Tag Archives: Biden

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 4.

Posted on by
Reply

            “Teflon Don.” 

            Republicans long accused Democrats of waging “lawfare” against Donald Trump, either to bait the Republicans into making him their candidate so that Joe Biden could beat him in November 2024 or to render him incapable of holding office without asking the voters what they preferred.  There is something to be said on both sides of some of the cases, and nothing at all that can be said against others.[1]   

            In early December 2024, Special Counsel Jack Smith asked a judge to dismiss—without prejudice—two cases against President-elect Donald Trump.  Department of Justice policy bars prosecuting a sitting president.  In late January 2025, Judge Juan Merchan decided that he couldn’t “encroach…on the highest office in the land” by jailing President-elect Donald Trump for his conviction in the New York City hush-money case.  The conviction stands.[2] 

            Soon afterward, President Trump issued a blanket pardon for almost 1,600 people convicted by federal prosecutors for their part in the 6 January 2021 riot.  Why did he do this when two-thirds of Americans opposed pardons for “violent” offenders?  Even his Vice President, J.D. Vance had not expected him to go that far. 

            Trump went beyond just releasing the worst of his supporters.  He appointed another supporter, Edward Martin, Jr., as interim United States attorney for Washington, D.C.  Martin immediately ordered that all pending cases be dismissed.  Then he ordered a review of the use of felony obstruction charges against the rioters.  Democrats feared that the released rioters might feel empowered to threaten their prosecutors.[3] 

            On his way out the door, “I’m-still-President” Joe Biden—predictably, understandably—broke his promise not to pardon his son Hunter Biden.  He pardoned him for both those things of which he had been convicted and of anything else he might have done since 2014.  Biden argued that Hunter had been “selectively and unfairly prosecuted” by Biden’s own Justice Department.[4]  Believing that Trump would seek “revenge” on everyone who displeased him, Biden issued pardons to people like Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, the members of the House 6 January investigative committee, and the Capitol police officers who testified before the committee.  He also pardoned another five members of his family.[5] 

            Angry Special Counsels took their last shots.  David Weiss, who had investigated Hunter Biden, denounced Joe Biden’s “baseless allegations.”  Jack Smith, who had investigated Trump, insisted that he could have convicted him if he hadn’t been able to shelter in the White House.[6] 

“I fought the law and the law…lost.”  Grubby versus Filthy. 

[1] Alvin Bragg and Laetitia James both ran for their state elective offices with promises to prosecute Trump.  Fani Willis may have had a partisan motivation, but she built a substantial (perhaps overly ambitious) case.  Jack Smith seems to have had Trump dead to right on the purloined documents case.  He probably had at least as good a case as did Willis on the election interference case.  For Republican charges of “lawfare,” see “Trump: Beyond the reach of law,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

[2] “Trump: Prosecutions end with a whimper,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 17. 

[3] “Impunity: MAGA violence is A-OK,” The Week, 7 February 2025, p. 16. 

[4] “Biden: Why he broke his promise not to pardon Hunter,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 6. 

[5] “Biden: A flurry of last-minute pardons,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 17. 

[6] The Week, 24 January 2025, pp. 6 and 7. 

Tragedy and Policy.

Posted on by
Reply

            Venezuelan despots Hugo Chavez, then Nicholas Maduro sparked a gigantic flood of refugees from their country.[1]  By October 2022, an estimated 7 million people had fled the country, more than 20 percent of the population.  The emigration began with the country’s elites, then ate down into other layers of society as political oppression led to economic catastrophe.[2]  The Biden administration gestured at expelling some of the illegal immigrants under Covid-era “Title 42” provisions.  For the rest, it adopted a “remain in Texas” policy which infuriated both the people of border areas and Texas governor Greg Abbott.  In April 2022, the Biden administration ended “Title 42” expulsions.  Governor Abbott began bussing illegal immigrants from Texas to various self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” in loudly Progressive areas.  New York City became the chief destination of both “Operation Lone Star” busees and the greater number who made their own way.[3]  Soon, New York City and many other places had migrant crises of their own.[4]  New York City began taking control of disused or under-used hotels to house the migrants.  For example, the city took over the Roosevelt Hotel as one of these facilities.[5]

