Thursday, September 21, 2017

Mueller-ing it Over

We need to start breaking the Mueller investigation into parts, because there's not just one case that they're investigating. "Mueller" is used as shorthand for "anything shady and related to Russia," but there are multiple angles and multiple targets. To my eye, there are five major areas of investigation. So here's a list of separate investigations all wrapped within the Mueller umbrella:

1) Paul Manafort. He seems in the most hot water from the subpoenas, warrants, etc. He's got ties to Russian oligarchs, helped a pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine, he was in the meeting with Trump Jr. and the Russian contacts, ... the list goes on. In short, as the investigation continues to circle around people like buzzards, Manafort's the sickliest deer in the forest.

2) Jared Kushner. Possible business ties to Russia, his company may have some visa issues, met with Sergey Kislyak, clumsily tried to create a secret back channel for Russia-Trump transition team communication, was in that Trump Jr. meeting with Russians, etc. He also was the mind behind a data company that micro-targeted voters (more on this down below). The President can't exactly dismiss his son-in-law or pretend they aren't close. Kushner certainly seems to be a target of investigation, even if it's not as intense as Manafort.

3) Trump Jr. certainly seemed open to getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian source before taking the meeting that dominated coverage this summer. Even if nothing came of it, it shows a desire to pursue possible collusion. Whether that met the legal definition of a crime is up to Mueller's staff.

4) Russian collusion. This was the original point of the investigation. We know Russian sources created false information. We know Russians used Facebook and backed Donald Trump while disparaging Hillary Clinton. We know that the Russians used Facebook ads to target voters, but what we don't know is how they knew who to target. Some are making the connection to Kushner's data company, but I haven't seen anything firm on that. Did the Russians communicate/share information directly with anyone associated with the Trump campaign, and how high up did it go? That seems to be the focus behind some of the newest revelations, involving Facebook (traditionally pretty tight with information) providing documents in response to a subpoena.

5) Obstruction of Justice. Mueller's team is reportedly requesting meetings with... let's save space and say every communication staffer and top staff member in the White House. In particular, that includes those in office — like Sean Spicer — when the first press release about Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians was crafted aboard Air Force One.

6) Others? The other items have gotten most of the attention, because they're the highest-level and closest to the president. We don't know much about Mueller's investigation and what exactly is the "get" here. While the above five issues are on the hot plate, there have been rumors of Russian business ties for President Trump. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just going to say that I don't believe there's only five areas of focus — just that there are five major areas of focus known to the public.

One thing to remember is that these investigations take time. Mueller's team has been fairly tight-lipped, and we haven't seen much of their work. I doubt we will — they don't want to tip their hand if there is a criminal investigation (though they may have told Manafort to expect an indictment of some sort). Don't expect a flood of information. Instead, we'll get this slow drip-drip of "someone new was interviewed" or "documents were subpoenaed." It buys the GOP time to imagine that their President and his team are not under investigation/try to hold on in the midterms, while the Democrats get time to attack the GOP/fundraise for the midterms against an unpopular president under investigation. A cynical version of me would expect the Mueller investigation to wrap up in December 2018, one month after the midterms.

A Meme That Needs To Die

I've seen two Facebook friends like or link a meme about Trump's electoral wins v. Clinton's. It goes something like this: "There are 3,141 counties in the U.S. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them, Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes..." It goes on to say that, because Clinton won the five boroughs of New York City by about a 2 million vote margin, that the 319 square miles that make up New York City should not decide the president for the rest of the country. Needless to say, smart friends of mine have fallen for this meme, which irritates me.

1) This is false. It's just not true. Clinton won 30 counties in Georgia. She won 27 in Georgia. There's 57 counties right there, and I haven't even gotten to a state that she won. She won California; She won Massachusetts; she won Illinois. She won counties in Florida and Missouri and Kansas and New Mexico and Mississippi. She won a county in North Dakota and West Virginia and Utah. I don't know the actual number, but it's at least 200 instead of 57. FURTHERMORE, the 2 million vote margin is wrong. That was the margin early on election night, but it was far closer to 3 million votes than 2 million. The actual number is just shy of 2.9 million votes.

2) We don't decide anything based on how many counties voted for something. It's a dumb metric. Why? Because the number of counties is completely arbitrary. Kansas has 105 counties. Arizona has 15. But Arizona has nearly 7 million people. Kansas has nearly 3 million people. Missouri has 114 counties! California only has 58 counties. But California has more than six times the number of people that live in Missouri. Counties don't matter in any electoral regard.  

3) Let's talk about the vote margin for a second. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes, but to assign that "victory" margin to one particular location is disingenuous. Even if you follow the logic of New York = size of Clinton's popular vote margin, that still only brings you back to even. It means that even if you take out the largest city in the country, the popular vote would have been close to tied. Clinton was just as popular as Trump among people even if you took out New York City.

4) This is the most important point I can make: It's about people/votes and not land. I don't care how many acres are covered by "red counties" and "blue counties." The whole point of the electoral college and our country's voting basis is one-person-one-vote. It means that it doesn't matter how much land you own, you get the same vote as someone in a studio apartment. The electoral college is divided so that states with great population but small size (like Massachusetts) gets a larger influence on the vote than a state with great size but tiny population (like Alaska). I don't care how big a state is or how big the territory covered by a Trump victory. It's about people. If you say that people are less important than square miles, you're saying that land ownership should decide elections. That's just wrong.

Summary Judgments

This story is incredibly sad. It doesn't look good for the cops involved and makes all cops look bad. Was shooting the man necessary?  •  •  •   This is the type of long, well-reasoned article I like. It's supposed to be a mea culpa about the GOP embracing personalities rather than policies, but it does make some solid points about the left as well. I don't agree with it entirely — but I feel it's the type of story I can disagree with respectfully and have an intellectual debate about, rather than just be a basis for partisan bickering.  •  •  •  I personally don't think Graham-Cassidy is happening. It's got 10 days to happen, and I can't imagine senators who objected to better bills suddenly being OK with this one just because they're desperate. But if you want a short, 4-minute video from someone who knows what they're talking about, look here.  •  •  •  Thanks to some ill-timed thunderstorms and more, I didn't get a lot of practice runs in during the last two weeks. In fact, I've only run twice since the 10K. I've got a 4-miler this weekend at the Kansas City Zoo. That should be fine — I've run 4 miles plenty before! But I've also been to the zoo a ton, and looking at the course, it goes over the parts of the zoo that are interminable when you're walking with kids. Suddenly, I'm feeling DAUNTED — the opposite of undaunted. •  •  •  Usually, I end this with a good kid story. But instead, I have a wife story. Alyson needed help for something related to class. Me: "I can help you with that. When is it due?" Alyson: "..." Me: "If you say Friday, I'll --" Alyson: "Friday."  /facepalm

No comments:

Post a Comment