Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Four Weeks To Go

This is how Donald is spending his time in the final weeks of his presidency, from the New York Times: 

With four weeks left in President Trump’s term, he is at perhaps his most unleashed — and, as events of the last few days have demonstrated, at the most unpredictable point in his presidency.

He remains the most powerful person in the world, yet he is focused on the one area in which he is powerless to get what he wants: a way to avoid leaving office as a loser.

He spends his days flailing for any hope, if not of actually reversing the outcome of the election then at least of building a coherent case that he was robbed of a second term.

When he has emerged from his relative isolation in recent days, it has been to suggest out of the blue that he would try to blow up the bipartisan stimulus package, driving a wedge through his party in the process, and to grant clemency to a raft of allies and supporters, mostly outside the normal Justice Department process.

He has otherwise sequestered himself in the White House, playing host to a cast of conspiracy theorists and hard-core supporters who traffic in ideas like challenging the election’s outcome in Congress and even invoking martial law, seeking to give some of them government jobs.

He is almost entirely disengaged from leading the nation even as Americans are being felled by the coronavirus at record rates. Faced with an aggressive cyberassault almost surely carried out by Russia, his response, to the degree that he has had one, has been to downplay the damage and to contradict his own top officials by suggesting that the culprit might actually have been China. He played almost no role in negotiating the stimulus bill that just passed Congress before working to disrupt it at the last minute.

It is not clear that Mr. Trump’s latest behavior is anything other than a temper tantrum, attention-seeking or a form of therapy for the man who controls a nuclear arsenal — though one alternative, if charitable, view is that it is strategic groundwork for a grievance-filled run in 2024.

If nothing else, it will make for an especially anxious next 27 days in Washington.

This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration officials, Republicans and allies of the president.

Most of his advisers believe Mr. Trump will depart the White House for a final time by Jan. 20. The pardons he announced Tuesday night suggest he is comfortable using his powers aggressively until then. But how far he will go to subvert the election results, actually refuse to leave the White House or to unleash a wave of unilateral policy decisions in his final weeks is hard to discern.

Still, his erratic behavior and detachment from his duties have even some of his most loyal aides and advisers deeply concerned.

For the moment, Mr. Trump has told advisers he’s willing to stop listening to Sidney Powell, the lawyer who has appealed to him by peddling a conspiracy theory about the election, and people like Patrick Byrne, the former chief executive of Overstock.com, who was present for a wild, nearly five-hour meeting in the Oval Office and then the presidential residence last Friday.

But current advisers have described a daily struggle to keep Mr. Trump from giving in to his impulse to listen to those who are telling him what he wants to hear. And former advisers say the most worrisome issue is the gradual disappearance of the core group of West Wing aides who, often working in unison, consistently could get him to turn away from risky, legally dubious and dangerous ideas.

“The number of people who are telling him things he doesn’t want to hear has diminished,” said his former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, who had a very public parting of ways with Mr. Trump and who has been vocal in objecting to the president’s thrashing against his electoral loss.

Mr. Trump has turned to aides like Peter Navarro, a trade adviser who has been trying to gather evidence of election fraud to bolster his boss’s claims. And he is listening to Republicans who insist that Vice President Mike Pence could help sway the election during the normally routine process of ratifying the election early next month, despite the fact that it isn’t realistically possible.

Among Republicans on Capitol Hill, there is talk of clamping down on any of his supporters who might try to disrupt that process, a possibility made real by the president’s importuning of Senator-elect Tommy Tuberville of Alabama to gum up the works.

Yet it is not certain that Mr. Tuberville will carry through the president’s desires, and even he if does, there is the possibility that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, could step in to prevent such a move. Mr. McConnell has already urged his caucus not to raise objections when the results are certified, because it would force others to publicly vote against the president.

Even in the best of times, Mr. Trump has searched for — and required — reinforcements from people outside the White House in support of whatever his aides will go along with.

