeks of focusing on a group of current and former elected officials in his search for a running mate, Donald Trump is increasingly intrigued by the idea of tapping retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn to project strength and know-how on national security, according to four people familiar with the vetting process."
Best idea so far imo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/09/a-curveball-in-trumps-veep-search-hes-seriously-considering-a-retired-general/
Ann Coulter has a great piece about the subject.
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2016-07-11/ann-coulter-my-vp-prediction-trumps-first-mistake
Hack press: Hillary can as corrupt and sold as possible (the media are part of that very corruption) No prob. what diff?
No matter what Trump does or who Trump selects as his VP -the hack press will lie and trash. News at 11. SOP for any GOP.
You can't have Trumpence.
The little things matter most.
"I don't get the hubbub over this if it's his money. Can someone please explain to an idiot like me? "
It would also belie the claims he made that he self funded his campaign. The crowd roared, loved it, he knew all along it was a lie, but the gullible believed him.
Pence is up for re-election as governor so it would be odd for him to run for re-election as governor and vp. I know Liebermann ran for vp while he ran for reelection as senator and Ryan ran for vp while running for re-election to the house but governor is an important job while senator and representative aren't.
Pence also suffers from following Mitch Daniels as governor. Daniels was smart and effective. Pence is pretty much useless. But that describes the Vice President position well.
I managed to mix up Mike Pence with Mitch Daniels. Is Mike Pence on that list because Trump couldn't get Mitch Daniels? It doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Paul: Ann Coulter has a great piece about the subject.
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2016-07-11/ann-coulter-my-vp-prediction-trumps-first-mistake
I think she's dead right about this, too. Gingrich, Pence? Help me Lord.
Feed the Birds ...
Unknown/Inga/MobyDick
Why don't you give us a detailed accounting of Trump's campaign funding.
And Hillary's $1 Billion, while you're at it.
Or STFU.
"But some of you conservatives are so bent on getting back to traditional morality and using political power to do it" Very few of us. The con urge to getting "traditional morality" back is weaker than the Prog urge to use gay issues as symbolic politics. Of course, the Donald is more pro-gay than O and Hill were publicly before '12. Not that it hurt them or will help him. Everyone knows the drill. Including the need to excoriate cons for being so bent etc. etc.
Ann Althouse said...
...
...But some of you conservatives are so bent on getting back to traditional morality and using political power to do it that you're ready to leap into the risk that is Pence.
I am going to pass on any view about Mike Pence apart from what I've already stated.
But about "using political power" to advance conservative goals; that one is worth examining. See, last I checked, marriage-qualification requirements were uniformly left to the states under standard federalism constructs. There was Loving v Virginia, of course; that was decided as a matter of invidious racial discrimination for which strict scrutiny always applies, and for which there is a long history of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
The way we in Michigan "used political power" to define marriage was by an amendment to our state constitution, passing easily in a broadly-supported state referendum and in the face of enormous special-interest group spending in the course of that campaign. No more convincing act of democratic will could be imagined.
The raw power that was exerted (in the Michigan case joined with Obergefell, which was DeBoer v Snyder) was the overweening judgment of a small handful of federal judges working with lifetime appointments and unanswerable to the voters whose will they squashed.
Trump holds no principled stance on any social issue. He will gladly throw gays under the bus if it serves him to do so. Cagey is not an attribute.
Trump might throw them under the bus (no evidence of it in 70 years, but that's the great thing about the word might), but he won't import people who want to shoot them up and stack the bodies like cord-wood, and then claim that they only did it because of homophobic white Christian oppressors.
So the question is, do you go with the candidate who panders to those who consider your orientation a capital crime, most commonly solved through death-by-push-from-tall-building...
... or the guy who probably thinks you should lay off demanding people bake you wedding cakes if they do not want to bake you a wedding cake, but doesn't really have strong feelings about it either way?
"Has there ever been a less-meaningful Veep selection? In modern American history, has there ever been a more inconsequential political decision?"
Yes, Hillary's pick for VP.
Bill is her Veep. Whoever holds the title will be sent around the world to state funerals.
I'm seeing a theme on conservative sites this morning.
Trump's VP pick needs to be able to defend Trump.
Huh.
I can't imagine that Trump would pick Pence. I'm a Libertarian who leans Republican and I won't vote for Pence again. He's not that popular here in Indiana because, as Althouse has noted, he has taken aggressively stupid positions. He's basically the opposite of his predecessor, Mitch Daniels, who could be counted on to be relatively smart about actually getting economically conservative things done without getting into the briar patches that social conservatives like to get in. The reasons for Pence are... what?
The reasons against are obvious and many:
* Social conservatives are already going to hold their nose and vote for Trump. He gains nothing by pandering to them
* But he loses by picking a guy who will actively piss off moderates who might be swayed to Trump.
* If Trump is going to win, he's going to win Indiana anyway. There's nothing to be gained by picking a VP candidate from a small state he has in the bag anyway. Even if Pence would help him win Indiana, which I'm not sure he would.
* As far as having a vocal and eloquent defender, Pence is neither vocal nor eloquent about anything.
I can see Christie or Gingrich or even Kaschich or General Flynn (you ought to look that guy up) as preferable to Pence. There's nothing but downside there.
