Dan Mitchell: Socialism Humor

“Building on columns from May and July, let’s enjoy five more reasons to laugh at socialism.

Though we may want to cry after seeing this first bit of satire since Donald Trump has morphed into Bernie Sanders and is having the government take partial ownership of various companies.

Next, we have a reminder that we should be nice to our socialist friends when they suffer trauma.

Our third item points out that socialism is for the young and hardy (actually for the naive and foolish).

Next we have some helpful ways of diagnosing a health emergency.

As usual, I’ve saved the best for last.

This final meme shows that capitalism “exploits” us by providing many products, albeit at a cost. Socialism, by contrast offers nothing, but at least it is free.

Reminds us that the choice is full socialism or full stomachs. Or maybe this bread meme is most appropriate." 

Source:Dan Mitchell talking about the Socialist Don.

From Dan Mitchell

If some of Dan Mitchell’s comments here don’t make sense and you are wondering what he’s referring to, it’s because it’s his own personal captions about photos that he posted on his own blog about socialism. And those photos aren’t here, except for the first 1.

So 1 of MAGA’s favorite targets and talking points, is of course Socialists and socialism. Their Dear Leader Donald J. Trump attacks Socialists and socialism, almost every time he’s talking about Democrats. Fine. But he has a credibility problem here and the photo on this posts shows you exactly what I’m talking about.

So in a year Donald John Trump, who is almost completely, personally, responsible for the January 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, who also happens to be a convicted felon, (but not for the felonies that a lot of Americans wanted him to be convicted of) is reelected President of the United States, just a couple months before, a Socialist wins the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City.

You would think Zohran Mamdani’s winning the Democratic nomination for MYC Mayor and who is also the most likely Mayor of New York, (unless NYC Republicans get a brain and Curtis Silwa drops out of the race) would be a great target for Donald Trump and his MAGA Party. 1 problem: as much as they’re bashing socialism, the U.S. Government is buying and taking parts of private companies and threatening to take over other companies, if they don’t change their politics.

As I wrote about Donald Trump’s socialism back in August:

“As Erick Erickson’s said on his blog post:

“When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk…

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there’s no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy…

From The New Democrat

To hear Donald Trump or any other MAGA head talk about how bad socialism is, would be like:

hearing Vladimir Putin talk about the need for peace in the world… or at least in Europe, or in the Slavic world.

Or Donald Trump talking about the need for law and order, the rule of law, peace and civility in our politics. As well as talking about the dangers of lawfare in our politics.

Or Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about the need for moderation in Congress.

Ilhan Omar and Rasheda Tlaib both giving speeches in opposition to antisemitism.

It would be almost impossible (unless you were on a 2-week binge consuming nothing but alcohol and meth and somehow managed to survive that experience) to take these people seriously, when they’re talking about those issues. So maybe as the the photo on this post suggests… assuming the Trump Administration continues their own policy of state socialism, that the next time they’re speaking out against socialism, they something like:

“We taking down socialism by taking down 1 private company at a time, until the root out all of the socialism in America”. Just as they’re building their own socialist empire to replace the 1 that they claimed was socialist.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Decentralize The Welfare State

"Excessive government spending is America’s top fiscal problem.

To be more specific, poorly designed entitlement programs are leading to an ever-growing spending burden that ultimately will either lead to massive tax increases or a debt crisis.

To avoid either of those bad options, we need entitlement reform.

I’ve previously written about how to fix “social insurance” programs for older people, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Today, let’s look at the other category of entitlements, the “means tested” programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

Let’s start by looking at two charts from the Economic Policy Innovation Center.

The first chart shows how fast spending on health programs is increasing, along with a line showing how fast spending increases if Republicans in Congress succeed with some reforms to the Medicaid program.

The second chart shows how food stamp spending dramatically spiked during the pandemic and has since stayed very high because Biden expanded the program.

Excessive government spending is America’s top fiscal problem.

To be more specific, poorly designed entitlement programs are leading to an ever-growing spending burden that ultimately will either lead to massive tax increases or a debt crisis.

To avoid either of those bad options, we need entitlement reform.

I’ve previously written about how to fix “social insurance” programs for older people, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Today, let’s look at the other category of entitlements, the “means tested” programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

Let’s start by looking at two charts from the Economic Policy Innovation Center.

The first chart shows how fast spending on health programs is increasing, along with a line showing how fast spending increases if Republicans in Congress succeed with some reforms to the Medicaid program.

The second chart shows how food stamp spending dramatically spiked during the pandemic and has since stayed very high because Biden expanded the program.

Ideally, the way to deal with both programs is to copy Bill Clinton’s successful welfare reform by shifting the programs back to the states.

In the short run, this would mean giving states a “block grant” and giving them the flexibility to figure out the best ways of spending the money.

In the long run, the ideal policy would be to phase out the block grants so that states can decide both how to raise money and how to spend money.

Matt Weidinger of the American Enterprise Institute has a similar perspective. Here are some excerpts from a recent article... 

Source:Dan Mitchell is a Libertarian economist.

From Dan Mitchell

Now if the MAGA Party (that some people still call the Republican Party) was serious about reducing the Federal debt and deficit, (and money grew out of a MAGA hat on the same day) they would be doing something like what Dan Mitchell is talking about here. But MAGA is not even conservative, let alone Republican, at least in ideology. They are their own political party in ideology.

My approach is a little different here.

So what leftists, Libertarians, and real Conservatives call the “welfare state”, I call it the safety net.

Why? Welfare states, especially in the developed world, are universal. They apply to everyone regardless of their income levels. America is obviously more liberal democratic, capitalist, liberal capitalist (if you will) as a country and we expect our people to be able to at least try to become economically independent on their own, before they are eligible for public assistance. Our safety net is there (and I’m sure this sounds corny) to catch people when they fall on hard times. It’s not there to try to micromanage their lives for them.

The American public safety net, in a Federal budget of $7 trillion (for FY 2025) is $1.7 trillion dollars, not including Social Security and Medicare. That might sound like a lot when you are talking about public assistance representing about 1/4 of the entire U.S. Federal budget. But compared with Canada and a lot of places in Europe, where they spend 40, 45, 50%, perhaps more in some places, America still has a pretty small safety net budget.