But in the White House, Mr. Trump is turning on his closest of allies. He has complained to allies that Mr. Pence, who has been mocked for unflinching loyalty over the last four years, should be doing more to defend him. And he is angry that Mr. McConnell has recognized Mr. Biden as the winner of the election.

This week, Mr. Trump had an assistant send a chart featuring the timing of his endorsement of Mr. McConnell overlaid on polling data to claim he was responsible for Mr. McConnell winning re-election this year — a claim political professionals would dispute — and to suggest the majority leader is ungrateful for his help.

And on Tuesday evening, Mr. Trump tweeted a broadside against Senate leadership by attacking Mr. McConnell and the majority whip, Senator John Thune, of South Dakota, who had said any challenge to ratification of the election results would go down like a “shot dog.”

At the Justice Department, Attorney General William P. Barr’s public and emphatic rejection on Monday of the need for special counsels to investigate election fraud and Hunter Biden appeared intended in part to insulate his short-term successor, Jeffrey A. Rosen, from any further pressure on those fronts by the president.

Privately, allies who have stood by as Mr. Trump has weeded out others through loyalty purges, and who have dismissed criticisms that the president has authoritarian tendencies, are expressing concern about the next four weeks.

Mr. Barr, whose last day in the job is Wednesday, has told associates he had been alarmed by Mr. Trump’s behavior in recent weeks. Other advisers have privately said they feel worn out and are looking forward to the end of the term.

For those who remain, the days have been bleak endeavors during which government workers are forced to spend time either executing the president’s demand that election fraud be proven, or incurring his wrath.

As Axios reported, Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel who has implored Mr. Trump to steer clear of proposed maneuvers like having federal officials seize control of voting machines to inspect them, has become a target of the president’s anger.

Mr. Trump has characterized Mr. Cipollone derisively, invoking his own mentor, the infamously ruthless and unscrupulous lawyer Roy Cohn, as what a White House counsel should aspire to be like.

The White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has objected to some of the president’s desires, like appointing Ms. Powell as special counsel examining voter fraud, but he also made a trip to Georgia on Tuesday to investigate ballot safety measures. Mr. Meadows, a former House member, has also leaned into the effort by his old colleagues to challenge the vote in Congress, something that might keep the president from engaging further with Ms. Powell, but which many Republicans consider destructive to their party.

Other advisers have simply absented themselves at a time when the president is particularly unsteady.

The president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, has been out of the country for significant amounts of time since Election Day, traveling through the Middle East for deals that burnish his own credentials. He has responded to people seeking his help with Mr. Trump by saying that the president is his children’s grandfather, implying there are limits to what he can do to help.

Mr. Trump has spent his days watching television, calling Republicans in search of advice on how to challenge the electoral outcome and urging them to defend him on television. As always, he turns to Twitter for boosts of support and to vent his anger. He has not gone golfing since the weather has turned colder, and is cloistered in the White House, shuffling from the residence to the Oval Office.

Many Trump advisers hope that his planned trip to his private club in Palm Beach, Fla., Mar-a-Lago, will give him a change of scenery and a change of perspective. He is scheduled to leave on Wednesday and stay through the New Year holiday, although some aides said he still might decide against it.
(This is the article in its entirety.)

Friday, November 13, 2020

Just A Guy With A Twitter Feed

Jonathan Bernstein ponders Donald's future: 

You can’t shake a stick right now without hitting someone who thinks that outgoing President Donald Trump will dominate Republican politics while President-elect Joe Biden is in office, and will surely be nominated again in 2024. Trump himself appears ready to announce his next candidacy as soon as he stops pretending that he won this time around.

On one hand … sure, it’s plausible. Republicans, paranoid that their strongest supporters will turn on them, are already going to great lengths to avoid angering Trump — with some of the most visible party members repeating his false claims about fraud. It’s easy to see a collective-action problem forming, in which all of the potential 2024 candidates fear turning against Trump for so long that they wind up giving him the nomination, even as a lot of party actors are very much aware that he’s been rejected by the electorate (twice, in fact, if you count the overall vote in 2016).