Kasich isn't even going to the Convention. I seriously doubt he wants to be Trump's VP.
lol; to whoever alerted us to Ann Coulter's latest column... Thank you.
I do confess to adoring Ann Coulter. After Trump, I am looking forward to making up with her.
She mentions Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State. And, one of the leading conservative lawyer/thinkers in the U.S. Holy mackerel, what a choice he'd be! I expected that Kris Kobach would be the Republican candidate for President in about 2028.
Quick, Althouse readers -- be honest -- do you even know who Kris Kobach is?
A Vice Pres is not a Vice Roy governing a territory of an Empire for the Roy.
Therefore the sole qualification is someone the Democrat Owned Media cannot make look bad. (It is also a plus if it is someone the Democrats fear becoming President in case they assassinate the President.)
So I agree with the Professor about Pence. That leaves Newt.
I'm looking at Joni Ernst as a possible VP. Exciting choice. Military background, Iowa background, can do spirit, female -- a good balance to Trump. Ernst will have a "prime time" speaking appearance at the Republican National Convention and I expect her speech will be a decisive moment.
Trump said he wanted to stimulate some excitement about the convention and the VP pick is doing that.
I also do not see Trump as a threat to LGBT, despite the anti-marriage position. Leaving it to the states, he is not interested in making any effort to change the Constitution or federal law.
Therefore the sole qualification is someone the Democrat Owned Media cannot make look bad.
Impossible. Sure the media now remembers what great guys McCain and Romney are, now that they've opposed Trump. What fine, respectable candidates they were and if only the Republican party could go back to what it was a mere 4/8 years ago...
... Course, if you recall at the time...
And it's not like they won't just Make Shit Up (TM) if they have to.
(It is also a plus if it is someone the Democrats fear becoming President in case they assassinate the President.)
Agreed. Which is another plus for Sessions, but does give a boost to Newt as well.
I've seen Giuliani's name floated as a possible VP pick. I assume the Dallas shooting brought him into the limelight.
Interesting choice. Two divorced New Yahkers take the country by storm.
Rich Lowry? I'm sure he has Trump's best interests at heart.
I like the idea of a female, a bit younger, and maybe a minority for Trump. Gov Martinez of NM looks good on paper, and hits the Dems where it hurts. Nikki Haley too. Right now, I think that Hillary is probably leaning towards a younger minority male. Maybe Hispanic. Maybe black. May depend on what the Republicans do. She pretty much is forced into the younger male VP pick because of her health, age, and alienation of men. The minority is to cement her base. Trump picking a Hispanic probably would force her to follow suit, since that demographic is much more up in the air than her Black support. A governor or former governor would be good for either candidate (Sarah Palin anyone?) But Trump probably needs help on Capital Hill more. One of the things that may be limiting Hillary's choices is that they must be extremely loyal to her. No AlGore or GHW Bush for her. Less so, I expect for Trump.
Trump needs to avoid a politician as VEEP. Also, we are at the brink of major worldwide war operations. We continue to conduct military operations through the middle east and africa (both drone warfare and "boots on the ground"). China was just ruled to be performing illegal control over the South Sea by an international court, and rejected their finding. Russia is pushing us on several fronts. Iran is openly violating the Nuclear agreement.
There is literally nothing more important to the presidency of the U.S. right now than to portray ourselves in a thoughtful and strategic way militarily in the next few years. Deterrence is going to be critical, and the current administration has been awful. And frankly, Hillary is both a warmonger who doesn't have the will to follow through on her actions.
I hope that Trump picks a general. I would LOVE for it to be Petraeus, who would only be on the table because of Hillary's transgessions with classified info. He deserves a second chance, though he screwed up royally.
Yeah, I know Kris Kobach. He's in Kansas - very good on voter ID stuff and illegal immigration (I believe)
Will Hillary! pick a VP who makes her look less crooked?
Trump from the beginning sought to reassure voters he would pick an experienced politician as Veep, so Coulter is off base to lay the blame for his choice on his newer political team.
Pence is the typical republican politician who hates gay people-perfect choice....in 2016.
Condoleeza Rice is the only good choice.
Kate said...
I've seen Giuliani's name floated as a possible VP pick. I assume the Dallas shooting brought him into the limelight.
Interesting choice. Two divorced New Yahkers take the country by storm.
7/12/16, 11:10 AM"
That would be a very interesting combination. Rudy as VP being on top of the DoJ and The FBI like white on rice. Considering the amount of filth in the government, especially since Obama the prospects of filling a prison with corrupt government hacks and politicians would be a capital idea! I'm pretty sure that social conservatives could set aside their social views for a term or two for a major cleaning of the government stable.
Fabi said...
Rich Lowry? I'm sure he has Trump's best interests at heart.
LOL!
Maybe I should call Paul Manafort for Rich, eh? Put in a good word. Perhaps if George Will and Bill Kristol called as well...
Martha said...
Will Hillary! pick a VP who makes her look less crooked?
7/12/16, 11:49 AM
Actually she needs to find someone who is even worse than she is for like insurance purposes. As Obama picked Biden for his stupidity Hillary needs to find someone who is worse than her. Her problem is that she isn't likely to find such a person who is also plausibly electable. If Hillary were to find someone a person such as you mentioned the first question a voter would ask why isn't that person on the top of the ballot?
