RUTHFULLY YOURS

Mr. Blinder is a professor at Princeton, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and an informal adviser to the Hillary Clinton campaign. rsk

One summer day in 1938, Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan took off from Brooklyn, N.Y., on a flight to Ireland—even though his flight plan called for going to California. Corrigan claimed he flew east rather than west by mistake—hence his nickname. But he was a skilled pilot, and people argue to this day whether he was a fool or a scoundrel whose request to fly to Ireland had been denied.

So it is with Donald Trump. He says so many ridiculous things that it’s hard to know when he’s displaying abysmal ignorance and when he’s deliberately lying. This ambiguity holds across the board, on virtually all issues and even on basic facts, but I’ll restrict myself to economic issues.

His signature policy remains building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, for which our southern neighbors will pay. But has anyone told him that the net migration flow across that long border has been southbound for years now? Yes, more people are crossing into Mexico than into the U.S. Wrong way, Donald.

Mr. Trump insists that the U.S. Treasury designate China a currency manipulator—meaning that Beijing is intervening in foreign-exchange markets to keep the yuan undervalued. That was probably true a few years ago, but it is pretty clear now that the yuan would depreciate if the Chinese let it float—making China an even fiercer competitor. Wrong way again, Donald.

Mr. Trump once stunned the financial world by declaring that “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” A deal? Does that mean a partial default on U.S. debt—a very bad move for the world’s premier asset? And by the way, Mr. Trump’s spending and tax-cut proposals—which keep on coming—would raise the deficit by amounts that can only be called huge. Wrong way, Donald.

Climate change used to be something to which only scientifically minded policy wonks paid attention. Now it’s so palpable that even China has ratified the Paris agreement to limit carbon emissions. Yet Mr. Trump insists that climate change is a hoax. A hoax? Perpetrated by thousands of conspiring scientists in dozens of countries? You’d think that any sentient businessman would scoff at such an idea. Yet Mr. Trump rants on, trying to push the whole world the wrong way. CONTINUE AT SITE

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books. http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/

From the moment the EmailGate scandal went public more than a year ago, it was obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation never had much enthusiasm for prosecuting Hillary Clinton or her friends. Under President Obama, the FBI grew so politicized that it became impossible for the Bureau to do its job – at least where high-ranking Democrats are concerned.

As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.

This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary “unclassified” email server of bathroom infamy.

May 7, 2015, was a banner day for Britain’s Conservative Party. After five years of uneasy coalition government, the Conservatives easily gained an overall majority in the UK parliament — defying the pundits’ expectations.

For the pollsters, it was an unmitigated disaster. They had predicted a dead heat, with polling averages suggesting that the Conservatives and their rival party, Labour, would each win 34% of the popular vote. Not one firm had put the Conservatives more than a single percentage point ahead. Yet when the votes were tallied, the Conservatives won 38% to Labour’s 31%.

Nine months later, a panel of political scientists and survey experts delivered a damning post-mortem on the pollsters’ performance. They considered several possible explanations: Were “shy” Conservatives lying about their voting intentions? Was Labour undermined by “lazy” supporters who couldn’t be bothered to vote? No, the report concluded, there was a more fundamental problem with the pollsters’ methods: They had polled too many Labour supporters. In other words, their polling samples simply hadn’t been representative of the real electorate.

It was an astonishing conclusion. The cardinal rule of survey research is that the sample has to be representative of the population you are interested in. How could the pollsters have screwed up so monumentally?

Quite easily, if you consider the perfect storm that has buffeted the polling industry in recent years. As the way in which we use our phones and the internet has shifted, it has become harder and more expensive to recruit representative samples — just as the media companies that commission most election polls have been hit by declining revenues.

“There’s nothing in the US that makes us immune.”

ID: 9676414

US pollsters face exactly the same pressures as their British counterparts. And while they’ve so far avoided major embarrassment, the next few years will provide a serious test of their ability to keep calling elections correctly.

“There’s nothing in the US that makes us immune,” Courtney Kennedy, director of survey research with the Pew Research Center in Washington DC, told BuzzFeed News.
Random sampling is how it used to be done.

Loretta Sanchez on the Issues

Rated +1 by AAI, indicating a mixed Arab/Palestine voting record. (May 2012)
This November, Republicans will do their best to keep the Senate in Republican hands, and that won’t be easy. Republicans currently have a Senate majority of four, but they will be fending off strong Democrat challenges in ten states they currently represent. The Democrats have only two seats at risk of turning Republican — Nevada and Colorado — and polls show that Colorado is almost out of reach.

On November , the Republicans will probably lose seats in Wisconsin and Illinois, and at the moment there’s no better than a 50–50 chance that they’ll hold Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Even so, it’s possible that the most important Senate race is California’s. Let me explain.