            In September 2022 a Venezuelan named Jose Antonio Ibarra illegally entered the United States near El Paso, Texas.  Probably, he hoped to connect with a brother who had entered the United States illegally at an earlier date.[6]  ICE officers detained him soon afterward and then released him.  Like many other Venezuelan migrants, Ibarra traveled to New York City. where he stayed in the Roosevelt Hotel migrant shelter.  In September 2023, he was arrested for “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17.”  Released on bond before ICE could issue a detainer order,[7] he blew town for Athens, Georgia, where his brother lived.  No sooner did the two get together than they went to stealing.  In October 2023, the brothers were arrested in possession of goods stolen from a local Walmart.  They were released.  Then Jose Antonio Ibarra was arrested for shoplifting.  He was released, but failed to appear for a court hearing in December 2023.  The judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest.   Athens, Georgia, police failed to locate Ibarra over the next two months.  On 22 February 2024, Ibarra murdered a 22 year-old nursing student named Laken Riley.  Arrested and tried, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

            The case received a lot of media attention.  In March 2024, just after Ibarra’s arrest, the House of Representatives passed the “Laken Riley Act.”  The law required the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants who “[are] charged with, [are] arrested for, [are] convicted of, [admit to] having committed, or [admit to] committing” theft-related crimes.  The vote was 251–170, with 37 Democrats and all Republicans voting in favor.  It went to the Senate, where it just sat.  Progressives argued that the law would allow the “indefinite detention, without bail, of any undocumented immigrant—including minors, asylum seekers, or “Dreamers” brought here as children—who is merely arrested for, not convicted of, nonviolent crimes like theft.”[8]  Democrats had control of the Senate at that point, so cooler heads (or colder hearts) prevailed. 

Put simply, the Laken Riley case asked the question: how many American citizens have to die in the pursuit of “a blinkered delusion with purchase on only the progressive fringes of American politics”?[9]  In November 2024, Democrats lost the Senate as well as the White House.  Anger over illegal immigration provided one big driver in the election.  In January 2025, the new Senate immediately passed the bill while adding “assaulting a police officer, or a crime that results in death or serious bodily injury like drunk driving” to the list of offenses.  In addition, the law allows states to sue the Department of Homeland Security if they believe that the law is not being enforced.[10]  This time, many Democrats scrambled to support the bill: 48 in the House and 32 in the Senate voted in favor.  The House approved the revised bill and President Donald Trump signed it into law. 

            A long and winding road from the rise of a Venezuelan Marxist dictator to the death of an American nursing student to a backlash bill over a neglected problem. 

[1] Probably not the sort of thing that gets your image on the currency a hundred years later. 

[2] A basic introduction is Venezuelan refugee crisis – Wikipedia  There is a good deal of journalism on the story, but—so far—no really good book to recommend. 

[3] GEORGE BENSON On Broadway Album Version 

[4] See: New York City migrant housing crisis – Wikipedia  See also: Nelson – ha ha 

[5] The Roosevelt Hotel had been built during a happier and more optimistic time in America.  See: Roosevelt Hotel (Manhattan) – Wikipedia and Terminal City (Manhattan) – Wikipedia  More evidence, if any is needed, that we are not the country we once were.  Could we be once more? 

[6] The brother is believed to be a member of the Tren de Aragua crime organization.  See: Tren de Aragua – Wikipedia  Both the violence and pervasiveness of the gang in the United States seems over-stated, notably by President Trump.

[7] “[T]he defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the US” is prohibiting “the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.” 

[8] “Immigration: the Laken Riley bill advances,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 17. 

[9] Senator John Fetterman  (D-Pennsylvania) quoted in ibid.   

[10] Laken Riley Act – Wikipedia 

Think about this.

Posted on by
Reply

            “In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit [to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in 2018, burial place of many American dead from the First World War], Trump said, ‘Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.’ In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as ‘suckers’ for getting killed.”[1] 

            Soon thereafter, “one unnamed senior official with the U.S. Department of Defense and one senior U.S. Marine Corps officer confirmed the 2018 cemetery remarks from the above report in interviews with The Associated Press (AP). According to the AP, the official had firsthand knowledge of Trump’s remarks, and the officer had been told about them.”[2] 

            Donald Trump, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all denied that Trump had said these things.  Bolton was not then and has never become a Trump loyalist. 

            In “a separate incident of Trump visiting the grave of [General John] Kelly’s son who was killed in action in Afghanistan, ….. Trump allegedly asked of military personnel who volunteered to join the service, ‘What was in it for them?’” 

            In an October 2023 speech, President Joe Biden referred explicitly to the reported remarks.  Immediately afterward, General John Kelly, who had been serving as Trump’s chief of staff, endorsed the original report. 

            The Snopes evaluation concluded: “In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump’s alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members “losers” and “suckers.” While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim.”  Nevertheless, those stories were widely reported by media outlets.[3] 

Personally, I believe them.  So, what to make of the following? 