Jeff Session-hilarious-totally winning a general election-a major southern cracker.
I think Trump is pro-gay too. He's from NYC and has hung with queens all his life-but in the primary he had to sound like a social conservative for the crazy religious freaks.
Pence was for conversion therapy for gays-that shit will be played over and over and over-and its fucking crazy.
Just face it you should be cleaning Hillary's clock, but the truth is you will never win another general election-especially when your voters consist entirely of white people. Demographics are way against you.
Giuliani (sp?) changes his residency to Florida, runs and the VP.
Florida moves red, New York state moves red. It becomes battleground Pennsylvania.
Blogger rehajm said..."Somebody please go pull Condi off the golf course..."
She'd be awesome. (And I wish she would have run for POTUS.)
'Pence was for conversion therapy for gays-that shit will be played over and over and over-and its fucking crazy.'
People do "convert" you know. There are several well known cases in SF Catholic circles.
Its not socially acceptable to speak of this it seems, but it happens anyway.
It seems to me that it would happen much more often if it were not so looked down upon.
Perhaps then some families will thereby have a chance to see another generation.
Trump loses by a landslide if he picks any of these people:
Palin
Gingrich
Haley
Pence
Martinez
Christie
Kasich
----he'd be better off picking Bernie than any of the above.
Has a decent chance with:
Rice
The former "D" General (forgot his name.)
Ernst
Bernie (How fun would that be!)
Conversion therapy is crazy. Everyone knows you're born gay and cant change!
Born a man? Become a woman! It's easy and perfectly sane. Not crazy at all.
(Trump) "Has a decent chance with:
Bernie (How fun would that be!)"
Since Bernie just endorsed Hillary, I doubt that will happen.
I suspect that well supported research into sexual alignment (I mean proper instrumented medical research, drugs, hormones, MRI's, large sample sizes, etc) would expand knowledge greatly in that area, and that reliable methods could be found to "convert" homosexuals to proper reproductive functionality. This does happen spontaneously after all.
Much like many very similar problems of addiction are curable, for some portion of the afflicted.
buwaya said...
I suspect that well supported research into sexual alignment (I mean proper instrumented medical research, drugs, hormones, MRI's, large sample sizes, etc) would expand knowledge greatly in that area, and that reliable methods could be found to "convert" homosexuals to proper reproductive functionality.
Dr Mengele will see you now.
Projection is never an attractive quality. Projecting your faults, doubly so.
Not all of us like the fact that we now live in a country where everything is politicized, and the Supreme Court's determination of not only what the law is, but what the law was always meant to be, is based on overt ideologues.
So if you want to applaud RBG, that's your business. But at least just own that you are doing so, and refrain from making grand claims that doing so is okay because everyone else secretly wants the opportunity to do the same thing.
Martha said...
Will Hillary! pick a VP who makes her look less crooked?
Is Michael Milken available?
Offering Gays conversion therapy is an insult because it is based upon a Christian concept of a ministry of Deliverance from Demons.
"Trump loses ... if he picks any of these people:"
Trump loses regardless!
Offering Gays conversion therapy is an insult because it is based upon a Christian concept of a ministry of Deliverance from Demons.
Source?
Mitch Daniels, not Pence. He's smarter and better qualified than any of them and more than a match for the mediaswine.
@Unknown: (Trump) "Has a decent chance with:
Bernie (How fun would that be!)"
Since Bernie just endorsed Hillary, I doubt that will happen.
I've thought about that. They do have some things in common. But they would have to compromise on some issues, like: 1. Build only HALF a wall. 2. Allow Muslims into the country but keep them in encampments where they can be carefully watched. 3. Abortions by lottery only. 4. Minimum wage hike but, after six months, 'You're fired!'.
traditionalguy said...
Offering Gays conversion therapy is an insult because it is based upon a Christian concept of a ministry of Deliverance from Demons. 7/12/16, 1:37 PM
I believe this is a fable common among Presbyterians who like gays better than Evangelicals. Lol.
"Dr Mengele will see you now."
Some of the things being done as medical treatments of reproductive situations these days would be very much up Dr. Mengeles alley.
We are permitting, even encouraging, among other things, extreme hormone treatments that make people impotent and infertile, high-efficiency subsidized abortions for the poor, making people infertile with outpatient surgery, even hysterectomies and castrations as treatment of mental problems.
The only problem Dr. Mengele would have had, and that only in part, is that all this is not directed exclusively at the unwanted peoples in a Nazi state. But some of it is - the abortions in particular. And the rest seems to be disproportionately set up as a trap for Jews. I suspect they are disproportionately victims of this fashion trap.
Rand Paul
If a modern Dr. Mengele were to suss out a set of memes whereby the Jewish population could be convinced to exterminate themselves - well, how could he possibly have done better? His goal is being accomplished with great efficiency and no fuss, with the aid of all the powers of modern medicine.
ARM
Milken, as it happens, was finally convicted of a crime that involved less than one half of a million dollars. His notoriety was based on his crafting of junk bonds for use in corporate takeovers. He provided a catalyst for the dismantling of dozens of unproductive companies and the creation of a lot of wealth. The LBO business was considered unsavory and MM was chosen to pay the price for the crime of "avarice." Milken is a good man.
