Friday, May 27, 2016

Something to Know - 27 May

Tom Toles


Okay, got back yesterday evening.   Wonderful cruise, and people and visits with old friends along the way.   Canada is one amazing place with its beautiful landscapes of greens and trees, diversity of peoples, and common sense values.  The whole trip went well, even the TSA experience coming out of SEATAC airport on the way back.   Once off the plane at LAX, a 2 hour and 30 minute UBER ride back to Claremont (lots of cars on the road in LA).  Got in the front door, and then is when things turned not-so-good.  Malfunctioning toilet, broken microwave oven door (how does it break when you've been away for almost three weeks?), and a locked down VISA credit card because of suspected fraud for charging stuff in places we do not normally frequent.  Time to get back to life at home now.   This piece is from Robert Wolfe, Harvey Mudd College Professor Emeritus in Physics from MIT, who is in his element talking about elements:
Subject: Fw: New Element - Heaviest known to science

Subject: New Element - Heaviest known to science

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element 
yet known to science.
The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant 
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, 
giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which 
are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can
be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes 
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would 
normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years.
It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a  portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, 
since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, 
forming isodopes.

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to  believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a 
critical concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an 
element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it 
has half as many peons but twice as many morons!!
--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Monday, May 23, 2016

Jerry Rubin says ‘thank you’ to his caring and thoughtful friends, and will soon begin a 3-week ‘Health Fast for Healing and Recovery’.


From Jerry Peace Activist Rubin (sent from Santa Monica syndicate):

Dear Friends,
First, I just wanted to again deeply thank everyone for their support and 'get well' messages following the April 16 auto accident when a car hit me while I was crossing at a crosswalk near my Santa Monica residence.
I’m very grateful the accident wasn’t worse. 
It easily could have been much worse.
But it was bad enough.
And now, after 10 days in the hospital and a rehabilitation facility, weeks of pain killers, at-home physical therapy treatments, and much toxic stress, I’m finally off of anti-pain medication and am now getting around without using my previously needed walker. I’m also back staffing my bumper sticker peace table on the Santa Monica Third Street Promenade, and working every day to build up my endurance and fully heal my body. I’m still dealing with the stress and tension the accident caused, and am trying, through it all, to maintain a positive, hopeful and optimistic attitude.
I just wanted to let you know that I will soon be starting a 3-week liquid-only ‘Health Fast for Healing and Recovery’ and I am asking for your continued emotional support.
I will be starting my fast on May 31, the day after Memorial Day and will continue through the June 20Summer Solstice. The definition of ‘memorialize’ is “to do or create something that causes people to remember”. On my fast I certainly will be personally memorializing peace, healing, recovery and gratitude! And the Summer Solstice has often been thought of as a time for new beginnings as well as a time of intensity, renewal and great potential. 
But please do not worry about my fasting! I have,over the years,fasted many times for many good causes. I will be adding vitamins and minerals with my healthful drinks.
So,again, I offer much thanks for your caring, kindness and support. Your well wishes have already helped much in my healing and recovery!

Peace and gratitude,Jerry
www.facebook.com/jerry.rubin.98 (just in case we are not yet facebook friends)

Friday, May 13, 2016

California

This is Monterey Bay this morning

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Something to know 5/11/16: Moving to Canada, Eh? And other stories

The in-laws are about to depart on a boat, so now I'm in charge of the blog--at least until J5 returns.



O Canada
Apparently, Google searches of the phrase "move to Canada." are up, in part due to the impending doom of a Trump presidency. (I recall looking at this after W got reelected in 04. Oy.) Vox capitalized on that by running a thoughtful piece that includes interviews with actual Americans who immigrated to Canada, like my college friend Neda Maghbouleh.

Neda and her husband are sociology professors in Toronto. The Vox explainer crystalized the differences in the approaches to immigration and growth by the two countries, which I personally found useful. Canada prioritizes admitting highly skilled workers and refugees. Family reunification - a cornerstone for our policy - is not as much a priority in Canada. My friend Neda shared with Vox story that it doesn't appear that she will be able to obtain visas for her parents to come to Canada from Portland, Oregon until the next decade. Her kid, however, is a Canadian citizen, which is the golden ticket if you wanted my opinion.

Can you really become a software engineer if you were a sociology major at Pomona?
We know that is possible to have a long career in information technology even if your were a sociology major at Pomona. My father-in-law was a sociology major, class of 63 who trained to become an engineer in the army after graduation. Then he went to work for a legacy airline carrier, doing everything from throwing bags onto planes to customer service. Because he understood operations so well, he was uniquely qualified for a project manager role in IT at Delta--and he majored in sociology!!! Today's liberal arts graduates are still making their way into tech jobs, only now they are more likely to be doing it as software engineers (translation: coders).

My friend Kyle (Pomona sociology '05) talked about his journey from the liberal arts to qualifying for a growing vocation in this lovely essay for Quartz. Check it out to learn how young people are trying to adapt to the job market.

Yes, there is such a thing as grandmother hormones
And I am shameless in capitalizing on it. As a mom of a newborn, it's not enough to talk about baby stuff all day with my husband: I thoroughly enjoy recapping the day and whatever my kid has done with his grandmother (Mrs. J5). And she gobbles it up. I thought maybe it was just her being really excited. This NYTimes op-ed suggests some of it is hormones - or basically, a biological instinct. Either way, I'm glad to have the in-laws love and support on this journey. I wish them a lovely time, and can't wait to see them again.

Something to Know - 10 May

Jeff Danziger

Having read this article this morning, I just had to send one more out before taking Uber or Lyft to the train station to get to my boat ride.  This column in the NY Times just cries out how ill-prepared Trump is.   Not good.  After Cruz and Kasich dropped out, the presumptive nominee is out there trying to paddle up stream, with very little help.   Last night, on Rachel Maddow, I say a collage of all of the other guys who were running for GeeOpie leader (from Hucklberry to Kasich), and each one had nasty things to say about Trump ("unfit", etc), and now some of them are "endorsing" Trump.   The collection of negative videos and sound bytes on Trump will emphasize just how bad and divided the GOP is.  Sirinya Matute will be with you soon:


Donald Trump, in Switch, Turns to Republican Party for Fund-Raising Help
By MAGGIE HABERMAN, ASHLEY PARKER and NICK CORASANITIMAY 9, 2016

Donald J. Trump took steps to appropriate much of the Republican National Committee's financial and political infrastructure for his presidential campaign on Monday, amid signs that he and the party would lag dangerously behind the Democrats in raising money for the general election.