On the other hand? I’m with Josh Chafetz, who says that it’s “equally plausible that he really fades.”

The key players here are within Republican-aligned media. If Fox News and conservative talk-show hosts treat Trump as the Rightful President for the next four years, it’s going to be very difficult for other party actors to do otherwise. They’ll constantly be in the position that the Georgia special elections have put them in now: If they criticize Trump, he could simply tell his supporters to go home, and only a few would have to listen to him to cost Republicans any chance of winning.

But if the media simply move on? Then Trump is just a guy with a Twitter feed. Yes, right now a high percentage of Republican voters approves of his presidency. But that’s almost certainly less impressive than it seems. After all, most partisans approve of and will vote for anyone on the party ticket. And while surely there’s a lot more enthusiasm for Trump than for whoever the candidate is for county assessor or board of equalization, we’ve just seen a demonstration of how easily such loyalties can shift — with all those former Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton supporters voting in record numbers for Biden.

Moreover, three years — the time from now to the first 2024 nomination events — is a long time. In November 2008, it sure seemed like Sarah Palin had the enthusiastic and loyal support of many Republicans; by 2011, she was a washed-up reality-TV star. And three years for a 70-something former president with potential financial and legal troubles might seem even longer.

But more than that, it’s quite possible, and perhaps even likely, that unless the partisan media outlets really play Trump up, he’ll find that he’s more of a replaceable fad for Republican voters than a lifelong passion. And whether they do is up to them, not him.
(This is the column in its entirety.) 

And here are the Josh Chafetz tweets referred to above: 





Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Sexiest Man

Who will be the Sexiest Man this year? Or to be more specific, who will People put on next week's cover with the title of Sexiest Man? Right now I have no guesses. Actually, I have one (fanciful) guess. Barack Obama's memoir comes out on November 17. Would People award him the crown as part of a promo package for the book? They'd probably love to, but I'm sure President Obama would never agree. Too bad. 

Do you remember who was last year's Sexiest Man? It was John Legend, and here's the list of all previous titleholders: 

1985 Mel Gibson
1986 Mark Harmon
1987 Harry Hamlin
1988 John Kennedy, Jr.
1989 Sean Connery
1990 Tom Cruise
1991 Patrick Swayze
1992 Nick Nolte
1993 Sexiest Couple: Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford
1995 Brad Pitt
1996 Denzel Washington
1997 George Clooney
1998 Harrison Ford
1999 Richard Gere
2000 Brad Pitt
2001 Pierce Brosnan
2002 Ben Affleck
2003 Johnny Depp
2004 Jude Law
2005 Matthew McConaughey
2006 George Clooney
2007 Matt Damon
2008 Hugh Jackman
2009 Johnny Depp
2010 Ryan Reynolds
2011 Bradley Cooper
2012 Channing Tatum
2013 Adam Levine
2014 Chris Hemsworth
2015 David Beckham
2016 Dwayne Johnson
2017 Blake Shelton
2018 Idris Elba
2019 John Legend


Tuesday, November 3, 2020

Jason The Dead-Beat Daddy

Salon.com gave our friend AJ Delgado a lovely Election Day gift: a blisteringly critical article that lays out, point by point, how wretchedly awful (and almost certainly criminal) Jason Miller really is. Enjoy: 

President Trump's top campaign strategist, Jason Miller, has been paid tens of thousands of dollars a month through a third-party campaign vendor rather than taking a salary from the campaign, obscuring the flow of money and apparently concealing how much he makes — an arrangement campaign finance experts say is illegal.