From wiki:
Milken was indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 in an insider trading investigation. As the result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to securities and reporting violations but not to racketeering or insider trading. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His sentence was later reduced to two years for cooperating with testimony against his former colleagues and for good behavior.[3]
He was not only a crook but he sold out his colleagues for a reduced sentence.
ARM
Wiki is not always your friend. The prosecution was only able to find around 500K they could prove was related to insider trading activities. You might want to google a bit more. Milken was not running a criminal activity like, say, Hilary Clinton.
Here is what Milken himself reports:
Some news organizations have confused the pleas in the government prosecution of Milken with statements such as "Milken pleaded guilty to reporting violations in connection with a government investigation of insider trading." Readers then erroneously assume that the violations to which he agreed to plead included insider trading. They did not. In 1992, The Wall Street Journal noted that "things have changed since Milken's plea. The SEC simply fined 98 brokerage firms and banks for Milken-like technical reporting violations." He was not guilty of insider trading and was never convicted of it. Noting this fact, the Journal's late editor, Robert L. Bartley, wrote in a May 2002 column, "The 1990 recession did shake out a real insider-trading ring ... Its mastermind, Ivan Boesky, got off with a three-year sentence by offering to cooperate ... fingering Mr. Milken and others; cases based on his information collapsed." (Emphasis added.) At pre-sentencing hearings, the prosecution was invited to show its best evidence, after more than four years of intensive investigation, of more serious violations, including insider trading. Hearing the prosecution's determined efforts, the judge said they had failed to prove the more serious charges. What, then, did Milken plead? Against the advice of those who urged him to carry on the fight (as some others did successfully), Milken admitted conduct that resulted in five violations of complex securities/reporting regulations. None of these violations involved insider trading. In April 1992, the lead prosecutor, assistant U.S. attorney John Carroll, speaking at Seton Hall Law School, admitted that with Milken, "we're guilty of criminalizing technical offenses ... Many of the prosecution theories we used were novel. Many of the statutes that we charged under hadn't been charged as crimes before ... We're looking to find the next areas of conduct that meet any sort of statutory definition of what criminal conduct is." Professor Norman Barry wrote in his book Business Ethics (Macmillan, 1998), "Like many innovators before him, Milken had to pay the price for his success. The pursuit of Milken was an affront to the rule of law. He originally faced a 98-count indictment (including insider trading charges), which the Justice Department knew would not stick. So the department managed to coerce Milken to plead guilty to trivial offenses. If they want you, they will get you. Milken's problem was his success." Another Wall Street Journal column added: "Mr. Milken was coerced into a plea bargain involving trading violations elevated into felonies ... Prosecutors and politicians want scapegoats, and often have the collaboration of businessmen. With Milken, business competitors egged on prosecutors. And the truly culpable parties can get off lightly by conning prosecutors with the promise of bigger fish."
Relying on the self-serving testimony of the felon is probably not the best way to go when seeking the truth. And, you did not refute anything in the wiki account, which no doubt has been well worked over by numerous interested parties.
If the financial crisis showed us anything it showed us that it is almost impossible to get convictions of financiers. The cases are very complex and because they are spectacularly wealthy individuals they have the money to bring more and better lawyers than the government can employ. As a consequence, the odds of a financier being wrongfully convicted of anything are extremely low. They may not be zero but they are not significantly different to zero. There are just too many gifted trial lawyers willing to do their bidding (at a hefty price) for them not to get a fair hearing in court.
Gingrich for me, hands down. No contest at all.
ARM
I am sure you read articles mentioned in the Milken piece because you have a lot of curiosity and are not given to knee jerk opinions.
I am guessing you did not since the wiki article noted he was convicted of insider trading when, indeed, he was not.
So you think that the government which has a 95+% conviction rate has bad lawyers? You think that is a bad track record? You think that most get off that are charged by the federal government? You are very very wrong dude.
In 2020, Pence will be a lot more plausible as the defeated former governor of Indiana than as the obliterated and forgotten running-mate of the Trump campaign. It would be silly for him to accept it if it's offered.
Michael said...
So you think that the government which has a 95+% conviction rate has bad lawyers?
You are trying to change the terms of debate. I was referring to Michael Milken and financiers like him, who have essentially unlimited means when it comes to tying up a case in court. Of course justice in not equal and most of us do not have the legal resources of a Milken, which accounts for the high conviction rate in general. I think it is reasonable to assume that the 5% that get off do not generally rely upon a court appointed lawyer.
I am guessing you did not since the wiki article noted he was convicted of insider trading when, indeed, he was not.
This is the quote I gave from wiki:
Milken was indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 in an insider trading investigation. As the result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to securities and reporting violations but not to racketeering or insider trading.
Not sure what you are reading but I would consider upping your own reading comprehension before accusing others of failings in this respect.
Michael Milken is a convicted felon. He belongs to a class of people for whom it appears to be almost impossible to end up as a convicted felon. Odds are that he is guilty as hell. If you wish to believe otherwise, knock yourself out, but you have not yet made an argument that would be convincing to others.
Milken may have other qualities in addition to being a felon and you may rate these more highly than the fact that he is a felon. But, he is undoubtedly a felon. He pleaded guilty.