Mr. Trump, who by the end of March had spent around $40 million of his fortune on the primaries, has said that he may need as much as $1.5 billion for the fall campaign, but that he will seek to raise it from donors rather than continue to self-finance.

But Mr. Trump has no fund-raising apparatus to resort to, no network of prolific bundlers to call upon, and little known experience with the type of marathon, one-on-one serial salesmanship and solicitousness that raising so much money is likely to require — even if individuals can contribute up to the current limit of $334,000 at a time to the party. And he has to do it all in six months, with a deeply divided party that is still absorbing the fact that Mr. Trump is its standard-bearer.

"No one should underestimate how hard it would be for any nominee to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in a very short period of time," said Mike DuHaime, who was the top strategist for the presidential campaign of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.

While Mr. Trump's continued feud with the Republican establishment was likely to cheer his supporters, his intense need for money to run his general election campaign suggests the degree to which he will rely heavily on the party's existing infrastructure.

Underscoring the urgency with which Mr. Trump and Republicans will need to increase their fund-raising, some of the party's allies who spent enormous sums in the 2012 election now appear likely to stay on the sidelines in the presidential race — including the vast Koch brothers network, which had pledged to spend nearly $900 million in 2016.

Mark Holden, chairman of the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, one of the Koch network's main umbrella groups, signaled that it would require a significant change in tactics by Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, for his group to open the spigot.

"If during the general election cycle, a candidate were able to garner support from the public with a positive message in support of the issues we care about, and did not engage in personal attacks and mudslinging, we would consider potentially getting involved," Mr. Holden said. "That hasn't happened yet, and there is no indication that this will happen given the current tone and tenor of the various campaigns."

The Karl Rove-led group American Crossroads is also in a wait-and-see crouch, with officials saying they have no immediate plans to buttress the Republican nominee. Both it and the Kochs' network are now expected to focus more on aiding Republicans' efforts to retain their majority in the Senate.

Republican Party officials have pressed Mr. Trump to sign a joint fund-raising agreement, which would allow him to raise money for the national committee and for his own campaign simultaneously. That, in turn, would also give Mr. Trump a defensible answer for why, after months of railing against Wall Street executives and special interests, he recently turned to a former Goldman Sachs executive, Steven Mnuchin, to corral large checks for his campaign.

Both Mr. Trump's aides and party officials were caught by surprise by the abrupt end of the primary contest last week, when Mr. Trump carried Indiana, prompting Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio to withdraw from the race. But the two sides have hurried to wrap up a joint fund-raising agreement, and one is close to being signed, according to people close to the national committee who were not authorized to speak publicly.

"As soon as there's unity, it's going to be very easy to do," Mr. Trump said in an interview Monday, adding that he still planned to write checks for his campaign. "I think we'll raise $1 billion," he said.

Under a joint fund-raising agreement, Mr. Trump and the party would most likely be able to raise even more than the current individual limit. But such efforts are difficult and take time: While the limits were lower in 2012, Mitt Romney raised less than $500 million under such an agreement that year, using a donor network that had taken years to develop.

In one sign of progress for Mr. Trump, Stanley Hubbard, a billionaire broadcasting executive who had donated money to efforts to thwart him, fell in line behind him. "All my other candidates withdrew, one by one," Mr. Hubbard said in an interview. "He was the last man standing."

But other donors remain staunchly opposed. Paul Singer, the billionaire financier who had backed Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, made clear at a gala Monday night for the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, that he could not support Mr. Trump and was dismayed by the likely choices in the general election.

In a three-and-a-half-hour meeting on Monday at Republican headquarters in Washington, party officials detailed for Mr. Trump's top aides the range of fund-raising operations and the other political assets at his campaign's disposal. These include the party's trove of data on voters nationwide, the hundreds of organizers it has working across the country and the dozens of employees in the party's communications shop.

Mr. Trump chose not to assemble those kinds of extensive operations during the primary season, when he prided himself on winning contests on a shoestring and ran a skeletal operation compared with many of his rivals. So he may have to lean on the Republican National Committee in a way that few nominees have in recent years.

In the lengthy meeting, Trump aides and party officials tried to forge a path forward in tandem, with Republican officials delivering the less-than-subtle message that Mr. Trump's aides were in little position to try a takeover of the group, according to a person briefed on the discussions.
 
"We can both learn a lot from each other because we both have the same objective — to defeat the Democrats in November," Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump's campaign manager, said after the meeting.

Mr. Trump has few aides of his own to take control of the party, which had just $16 million in cash on hand at the end of March. And Speaker Paul D. Ryan's declaration last week that he was "not ready" to support Mr. Trump has given cover to some donors who, speaking privately, said they were already dreading the prospect of becoming involved.

The Trump campaign plans to try to take firm control over the party's convention, with two senior advisers to Mr. Trump, Paul Manafort and Barry Bennett, expected to head to Cleveland on Thursday, according to two people close to the Trump campaign.

Even as his aides met privately with party officials, Mr. Trump continued to suggest in public that Republicans should embrace him, saying in a CNN interview Monday that the party, "because of me, has received more votes than at any time in its history."

With a meeting set for Thursday with Mr. Ryan, Mr. Trump did not endorse a suggestion by a well-known supporter, Sarah Palin, that Mr. Ryan should be hit with a primary challenge for saying he could not yet endorse Mr. Trump.

"I have nothing to do with that," Mr. Trump said. "Sarah is very much a free agent."

Mr. Trump is also set to meet with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has given him a lukewarm endorsement, on Thursday.

Mr. Ryan, meanwhile, was asked about Mr. Trump's refusal to rule out removing him as chairman of the convention, and he responded with a bit of brinkmanship, offering to step aside if Mr. Trump wanted him to.

There were other signs Monday that party unity could prove to be a hard sell.

A potential complication to Mr. Trump's convention planning surfaced, providing the first indication that Mr. Cruz would not simply hand his delegates over: Mr. Cruz's supporters emailed pro-Cruz convention delegates on Sunday to urge them to attend the convention and take control of two key committees.