The U.S. Federal deficit as if right now, is around $1.8 trillion. That’s a huge number, which again begs the question why would a political party that’s supposed to be the center-right conservative party in America, be trying to add another $2 trillion to the deficit. But that’s a different question. But by applying some fiscal federalism to the U.S. public assistance budget, we could literally eliminate the Federal deficit in this country.

And we wouldn’t have to do “balance the budget off the backs of poor people” (as the far-left loves to say) by kicking anyone off these programs who actually needs them and are legally eligible for them:

Just turn them over to the states and local government’s

Give all these government’s an annual appropriation to run these programs themselves

Make all these programs financially self-sufficient

And require everyone on them to get an education and go to work as well.

So why do this, besides to deal with the Federal deficit?

Well, I just explained the fiscal reasons for doing this. And for leftists who are worried that this would give let’s say red states the permission to kick out minorities and poor people… you could have basic Federal standards that prohibits states and localities from kicking people off these programs, simply because they’re on them, or they’re trying to save money. They would be allowed to kick people off because they don’t want to work, or get an education, move into a good community, etc. But not simply just to kick them off.

And last reason for doing this is, as U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis famously and intelligently once said: states are laboratories for democracy. They are the boots on the ground when it comes to public assistance in America. And they don’t need Uncle Sam trying to run Medicaid, or Food Stamps, Public Assistance, job training, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance for them. And with just basic, enforceable, Federal standards, these programs would be a lot more cost-effective, (especially for taxpayers) and would be run a lot better, because the people running the programs, would be in the communities where these programs are run.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Libertarian Humor

"Even though I have an entire page dedicated to libertarian humor (pro and con), I only added two columns in the past year (here and here).

I’ll try to do better in 2025, starting with this bit of stand-up humor.

I have to give the guy credit. I don’t know his personal views, but at least he understands the differences between philosophies.

Next we have the libertarian perspective on the political spectrum.

Not as good as my triangle, but fundamentally accurate.

I thought about putting our third item with my collection of gun control humor, but the real message if in the bottom frame, so it qualifies as libertarian.

Our next item shows someone who thinks like me (the guy with the beard, in case that’s not obvious).

Per tradition, I’ve saved the best for last.

And what makes this article from the Babylon Bee especially amusing is that I just landed in Buenos Aires this morning…

Source:Dan Mitchell with look at the lighter side of libertarianism. But that’s only assuming there’s any other side to libertarianism.

From Dan Mitchell

Before I go much further into this, I just want to say that I and the rest of The New Democrat, actually have a lot in common with what we call Classical Libertarians. As real Liberals, (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) we believe in individual freedom as well… both personal and economic, as well as personal responsibility. 

But having said that, The New Democrat also believes in the rule of law. And someone might say: “Can’t you believe in the rule of law and also be a Libertarian?” I guess so. But when you have people who call themselves Libertarians, but who call for privatizing law enforcement, or just say something like:

“It’s up to the individual to fix any injustice that may occur to themself by themselves”. It's harder to believe that Libertarians even believe in a role for government when it comes to law enforcement.

And the rule of law is just 1 issue. Schools, public infrastructure, pretty much anything that’s run by local government’s, Libertarians will tell you that there’s no need for public this, that, and the other thing, plus something else…. all those things can be handled by the private sector and individuals themselves. 

So what I’m going to do here is give you at least a classical definition of what it means to be a Libertarian. And then make fun of people who call themselves Libertarians, but who are really right-wing Anarchists. The Right’s version of antigovernment hippies. 

As was written on The New Democrat 3 weeks ago: 

“If I were to give a serious definition of libertarianism, (and that’s a big if) it would be very close to the first Wikipedia article about it that I posted here: someone who believes in the individual and individual freedom over everything else. That means someone who believes in both personal and economic freedom, combined with personal responsibility. And that government is just there to do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves:

National security

Foreign affairs

Law enforcement

Managing the currency

And that the best government is the government that’s closest to the people, instead of the Federal Government trying to treat the states and cities as just additional federal agencies, with very little, if any autonomy of their own.

From The New Democrat

The classical definition of what I just gave you, you could probably call that from the Ron Paul School of Libertarianism. But when you got people even from Reason Magazine, or Ayn Rand supporters, or John Stossell saying: “We don’t even need a Defense Department, let alone law enforcement, or public schools and roads”, that begs the questions: “What do Libertarians want from government, other than to be left alone and allowed to live their own lives?”

Just go about with the rest of your life while so-called Libertarians try to come up with answer to that. Because you might have forgotten the original question before you get answer. And if the answer to the question is essentially “nothing”, but perhaps explaining that answer in at least 1 paragraph… what’s the difference between a Libertarian and a right-wing Anarchist? 

If you want some political cultural stereotyping, I’ll give it to you anyway: if you are old enough to remember the Hippies from the Silent and Boomer generations from the 1960s and 70s… the Beatniks from the 1950s and early 60s… there was a cultural and hardcore individualist faction in both movements, who weren’t very political. They just wanted government to leave them alone. That’s what the so-called “Modern Libertarian” looks like to The New Democrat.

TND sees “modern Libertarians) as right-wing hipsters who just want to be free to live the life and be able to do anything in the world… that’s currently illegal. Perhaps short of being able to kill without cause, or physically assault without cause. But who knows, they may think even murder and assault, even burglary should be legal… but so should vengeance:

“Yeah, man… vengeance is out there. I mean, it’s really out there”.

And at risk of sounding really insulting: if you are familiar with The Manson Family… “Modern Libertarians kind of sound like Lynette Fromme (also known as Squeaky) or Sandra Good, and perhaps a few other whacked-out, hardcore, antiestablishment members of that crime family… who are currently not serving life sentences in prison for murder.