@ John Scott: Rand Paul
I'd love that but it's not likely to happen. Hoping Rand will have a chance in a more reasonable era than we have upon us now.
Boesky and Milken were ahead of their time in the crimes but didn't have the vision to buy off politicians and regulators through the political donation-lobby-consultant process.
I think the response to Pence will be an overwhelming 'Meh.'
I'm not sure if it will matter who Trump picks. Paul Ryan was supposed to be a good choice for Romney... Didn't help out much. And Romney is not nearly as polarizing as Trump.
With Trump, either you love him, or you hate him. I run across very few who are on the fence over pulling that lever.
ARM
As anyone knows who follows Federal litigation there are two options available to the accused: plead guilty to something or be ruined financially. There is no person alive who has the financial ability to out spend the U.S. Government.
That, the Govt. so trusted by progressives, is what you are hailing: a leviathan which has an astonishing 90+% conviction rate, one twice the average of (here it comes Prog) the developed, civilized, world.
ARM
And, btw, I was not "changing the debate" but rather responding to the following stupid statement: "If the financial crisis showed us anything it showed us that it is almost impossible to get convictions of financiers. The cases are very complex and because they are spectacularly wealthy individuals they have the money to bring more and better lawyers than the government can employ. As a consequence, the odds of a financier being wrongfully convicted of anything are extremely low. They may not be zero but they are not significantly different to zero. There are just too many gifted trial lawyers willing to do their bidding (at a hefty price) for them not to get a fair hearing in court."
See?
if by some weird turn of events, Trump were elected President of the United States, it might be important. Because Trump is old, and his health is a virtual unknown,
Chuck finally said something that makes sense. Newt is 74. Too old.
Joni Ernst would be good but she sounds like she is not interested.
Trump needs someone to help govern and to succeed him when he retires after one term.
Sessions is 70.
I don;t think Trump needs someone to defend him.
I wish Daniels was available but he is not. Some years ago, his wife left him for another man. Maybe politics had something to do with it.
She has now returned to him and they have remarried. I doubt he wants to risk that relationship. Plus he has the best job in the world, president of a good university. Gates was very reluctant to leave Texas A&M, which he loved, to become Sec Def,
Gates, by the way, is 73 or he would be terrific.
I'm pretty sure you'd need to hook up a tachometer on William Buckley's grave to measure his reaction to what the moby Lowry has done and is doing to the NR franchise. He needs to just go away. Speaking of mobys that need to just go away, Chuck too.
I still think Trump could pull Kasich out of the hat at the last minute.
Michael, you keep saying the same thing. Very few people believe it.
If my statements were so stupid it should be easy for you to provide a long list of high profile convictions of financiers since the Great Melt-Down. If the government is so fucking powerful relative to the financiers they would have paraded one financier after another down the street and people would have cheered.
Yet, mccullough is right, you are wrong. 839 people were convicted in the savings and loan scandal, 1 Wall Street banker was convicted for the financial crisis and he was relatively junior. Financiers have captured the entire regulatory apparatus up to and including the politicians.
Michael said...
As anyone knows who follows Federal litigation there are two options available to the accused: plead guilty to something or be ruined financially.
Obviously this isn't true. Not sure you really understand what having a few billion dollars at your disposal means in terms of your ability to buy influence and lawyers.
And, you still haven't provided any evidence that Milken wasn't guilty, at a minimum of those crimes that he pleaded guilty to. It's not the governments fault that Milken is a convicted felon.
ARM, you really are on a role this week. Stupid point # 3 or 4.
If the government is so fucking powerful relative to the financiers they would have paraded one financier after another down the street and people would have cheered.
You might consider reading Conrad Black's book, "A Matter of Principle."
I'm sure you will find an out by asserting that all rich businessmen are evil and corrupt.
Have you ever visited the National Gallery ? Do you know who donated it ?
Do you know what Roosevelt did to him?
"Relying on the self-serving testimony of the felon is probably not the best way to go when seeking the truth"
Your mouth to God's and Comey's ear.
ARM
The reason there have not been loads of convictions since the meltdown is that there have not been a lot of trials and that is because there were not loads of people breaking any laws. Just because you think that there was malfeasance everywhere that caused the great recession does not mean there was.
"Not sure you really understand what having a few billion dollars at your disposal means in terms of your ability to buy influence and lawyers."
Name one "billionaire" who got off. Just. One.
Two morons called Michael in one thread is two too many. Michael K, your post was just random nonsense. One non sequitur piled on another.
Address the issue or fuck off.
ARM
When I look at your "profile" I see a blank. Take a look at mine. You will know what I do for a living, know some of the books I hold dear, know what I do with some of my time, know some of my interests, even the composers I favor.
You are a cipher. A school teacher? My guess. Or administrator. But a failed something....
And as to fucking off, why don't you?
Cool it with the swearing, Are you trying to make Althouse a cesspool like your life?
Jon Ericson
Now, only a progressive would swerve from being a school marm to swinging an ad hominem. So I think you too should consider....
Cool it with the swearing, Are you trying to make Althouse a cesspool like your life?
Is the proverbial pot calling the metaphorical kettle black? ;-)
Michael, again, what is your evidence that Milken is not legitimately a felon, given that he pleaded guilty? If you are not going to address the original issue you are wasting everyone's time trying to spin out the thread so you don't look like a complete fool. You've dug a hole, now get out of it.