Miller, a 2016 senior adviser who joined the re-election campaign in early June, appears to have been paid as recently as July by Citizens of the American Republic (COAR), a nonprofit founded by Steve Bannon which is currently part of a federal fraud and money laundering investigation into the former Trump campaign chief, as a vehicle used to fabricate invoices in furtherance of that scheme. (Salon first reported that COAR had paid Miller $20,000 a month.)

Miller also appears to have taken monthly payments of several thousand dollars from a firm co-founded by two Trump officials — one of them being Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien. Salon was first to report that the campaign does not report any salary payments to Stepien, either.

The question of the campaign payments, and Miller's mysterious and varying monthly income, is important not only for reasons of public transparency, but for determining how much Miller, who is married, should pay for child support in a contentious custody case with a 2016 Trump campaign adviser which has dragged out for years in Florida family court.

Prior to re-enlisting on the Trump campaign, Miller worked over the last two years as a consultant and, for about six weeks this spring, a lobbyist, reporting monthly incomes ranging between $27,000 and $99,000, including side payments from his old firm, Teneo, where he had collected a $500,000 salary.

During this time Miller paid the mother of his child as little as $500 a month, one-sixth of what a courts had demanded. That sum of $500 would also the minimum monthly amount required by the state for a parent who makes $2,300 a month. Miller spends $2,300 a month just on expenses related to his cars, according to a financial affidavit filed in August, which states that he made more than $600,000 last year.

After Trump's 2016 victory, Miller expected a White House post, but had to withdraw when news broke that he had fathered a child with fellow 2016 campaign adviser AJ Delgado, who is not his wife.

Delgado, who joined the transition team and expected a job in the administration or cable news before news broke of the affair, alleges that Miller, a staunch conservative who once worked for Sen. Ted Cruz, told her at the time that he was separated from his wife, and twice asked her to have an abortion. Delgado also alleged in a court filing which later leaked to the press that Miller had slipped an abortion pill into the smoothie of another woman he had gotten pregnant.

Miller denies that accusation and has sued the outlet, Gizmodo, for $100 million. In a 2019 sworn deposition for that suit he admitted to hiring prostitutes and receiving sexual favors at multiple "Asian themed" massage parlors, an industry known to have connections to sex trafficking rings.

Throughout his professional political life, Miller has been known as an attack dog, someone "not beyond throwing binders," a former colleague of his told Salon.

In recent months he has become the Trump campaign's preferred media presence, the 2020 answer to Kellyanne Conway. On television, comes across as a deft but maddening dissembler, sailing through the Sunday shows on currents of lies and backtalk — the exact personality that Trump wants to put out front.

"He sort of failed his way up," Rick Wilson, longtime Republican strategist and co-founder of the Lincoln Project, told Salon. "He's got a certain shamelessness about him that media bookers can't get enough of."

Miller has built those skills over the last 20-odd years, working for former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — who officiated what a longtime friend of the Miller family described as the Millers' "shotgun" wedding — as well as Cruz and former Rep. Mark Sanford, a South Carolina Republican whose extramarital affair scuttled his political ascent.

Like many Cruz-backing conservatives, Miller was initially anti-Trump. The Millers' longtime friend recalled Miller's wife, Kelly, going out of her way to compliment his social media posts blasting Trump during the 2016 primary, going so far as to put their conversation on speakerphone and calling Jason in to the room to take part. A few months later, the Millers cut that social tie.

In 2003 and 2004, Miller joined Jack Ryan's ill-fated Senate campaign in Illinois against then-state senator Barack Obama. He was brought on as a PR specialist, a known dirty player who in his first weeks onboard allegedly fought not to fire an Obama tracker who had been so aggressive he followed the then-candidate with a camera to a bathroom, and waited outside the door.

When Miller arrived on the Ryan campaign, Chicago media outlets were trying to unseal custody documents which later revealed that Ryan pressured his wife to perform sexual acts with him at strip clubs, a scandal that ended his campaign. According to a person who worked on the campaign, Miller himself enjoyed strip clubs and was frequently seen in "obvious embraces with women who were not his fiancée."