I would put the Dan Mitchell’s of the world in the classical bloc when it comes to American Libertarians. He’s someone who I believe thinks we should have a have government defense department, law enforcement. etc… a government strong and responsible enough to protect its citizens from predators: foreign and domestic. Not to try to run the people’s lives for them. But he might a member of a small minority when it comes to people who call themselves “Libertarians” today.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

POLITICO: Sex, Drinking & Dementia: 25 Lawmakers Spill On What Congress Is Really Like

"This article was compiled from interviews conducted by Ben Jacobs, Jasper Goodman, Jordain Carney, Jennifer Scholtes, Hailey Fuchs, Emma Dumain, Lisa Kashinsky, Connor O’Brien, Holly Otterbein, Adam Wren, Daniella Diaz and Nicholas Wu. Juan Benn Jr. contributed to this report...

Source:POLITICO hopefully interviewed these members of Congress before 5PM.

From POLITICO

"Just months after being escorted out of a Denver theatre for lewd behaviour, a new report has spilled details on Lauren Boebert’s antics at a GOP Christmas party.

The Colorado representative was allegedly cut off from alcohol by a server at the New York Young Republican Club’s Manhattan gala, an incident seen by several witnesses, according to CNN.

The Secret Service was also reportedly forced to intervene in her repeated attempts to take selfies with the event’s guest of honour, former president Donald Trump." 

Source:The Independent with a look at U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert (MAGA, Colorado) hopefully before %PM.

From The Independent

"New Report Paints Congress As Uneducated & Alcohol Fueled" 

Source:The Ring of Fire with a look at U.S. Representative Lauren Boebert (MAGA, Colorado) hopefully before 5PM. 

From The Ring of Fire

Remember Senator Markwayne Mullin (Republican, Oklahoma) at Pete Hegseth's defense conformation hearing? Well, The New Democrat does: 

“How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?” Mullin demanded after Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine’s fiery line of questioning. “Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their jobs? And don’t tell me you haven’t seen it, because I know you have... 

The Oklahoma Republican went on to slam lawmakers for inquiring about whether infidelity in Hegseth’s marriages could be disqualifying for the Cabinet position, arguing that multiple politicians divorced spouses under similar circumstances.

“How many senators do you know have got a divorce before cheating on their wives? Did you ask them to step down? No, but it’s for show,” Mullin said. “You guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy, because a man’s made a mistake, and you want to sit there and say that he’s not qualified... 

From The New Democrat

"I'm just looking for qualifications. You didn't give me any qualifications.

Starts bringing up the fact that, what if you showed up drunk to your job? How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? (LAUGHTER)

Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job? And don't tell me you haven't seen it, because I know you have.

Kaitlan Collins: 

"I mean, first off, that's a pretty serious accusation there. Do you want to name any of the senators that you're saying-- are drinking on the job?

Senator Markwayne Mullin: 

No, and that's -- my whole point was, is that these senators, on the other side of the aisle, was trying to act like they were had more morals than Pete Hegseth. And they don't.

If you're going to hold someone accountable for their behavior, then hold everybody accountable. I'm not saying, I'm the most moral man or the perfect individual. I'm absolutely not. I wasn't the one calling him out. But if you're going to hold -- if you're going to hold someone at that standard, then hold everybody at that standard...

But I was in that room today. And when you said that, I guess, the thought that went through my head was, if what you're saying is true, and your colleagues do show up drinking, to come to work and vote, which I think would maybe be concerning to those taxpayers who pay them, how is the bad behavior of a sitting senator, a defense of someone who wants to run the Pentagon... 

From The New Democrat

I have a few responses here, but the general point has already been made. 

Seeing this new story from POLITICO and all the members from the 119th Congress (House & Senate) that they talked to, makes Senator Mullin's statement at Pete Hegseth's defense conformation hearing: 

“How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night?” Mullin demanded after Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine’s fiery line of questioning. “Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their jobs? And don’t tell me you haven’t seen it, because I know you have... 

no longer look like a drunken fantasy. That he was actually on to something (instead of on something) back in January. I wish POLITICO talked to him, but you know what they say about members of Congress: If you can't catch them by 5, they're probably at the nearest bar or country club throwing a few back. Happy Hour is obviously their best time to drink because as Senator John Fetterman and (Democrat, Pennsylvania) and Representative Marjorie T. Greene: (MAGA, Georgia) they get paid so very little serving in Congress. Actually, I'm the only one who says: "If you can't catch them by 5, they're probably at the nearest bar or country club throwing a few back". Just so we're clear. 

And then my last point here: anyone who thinks American democracy is about sending "the best and the brightest to represent us... whatever you are drinking or smoking right now, feel free to share that with everyone else who wants an escape from reality. And in Donald Trump's America (also known as Trumpland) that's a helluva lot of people. I mean there are waiting lines from the East Coast to the West Coast and every state in-between waiting for that reality escape. 

As U.K Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said: democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the rest. The people that tend to get elected in government, come from the people themselves. 

If you don't like the current level of intelligence, qualifications, accomplishments, education, morality, that makes up who currently represents us in Congress, look at yourself and what you bring to the table for this country, first. And then who is currently representing you in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate right now. And who you voted for and supported in the past. Before you blame the people who are already in office, for their lack of qualifications, lack of intelligence, lack of accomplishments, and lack of morality. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Jack Cassidy: The Perfect Villain For Lieutenant Columbo

Source:Columbo Phile- Jack Cassidy as Ken Franklin in Murder By The Book (1971)

Source:The New Democrat

“The first episode made available on the channel was the seminal Murder by the Book, which opened Columbo‘s first season in September 1971. Starring the irrepressible Jack Cassidy as Ken Franklin, and directed by Steven Spielberg, it remains one of the best pieces of episodic television ever made and you can view in HD glory below.”

From the Columbo Phile

“The Columbo calendar year of 1974 got off to the most arresting start imaginable in the shape of Publish or Perish.

Not only were the opening credits an extraordinary combination of explosions and freeze frames, but consummate villain Jack Cassidy was back in his second appearance as a killer – this time sporting an evil moustache to accentuate his inherent wickedness.

A publishing backdrop, reassuringly familiar to fans of Murder by the Book, promised to make Publish or Perish a series highlight. But is it a the equivalent of an Allen Mallory best-selling novel, or an amateurish effort set to languish in the bargain bucket? Let’s set our clocks back to 18 January 1974 and find out…

Source:Columbo Phile- left to right Peter Falk & Jack Cassidy.