Many Christian conservatives who supported Mr. Cruz and other candidates harbor deep suspicions about the beliefs of Mr. Trump, a former Democrat who not long ago supported abortion rights, and how compatible they are with long-held conservative stances on social issues espoused in the official Republican Party platform.

At the same time, Mr. Trump appeared to lose one potential vice-presidential prospect when Mr. Rubio, the former rival whom he called "Little Marco," said he had no interest in joining the ticket. Mr. Rubio said his reservations about Mr. Trump's "campaign and concerns with many of his policies remain unchanged."

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Monday, May 9, 2016

Something to Know - 9 May

Stuart Carlson

The trend in columnists and pundits is that the GeeOpie has taken over the action and that the Republican Party is in peril.   This column by Charles Blow from the NY Times is an example.   I will be out on the high seas again (San Diego to Vancouver, and points in between, and will return around the end of May.   My daughter-in-law may interject a few of her postings on this space in the interim.

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST

G.O.P. Has Only Itself to Blame

Charles M. Blow MAY 9, 2016

The Republican Party is trapped between a rock and huckster.

Now that all of their other presidential candidates have dropped out of the race, Donald Trump is the last demagogue standing. He is their presumptive nominee. Their party belongs to him. It's a YUUGE … disaster.

Now the few remaining serious folks in that party have to make a decision: support this man who, if current trends in polling hold, is likely to lose the general election by an overwhelming margin (and likely do even more damage to the party brand and hurt the chances of down-ballot candidates), or they can … wait, they don't really have another option other than to sit out this cycle and pretend that their party hasn't gone stark raving mad.

The House speaker, Paul Ryan, told CNN last week that he is "just not ready" to support Trump.

Jeb Bush posted on Facebook, "I will not vote for Donald Trump." His brother and father are both refusing to endorse Trump.

Mitt Romney, the Republicans' last presidential nominee, has also said that he won't support Trump.

Lindsey Graham said last week that he "cannot in good conscience" support Trump.

Many prominent Republicans have also indicated that they will skip the party's convention.

CNN reported last week that Erick Erickson, a conservative blogger, radio host and leader of the #NeverTrump movement, has "had a number of conversations about laying the groundwork for a third-party candidate to oppose Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the general election."

"If the delegates ratify this madness in Cleveland, many of us will look elsewhere for a credible candidate to oppose both Trump and Clinton," Erickson told CNN.

If you didn't already believe that whoever wins the Democratic nomination would be a huge favorite to win in November, a third-party conservative candidate would seal the deal.

But please, shed not a single tear for this conservative calamity. They brought it on themselves. They allowed their unhinged contempt for — and in some cases, even hatred of — Obama to drive them insane, into the arms of a walking absurdity who catered to their rage.

Now, that man — simultaneously an unbelievable joke and an undeniable threat — is on the verge of ripping the party, and indeed the country, apart (even as he insists that he's "very much a unifier").

It's not that Trump's chances of winning in November are particularly good. According to The Upshot, "If today's general election polling holds true, Hillary Clinton will easily defeat Donald Trump."

The Los Angeles Times put it in even starker terms: "To reach the 270 electoral votes it takes, the businessman and reality TV star will have to carry a number of states that have not voted Republican in well over a generation, while prevailing in several battlegrounds where, polls show, he starts behind."

No, the threat is not that he will necessarily win, but that he will further poison our national dialogue in the six months between now and Election Day, and the off chance that maybe, just maybe, a September surprise could turn his sliver of a chance into an actual victory.

This what-if, worst-case possibility that America might do the unimaginable — and elect Trump to our highest office — is severely unsettling.

Even the president, speaking of Trump at a press conference on Friday, had to impress upon everyone how serious it is that the country is flirting with disaster: "I just want to emphasize the degree to which we are in serious times and this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States. "

Sure, there are some prominent Republicans tucking their tails, biting their tongues and swallowing hard as they begrudgingly announce their support for the presumptive Republican nominee.

But they no doubt see what the Pew Research Center reported last month: "Unfavorable opinions of the G.O.P. are now as high as at any point since 1992." They know that Trump will send that number sinking, as if tied to a brick.

Trump has used a toxic mix of bullying and bluster, xenophobia and nationalism, misogyny and racism, to appeal to the darker nature of the Republican Party and secure his place as the unlikeliest presidential nominee in recent American history.

That paved his path, coupled with what Jim Clifton, chairman and C.E.O. at Gallup, called earlier this year "a staggering" three-fourths of Americans believing "corruption is 'widespread' in the U.S. government." As Clifton emphasized: "Not incompetence, but corruption."

There is real pain in America, and where you sit along the ideological spectrum dictates whom you see as your Satan and whom as your savior. It appears that enough Republican voters have opted for the combo package, for which the party is likely to pay a hefty price.

Congratulations, Republicans, you've hitched yourselves to the madman-driven carriage, and it's heading for the cliff.

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Friday, May 6, 2016

Something to Know - 6 May (Afternoon Edition)

Rob Rogers

Working off of a branded phrase from my Alma Mater, there is no way that I can not release this story from today's Washington Post:



47 not-very-positive things foreign leaders have said about Donald Trump
By Adam Taylor May 6 at 5:00 AM 
(Amy King/The Washington Post; AP; iStock