Michael said...
You are a cipher. A school teacher? My guess. Or administrator. But a failed something....
You have failed to make a sensible argument. Milken is a convicted felon. He pleaded guilty. He had fabulous legal representation. The kind of legal representation that you and I can only dream of.
Oh the irony - Trump is surely the least weird of the threesome of Trump, Obama, and Bush.
"Address the issue or fuck off."
Radical leftists get very annoyed when people don't agree with them. Especially if they are spouting leftist nonsense.
Notice how quickly they turn to obscenity ? You'd think ARM was another MacDonald's employee.
Of course there is also the possibility, probability now that I think of it, that ARM doesn't know who Conrad Black is or even who Andrew Mellon was.
We can't all be like Michael and Mockturtle.
Allah blesses yuz :-)
Michael K said...
Of course there is also the possibility, probability now that I think of it, that ARM doesn't know who Conrad Black is or even who Andrew Mellon was.
There's also the possibility that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Did you actually read your post? Or, did you just type reflexively, a low level spinal reflex so ingrained that it is no longer under conscious much less rational control. A reflex that spews out nonsense, only very loosely related to the topic at hand, in response to any dimly perceived attack on our wonderful financial overlords. All hail the masters of the universe.
Corruption is a two-way street (well, more of a complex cloverleaf intersection). Much of it is something that happens in the context of a situation where you have a conflict between not-entirely-clean parties using the government for their own ends. In other cases it is a defensive reaction to a political-bureaucratic attack. In others it is the capture of the bureaucratic system by private parties. In recent years we have had all the above and much more imaginative permutations as well.
I am not sure where Milken falls. He and some of his imitators were opponents of corporate management factions that arguably had achieved "regulatory capture", and were using novel interpretations of rules to protect themselves. On the other hand, the rules, the novel or not, existed, and based on previous custom Milken et al were playing dirty pool. I am pretty sure that no-one was on the side of the angels in this thing, though there is a good case that the wrong crooks won.
The real problem with this system is not that no-one is caught by the laws, but that the laws are designed to preserve special interests, largely through adjusting risk perceptions, in a sub-optimal situation as far as the interests of the general public. You don't need for there to be a lot of Milkens for such.
As for the "system" leaning on billionaires, we certainly have a number of recent cases. One is the Microsoft Clinton-DOJ antitrust prosecution, intended as leverage to force open the spigots of political money. Another was the removal of my old Chief Maurice Greenberg of AIG, in order to clear the way for exploiting speculators in cahoots with the NY Democratic party mafia.
Bitchy, now aren't we?
ARM
I will try one moe time. He pleaded guilty to a felony and was convicted for it. The felony he pleaded guilty to was not the one the Feds really wanted. It was, in essence, a technicality and the proven financial harm the felony entailed was half a million dollars. It is not nothing, but nor was it the crime of the century and certainly not the crime people like yourself, so poorly informed, believe to have taken place. It was not slick lawyers who got him off the larger charges, it was that there was no what we like to call proof.
And any simpleton reading this thread would realize that you are confused and historically, as now, when you are confused you resort to ad hominem or your classic "you have changed the conversation."
You cannot, to take a very simple example, point out where I ever asserted that Milken was not guilty of or convicted of a crime. If you scroll up to 2:19 you will find my original statement which in the haze of stupidity you have forgotten or conflated with something you wished to have read.
But it is the kind of error expected of an administrator.
And the Conrad Black book referenced by Michaek K would be worth your while reading.
Allen West would be a good choice.
ARM seems to be losing it. Maybe he really is a teacher.
Probably third grade from the context of his comments.
He posts a long nasty diatribe about everyone prosecuted by the feds is a well deserved rascal.When I point out two famous political prosecutions, he goes nuts.
Maybe you and chuck could go halves on a load of Lithium.
Hemlock.
I drank it.
And I'm still here! impersonator!
Michael said...
The felony he pleaded guilty to was not the one the Feds really wanted. It was, in essence, a technicality
Unbelievable. Now Milken is not really a felon, he just got tripped up on a mere 'technicality'. No. He deliberately and consciously chose not to go to trial because he believed that he would receive a more severe penalty if he did so. He was most likely correct.
Even for his plea he was initially sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Not a 'technicality'.
If I am so poorly informed why is it that I was the one who first accurately listed what he was convicted of? You are still in that hole.
I pick my pimples when I get bored.
Michael K said...
When I point out two famous political prosecutions, he goes nuts.
This is a pathetic attempt at a 'save' and you should really learn how to spell - 'you really are on a role this week' .
Still, good to see that you are now semi-conscious. If only you were a bit smarter. But, I respect my elders and feel free to keep those non sequiturs rolling, if you must.
Role out the barrels, role out the barrels of fun!
Hi there normal commenters, someone is impersonating me.
Poor form.
ARM
Are you intentionally stupid. I said he pled guilty to a felony. What exactly don't you understand about that? Is there a trick I am playing on you that confuses you that makes you so dense and thick?
Grade some papers. Calm down. Read what I have actually written. Try this: My first post at 2:19 PM today. Is there anything in that post that says he was not convicted of a crime? Jeez you are a bozo.