From the Columbo Phile

“ALAKAZAM! As if by magic, master villain Jack Cassidy returned to give Columbo‘s fifth season a much-needed boost in the illusion-packed Now You See Him on 29 February 1976.

The presence of Cassidy as The Great Santini, the return of Sergeant Wilson and the unique and mysterious backdrop of the Cabaret of Magic help Now You See Him stand tall in the memory. But is the end result as good as the ingredients itself? Or to put it another way, is this a water tank illusion of an episode, or merely a simple card trick?

Let’s don our most luxurious capes, twirl our moustaches and bust out of some unbreakable handcuffs as we investigate…

Source:Columbo Phile- left to right; Jack Cassidy & Peter Falk.

From the Columbo Phile

“A star of stage and television for over two decades, actor Jack Cassidy embodied the vainglorious, self-absorbed side of his profession in a series of Tony-winning and Emmy-nominated turns that made him a much-loved performer until his tragic death. Cassidy’s rich, mellifluous voice and fair-haired good looks made him a popular leading man on Broadway in the late 1940s and early ’50s, where he met his first wife, dancer Evelyn Ward, who would give birth to their son, future pop star David Cassidy…

From Turner Classic Movies

Just to give you my personal observation about Jack Cassidy, someone who’ve I had a platonic man crush on for about 10 years now, since MeTV, The Hallmark Channel, Sundance, CoziTV, and other have been doing their Columbo marathons:

I think the Columbo TV series is at its best, when the murderer is almost as sharp and as witty as Lieutenant Columbo himself. Someone who can go toe-to-toe with the Lieutenant up to the point where he not only figures it out, but now can prove it. That’s where you get all the great wisecracks back and forth, the suspect now playing defense attorney for himself, or herself, because he or she now knows that the Lieutenant has figured out, but only has to prove it.

I think all of these factors are what made Jack Cassidy so great in all 3 of his appearances which were his charm, his self-confidence, his humor, his comedic timing, and his intelligence, as well as the intelligence of his characters. And of course the overconfidence of all 3 of his characters, thinking that he’s just pulled off the perfect murders, even though he’s an amateur murderer.

I’ll give you a little bit but what I think of Jack Cassidy’s 2nd and 3rd episodes on Columbo, but I’m mostly going to concentrate on Murder By The Book (1971) because it’s not only his best episode, his best performance on Columbo, but I believe the best Columbo episode in the entire series.

If you are familiar with the original USA Network TV series In Plain Sight (from 2008-2012) starring Mary McCormack (as Deputy Marshal Mary Shannon) then you have probably seen the pilot episode as well. There’s a scene where she’s about to question her lead suspect of this murder (or killing) and she’s walking up this kid’s father’s place and about to meet his father. And I haven’t been able to find the exact quote anywhere, but she’s referencing Lieutenant Columbo. (Played by Peter Falk) And she says something to the effect:

“You know when you are watching a Columbo episode and the Lieutenant figures out who the ,murderer is as soon as he meets that person…

Columbo hasn’t figured out who the murderer is as soon as he meets Ken Franklin. (Played by Jack Cassidy) But thanks to the victim’s wife, (played by Rosemary Forsyth) Franklin is already the lead suspect. She tells the Lieutenant about his partnership with her husband Jim Ferris (played by Martin Milner) and how much Franklin is about to lose financially, because now they’re breaking up and their both authors, but Ferris does most of the writing. And Ferris is about to go out on his own and that could cost Franklin a lot of money and so-forth.

So now Ken Franklin is the only suspect to this crime, even though Columbo hasn’t even met him yet. And they are at the Ferris home when Franklin shows up and Columbo still hasn’t figured out who the actual murderer is. But it gets really interesting after the Lieutenant starts talking to Franklin.

If you have ever played the game Follow The Trail, where you have to keep finding clues that lead you to where you are going and finally end up, that’s what Murder By The Book is:

Franklin and Columbo are at Franklin’s office that he shared with his partner Jim Ferris, the night of the murder. What Franklin really wants to do is detour Columbo and get him looking at other people like West Coast organized figures as suspects that his Jim Ferris was doing research on to write a book about. What Franklin does instead is make himself look even guiltier. He explains to Columbo that instead of flying back to Los Angeles from San Diego, he drives back instead. Now, San Diego is only a 2 hour drive from Los Angeles. But it suggested to Columbo that Franklin wasn’t in a hurry to get back and find out what happened to his missing partner and friend. And he showed no emotion whatsoever about the fact that his friend and partner was missing.

And now they’re at Ken Franklin’s place and Franklin of course knows what happened to his friend and partner, since he murdered him and has been keeping the dead body in the trunk of his car and now decides to dump the body on his lawn and report it to the police. So Franklin and Columbo are now in his home and Columbo asks Franklin to retrace his steps and movements once he found the dead body and what he was doing and after he founded the body. And he tells Lieutenant Columbo that he was looking at his mail and going through his mail, even though he just discovered a dead body on his lawn, who just happened to be his partner, as well as best friend. Franklin is still trying to put this murder on a list of West Coast organized crime figures. But he doing that while dropping all sorts of clues on the floor about his own guilt.

And you get into the facts that Ken Franklin and Jim Ferris both has insurance polices on each other. That Franklin who was doing very well financially, but was a playboy bachelor with very expensive women and taste. But Franklin who is the co-author of the very book where the murder that he just committed was literally laid out, thinks he just committed the perfect murder.

Publish Or Perish (1974) and Now You See Him (1976) are both excellent Columbo episodes. The 2nd and 3rd Jack Cassidy episodes are both in my Columbo top 5-10. But Murder By The Book is my personal favorite, because the murderer thinks he just committed the perfect murder. But his so overconfident that he literally proves himself guilty of the crime, because of his arrogance and he kept leaving little clues that only Lieutenant Columbo could put together to solve the crime.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Advice For DOGE: Fiscal Federalism

Source:Dan Mitchell is a Libertarian blogger & egghead.

Source:The New Democrat

“Donald Trump was a big spender during his first term in office. Even if you don’t count the orgy of pandemic-related spending, he spent more and spent faster than Barack Obama.

He even increased domestic spending faster than Obama!