Generally, foreign leaders don't criticize other nation's electoral candidates. The logic is simple: This person might win and you don't want your witty insult from a year prior hanging over you if you have to work together. This tradition hasn't continued with Donald Trump. A range of foreign leaders past and present have publicly expressed doubts about Trump and his proposals; others have spoken off-the-record to more candidly explain their angst at the thought of a President Donald Trump.
  1. "Divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong." British Prime Minister David Cameron on Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban.
  2. "He changes opinions like the rest of us change underwear." Danish Foreign Minister Kristian Jensen.
  3. "His discourse is so dumb, so basic." Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.
  4. "That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived." Mexican President Enrique Peña on Trump's rhetoric.
  5. "Trump is an irrational type." Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei.
  6. "You [Trump] are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S. presidential race as you will never win." Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud.
  7. "Mr. Trump's statement only serves to show not only his insensitivity, but also his ignorance about Pakistan." Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudry Nisar Ali Khan after Trump demanded the release of a doctor who helped the CIA hunt down Osama bin Laden in 2011.
  8. "Let's be clear, Donald Trump is an idiot. I have tried to find different, perhaps more parliamentary adjectives to describe him but none was clear enough. He is an idiot." Gavin Newlands, a British MP with the Scottish National Party. 
  9. "Scary. That's how we view Trump [...] Could we depend on the United States? We don't know. I can't tell you how the unpredictability we are seeing scares us." An unnamed ambassador whose country has a close relationship with Washington.
  10. "When an apple's red, it is red. When you say ignorant things, you're ignorant." Mexico's top diplomat, Foreign Affairs Secretary Claudia Ruiz Massieu.
  11. "I think the Donald Trump phenomenon is a real problem for the United States, making their democracy look kind of weird." Christopher Pyne, minister for industry, innovation and science in the Australian government.
  12. "Whether Donald Trump, Marine le Pen or Geert Wilders — all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development." Germany's Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel.
  13. "Seriously, have you ever heard me say something like that?" French far right politician Marine Le Pen on Trump's proposal to ban foreign Muslims from entry to the United States.
  14. "Given his positions, do we even want to have anything to do with this guy?" An unnamed European ambassador.
  15. "If he becomes president, it will be a disaster." Former Danish foreign minister Martin Lidegaard.
  16. "[Trump has] no regard for alliances at all." Former Australian ambassador to the U.S. Kim Beazley.
  17. "You listen to him at the debates and what he says is unsettling — he is promising to change things from one day to the next. A lot of us thought he couldn't possibly be the nominee [...] The uncertainty is very, very scary." An unnamed European ambassador.
  18. "Donald Trump's remarks are totally absurd and illogical." Ri Jong Ryul, deputy-director general of the Institute of International Studies in North Korea, after Trump suggested that Japan and South Korea arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
  19. "He is very good at making speeches, but as a politician and a world leader? No, I don't think that's a very good idea." Jimmie Akesson, leader of the far right Sweden Democrats. 
  20. "Some of the claims made during the campaign have been empty or just wrong." Peter Westmacott, former British ambassador to the United States.
  21. "A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian." Pope Francis.
  22. "The orange prince of American self-publicity." Marcus Fysh, British MP with the Conservative Party.
  23. "To start with, it was no more than a joke, and we all laughed – but now it is becoming quite concerning." Søren Espersen, a foreign affairs spokesperson for the far right Danish People's Party.
  24. "If Trump beats Hillary, that means that the scenario of the clash of civilisations created by Samuel will come to light at the hands of the candidate and [Islamic State leader] al-Baghdadi." Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan bin Tamim, head of general security for the Emirate of Dubai.
  25. "So Donald Trump … is ambitious but not exactly very well-informed man, I don't want to say ignorant, but he is not very well informed." Former Mexican president Felipe Calderon
  26. "The comments made are unacceptable." Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny on Trump's Muslim travel ban.
  27. "If he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubs in my constituency, they may well tell him he is a wazzock." Victoria Atkins, British MP with the Conservative Party.
  28. "In the past when candidates said extreme things, there always has been some seasoned, experienced adviser you could talk to, or who would speak out to soften what was said. This is not the case with Trump." Unnamed ambassador from South America.
  29. "The person you are dealing with may be a successful businessman, but he's also a buffoon." Gavin Robinson, a British MP from Northern Ireland who represents the Democratic Unionist Party.
  30. "Trump's remarks do not show a sense of introspection on what their results would bring about; he does not know the gravity of what he says." South Korea's vice foreign minister Choi Young-jin.
  31. "[A Trump presidency would be] a disaster for E.U.-U.S. ties." An unnamed senior E.U. official.
  32. "If Donald Trump was to end up as president of the United States, I think we better head for the bunkers." Carl Bildt, former foreign minister of Sweden.
  33. "[The anti-Islam rhetoric of] Donald Trump and others in Europe are really the shame of our civilization." Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama.
  34. "A successful politician would not make such statement, as there are millions of Muslims living in the U.S." Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Trump's proposed ban on Muslim arrivals.
  35. "The opportunism, unreliability and amorality that we have seen during the [Trump] campaign would be damaging for the world in general and hurt Europe in particular." Ana Palacio, former Spanish foreign minister.
  36. "Trump, like others, stokes hatred and conflations." Manuel Valls, prime minister of France, on the proposed Muslim travel ban.
  37. "I can only hope that the election campaign in the U.S.A. does not lack the perception of reality." German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
  38. "This nation [the U.S.] is going to fail if it goes into the hands of a crazy guy." Former Mexican president Vicente Fox.
  39. "We had such appreciation for your system when Barack Hussein Obama was elected [...] Hussein was his middle name. Hussein! He was black. We so admired that America could do something like that. Now you have a candidates who doesn't want Muslims." An unnamed ambassador from the Middle East.
  40. "Vulture." Gerard Araud, French ambassador to the U.S., in response to a Donald Trump tweet about gun control in France (Araud later deleted this tweet).
  41. "Trump solutions for me are false solutions, but they're not original. They're things that we have heard in Europe from extremist sections," Sandro Gozi, undersecretary for European affairs in the Italian government.
  42. "It's not a man I would vote for, I can tell you that [...] I hope that the American people, and I think they will, choose someone else who is better equipped for this task." Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.
  43. "Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump's recent remarks about Muslims." A statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban.
  44. "Saying the U.S. will no longer engage in anything that is a burden in terms of its relationships with allies, it would be almost like abandoning those alliances [...] It will inevitably give rise to anti-American sentiment worldwide." Former South Korean vice foreign minister Kim Sung-han.
  45. "Trump's statements are shocking and disgusting." Isaac Herzog, Israeli opposition leader, on Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban.
  46. "The only reason I wouldn't visit some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump." London mayor and British Conservative MP Boris Johnson.
  47. "The fact is, Cape Breton is lovely all times of the year and if people do want to make choices that perhaps suit their lifestyles better, Canada is always welcoming and opening." Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when asked a question about the potential that Americans could leave the country if Trump is elected.
Juan Matute- '63
Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story

--



Something to Know - 6 May


By his reply to Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan) with "I am not ready for your agenda either", Donald J. Trump solidified his presidential veneer as a hoax.  The wedge has been slammed into the heart of the GOP, and it is all angst, fury, and flames from here on out.  It seems impossible for the ego of Trump to be compliant, and he will suffer the the lack of support and unity from the very organization he has played to be its leader.   