First, the military faces a recruitment “crisis.”[4]

Second, based on November 2024 exit-polls for presidential candidates.[5] 

                                    Trump             Biden/Harris  Percent of the overall vote. 

Veterans                      65%                 34%                 13% 

Non-Veterans              48%                 50%                 87%    

            In the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and related anti-Islamist raiding elsewhere, do veterans now think that Trump got it right?  Do they think that they have been betrayed by the country they volunteered to defend?  Did they put Trump in the White House?   

[1] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’,” The Atlantic, 3 September 2020.  The accusations and denials are examined in Did Trump Call Fallen Soldiers ‘Suckers’ and ‘Losers’? | Snopes.com

[2] Report: Trump disparaged US war dead as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers’ | AP News 

[3] For example, see: Trump disparaged U.S. military casualties as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers,’ report says | PBS News; Did Trump call US war dead “losers” and “suckers”? | Vox. 

[4] The Military Recruiting Outlook Is Grim Indeed. Loss of Public Confidence, Political Attacks and the Economy Are All Taking a Toll. | Military.com makes interesting reading. 

[5] 2024 United States presidential election – Wikipedia 

Ruthless.

Posted on by
2

            Here’s the rot at the heart of the Republic: American voters of both parties have come to love “free stuff.”[1]  In a Democracy, politicians and political parties see the road to their own success running through giving voters what they want.  For Democrats, it means Tax-Spend-Elect; for Republicans it means Tax Cut-Spend-Elect. 

            As a result, in 2023, federal spending hit $6.75 trillion, with the federal deficit (not debt, just one year’s worth of spending above revenue) hitting $1.8 trillion.[2]  That deficit is 6.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That isn’t a record.  It has been surpassed before.  However, those other peaks occurred during some kind of emergency: wars, recessions, etc.  Those conditions don’t apply at the moment. 

“Goo-goos” hate this trait.[3]  In the present day, all sorts of experts and commissions offer warnings of coming catastrophe and plans to avoid same.  The trouble is that this is like trying to talk a drunk into giving sobriety a spin.  It isn’t going to happen until they “hit bottom” or have a “moment of clarity.”[4]  What might bring on such a change? 

            Can you cut federal spending by shrinking the federal government?  YES!  And this idea is supported by a majority of Americans.[5]  Can you cut a LOT of federal spending simply by shrinking the number of civil service employees?  NO! 

First, the cost of salaries for all civil servants runs in the area of $200-$250 billion a year.  You will recall (from just above) that this year’s deficit is $1.8 trillion.  So, $200-$250 billion is about one-eighth of the deficit. 

Second, there’s interest on the debt at $882 billion.  An actual default, not just cuts to existing spending, may be coming.  We’re not there yet and we may be able to fend it off. 

Then there’s “discretionary” spending.  This includes the defense budget and everything else.  This comes in at around $2 trillion.  You can cut the defense budget a bunch.  You just have to believe that we are entering an era of peace and tranquility in which no other country will seek to challenge American interests. 

            Third, there’s the elephant in the room: “mandatory” spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and related programs.  This amounts to $4.1 trillion, more than double “discretionary” spending.  “So taming mandatory spending means reining in benefits.”  Ouch! 

            It seems impossible for either Congress or the American people in their present state of desiring “free stuff” from the government to address this issue.  Nor will they raise taxes. 

However, there is scope for executive action.  For example, one “Goo-goo” estimate suggests that as much as $1.4 trillion could be saved by reversing Biden administration executive actions.  All we need is a ruthless lame-duck president who doesn’t care about established traditions or Beltway verities or even what he may have promised to get elected. 

[1] This has become a cultural force.  How and why this has happened is worth exploring. 

[2] Greg Ip, “Cutting Deficits Is Easy—Just Unpopular,” WSJ, 27 December 2024. 

[3] See: Goo-goos – Wikipedia 

[4] You might think that the recent unpleasantness with inflation fueled by deficits would have awakened ordinary Americans to this issue.  It doesn’t seem to have done the trick.  Or perhaps the pre-existing interest groups and political habits were just too strong for a not-yet-crystalized change of attitude.   

[5] According to an Ipsos poll, 57 percent of Americans favor downsizing the federal government.  “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

The Biden Decline Chronology.

Posted on by
Reply

            In January 2024, President Joe Biden began the new year with a job approval rating in the area of 40 percent.  That is where it had been hanging for some time. 

            In February 2024 Special Counsel Robert Hur argued that his chance of winning a post-presidential case against Biden for “willfully retaining” secret documents would be unlikely to succeed: Biden would present as a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”  Democrats heaped abuse on Hur as a Republican partisan who strayed from his brief. 