But maybe his second term will be different. One positive sign is that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are spearheading a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is a private effort to identify ways of saving money and streamlining government.

In a triumph of hope over experience, let’s make some suggestions for DOGE.

We’ll start with fiscal federalism.

Under current law, politicians in Washington send hundreds of billions of dollars every year to state and local governments. Every single penny of this spending is in areas where the federal government should have no involvement.

As part of a federalism agenda, it is time to eliminate all these transfers.

The savings for taxpayers could be enormous. Here’s a list of federal handouts compiled by my former colleague, Chris Edwards.

Nearly $1.3 trillion last year…

From Dan Mitchell

I think Never Trumper Adam Kinzinger had the perfect statement about “DOGE” last week when he said:

“To the Dems that have “warmed up to” the DOGE idea with Musk and Vivek…. This is gonna come back and bite you. They are not doing this for the right reason. It’s for control. Stop normalizing these clowns.

We are spending more on interest to the debt than national defense. Budget health is going to take bipartisan solutions.”

From Adam Kinzinger on Threads.

My point is if the modern Republican Party was serious about the national debt and budget deficit, (and they are serious problems that need to be addressed) this is what they would be talking about.

I’m not in the habit of quoting bank robbers. But when Willy Sutton was right, he was damn right. If you are interested in paying off the debt and making savings in your budget, you go where the money is:

Food Assistance, Public Housing, and Welfare, are nothing compared with the rest of the U.S. Government budget. Put those programs together in once package, you are talking about maybe 200 billion-dollars, at most.

The fiscal year U.S. Government budget was almost 7 trillion-dollars. ($6.75 trillion) The current Federal budget deficit is $1.8 trillion dollars. Can you see an intelligent, sane, sober person, who thinks chipping away at a bunch of Federal social programs, that add up 1 only 1/5 of a trillion-dollars, will finally balance the budget? You could just eliminate all those programs and still run a deficit of around $1.6 trillion dollars for 2026-27.

Now, for anyone who is still awake after seeing all these numbers and facts, (that’s right, both of you, who aren’t related to me) there are some real solutions to dealing with the budget deficit and the national debt. But to get to Adam Kinzinger’s Thread, it’s going to take some real bipartisan solutions, as well as some real solutions that aren’t that bipartisan, which is what Dan Mitchell is talking about.

The Republican Party in Congress, even in 119th Congress where Republicans will control both the House and Senate, aren’t even going to want to reform Social Security and Medicare, by themselves, let alone gut those programs. Especially with the bare majorities that they are going to have and with Congressional Democrats plotting both to win back the House and Senate in 2026.

If the Democrats win back both the House and Senate in 2026, (big if) they probably won’t have any political interest in taking on the national debt and deficit. Other than perhaps trying to roll back all of Donald Trump’s tax cuts, which they won’t be able to do themselves anyway.

The only way to deal with the national debt and deficit, is to do what the Adam Kinzinger’s of the world are talking about, which is about reforming our entitlements, to make them more cost-effective, as well as the tax code, to make it more pro-growth and less expensive for the budget, as well as reforming the Department of Defense and every other department and agency in the U.S. Government as well, to make them more cost-effective.

And what Dan Mitchell is talking about, which is what I agree with as Liberal (or a Classical Liberal, for all you pansy closeted leftists) is fiscal federalism. Which means the states would become completely responsible for running the safety net programs in their states, including Social Security and Medicare. And taking those programs off the Federal budget. But they’ll still be in existence, but just run by the states instead of the Feds. As well as work, and educational requirements, for anyone receiving any public assistance whatsoever. And there goes your budget deficit.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Paul Krugman is Right

Source:New York Times left-wing columnist Paul Krugman.

Source:The New Democrat

“I like profits.

But let me qualify that statement. I like profits that are the result of businesses providing goods and services that consumers value.

Those profits are earned.

By contrast, I don’t like it when businesses get in bed with government and get money via cronyism, bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, or industrial policy.

Those profits are unearned.

Interestingly, there are some folks on the left who (sort of) agree.

In his column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman warns that cronyism is bad and that we can expect more of it under Trump…

From Dan Mitchell

“It’s late 2025, and Donald Trump has done what he said he would do: impose high tariffs — taxes on imports — on goods coming from abroad, with extremely high tariffs on imports from China. These tariffs have had exactly the effect many economists predicted, although Trump insisted otherwise: higher prices for American buyers.

Let’s say you have a business that relies on imported parts — maybe from China, maybe from Mexico, maybe from somewhere else. What do you do?

Well, U.S. trade law gives the executive branch broad discretion in tariff-setting, including the ability to grant exemptions in special cases. So you apply for one of those exemptions. Will your request be granted?

In principle, the answer should depend on whether having to pay those tariffs imposes real hardship and threatens American jobs. In practice, you can safely guess that other criteria will play a role. How much money have you contributed to Republicans? When you hold business retreats, are they at Trump golf courses and resorts?”

From Paul Krugman at The New York Times. 

A good definition of capitalism from Dictionary:

“Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and organizations own and control the means of production, and prices and goods are determined by a free market. Some key characteristics of capitalism include:

Private ownership: Individuals and organizations privately own and control the means of production.

Free market: Prices and goods are determined by competition in a free market.

Limited government role: The government protects the rights of citizens and maintains an orderly environment for markets to function.

Profit motive: The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.

Supply and demand: The market mechanism relies on supply and demand as the overriding economic principle.”

A good definition of crony capitalism from Dictionary:

“Crony capitalism is an economic system where businesses succeed based on their relationships with government officials, rather than free enterprise. It can involve:

Favoritism in the distribution of government grants, tax breaks, and legal permits

Businesses gaining undue influence over how the government deploys public goods

Businesses profiting from an anti-competitive regulatory environment

Crony capitalism can be harmful to the economy, creating market power and price distortions. However, it can also counteract inefficient programs.”

I feel crazy saying this, but I agree with both Dan Mitchell and Paul Krugman on the same subject. Imagine that, a Libertarian, getting together with let us say a hardcore Democratic Socialist (or Social Democrat, if you prefer) putting their heads together (even from a distance) and getting out of that experience without 2 migraine headaches.