The Opinion Pages | CAMPAIGN STOPS

Trump Tries to Take it Back

Timothy Egan MAY 6, 2016

Regrets? Sinatra had a few, but no-ho-ho such thing for Donald J. Trump so far. Apologies? Not part of the brand. Did Mike Tyson apologize to the woman he was convicted of raping? Did Ku Klux Klan leaders say they were sorry for their endorsements after Trump said he'd be good for "the African-Americans?"

The rapist and the racists are all in with the man from Trump Tower, along with Ted Nugent. Nugent called President Obama "a subhuman mongrel" and suggested that he be lynched. "Trump is as close to Ted Nugent as you're going to get in politics," he said.

But some things have to be erased, and quickly. Etch A Sketch? That was Mitt Romney's plan. (Such a choker, Mitt.) For Trump, it'll be more like a remodel, get rid of the dirty carpet, the retro-without-being-camp décor, polish the edges. Soften. Less time with "Fox and Friends" and the conspiracy nut jobs on talk radio, and more time with "The View." Ladies — he adores 'em. The press will come to him on bended knee, as NBC News did this week in their pander-cast from Trump Tower.

Still, if you were disliked by two-thirds of American women, 73 percent of nonwhites, 70 percent of voters under age 35 and 67 percent of college graduates, you'd feel some urgency to dial back his inner Sarah Palin.

So we saw the man who killed the Party of Lincoln in all his babelicious-loving glory Tuesday night, the first of 188 days until the general election. He can't possibly take back everything. How do you replace xenophobia, racism, misogyny and factual malpractice with "we're going to love each other," as he said after winning Indiana?

Simple. Count on American amnesia, our opioid.

He started the take-it-back tour with Ted Cruz. Trump had linked the senator's father to the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. He'd insulted Ted's wife, implying that she was ugly. And he'd stuck a name on him that will follow him back to the Senate — Lyin' Ted Cruz. But as of this week forward, Senator Cruz is "one hell of a competitor," and Trump wishes nothing but the best for "Heidi and their whole beautiful family."

No take-back on the Kennedy thing, though. Trump read about it in The National Enquirer, so who you going to believe? Like those phantom thousands of Muslims cheering the collapse of the Twin Towers from New Jersey. "I'm just referring to an article that appeared," said Trump on Wednesday, about tying the elder Cruz to Lee Harvey Oswald. "I mean, it had nothing to do with me."

See, he's going to act presidential, as promised, but that doesn't include the temperament and judgment part of the act. It's beyond his range. Imagine Trump with the daily briefing in the White House, trying to discern a tabloid rumor from a national security threat.

An easy take-back was breaking the promise to self-finance his campaign. He claims to be a billionaire, beholden to no one. Let the beholding begin. "Do I want to sell a couple of buildings and self-fund?" he said this week, by way of announcing he's open to donations from special interests. "I don't know that I want to do that personally."

Mexican immigrants — presumably still rapists and criminals in his mind, without doubt, but unlike the convicted rapist and registered sex offender Mike Tyson, not sold on Trump. On Tuesday, he promised he would have "unbelievably great relationships with the Hispanics." One bit of advice for "the Hispanics": When the deportation squad shows up on your doorstep on Day 1 of the Trump presidency, have your papers ready.

"The blacks," or as Trump now calls them, "the African-Americans," will be a hard sell as well. They will not forget that Trump spent considerable time trying to delegitimize the first African-American presidency. He sent his investigators to Hawaii, looking to prove that the president was not an American citizen. What they found was "absolutely unbelievable," Trump said, but he's never released it. Here you should read "unbelievable" in the literal sense.

Women — big, big problem there for a thrice-married man who said his personal Vietnam was keeping himself safe from the "scary world" of women with sexually transmitted diseases. Can't take back "fat pigs" and "dogs" and "disgusting animals," or musing about punishing women who get abortions. He could borrow the wife-beater refrain, make nice and say, "I love you, baby."

Young people. Most of them, like most scientists, understand that climate change is real, and don't want their children to face planetary fury. To Trump it's a hoax. Not everyone can seal themselves off from a world of rising seas and burning forests by retreating to a gold-lined biosphere.

Muslims, no reconciliation. There aren't enough Muslim voters for a take-back of Trump's plan to apply a religious test for entry into the country. He needs the hatred, as well. And in the same never category — George Will. Never. "He's a major loser," said Trump, in his triumphant week. "It's over for him, and I never want his support."


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Something to Know - 4 May

Stuart Carlson

Much political buzz and talk today.  Trumpy is almost there.  Bernie is still in there.   Kasich bails.   Hillary needs something to say she won.   However, my big thrill is that Ted Cruz is gone.  With the same respect and devotion given to him by so many by the likes of John Boehner, Lucifer is gone,   The RNC and the core of the mainstream Republicans are now in disarray.   Trump is now supposed to act "presidential".   There will be unexpected faces denouncing him; many from the land of the GeeOpie.   From this point on, it could be all down hill for the Donald.  His opponents are all gone, but the united party is not going to happen:


The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST
Ted Cruz's Bitter End

Frank Bruni MAY 3, 2016


If you listened much to Ted Cruz over these last furious months, you heard him talk frequently about "the abyss," as in what this country was teetering on the edge of. If you listened to him over these last furious hours, you heard him mention the "yawning cavern of insecurity" that motivates Donald Trump and other bullies.

Cruz should take up spelunking. He's obviously fascinated by unfathomable depths, and with his loss in Indiana on Tuesday, his candidacy for the presidency is finished, giving him a whole lot of extra time. A new hobby is definitely in order.

As we bid Cruz adieu, we should give him his due: He took a mien and manner spectacularly ill suited to the art of seducing voters about as far as they could go. He outlasted the likes of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. He outperformed Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008.

Like him, Santorum and Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses and built from there, courting the religious right with particular fervor. But they lacked the intensity of Cruz's professed disdain for Washington, which was his other big sales pitch, made at its moment of maximum potency. He peddled extravagant piety and extreme contempt in equal measure.

If that sounds paradoxical, it is, and the tension between contradictory Cruzes is what ultimately did him in.