California chooses Senate candidates with a “jungle primary:” Every primary candidates, no matter his party, appears on one ballot, and the top two finishers advance to the general-election ballot in November. Predictably, the top two finishers were Democrats, so no matter what happens on Election Day, the Senate seat of Barbara Boxer, who is retiring, is going to remain in Democratic hands. Consequently, the race has gotten very little attention, and next to none nationally. It should be getting attention, though — a lot of attention. Because it’s not just a race between two Democrats; it’s a race between a relatively moderate Democrat and a contemptible, corrupt, repulsive Democrat.

The relatively moderate Democrat is Loretta Sanchez, the representative from California’s 46th congressional district, in Orange county. She has called her self a “Blue Dog Democrat”; she is somewhat fiscally conservative, more reasonable about gun rights than the average Democrat, has taken a harder line on terrorism than the average Democrat, and — representing one of the largest Vietnamese expat communities in the country — has vocally opposed closer relations with Vietnam’s Communist government.

The contemptible, corrupt, repulsive Democrat she’s running against is Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general. After covertly shot video of Planned Parenthood employees appeared to implicate Planned Parenthood in federal crimes relating to the collection and sale of fetal tissue for research, Harris launched an investigation not into Planned Parenthood, or any of those employees, but into the journalist-activist who made the videos, David Daleiden.

Well, what would Friday be without the latest document dump from the Clinton email investigation? Yesterday afternoon, with the public in distracted anticipation of the coming weekend and Monday’s Clinton-Trump debate showdown, the FBI released another 189 pages of interview reports.

Along with this document dump comes remarkable news: The Obama Justice Department reportedly gave top Clinton aide and confidant Cheryl Mills immunity from prosecution for any incriminating information located on her personal computer.

According to House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), the limited immunity was granted in order to persuade Ms. Mills to surrender her laptop computer so the FBI could check whether classified information was stored on it.

This is very strange. There was no need to grant concessions to Mills. The Justice Department could have required the production of the computer by simply issuing a grand jury subpoena. And had there been any concern that Mills would not cooperate, would destroy the computer, or would “misplace” it (as Team Clinton claims to have misplaced so many Hillary devices), investigators could have applied for a search warrant and seized the computer.

In normal cases, the Justice Department does not grant immunity in exchange for evidence when it has lawful power to compel production of that evidence.

Mills is not alone. Apparently her subordinate, longtime Clinton aide Heather Samuelson, was given the same deal.

Unbelievably, Mills and Samuelson, who are lawyers, were also permitted to represent Hillary Clinton in the very same investigation in which, we now learn, they were personally granted immunity from prosecution. That’s apart from the fact that both of them were involved as government officials at the time they engaged in some of the conduct under investigation – a circumstance that, by itself, should have disqualified them from later serving as lawyers for other subjects in the same the investigation.

As readers may recall, I have been trying to draw attention to questions about immunity in the Clinton emails investigation since last spring (see here and here). That was when we first learned that some form of immunity had been given to Brian Pagliano. He is the Clinton family employee who serviced then-Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized private server and, astonishingly, later drew a large State Department salary while continuing to be paid on the side by the Clintons.

As explained in my preceding post, there appears to be no good rationale for the Justice Department’s decision to grant Cheryl Mills immunity from prosecution for any incriminating data on her computer in exchange for her agreement to surrender the computer. The Justice Department could simply have issued a grand jury subpoena requiring Mills to hand over the computer. Nevertheless, this being a legal discussion, I wouldn’t disappoint you by saying there are no caveats.

I should thus address what’s known as “act of production” privilege. It is derived from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, reflecting the salient difference between (a) a physical object, and (b) the potentially incriminating testimonial implications of surrendering that object to investigators.

The easiest way to think about this is to consider the difference between arrest and interrogation. If, as an investigator, I arrest you for armed bank robbery, I am entitled to get any evidentiary benefit your physical person gives my case. For example, I can put you in a line-up to enable eyewitnesses to identify you as the robber, or I can search your pockets for the money and the gun. But the Constitution bars me from coercing you to make any statements that would help me prove your guilt. Under the Fifth Amendment, you have the right to remain silent.

These same principles operate with respect to physical evidence that is in your possession, even if it is not located on your physical person.

There are some situations in which complying with a subpoena can be the functional equivalent of admitting guilt. Let’s say I’m a prosecutor in a drug investigation. I issue a subpoena demanding that X produce any ledger of illegal narcotics transactions in X’s possession. Turns out that X does possess such a document, but his lawyer realizes that, if X hands the document over to me, this would be an implicit confession that (a) the document is, in fact, a ledger of illegal drug deals, and (b) X has been in possession of it. So, if X were to comply with the subpoena, which the law requires him to do, I would obtain not only the physical ledger, the contents of which I can use in a drug conspiracy prosecution against X; I would also get a windfall: what amounts to testimonial admissions by X that would help me prove his knowing participation in the drug conspiracy.

Obviously, X does not want to give me the ledger. Yet, X knows that he has been issued a lawful subpoena for this physical evidence. If I later find out that he has withheld the ledger in defiance of the subpoena, I could prosecute him for obstruction of justice and contempt.