As a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, for you pansy closeted leftists) I’m in favor of what I at least call liberal capitalism. Which is basically what all the big countries in the developed world operate under. That every person should have the opportunity to earn as much money as they can for themselves. But in a private, fair market, where individuals are protected by predators, and where everyone has to pay taxes on their income. Now what’s a fair level of taxation and how much everyone should pay, is really a different discussion. But to the point to fund a limited and responsible government, that doesn’t have to run high deficits and debt to fund itself and where taxes are at a point to encourage individuals to be successful on their own. Not encourage people to be dependent on government for their economic well-being.

Now crony capitalism is the opposite. Russia has essentially operated under crony capitalism, since the fall of the Soviet Union and became the Russian Federation. In Russia, your economic future, especially if you have knowledge and skills, as well as intelligence, in many ways is tied to how friendly you are with their Federal Government there. Which is essentially a nationalist oligarchy today. Which is what a lot people in Donald Trump’s MAGA orbit, perhaps including President Trump himself, as well as Elon Musk and his other billionaire investors, want to see in America.

I think the point of Paul Krugman’s column here is that he doesn’t want to see that Russian style of crony capitalism come to America. But he’s obviously worried that it is. 

You can follow  me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: "Notwithstanding My WSJ Quiz Results, I Am Not a Conservative'

Source:Cato Institute fellow Daniel J. Mitchell.

Source:The New Democrat

"Some online quizzes and tests about policy and philosophy produce very accurate results.

I’m a “hard-core libertarian” according to Professor Bryan Caplan’s 130-question quiz.

I’m “not communist” on a test to determine Marxist sympathies.

I’m a “minimalist” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s fiscal quiz.

Some tests, however, produce illogical results.

I am a “moderate” according to a social attitudes test.

Today, I’m going to share some more results that are not very logical. The Wall Street Journal posted a quiz a few days ago to ask “What Kind of Voter Are You?”

To may dismay, they decided that I’m a traditional conservative rather than a libertarian.

Here’s a breakdown of my results.

As far as I can tell, I’m as pro-free market as possible. Which makes sense since another quiz labelled me a “minarchist.”

But if you look at the second category, the quiz thinks I’m a social conservative.

Since I’m largely abstemious in my personal life (the boring kind of libertarian), I would not object if someone concluded I’m a social conservative as a person.

But I firmly believe I’m a libertarian with regards to policy and philosophy.

I don’t support laws against drug use.

I don’t support laws against prostitution

I don’t support laws against gambling

I don’t support laws against whatever consensual adults want to do in a bedroom.

So why did the WSJ decide I was a social conservative?

I would argue that some of their questions are poorly worded.

For instance, they apparently think the libertarian view is that any and all abortions should be legal. I’m sure some libertarian have that point of view, but there are also lots of pro-life libertarians.

I based my answer on the fact that I would not favor unlimited and unrestricted abortions way past the point of viability. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that makes me non-libertarian... 

From Dan Mitchell

Before I get into what Dan Mitchell is saying here and I agree with him on how he describes his own personal politics, but what you are about to read here gives you a pretty good idea of a what a Conservative is in the political sense. 

The great conservative political humorist P.J. O'Rourke (RIP) I think when he was being interviewed by Reason Magazine, or some other right-wing publication was talking about conservatism and he gave I believe a pretty good definition of it when talking about his own personal life and this is a paraphrase: 

"I'm straight, 

I've been married with the same woman for a very long time. 

I don't gamble. I don't use marijuana or any other illegal narcotic. 

I don't have abortions. 

I don't cheat on my wife. 

I don't watch porn. 

I've never been a romance with a man. 

I've never been married to a man. 

I'm not a party animal."

He just gave the interviewer a long list of things that today's so-called social Conservatives are supposedly not just against, (even if they actually do these things in private) but what separated him from the "social Conservatives" was that he didn't think these personal choices should be illegal, simply because he disapproves of them. I think abortion is the only exception to that because he did believe abortion should be illegal, at least in most cases. 

If you go by the so-called mainstream definitions of what it's supposed to be a Conservative and Liberal in America, the most conservative people are MAGA, or some other right-wing authoritarian. And the most liberal people, at least in a democratic sense, are the so-called Squad in the House of Representatives, or the Green Party, Democratic Socialists of America. 

But the one thing that these two fringe factions have in America, is that they're both collectivists and in some cases even authoritarians, especially if you were to look at the Communists on far, far-left and the MAGA militants, the right-wing, anti-U.S. Government radicals on the far-right. So they have a lot more in common then you would think. They're actually not that different at all. A few differences in economic policy and some social issues. 

When I think of Conservative, I think P.J. O'Rourke has an excellent definition. But I would add someone who believes in conserving what works in American society and politic: 

Things like the U.S. Constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances, devolution of power, the rule of law, individual rights, strong national defense. 

Government should move conservatively, meaning cautiously when it comes to reform and that the government closest to home is the best government when it comes to social and welfare policy. 

Someone like a Ronald Reagan as President of the United States, other than the high deficits and debt, the expansion of the War On Drugs, the high crimes rates of the 1980s, is an excellent example of what it means to be an American Conservative, at least far as tone and rhetoric and what he got done as President. 

But when I look at the Dan Mitchells's of the world, who I've been following online the last 10 years or so, which is most of my blogging career, I have him down as a Libertarian, in the classical sense. Not in the antigovernment, Anarcho sense. Those folks are really just right-wing Anarchists. But he's someone who believes in limited government, which is not no government. He's someone whose even praised the flat tax before. Which means he's not anti-tax all together. And he's someone who believes in a good deal of personal and economic freedom, personal responsibility, the rule of law, etc. 

Inside Politics With Manu Raju: 'Inside Donald Trump’s Gripe-Filled Closed-Door Meeting With House GOP'

Source:CNN talking about 34 time convicted felon Donald J. Trump's visit to Capitol Hill. Hopefully they searched him first to make sure he wasn't packing. Even his mouth is a dangerous weapon.

Source:The New Democrat

"Former President Donald Trump led House Republicans through a gripe-filled closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill, airing grievances about his legal and electoral challenges, attacking his critics in the room, and only briefing addressing policy matters like abortion and taxes, according to multiple GOP lawmakers in the room."