            In March 2024, Donald Trump led Biden in opinion polls by 1-2 percent. 

            In June 2024, Biden gave a disastrous performance in his first scheduled debate with Trump.  The “cognitive decline” on display seemed much worse than what Robert Hur had described.  Democratic support for Biden immediately collapsed. 

            In July 2024, Biden withdrew from the race under massive pressure from leading Democratic politicians orchestrated by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Biden immediately endorsed his failed Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement.  This short-circuited the possibility of a mini-primary selection process favored by the people who had forced out Biden.[1] 

            In August 2024, Harris chose Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her Vice President candidate.  A bump in opinion polls more than reversed Trump’s 1-2 point lead over Biden to a 2-3 point lead for Harris.  Joy spread everywhere among Democrats. 

            In September 2024, Harris clearly won her debate with Trump.  The Joy Juggernaut gathered speed.  From this point onward, President Biden was really Former President Biden. 

            In October 2024, opinion polls showed that the Harris rebound had ebbed.  Trump and Harris were tied.  This shift occurred in spite of “mis-steps” by the Trump campaign.[2]  As the election drew nigh, the mood in the Harris campaign was described as “nauseously optimistic.” 

            In early November 2024, Trump defeated Harris 49.9 percent to 48.4 percent of the vote. 

            In December 2024, the Former President Biden riff gathered speed.  He embarked on a series of exhausting foreign trips far from the ugly realities at home.  President-Elect Trump was courted by foreign leaders even before he takes office.  Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for anything he did or may have done since 2014.[3]  Later, he pardoned almost everyone on the Federal “Death Row.”  This included Kaboni Savage.[4]  Will he pre-emptively pardon Luigi Mangioni for any Federal crimes? 

            In a particularly awful irony, the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris, will have to preside over the Senate when it certifies the results of the November 2024 presidential election.  Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) takes over if Harris understandably skips out.    

[1] Before he named Harris as his Vice President, a photographer caught a picture of Biden carrying a note that said of Harris “Do not hold grudges.”  Biden’s notes on display: ‘Do not hold grudges’ against Sen. Kamala Harris  Apparently, he has to be reminded. 

[2] Trump’s speeches became much longer and more wandery-aroundy, and it was noted that people attending them began to leave after a while.  However, Trump did about twice as many campaign events as did Biden and Harris.  It looks like he was becoming exhausted, while his opponents were, frankly, indolent either through age or basic nature. 

[3] I’d a done the same thing.  For my sons, not for Hunter.  But putting Hunter, a recovering drug addict, in prison as punishment for some non-violent crimes wouldn’t do the kid—or society at large–any good.  He’s still got a chance to make a decent life. 

[4] See: Kaboni Savage – Wikipedia 

Ukraine down the drain.

Posted on by
3

            In November 2022, about a year into the Russo-Ukraine War, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said publicly that neither side could win a decisive victory.  He argued that a negotiated peace offered the best hope for peace.[1] 

            This was emphatically not the advice that people wanted to hear.  The Biden administration chose a different course.  In essence, the United States has provided (and has encouraged European allies to provide) arms that could be used in a struggle to recapture the territories lost to Russia since the initial Russia seizure of Ukrainian territory in 2014. 

However, for most of the last two years the Biden administration has rejected any measures that would put the United States at risk of a war with Russia.  Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO.  Biden refused repeated requests from Ukraine for long-range weapons that would allow it to strike Russian forces and military sites within Russia itself. 

Now the Russians are driving the Ukrainians back in parts of the front lines.  Now they have been joined by 8-10,000 North Korean “volunteers.”  Now Ukraine has lost about 57,000 dead and many others wounded.  Now the Ukrainian army is finding it hard to replace such losses.  Now the danger of a collapse by the exhausted and increasingly demoralized Ukrainian army grows.  Essentially, events have proved General Milley correct.  A negotiated peace, or at least a cease-fire, is the logical step if Vladimir Putin will settle for half a loaf.  

            As Biden’s term staggers to a close, some administration defense and foreign policy officials have suggested that the United States do what it has not done so far.  Specifically, they have allowed Ukraine to use longer range missiles; they have committed to provide Ukraine with anti-personnel mines[2] to shore up the sagging front; and they are pushing the remaining authorized military aid out the door before President Trump can stop them.   The weapons “are unlikely to change much on the battlefield” and “it will be difficult for Ukraine to regain the ground that Russia has steadily seized over the past few months” authorized leakers in the intelligence community told the New York Times. 