"Women in particular got a lot of his wrath," the person said, adding that Miller was "uneven towards women."

Ryan, who now runs a real estate business, briefly hired Miller as a lobbyist this spring, Salon previously reported.

Other people who knew Miller characterized him as "untrustworthy," and that his behavior around women had made them nervous.


"I can handle being around assholes at work. All my life. But not this guy," said one person, who described Miller as pugnacious, especially when he'd been drinking: "Get a little liquor in him, and you get the sense he's not somebody totally in control."

Miller has invoked substance abuse and mental illness multiple times in his custody case, including multiple stints in rehab. Delgado, herself a graduate of Harvard Law, has expressed suspicion about the timing and forthrightness of these check-ins, which have coincided with court dates.

A few years before he joined the Ryan campaign, Miller had a central role in a Washington Post article about the party scene at George Washington University, where he was a fraternity member:

The frat brothers show off for the girls and the cameras, ripping off shirts and chugging beers. ... Jason Miller surveys the crowd like a proud father. "It's my senior year so I'm going to party," he says. Miller says he's got a 3.0 average, a major in political science and a job as a staff assistant in Sen. Slade Gorton's (R-Wash.) office on Capitol Hill. He will become a lawyer and probably a politician some day. Life is good.

"He wants you to know he's there, that he's the guy with the rolodex," the Ryan campaign colleague said. "He kicked the campaign director out of his office and just took it. Demanded a personal driver. Now, this is Chicago. We don't put on airs. But he had a tailor come into the campaign office once, to work on his suits."

"The attitude he brought into every room — the attitude fit him, but it didn't fit the room," the person added.

"You'd think he would have burned his bridges," the person said. "But Jason knows how to play nice."

Salon reviewed communications that illustrate those two sides today.

In an email last January, Miller's attorney wrote that Delgado, who often drags Miller on Twitter, acted out as a jilted and jealous ex who couldn't process that Miller's interest in her did not range beyond the sexual:

She cannot accept that the relationship was simply just sexual encounters and Mr. Miller's decision not to have any emotional commitment or future involvement with Ms. Delgado made your client launch a venomous campaign designed to publicly harm and humiliate Mr. Miller.

(A Page Six piece that ran shortly after their son's birth in 2017, and which Delgado alleges Miller planted, describes their relationship in similar terms, as "a wild night in Vegas.")

Miller later admitted in court, however, that the relationship was not just a one-night stand, an implication echoed by multiple voicemails reviewed by Salon, which Miller left on Delgado's phone early in their relationship.

"Hey beautiful, it's me. I just wanted to call, say I miss you," Miller says in one, his voice smooth. "Hope you're having a nice Thanksgiving with Nancy. I miss you so much. Just want you to know I'm thinking about you. I'll try you again tomorrow. Bye."

In two other voicemails Miller expresses the same concern, endearment and attention to detail. Delgado says that he later had a D.C. gossip website remove the only existing picture of the two of them together, taken at a media party during the campaign. ("That is actually, to make it even weirder, the night things 'started,'" Delgado told Salon.)

Miller's mother-in-law has repeatedly and publicly weighed in on the custody case, which the judge has told Miller is not helpful. At one point, for instance, she accused Delgado in a since-deleted tweet of being "ALL about the Benjamin's. ... No doubt about it!!"

In a 2018 Daily Mail article Miller accused Delgado broadly of a "pattern of harassment," which later was more narrowly defined in court as Delgado's filings and critical tweets.

"First, he falsely portrays me as a drunken one-night encounter in Vegas, only to then privately admit in a deposition the involvement was months-long," Delgado told Salon. "His false narrative will harm [their son] in the future. It was completely unnecessary and done for his wife's benefit. Then, as if it that isn't bad enough, he goes to the Daily Mail in 2018 and ... heavily indicates I'd been harassing him only to then admit in the family-law matter that that wasn't true, either."