From CNN

"Former President Donald Trump led House Republicans through a gripe-filled closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill on Thursday, airing grievances about his legal and electoral challenges, attacking his critics in the room, and only briefly addressing policy matters like abortion and taxes, according to multiple GOP lawmakers in the room.

In his first time returning to the Capitol campus area since leaving office after the January 6, 2021, riot, the former president met with lawmakers for over an hour.

In between rants about Taylor Swift and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Trump went after his detractors – those who have since lost their seats and some who were in the room – as he warned Republicans to not be afraid of the hot button issue of abortion.

In a sign that the former president is reveling in how the party has fallen in line behind him, Trump bragged that most of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach him were no longer in office and singled out one of the remaining two GOP lawmakers left: GOP Rep. David Valadao of California.

“I never loved him,” Trump said of Valadao, according to a GOP member.

As a number of House Republicans find themselves in competitive primary races, the former president said he wanted to do tele-town halls, but acknowledged his help would not be welcomed by some, given that he had endorsed their primary opponents.

Trump did not shy away from acknowledging the bad blood between House Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who unsuccessfully tried to oust Johnson against Trump’s wishes. The former president playfully asked Greene, a staunch ally of his who he strongly supports, to be nice to the speaker.

“He’s always so sweet, recognizing me, and he said ‘are you being nice to Speaker Johnson?’ He was joking. And I said ‘eh,’” as she gestured with her hands. “He said ‘OK be nice to him’ and I nodded my head,” she added.

Johnson, after the meeting, said the former president told him that he was doing “a very good job” and that he plans to be “fully prepared” to implement Trump’s plans if he wins in November.

The former president’s conviction also hung heavy over Thursday’s meeting.

Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill immediately sprung into action following the guilty verdict –proposing to defund the Department of Justice and even shut down the government. House Republicans voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress on Wednesday. And one legislative proposal Republican leaders are now actively pursuing is a bill that would allow current and former presidents to move state-level cases to federal court. The legislation passed out of committee last September, but GOP leaders only started formally whipping the bill this week – on the eve of Trump’s Capitol Hill visit and two weeks after his conviction.

In his meeting with GOP lawmakers, Trump called the Department of Justice “dirty no good bastards,” according to another source in the room.

GOP Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma said the former president expressed he was “gravely concerned” about the federal government being weaponized.

In a news conference after the meeting, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said that the former president’s felony convictions have only energized the party that will propel them to victory in November.

“Anybody who thought that this President was going to be down after the sham trial, after that crooked trial that we saw in New York, I think, again, it’s only given him even more energy,” Emmer said. “And what he did for us upstairs just now is, he showed us that energy and he showed us that positive outlook, despite all the garbage they’ve been throwing at him with their lawfare and their nonsense.”

From CNN

"I just have to start off by saying: the balls of some people. I mean here's the guy who led the 2021 insurrection on Congress and Senate Minority Mitch McConnell who was leading the Senate Republicans back in 2021 as well, welcomes him back to the U.S. Capitol to talk his conference 42 months later. Not so much on Mitch McConnell, but Donald J. Trump literally visiting the scene of his crimes at a place he hasn't been to in perhaps 4 years, when he was still President of the United States." 

From The New Democrat

If you are a Gen-Xer like me, or are older, you remember the daily, syndicated talk show genre of the 1990s, when someone like a Geraldo Rivera or Jenny Jones, would bring on the strangest, craziest people that they could possibly find, (unless they were just actors) and they would just let those folks rant and tell their audience about everything that sucks in their world. That is what a Donald J. Trump speech is like right now. 

A DJT speech is not just one of those self-interviews that you see on some so-called reality TV show, but he's like a one-man, syndicated talk show, whose given a huge platform to talk about everything that sucks in his life and the world. 

And before someone gives me their impression of Captain Obvious and tries to point out that Donald J. Trump is a presumptive Republican nominee for President and perhaps I shouldn't talk about him like he's a nationally, syndicated, daily, joke, I'm just describing the way he presents himself to the public. 

On a day where both House and Senate Republicans were hopefully trying to get behind some unifying, Republican, national, agenda, that he and Congressional Republicans could run together on, DJT shows them his very own nationally, syndicated, daily talk show, that's all about himself and everything that sucks in his world.

Steve Bannon: 'There's Nothing That Can Shut Me Up'

Source:CSPAN showing showing Steve Bannon’s little press statement outside of the U.S. Circuit Court in Washington.

 

Source:The New Democrat

"Steve Bannon speaks to reporters in Washington, after being ordered by a federal judge to reporter to prison by July 1. Bannon was convicted for defying a January 6 Committee subpoena and sentenced to four months in prison. "There's nothing that can shut me up and nothing that will shut me up. There's not a prison built or a jail built that will ever shut me up...we're going to win on November 5th in an amazing landslide."

From C-SPAN

"At the time, Bannon contended he did not comply because of executive privilege concerns raised by Trump and said that his former attorney had advised him not to respond to the subpoena because of the potential privilege. 

Before the trial, Nichols — a Trump appointee — ordered Bannon not to tell the jury about the advice of his counsel because of binding precedent that set a legal definition of willful default on a subpoena. After his conviction, the judge sentenced Bannon to four months in prison but held off on actually imposing the ruling, concluding it was "likely" the conviction would be overturned. 

Bannon's defense subsequently appealed the conviction.

Last month, an appeals court disagreed with his arguments and ruled Bannon's "'advice of counsel' defense is no defense at all." The three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the jury's conviction and wrote the defense he sought was "unavailable under this statute."

From CBS News

So Steve Bannon's defense here is basically: "President Donald Trump claimed executive privilege on the conversations that I had with him about Jan. 6. That's why I din't comply with the House subpoena to speak in front of their Jan. 6 committee." 

The big problem that he has here (and I'm not a lawyer) and you can see why he keeps losing his appeals, is that Steve Bannon in January, 2021, didn't work for The White House or any part of the Trump Administration. Donald Trump fired him in the summer of 2017. 