So why do it?  Administration sources offer the rationale that better terms for a cease-fire or peace can be obtained if Ukraine can slow the Russian advance and punish Russia in the final stage of the war.  Moreover, any cease-fire or peace will be at risk of violation by Russia.  Building up a strong defensive capacity could deter or defeat any new Russian attack. 

This seems nonsensical.  If Russia is exhausting the Ukrainians now, why not keep going until they totally collapse?  NATO membership is the only thing that might deter Russia. 

At the same time, the despised Trump administration looms.  The Biden administration is hurrying to issue $2.1 billion worth of contracts for arms to be delivered to Ukraine.  They have two months to go before the Trump administration takes office, although “normally” it takes four to nine months to issue such contracts.[3]

Is the Biden administration trying to encumber the path of the new administration?    

[1] Helene Cooper, Andrew E. Kramer, Eric Schmitt, and Julian Barnes, “Trump’s Vow Leaves Kyiv With Few Options,” New York Times , 22 November 2024. 

[2] Neither the United States nor Russia have signed the Ottawa Treaty outlawing landmines, but Ukraine has signed and ratified the treaty.  List of parties to the Ottawa Treaty – Wikipedia  Who could blame them for breaking it? 

[3] It is good news that one can cut all the red tape at the Pentagon if you want to cut it.   

We Got to Get Out of This Place If It’s the Last Thing We Ever Do.

Posted on by
Reply

            Just under one-sixth (16 percent) of Americans trust the Federal government.[1]  It isn’t just the government institutions that are troubling people. 

In an “a pox upon both your houses” evaluation, a recent CBS poll found that 54 percent of Americans see the Republicans as “extreme,” and the same percentage see the Democrats as extreme.  These two groups overlap to a degree, with 28 percent disapproving of both parties.  About the same number, 26 percent, say that having more political parties would make solving our problems easier.[2] 

            President Joe Biden hasn’t had the kind of calming effect that he seemed to promise during the 2020 campaign.  Partly, this may stem from his left-of-center policy program.[3]  Partly, it may stem from the appearance of new problems (Ukraine), the enlargement of pre-existing problems (refugees at the border), and the return of old problems once considered settled (abortion).  Partly, it may stem from the refusal of so many Republicans to let go of Donald Trump in spite of 6 January 2020.[4] 

A recent Pew poll found that 55 percent of Americans are angry about the current political situation and 65 percent are exhausted by it.  A mere 10 percent are excited about the political situation.  A little more than a quarter (27 percent) of Americans think that the political system as a whole is working “very” well or “somewhat” well.  That implies that almost three-quarters (73 percent) think that it is NOT working any flavor of “well.”  Most (63 percent) aren’t confident about its future (or Don’t Know, which seems to me to be the same thing as not confident).  Most Americans, some 64 percent, say that a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024 is proof of a “broken” political system.  On the one hand, two-thirds of people doubt that Joe Biden would have the physical or mental capacity to serve as an effective president in a second term.  On the other hand, better than half of Americans think that Donald Trump would be all too active and able in pursuing his goals in a second term. 

            Reading these figures, it is easy to believe that “America is desperate for a new beginning.”[5]  Trouble is that, while “America” may be ready, “Americans” are not.  If they were ready, Donald Trump would not have a 40 point bulge on the Seven Dwarves.  If they were ready, Joe Biden would have been persuaded to spend more time with his Addams-like family.  No serious insurgency has broken out in either party.  Instead, we’re waiting for the Grim Reaper to solve our problems.  In an Age of Medical Marvels at that. 

            Still, when and if it comes, what will that “new beginning” look like? 

[1] It is unclear exactly what people understand by “the Federal government.”  Do they mean all three branches or do they mean one or two branches of the government.  The bureaucracy of the Executive Branch can seem awkward and incapable, and even autocratic.  Congress is a monument to paralysis through divided government, and draws careerists like flies to…sugar.  The Judicial Branch has been the scene of politicization for decades as it has become a means to by-pass legislative impasses.  Now, over half (54 percent) of Americans distrust the Supreme Court.  The “Impeach Early Warren” bill-boards of yore have given way to the “Impeach Clarence Thomas” op-eds of today. 

[2] Nothing in European political systems, where this is common, suggests that it would make things better. 

[3] That program has involved a further expansion of deficit spending as part of his Inflation Act, his reliance upon reconciliation to ram through major legislation, and his resort of rule-writing to impose controversial policies. 

[4] I doubt that many Republicans would have accepted any of Biden’s actions as legitimate, even if he had continued every single Trump administration policy.  They want Orange Man. 

[5] William Galston, “America Is Desperate for a New Beginning,” WSJ, 27 September 2023.