He spoke out of both sides of his scowl, itching to be the voice of the common man but equally eager to demonstrate what a highfalutin, Harvard-trained intellect he possessed. He wed a populist message to a plummy vocabulary. And while the line separating smart and smart aleck isn't all that thin or blurry, he never could stay on the winning side of it.

He wore cowboy boots, but his favorites are made of ostrich.

Two peacocks in a pod, he and Trump, and what ghastly plumage they showed on Tuesday.

Trump somehow saw fit to bring up a National Enquirer story linking Cruz's father to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Cruz exploded, branding Trump a "pathological liar" and "serial philanderer." He also brought up an interview from many years ago in which Trump told Howard Stern that his effort to steer clear of sexually transmitted diseases was his "personal Vietnam."

Where was this rant six months ago, when the Republican field was crowded and Cruz played footsie with Trump? Back then he was wagering that Trump would fade, and he wanted to be in a friendly position to inherit the billionaire's supporters.

But by Tuesday, Trump was the main obstacle between Cruz and the Republican presidential nomination, and Cruz has just one true compass: his own advancement.

The nakedness of his vanity and transparency of his ambition were always his biggest problem. He routinely excoriated other politicians for self-centeredness while repeatedly hogging center stage, his remarks interminable — after his Iowa victory, for example, or when he presumptuously introduced Carly Fiorina as his running mate — and his pauses so theatrically drawn out that you could watch the entirety of "The Revenant" during some of them.

He trashed "the establishment" and wore its rejection of him as a badge of honor only until it stopped rejecting him and its help was his best hope to wrest the nomination away from Trump. At that point he did dizzy cartwheels over every prominent endorsement that came his way.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


He took great pride in an adversarial relationship with the media, decreeing us irrelevant, until he went in hunt of a fresh excuse for losing to Trump and decided over the last few days that it was all our fault. We didn't matter and then we did, depending on which estimation flattered him.

He purported to be more high-minded than his peers but pettily mocked Michelle Obama for urging schoolchildren to eat leafy greens. When Heidi Cruz is first lady, he pledged, "French fries are coming back to the cafeteria." Heidi Cruz is not going to be first lady, so she'll need some other platform for the promotion of calorie bombs and second chins.

And where in her husband was the humility that a Christian faith as frequently proclaimed as his should encompass? It wasn't evident when he stormed into the Senate in early 2013, an upstart intent on upstaging the veterans.

There were flickers of it on Tuesday night, as he conceded defeat not just in Indiana but in the presidential contest, announcing that he was suspending his campaign "with a heavy heart." He articulated gratitude to those Americans — no small number of them — who had buoyed him.

He went overboard in his praise of Fiorina, merely reminding us all of what an odd and oddly timed alliance theirs was. "An incredible, phenomenal running mate," he called her, as if they'd been on some epic journey. It was less than a week long. How many phenomena could she accomplish in that time?

He left Trump out of his remarks. There were no congratulations. There was no indication of whether he'd publicly back Trump in the months to come. There was nothing to purge the memory of what he'd said earlier Tuesday, when he described Trump as "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country has ever seen." Yes, we have, and so has he, every day, in the mirror.

That's why he'll undoubtedly be back to try for the presidency again. But this bid is moribund. It's time for Cruz to rest in peevishness.

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Andy Borowitz

TODAY 9:54 AM

Senate Officially Mourns Return of Ted Cruz

BY 



 
CREDIT PHOTOGRAPH BY KAREN BLEIER/AFP/GETTY
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The United States Senate declared an official day of mourning on Wednesday to mark the impending return of Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to the legislative body.

Ordering all flags at the U.S. Capitol to half-staff, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, announced the day of mourning in a somber proclamation. "We mark this day with a deep personal sense of loss that will never completely heal," he said.


To recognize Cruz's return, which is expected to be imminent, McConnell said that the Senate would suspend all work for the day. "Ordinarily our members would welcome a day off," he said. "But not for this."

In a rare moment of consensus for this bitterly divided chamber, both Republicans and Democrats expressed their sorrow, but the news of Cruz's return seemed to cut the deepest among Republicans, many of whom now regret their decision not to endorse the Texas senator for President.

"If that bastard had somehow been elected President, we would have only had to see him one day a year, at the State of the Union," Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. "I should have done everything in my power to make that happen. And now it's too damn late."

"We have to respect the will of the voters, but they didn't think about the devastating effect this would have on us," the usually stoic McConnell said, his voice quavering. "There's a real human cost to this."

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Saturday, April 30, 2016

Something to Know - 30 April

Jim Morin

This is the 3rd installment  (promise of this being the last) on an issue before the Supreme Court. 
  Figuring that a SNL skit will cover it all, this is about as plain as it can get.  The worrisome point 
for me is that Justice Stephen Breyer is in favor of the defense at this point.   The final judgment
 should be coming in June:
APRIL 29, 2016

A "Wayne's World" Argument at the Supreme Court

BY 


A high-stakes corruption case at the Supreme Court will be determined partly by logic reminiscent of the nineties comedy—and offered on behalf of the former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell.A high-stakes corruption case at the Supreme Court will be determined partly by logic reminiscent of the nineties comedy—and offered on behalf of the

 I read the transcript of Wednesday's Supreme Court oral arguments in the corruption case of the former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, I thought of the movie "Wayne's World." There's a scene halfway through the film in which Wayne and Garth, the lovable public-access TV hosts, argue with Benjamin, the slick corporate producer, about giving their sponsor airtime. As they make their case against selling out, Wayne and Garth serve as pitchmen. "I will not bow to any sponsor," Wayne says, sticking his hand into a Pizza Hut box and pulling out a slice. Before the Court this week, McDonnell's lawyers made a similarly convincing claim that he couldn't be bought.

The facts of McDonnell's case aren't really in dispute: between 2011 and 2012, McDonnell and his wife accepted more than a hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars' worth of gifts—including a fifty-thousand-dollar loan, a twenty-thousand-dollar shopping spree in Manhattan, free vacations, lavish meals, and fifteen thousand dollars in cash—from Jonnie Williams, a Virginia businessman who wanted McDonnell's help getting Virginia public universities to study his company's diet supplement, Anatabloc.