To resolve this dilemma between (a) the lawful duty to comply with a subpoena demanding production of physical evidence and (b) the constitutional privilege against admitting guilt, the prosecutor grants a limited form of protection known as “act of production” immunity.

Under this arrangement, X must surrender the ledger, and if there is information in the ledger that incriminates X, the prosecution may use that information against X. But the prosecution forfeits the ability to use against X the fact that X, by surrendering the ledger, effectively admitted both that it was a drug ledger and was in X’s possession.

As you can imagine, this is very routine in law enforcement.

“Oh what tangled webs we weave, when we first practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

When Dr. Lisa Bardack[*] was asked to become Hillary Clinton’s personal physician in 2001, it had to have been a crowning moment in the career of the Mt. Kisco internist. Dr. Bardack could have anticipated little downside. She already had the responsibility — and legal obligation under HIPAA — to protect the privacy of her patient. She and her staff would have to be especially scrupulous in the case of a senator with presidential ambitions, but this should not have posed a serious problem.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton corrupts everyone who serves her. And this year Bardack encountered difficulties she could not have foreseen in 2001:

1. Clinton developed serious medical issues.

2. The candidate was being videoed, not only during campaign stops, speeches, townhalls, and the rare press conference, but before and after events — by individuals with cell phones who were under no obligation to obey orders given to servile journalists to turn off their cameras.

3. The internet not only permitted the mass distribution of these videos and photos, but it enabled those who were curious to check Bardack’s reports against information available on reputable medical sites. It also enabled skeptical physicians to share their doubts with hundreds of thousands of readers.

In July 2015, the Clinton campaign asked Bardack to give the candidate a clean bill of health. She was to disclose, selectively, some of her patient’s medical history. But the letter was not widely analyzed until after the disturbing September 11 video by Zdenek Gazda, the Zapruder of 2016. It was no longer possible to dismiss those asking questions about Hillary’s health as right-wing conspiracy theorists, and the campaign now requested a second letter from Dr. Bardack explaining the event. The physician duly issued a report on September 14. Now her real problems began.

Let’s take a look at the two letters and some of questions doctors have asked about the diagnoses and treatment.

I. The letter of 12 July 2015

Bardack’s summary revealed a couple of major health problems that had not been previously disclosed. We had been told that Clinton suffered an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012. The fact that a woman in her mid-60s would fall twice ought perhaps to have raised some red flags. In particular, unless you’re being tackled or attacked, a concussion can usually be avoided by the body’s reflexes. Arms are extended to break the fall.

But now the public learned that some time in 2009 and in December 2012, the month of the concussion, Clinton had suffered blood clots.

She already had a history of clotting. Running for the Presidential nomination in the fall of 2007, Hillary gave an extended interview on her 60th birthday in which she disclosed that she’d had a life-threatening medical emergency in 1998. The crisis had been kept a secret not only from the public, but from her staff, who were told she had a sprained ankle. Clinton’s foot had swollen and she was in great pain. A White House doctor told her to rush to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the diagnosis of a blood clot was made. “That was scary,” Hillary said, “because you have to treat it immediately — you don’t want to take the risk that it will break lose and travel to your brain, or your heart or your lungs. That was the most significant health scare I’ve ever had.” Clinton assured the reporter that she was no longer on blood thinners. This was probably the last time Hillary spoke candidly about her health.

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is only days away. What can we hope for? A revealing gaffe, a zinger that hits home, a flash of true spontaneity or a glimpse of the real character of the candidates—these seem to be the most anyone is hoping for, and more than we are likely to get.

Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politics—crystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isn’t only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, “Vote for me”? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.

The first televised presidential debate, starring John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, aired 56 years ago on Sept. 26, 1960. People who listened on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won, and the election was so close that the TV factor might have made a difference. But should it have? Did viewers learn something from the grainy, flickering black and white images on their tiny TVs that was really relevant to the question of which policy or person was best for the country?

The Kennedy-Nixon debate garnered mixed reviews, including severe criticism from establishment figures. The journalist Edward R. Murrow called it “a puny contribution, capsuled, homogenized, perhaps dangerous in its future implication.” The historian Henry Steele Commager responded with an essay entitled, “Washington Would Have Lost a TV Debate.” “The present formula of TV debate,” he remarked, “is designed to corrupt the public judgment and, eventually, the whole political process. The American Presidency is too great an office to be subjected to the indignity of this technique.” Though the televised debates returned and eventually became a regular part of the campaign, it is hard to think of even one that stands out as a model of informed and informative discourse.

During most campaign cycles, someone will write an essay comparing the disappointing pettiness of modern debates to the great Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, a series of daylong exchanges in various towns around Illinois during the contest between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat. (Lincoln lost.) Whereas in modern televised debates, a candidate often has just 90 seconds for an answer, those debates gave each speaker 90 minutes for a single response. Audiences stood all day in the late summer sun to listen to intricate arguments about matters of national importance, such as the extension of slavery into the western territories. Our attention spans on the couch at home don’t compare very well.