Delgado was fired from her position at America First Policies after that article ran. She claims no specific reason was given.

"Jason doesn't understand how all of this is playing out in the public square," said a former Miller colleague. "He doesn't seem to have that fatherly instinct."

Miller's parenting plan, which he submitted to Florida family court in May 2019, when his son with Delgado was not yet two years old, did not express any desire to see his son: "This parenting plan does not contain any time sharing between the child and the father."

Delgado, a former journalist and political analyst — she shared with Salon a 2016 email from a top Fox News executive saying that one day she would "have her own show" on the network — says she believes Miller and his allies have tried to block her professional opportunities.

"My career? There is none of which to speak," she told Salon, claiming that her former media go-tos dropped her after the affair. "As an example, after my tweets disclosing I was pregnant and, essentially, complaining about Miller still being promoted — I don't know if Jared [Kushner] called up Fox News, but I was suddenly never invited on again."

"I don't think people realize how degrading it is to have to beg for money from strangers doing a GoFundMe just to be able to keep up on costs of the litigation, and not even then," she said.

"There is a reason she is sitting home, unemployed and blackballed from the political arena," reads one recent email that Miller's attorney sent Delgado's attorney in the custody case. "She has nobody to blame besides herself."

It is unclear who "blackballed" Delgado.

"Jason is a problem child," said Wilson, whose never-Trump group of former Republicans raked in nearly $40 million last quarter. "If you're a real campaign, you cannot justify giving this guy fiduciary responsibilities of any kind, or putting him out there any sort of public-facing role. He is leaving the mother of his child out in the cold."

But even Miller couldn't successfully ride out the smoothie allegations, after which his CNN contributor gig vanished. He had ducked into the private sector and landed the Teneo job. Last June, Teneo severed public ties with Miller, reportedly as a result of crass insults he tweeted at Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., over what Miller saw as Nadler's rude treatment of Hope Hicks, another 2016 Trump campaign aide who has now returned to the White House.

Delgado alleged in court that Miller's apparent split with Teneo was fraudulent. Citing Miller's financial disclosures, Delgado asserted that in the month after Miller's departure Teneo began paying him through a corporation called SHW Partners tat Miller had set up for that purpose, and which Delgado characterizes as a "ruse" for Teneo to keep working with him.

In the months after leaving Teneo, Miller decreased his child support payments, citing an inability to pay, which, according to Delgado's court filing, appears fraudulent and the fruit of his private arrangement with Teneo (which has not replied to Salon's request for comment).

Indeed, Miller has pulled in a remarkable amount of money for a man who paid $500 in child support — between $27,000 and $60,000 a month over the last year, court documents show. In July, communications reviewed by Salon show, his income hit $99,000.

But none of those payments came from the Trump campaign — or at least none did so officially or directly.

As Salon previously reported, though the campaign does not list payments to Miller, it does pay a firm called Jamestown Associates, a media company founded in New Jersey which specializes in campaign publicity, and which lists Miller as an executive and partner. The campaign attributes all the disbursements to "video production services."

According to Salon's analysis of court documents, FEC filings and other communications, as well as a senior campaign source who confirmed the arrangements, Miller has been paid $35,000 a month through Jamestown Associates. That would be $420,000 annually — a larger salary than the president.

Salon previously reported that FEC filings show that the Trump campaign made a number of payments to Jamestown from January and June, each somewhere between approximately $7,500 and $45,500. In July, however, those expenditures increased significantly, including a $78,394 payment on July 13 and a $133,800 payment on July 28 — at the time the campaign's single largest payment to the firm.

Communications reviewed by Salon show that the next day, Miller received $70,000 in a single payment from Jamestown. In a public court document from the child support case, Miller reported an unattributed $35,000 monthly payment, exactly half the amount Jamestown paid him in late July — which was apparently two months' pay.