The question before the court this week was not whether McDonnell took the quid—but whether he delivered the quo. McDonnell was convicted, in 2014, on eleven federal corruption charges. The law required prosecutors to prove that McDonnell performed an "official action" in return for payment. While Williams never got the drug study he wanted, McDonnell did arrange meetings between Williams and state officials. McDonnell also hosted a launch party for Anatabloc at the governor's mansion, and once pulled out a bottle of Anatabloc during a meeting with the head of the state-employee health plan and suggested that state employees start taking the supplement. The legal issue from the start was whether those favors amounted to "official action."

On Wednesday, Noel Francisco, the lawyer representing McDonnell, argued that while the former governor may have given Williams access to officials, he never tried to influence those officials' decisions, and therefore hadn't crossed the line into official acts. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, meanwhile, representing the United States, maintained that exchanging meetings for cash, on its own, counts as bribery.

At least some of the Justices, most vocally Stephen Breyer, seemed clearly on McDonnell's side. And while McDonnell's particular case involved gifts and vacations, the underlying concern for the Court, for much of day, was campaign contributions. Because a donation to a campaign can count as a bribe, and because giving extra access to big donors is ubiquitous, finding McDonnell's favors to Williams to be "official acts" could threaten to criminalize a wide range of campaign fund-raising practices. This idea has been part of the case all along. In 2014, one of the juror instructions that McDonnell's lawyers proposed at trial was lifted from the Supreme Court's decree, in its 2010 decision in Citizens United, that "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption."

The irony is that, as Dreeben pointed out to the Court, that phrase was actually meant to distinguish a politician's legitimate feelings of "general gratitude," as the Court put it in a 2013 case, from the impermissible act of swapping a political favor for money. In Citizens United, the Court itself noted that contributions like the two million dollars paid by the dairy industry to Richard Nixon's Presidential-campaign fund so that it could discuss price controls with Nixon would today be considered a bribe. And yet the Justices' chilly response to Dreeben's argument suggests that, at this point, they're not interested in policing the line between "general gratitude" and quid-pro-quo corruption.

The Justices worried that if they defined "official acts" too broadly, the difference between lawful and unlawful behavior would be left entirely to the judgment of federal prosecutors. Because every politician in the country would then be a potential target, the Justice Department would have too much discretion to pick and choose cases. As Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year about the former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, currently in prison for appointing a campaign donor to a regulatory board, "Thanks to the courts, the line between illegal bribery by campaign contribution and the ordinary business of politics has all but disappeared. Throwing a man in prison for activity at the murky barrier between the two is simply unjust."

The idea that American politics is pervasively corrupted by money is not a fringe position. That doesn't mean Breyer is wrong to fear that a victory for the government would give prosecutors too much power to select their targets. But there's an unstated premise at work here: even if some elected officials are charged for campaign-finance quid pro quo, no one will stop trading access for donations. You and I might violate federal copyright laws by illegally downloading a movie, but if we're unlucky enough to get charged we can't use "everybody does it" as a defense. The threat of harsh federal penalties is supposed to keep people from breaking the law, even if the chances of getting caught are slim. That logic evidently doesn't apply to politicians, in the Court's view, because the practice of selling access is so thickly embedded in American political culture that they simply can't stop doing it. As Benjamin tells Wayne and Garth, "I'm sorry you feel that way, but basically it's the nature of the beast."

--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Friday, April 29, 2016

Something to Know - 29 April

Jeff Danziger

This is a repeat, after a fashion, from yesterday's LA Times to today's NY Times.   Never the less, it bears repeating, and we cannot over estimate the damage that will be inflicted if the Supreme Court rules that bribery is protected under the Constitution.   We have no room for it, and you need to know what is going on here:


There's No Such Thing as a Free Rolex
By ZEPHYR TEACHOUTAPRIL 29, 2016

THIS week, the Supreme Court heard McDonnell v. United States, the case of Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia who is appealing his 2014 conviction for public corruption. Although the court's ruling is not expected until June, in Wednesday's hearing several justices seemed set on undermining a central, longstanding federal bribery principle: that officials should not accept cash or gifts in exchange for giving special treatment to a constituent.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dismissed the idea that, in the absence of a strong limiting principle, federal law could criminalize a governor who accepted a private constituent's payment in exchange for intervening with a constituent problem. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed disbelief that an official requesting agency action on behalf of a big donor would be a problem. A majority seemed ready to defend pay-to-play as a fundamental feature of our constitutional system of government.

In September 2014, after a six-week trial, a federal jury convicted Mr. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, on multiple counts of extortion under the Hobbs Act, a key statute against political corruption, and honest-services fraud. It was not a complicated case. Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the chief executive of a dietary supplement manufacturer, Star Scientific, had showered the governor and first lady with gifts in return for favors.

We're not talking about a few ham sandwiches. The McDonnells took expensive vacations, a Rolex, a $20,000 shopping spree, $15,000 in catering expenses for a daughter's wedding and tens of thousands of dollars in private loans. In exchange, the governor eagerly promoted Mr. Williams's product, a supplement called Anatabloc: hosting an event at the governor's mansion, passing out samples and encouraging universities to do research.

There was ample evidence of connection between the favors and the governor's actions. In one instance, Mr. McDonnell emailed Mr. Williams asking about a $50,000 loan, and six minutes later sent another email to his staff, requesting an update on Anatabloc scientific research. For the jury, that was more than enough to find Mr. McDonnell guilty.

The former governor has claimed on appeal that he had a First Amendment right to accept these gifts. He also disputed that holding meetings, hosting events at the governor's mansion and recommending research were "official acts." There were quids, he argued, but no quos.

And the justices seem poised to agree. Their main worry appeared to be that Mr. McDonnell's prosecution had criminalized what they perceived as normal, day-to-day political behavior — seemingly more concerned for the chilling effect of federal bribery law on an elected official who accepts a Rolex than for the citizens who are hurt by such self-serving behavior.

To overturn the McDonnells' convictions, however, would also overturn more than 700 years of history, make bad law and leave citizens facing a crisis of political corruption with even fewer tools to fight it.

The legal principles involved date from England's Statute of Westminster of 1275, which said that no officer of the king should take any payment for his public duties except what was owed by the monarch. In 1914, the United States Supreme Court held that official acts included situations "in which the advice or recommendation of a Government employee would be influential," even if the official did not "make a binding decision." In other words, an official may still be guilty of accepting a bribe even if he is not the final decider.