And what part of the sentence "The felony he pleaded guilty to was not the one the Feds really wanted" implies that the felony he pled guilty to was not a felony but some thing other than a felony? You have trouble with the 14 words of that sentence?
Someone is impersonating me.
"feel free to keep those non sequiturs "
I really think you should breathe into a paper bag for a while.
Does this mean you know who Andrew Mellon was and about Roosevelt's persecution of him ?
Maybe "Unknown" is impersonating ARM, too.
Maybe Michael K is impersonating me.
Just click on my pic.
for the real me.
No one cares.
I'm hoping he does, because the speculation is that if Trump takes Pence, Daniels runs for governor again to undo the messes Pence made!
That would be the next best thing to a Daniels presidency! (At least if you live in Indiana!)
So which "Unkown" are you?
I didn't mean that "Unknown" was impersonating you.
By the way, Langerhans are only "islets."
Michael K, I know, I was using the Fireside Theatre mispronunciation
Kids these days...
Michael K
If you like Conrad Black as I do you will find him writing regularly in the New English Review. I find this on the sidebar of Arts and Letters Daily. He has great articles in the current issue on Trump and Brexit.
@April Apple: Allen West would be a good choice.
I agree but I think choosing either a woman or a black would appear to be pandering. He'd be a great cabinet choice, for sure.
"If you like Conrad Black as I do you "
Yes, I read him in the Globe and Mail and have read most of his books.
Let's consider Michael's claims:
1. "MM was chosen to pay the price for the crime of "avarice." Milken is a good man."
This is his 'Milken is an innocent a victim entrapped by the big bad government' theme in embryo. Milken could have had a jury trial. He ducked a trial by his peers. He pleaded guilty to crimes that no sane person would dismiss as a 'technicality'.
2. "So you think that the government which has a 95+% conviction rate "
3. "a leviathan which has an astonishing 90+% conviction rate, one twice the average of the developed, civilized, world."
Apparently Texas is no longer considered part of the civilized world by Michael since Texas state prosecutors have a success rate of 84%.
He brings this up because this 'proves' that Milken was railroaded. It is obvious nonsense since this conviction rate doesn't apply to rich financiers. Let's see what the Wall Street Journal has to say:
"The Wall Street Journal examined 156 criminal and civil cases brought by the Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission against 10 of the largest Wall Street banks since 2009. In 81% of those cases, individual employees were neither identified nor charged. A total of 47 bank employees were charged in relation to the cases. One was a boardroom-level executive.
The analysis shows not only the rarity of proceedings brought against individual bank employees, but also the difficulty authorities have had winning cases they do bring.
Most of the bankers who were charged pleaded guilty to criminal counts or agreed to settle a civil case, with those facing civil charges paying a median penalty of $61,000. Of the 11 people who went to trial or a hearing and had a ruling on their case, six were found not liable or had the case dismissed. That left a total of five bank employees at any level against whom the government won a contested case."
Over a period of seven years the government won five cases at trial against individuals in the finance industry. Worst case scenario Milken would have had a better than even chance of winning at trial, yet he chose not to go to trial. He pleaded guilty.
4. "the wiki article noted he was convicted of insider trading when, indeed, he was not."
This was in reference to the following simple declarative statement:
"As the result of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to securities and reporting violations but not to racketeering or insider trading."
How does someone make such a basic mistake in the interpretation of the English language? They do so because they are a partisan hack, government bad - Milken good. It is a reflexive, thoughtless way to go through life.
Sometimes the government is bad and sometimes a convicted felon is just a convicted felon.
ARM continues on his journey to insanity and irrelevancy.
When does he grab your picture and act stupid?
So clever!
Role out the barrels, role out the barrels of fun!
Illiterate scum...
@ARM - it is really easy these days to become a felon. Densh D'Sousa did it for making a movie about Obama, whose campaigns probably took in hundreds of millions of dollars illegally, for reimbursing two people for contributing a total of maybe $10k to a college friend for an ill fated Senate run. Esp at the federal level, it doesn't always mean that you were a bad person. What exactly was Skooter Libby made a fell for? The crime he was convicted of was lying to the FBI, when he said he didn't remember something, and thought that he should have. Think of Crooked Hillary playing dumb here with her email server. And the rest of her minions doing the same. His real crime was being a key aide of Darth Cheney. Thanks to Lbby, the left, led by the MSM, was never able to bring down his boss. If anyone should have been convicted of federal felonies, it should have been Plame and Wilson. But, it was Libby.
The problem with Milken was that he essentially invented a new industry. A new way of monetizing assets. It was abused, and a lot of people resented the billions being made. But the Feds had a problem with Milken - he was one of the cleanest guys on Wall Street at the time. He wasn't in it for the money - he was contributing most of the money he made to (Jewish) charities. How did they finally get him? By threatening his family and close friends. He plead out to protect them (notably his brother, who worked with him). The deal was the felony conviction in trade for them dropping their cases against the people he held dear. And, as we know, from Scooter Libby, no matter how clean you are, if you are prominent, the Feds can probably convict you of something. From what Dir Comey said, they could they have convicted Crooked Hillary In a heartbeat - but with her cold heart, the only one they could probably have threatened her with would have been Chelsea. And, yes, while not perfect, my sources on Milkin are a lot better than Wikipedia, and apparently yours.