Jared Kushner personally signed off on the payment arrangement, according to the senior campaign source, who added that the president was typically aware of such decisions.

Trump campaign chief spokesperson Tim Murtaugh did not respond to Salon's multiple requests for comment.

"If the Trump campaign is paying Jason Miller for consulting services, but disclosing the payments as disbursements to Jamestown Associates for 'video production,' then the campaign would be violating its legal reporting requirements," Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), an organization that advocates for fairness and transparency in elections, told Salon.

In July, CLC filed an FEC complaint that alleged the Trump campaign hid the true recipients of at least $170 million in payments through the scheme Fischer described above, most specifically through American Made Media, a consulting firm co-founded by top campaign officials.

"These campaign finance violations would be in addition to, and separate from, the violations that arise from the Trump campaign routing its spending through LLCs created and managed by senior campaign officials," Fischer said.

Campaign finance experts say that FEC advisory opinions dating back to the 1980s have held that political committees only have to report expenditures to the primary vendor, but do not have to report expenditures to subvendors. The FEC has held, however, in a series of enforcement cases, that the initial vendor cannot simply act as a conduit for payments to subvendors.

In short, experts say, the arrangement is illegal.

In recent weeks, Miller and his attorney have refused to tell Delgado whether he is being paid by either Jamestown Associates or the Trump campaign. In an email and court filing, Miller's attorney no longer disbursements to Jamestown Associates for 'video production,' then the campaign would be violating its legal reporting requirements," Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), an organization that advocates for fairness and transparency in elections, told Salon.

In July, CLC filed an FEC complaint that alleged the Trump campaign hid the true recipients of at least $170 million in payments through the scheme Fischer described above, most specifically through American Made Media, a consulting firm co-founded by top campaign officials.

"These campaign finance violations would be in addition to, and separate from, the violations that arise from the Trump campaign routing its spending through LLCs created and managed by senior campaign officials," Fischer said.

Campaign finance experts say that FEC advisory opinions dating back to the 1980s have held that political committees only have to report expenditures to the primary vendor, but do not have to report expenditures to subvendors. The FEC has held, however, in a series of enforcement cases, that the initial vendor cannot simply act as a conduit for payments to subvendors.

In short, experts say, the arrangement is illegal.

In recent weeks, Miller and his attorney have refused to tell Delgado whether he is being paid by either Jamestown Associates or the Trump campaign. In an email and court filing, Miller's attorney no longer refers to Jamestown CEO Larry Weitzner as a "former" associate of Miller, but has refused to clarify the current relationship.

Over the course of the last year, court documents show, Miller has dramatically and inventively reduced his child support payments. While reporting income of between $27,000 and $99,000 a month, he made six monthly support payments of $500, often in immediate proximity to mandatory court dates.

While his creative accounting in court documents somehow reduces the monthly sums to around zero, the court has recently ruled those arguments invalid. In March, for instance, Miller paid $500 to his child's mother, yet spent more than $4,000 on guns. At one point he argued that he did not have enough money for a plane ticket.

And while Miller has paid the full mandated $3,167 the last two months — since taking the campaign job for no official salary — he ignored a July 22 court order to pay more than $11,000 to make up for the payments he ducked earlier this year. Delgado has requested that the court hold him in contempt.

It is unclear why Miller's income structure over the last year has been so opaque, and why in recent months he has fought to keep the details secret. It's also not clear why Miller's most lucrative month of the last calendar year — July, when he earned $99,000 — was the same month he dedicated himself to working for the campaign without taking a paycheck.

However, one source of Miller's income over the last year has recently become the subject of federal scrutiny: Bannon's nonprofit, COAR, which prosecutors alleged in a charging document this August was a vehicle that Bannon and his collaborators used to create fake invoices as part of a money laundering scheme.