As modern corruption law developed, the axiom that an official shouldn't accept gifts for public duties, broadly understood, was a basic feature of American law. The Supreme Court has held that under the Hobbs Act, "the Government need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts."

Otherwise, only the most unsophisticated criminal would ever get caught. A clumsy influence seeker might write an email offering "five diamonds for five votes in Congress," but the powerful corrupting forces in our society would avoid explicit deals and give lavish gifts tied to meetings and speeches, winking and nodding all the while.

In its Citizens United ruling, the court gutted campaign finance laws. It acknowledged that American politics faced the threat of gift-givers and donors trying to corrupt the system, but it held that campaign finance laws were the wrong way to deal with that problem; bribery laws were the better path. Now, though, the court seems ready to gut bribery laws, saying that campaign finance laws provide a better approach. But if both campaign finance laws and bribery laws are now regarded as problematic, what's left?

With the Supreme Court apparently imagining that there is some other, simple-to-enforce bribery law, we citizens are left empty-handed. This is the first case since Justice Antonin Scalia's passing to directly address what corruption is; the issue is a critical test of the court.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers devoted themselves to building a system that would be safe from moneyed influence. "If we do not provide against corruption," argued the Virginia delegate George Mason, "our government will soon be at an end."

Today, Virginia's former governor proposes that there is a "fundamental constitutional right" to buy and sell access. If the court finds in his favor, it will have turned corruption from a wrong into a right.


Zephyr Teachout, an associate professor of law at Fordham and a candidate for New York's 19th congressional district, is the author of "Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United."


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story



Thursday, April 28, 2016

Something to Know - 28 April (Repeat of misdirected previous edition - as if that makes sense)

Stuart Carlson

The Supreme Court decision to let the unlimited money flow into our political process was a dark day in our democracy.  Now, read this.   The former Governor of Virginia, who was convicted of receiving money and gifts to give access and favors to a constituent, is now basing his appeal on that very decision by claiming that elected officials who give access by having people "pay to play" are actions protected by the 1st Amendment.  Are you serious?   Bribery is protected by the Constitution?:

In his bribery conviction appeal, the former governor says buying political access is protected speech.
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE
  
 WASHINGTON — Facing an uphill fight to avoid a prison term for bribery, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is making a bold argument in the Supreme Court this week that buying access and influence with public officials is protected by the 1st Amendment.
   And to back up his claim, his attorneys have pointed to passages in the court's controversial Citizens United decision.
   In that case, the conservative majority not only freed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on politics, but — in a less-noticed clause — described buying access with officials as a time-honored part of American democracy.
   "The possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner influence over or access to elected officials" is not evidence of bribery or corruption, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said two years ago in another decision on campaign spending, which struck down the limits on how much in total a single donor may give to a field of candidates. "Ingratiation and access ... are not corruption," he said, quoting from the 2010 Citizens United opinion.
   McDonnell's attorneys have latched on to that legal rationale to argue that elected officials doing small favors for big donors is protected under the 1st Amendment.
   "Paying for 'access' — the ability to get a call answered or a meeting scheduled — is constitutionally protected and an intrinsic part of our political system," they said in their appeal. "If Gov. McDonnell can be imprisoned for giving routine access to a gift-giver, an official could equally be imprisoned for agreeing to answer a donor's phone call about a policy issue."
   This 1st Amendment claim is a key part of their argument that the former governor, who faces two years in prison, should go free because he merely encouraged but did not order state officials to fund research on an untested dietary supplement promoted by a wealthy businessman who gave considerable financial assistance to McDonnell and his family.
   The justices will hear arguments Wednesday in McDonnell vs. United States.
   The Justice Department says McDonnell's claim, if accepted by the high court, would "radically restrict" bribery laws and "allow the purchase and sale of much of what government employees do."
   Defenders of the campaign funding laws say they were surprised to see them invoked in a case involving gifts and cash given secretly to a public official.
   "This is an apples-and-oranges comparison, and they are working with the wrong fruit," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that supports tighter limits on money in politics. "We think they are just wrong to say personal gifts are protected speech under the 1st Amendment."
   Forty years ago, in the Buckley vs. Valeo decision, the court said contributions to candidates could be limited as a way to avoid corruption or "the appearance of corruption." But more recently, the Roberts court has said that only bribes amount to corruption. "The government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access," Roberts wrote two years ago.
   McDonnell, a Republican and former state attorney general, was elected governor in 2009. He was seen then as a rising star and was talked about as a possible vice presidential running mate for Mitt Romney in 2012.
   But McDonnell and his wife were deeply in debt. Jonnie Williams, a free-spending Virginia businessman, offered to improve their "financial situation" if they helped promote his tobacco-based dietary supplement.
   Over two years, he secretly gave the couple more than $175,000 in loans, vacations and gifts, including a New York shopping spree by McDonnell's wife and an engraved Rolex watch for the governor.
   The trial also featured a photo of McDonnell proudly driving a Ferrari that Williams had lent him to use during a vacation.
   Prosecutors showed evidence that within minutes of speaking to Williams about personal loans, the governor called or emailed aides and state health officials, asking them to come to the governor's mansion to hear more about the dietary supplement. McDonnell used the governor's mansion for a product launch for the new supplement. And he carried a bottle of pills in his pocket and suggested state employees might want to try them.
   But the state's health advisors and researchers at state universities were unimpressed. In the end, the state did no testing or research on the supplement Williams was promoting.
   McDonnell was charged with bribery and corruption, and a jury convicted him in 2014 on 11 counts. A U.S. appeals court upheld the convictions and said the governor had taken bribes in exchange for "using the power of his office to influence governmental decisions."
   But last year, the Supreme Court shielded McDonnell from going to prison while his appeal was considered.
   McDonnell's lawyers contend that the governor took no "official action" to benefit Williams. In their view, meetings and phone calls did not count unless the state took a formal action, such as awarding a contract or funding a research study.
   The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has greatly diminished the chances that McDonnell will prevail because the liberal justices are not expected to support his legal position, particularly if it is based on the Citizens United decision.
   If the court splits 4-4 on the case — as has happened frequently since Scalia's death — the lower court ruling would stand, meaning McDonnell's conviction and prison term would be upheld.david.savage@latimes.com  


--
****
Juan
 

Donald Trump aids and abets violence.

- An American Story