ARM believes Texas is part of the Federal govt. LOL times a thousand. Because the assertion was about Federal, not local, not regional, not provincial, not state, but Federal prosecutions. So, France not Paris. Germany, not Frankfurt. E. T. C.
Michael said...
ARM believes Texas is part of the Federal govt. LOL times a thousand. Because the assertion was about Federal, not local, not regional, not provincial, not state, but Federal prosecutions.
You really are the complete fool. I quite clearly state that I am referring to Texas state prosecutors as opposed to Federal prosecutors. You appear to know nothing about this subject beyond your painful boy crush on Milken. And you did not address the relative futility of Federal prosecutions of financiers.
Bruce Haydon, after introducing another irrelevancy, makes a more coherent fist of things by going full conspiracy theorist. They were going to charge his family and he self-sacrificingly agreed to a plea despite being really really innocent. And he does good works. Unfortunately he pushes things too far with this statement, "he was contributing most of the money he made to (Jewish) charities". Obviously this is not true or he would not have been able to accumulate the capital that he did. No evidence is provided for the veracity of this statement.
Hagiography of convicted felons is never easy. The good works would have meaning if they were done anonymously. Instead they were done with an eye to PR and look like a cost of doing business. If, after being released from prison, Milken had kept a low profile and donated anonymously you guys might have a case that we was a reformed felon. But he didn't do this. He wanted to splashily rehabilitate his image and some useful idiots fell for his scam.
ARM
Well yes I see that you referred to Texas state prosecutors to make the argument that foreign Federal prosecutors do not have the same conviction rate as U.S. Federal prosecutors. LOL. Yes, I saw that.
And Haydon's "irrelevancy" consists of disagreement with your view that Milken was a notorious securities criminal.
Any your statement following demonstrates a failure of arithmetic. He could give away 90% of his income and still amass a fortunre as a child would know who gave it a second's thought. "Unfortunately he pushes things too far with this statement, "he was contributing most of the money he made to (Jewish) charities". Obviously this is not true or he would not have been able to accumulate the capital that he did." LOL again. ARM is comedy gold the last couple of days. His hatred of Wall Street combined with feeble logic is something to behold. Progs hate, absolutely hate, charity, success, redemption. LOLOL
Michael said...
Any your statement following demonstrates a failure of arithmetic.
You confuse arithmetic with facts. Milken gave away much less than his net worth. This is on the public record. You are an idiot with no apparent ability to construct an argument. At the time Michael Milken stated that he wanted to make his family together with his brother Lowell the richest family in America.
Michael, you are hopelessly out of your depth here. Perhaps you might do better over on NRO.
ARM
Unless you give away all of your money you are giving away less than your net worth, moron. LOL.
Again, you do not attempt to defend your original statement "He could give away 90% of his income and still amass a fortunre". You fail to do so because it is factually wrong. Just another piece of obfuscating bullshit. Also you misspell fortune.
You make one painfully stupid statement after another and then follow up not with a coherent defense but gratuitous insults. You are completely out of your depth here.
ARM,
LOL. It was not my "original" statement but is nonetheless true. Factually one can earn a billion dollars and give away nine hundred million and still have a fortune of one hundred million. Factually speaking. It is on the one potato two potato scale of difficulty. You just don't like rich people, especially people who got rich in the securities business. You think success is a scam and successful people generally a style of felon.
Oh, and look up "net worth".
Nothing in your last post is true. Again you fail to address the facts. What you wrote was factually wrong. Why not admit that? Your failure to do this makes you look small and stupid.
On the broader issue. It is morally repugnant for someone to attempt to whitewash the crimes of a convicted felon. If Milken is innocent there are plenty of forums for him to pursue that claim. Why does he not do this? Why does he pursue a PR strategy rather than a legal strategy and attempt to reopen his case? The obvious answer is that he is not a moron like you and knows he is guilty.
You keep telling me who I do and do not like. I live around some quite wealthy people, we get along OK.
ARM
Math is "factually wrong?" It is arithmetic, ARM. Calm down.
It is not whitewashing to know the actual crime of an individual and calculate that as crimes go it was not the crime of the century. What is morally offensive is proceeding from "felony" to the equivalence of murder and not bothering to differentiate between the two. That is both morally thin and lazy. Milken is a "convicted felon" So is Charlie Manson. Same same to you.
To name the actual crime versus the crime you think was committed is neither whitewashing nor morally repugnant.
The fact is that Milken did not give the majority of his earnings to charity. None of your nonsense obscures that fact.
It is not whitewashing to know the actual crime of an individual and calculate that as crimes go it was not the crime of the century
This is a remarkably trite straw man. If it was the crime of the century he would have been executed. Instead he got 10 years, a massive fine and was barred from working in finance.
Better than Madoff, much worse than the average person. Still a convicted felon.
Returning to the larger moral issue. Useful idiots like you may want to shill for Milken but it is reasonable for others to ask why he has not done more to clear his name legally if he is in fact innocent as you claim. Of course he isn't innocent, but that appears to be your claim, to the extent that anything you have written makes any sense.
Still hopelessly out of your depth. The problem with people like you, who are not that bright, is that you never truly realize how far out your depth you really are.
Post a Comment