Mr. Bannon was just a private citizen during the entire presidential election season of 2020 and the transition period from November, 2020 when Joe Biden was elected President of the United States, defeating President Trump, till the day that President Trump's term expired and Joe Biden becomes President Joe Biden. And the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt happened 2 weeks before Mr. Biden is sworn in as the 46th President of the United States, succeeding President Trump. 

Any rookie, criminal defense lawyer in Washington, who represents people who've worked in and outside of the U.S. Government, will tell you that executive privilege doesn't apply to private citizens. Whatever you think of Steve Bannon (and I see him as far-right militant trying to overthrow the U.S. Government) he's obviously a very intelligent man, with both a U.S. Naval and business background, who rose to the rank of Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. He has to know that he didn't have executive privilege here. 

Besides, even if Steve Bannon is a total idiot, (and the sun never comes out in Arizona) ignorance of the law is never excuse for breaking the law. And even if he got bad legal advise and that's the reason why he didn't comply with his House subpoena, that gives him justification to sue his lawyer. Not ignore a Congressional subpoena. 

NBC News: ‘Donald Trump Found Guilty in Historic New York Hush Money Case’

Source:NBC News covering the historic guilty verdict of Defendant Donald J. Trump.

Source:The New Democrat

“A New York jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — the first time a former U.S. president has been convicted of a crime.

The jury reached its verdict in the historic case after 9.5 hours of deliberations, which began Wednesday.

He’ll be sentenced on July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention. He faces penalties ranging from a fine to four years in prison on each count, although it’s expected he would be sentenced for the offenses concurrently, and not consecutively.

This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt,” he fumed to reporters afterward.

The verdict was read in the Manhattan courtroom where Trump has been on trial since April 15. He had pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump looked down with his eyes narrowed as the jury foreperson read the word “guilty” to each count. The judge thanked the jurors for their service in the weeks-long trial. “You gave this matter the attention it deserved, and I want to thank you for that,” Judge Juan Merchan told them. Trump appeared to be scowling at the jurors as they walked by him on their way out of the courtroom.

Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche made a motion for acquittal after the jury left the room, which the judge denied.

The conviction comes as Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president. He immediately set out fundraising off the news, posting on his website that he’s “a political prisoner” and urging his followers to give money.

Legal experts have told NBC News that even if Trump is sentenced to time behind bars, he’d most likely be allowed to remain out of jail while he appeals the verdict, a process that could take months or more. That means the sentence would most likely not interfere with his ability to accept the Republican nomination for president at the July convention.

President Joe Biden’s campaign praised the verdict in a statement, but stressed that Trump needs to be defeated in November.

“In New York today, we saw that no one is above the law,” the campaign’s communications director Michael Tyler said, but the “verdict does not change the fact that the American people face a simple reality. There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box.”

In his closing argument earlier this week, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that “the law is the law and it applies to everyone equally. There is no special standard for this defendant.”

“You, the jury, have the ability to hold the defendant accountable,” Steinglass said.

Trump had maintained the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office had no case and that there had been no crime. “President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes,” Blanche said in his closing statement, arguing the payments to Cohen were legitimate.

Prosecutors said the disguised payment to Cohen was part of a “planned, coordinated long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures, to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior, using doctored corporate records and bank forms to conceal those payments along the way.”

“It was election fraud. Pure and simple,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said in his opening statement.

While Trump was not charged with conspiracy, prosecutors argued he caused the records to be falsified because he was trying to cover up a violation of state election law- and falsifying business records with the intent to cover another crime raises the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The verdict came after a sensational weeks-long trial that included combative testimony from Cohen, Trump’s self-described former fixer, and Daniels, who testified that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006 after meeting him at a celebrity golf tournament. Trump has denied her claim, and his attorney had suggested that Cohen acted on his own because he thought it would make “the boss” happy.

Other witnesses included former White House staffers including advisor Hope Hicks, former Trump Organization executives, and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker.”

From NBC News

“Former President Trump has been found guilty on all 34 counts of business document fraud in the New York hush money trial. NBC News’ Laura Jarrett reports as the guilty verdicts came in.” 

From NBC News

As my colleague Fred Schneider mentioned a couple hours ago today:

“I have a prediction for you, if you want. And even if you don’t want it, I’ll give it to you anyway.

Again, no decision on the verdict yet, but just the way this jury is acting and what they’re doing, the questions they’re asking, the evidence they’re reviewing, suggests to me that they’ve found Donald J. Trump guilty of multiple felonies:

They’ve reviewed David Pecker’s testimony, who of course exposed (pun intended) this whole damn affair and scheme, between Trump Inc. (let’s call it) and the two women that they paid off.

They reviewed Michael Cohen’s testimony about the scheme, that was corroborated by David Pecker.

And as Harry Litman said (who is a real-life lawyer) they reviewed the Cohen-Trump phone call about how to pay off Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels) and Karen McDougal.

They’re going through the evidence that the Manhattan DA wants them to and have focused on the evidence that they wanted them too. This looks like multiple felony convictions for Mr. Donald J. Trump.

Again, no decision on the verdict yet, but just the way this jury is acting and what they’re doing, the 

From The New Democrat

Fred and I were thinking he would be found guilty of 9 felonies today and perhaps the jury would let the other 25 felony counts slide (so to speak) because they have Donald Trump’s signature on 9 checks that were use to pay off Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels) and Karen McDougal. But the other 25 I think (as a non-lawyer) you could argue that maybe the prosecution didn’t prove that he’s directly responsible for those checks as well.

But then you go to what the jury was looking at when they were deliberating and it was all about David Pecker exposing (pun intended) the whole hush money scheme. As well as the Michael Cohen testimony that was corroborated by Pecker, and the phone call between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen and you know that Donald Trump was damn well behind this scheme, not just approved it, but with the checks you know that he personally financed it. And I think that’s how the jury got to 34 felony convictions of Mr. Trump, instead of the 9 that have his signatures on the checks.

So I believe for the jury it became about Mr. Pecker’s word and Mr. Cohen’s word, versus Mr Trump’s. And Mr. Trump didn’t even bother to testify and give his version of events to the jury. And the defense brought no one up who could contradict anything that Mr. Pecker and Mr. Cohen testified under oath.