In an Aug. 23 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Miller told host Chuck Todd that although he had worked for COAR, he had not been interviewed by government investigators: "I have not, and from public reports it looks like this investigation was going long before the podcast even started, the podcast and the radio show that I co-hosted with Steve."

The indictment says that a financial institution had alerted Bannon and his collaborators that they were under federal investigation around October 2019, after which group members began communicating via encrypted messaging apps.

Miller co-hosted a podcast with Bannon for COAR, reportedly beginning in October 2019, the month after he left a stint in rehab. Ordinal invoices that Miller references in his custody filings suggest that COAR began to pay him around that time.

Those filings, obtained by Salon, along with additional communications, show that Miller appears to have

been paid tens of thousands of dollars a month for his work at COAR, from October 2019 through as late as July — nine months after Bannon's group allegedly took steps to conceal communications after learning they were under investigation.

At the time of that July payment, of $10,000, Miller had been working on the Trump campaign for at least a month, and had recorded his last COAR podcast in May. It is unclear whether the Trump campaign is aware that Miller was being paid by Bannon's nonprofit while working for them.

Communications reviewed by Salon also show that Miller received $7,500 in July from a group called National Public Affairs, a consulting firm cofounded by former White House official Justin Clark and Trump's current campaign manager, Bill Stepien. Miller received at least one other payment from the firm in that amount, communications show.

Stepien joined the campaign in December, but FEC filings do not disclose a salary. Reports have suggested that Stepien took a 33% pay cut through another firm, Revolution Strategies LLC, when he took the campaign manager job. But it is unclear what work Stepien's other firm paid Miller to do while he worked for the campaign for free. FEC filings also show that National Public Affairs had several high-dollar candidate clients who also did spots on Bannon's podcast, featuring Miller, around the time of some of those payments.

"The fact that Jason Miller is being paid by Bannon is completely unsurprising to me," Wilson remarked. "Stepien seems caught in the wheel of history here, kept as one of Jared's pets. But the Bannon connection illustrates exactly the shocking but yet unsurprising nature of the whole thing."

Miller's COAR income for podcasts and radio was effectually an annual salary of around $200,000. By comparison, COAR's 2018 tax returns, the most recent available, show that the highest-paid official made $55,000 a year.

Federal prosecutors say in the Bannon indictment that they are seeking to seize assets belonging to the nonprofit.

"These allegations are very serious and I hope that Steve has some good answers for the things he's been accused of," Miller told Todd. "It's not something I worked on. I don't know anything about the financial dealings of this organization or how it worked, and I hope Steve has an opportunity to tell his side of the story."

"It's TrumpWorld played out in real-life," Delgado said. "Mediocre white men fail upwards and are given every leeway in the book, while women, minorities — and heaven forbid one is both — and children don't matter."

Delgado has passed through a series of events that she experiences as a bitter personal irony. Today a

brassy, albeit jobless, Trump critic, Delgado had been one of the Trump campaign's earliest architects, advocating for him since fall 2015 and playing a surrogate role until she came on board as a senior communications adviser the following August. That path tracks the opposite of Miller's, who spent months trying to stop Trump, but has since dug himself into the president's inner circle — and been paid handsomely.

Wilson said the saga is a reflection of the larger culture Trump has conjured over the last five years.

"Jason Miller's terrible personal reputation is appealing to Trump, in a strange kind of way. And that's because Donald likes to be around people who are as broken as he is," Wilson said.

"This is why there is no bottom in TrumpWorld. There is no standard," Wilson added. "And at the end of the day, at the end of the campaign, the end of the presidency, you see it — that people like this are the types who have survived."

Miller directed Salon's questions to his attorney in the custody case, Sandy Fox, who did not reply.  (This is the article in its entirety.) 

As of mid-afternoon Tuesday, Miller has not commented. If he does, I'll update this post. 

Days Until The Election: 1 - Updated

Note: I wrote this post yesterday; I'm posting it early on Election Day. 

Some random thoughts on the day before the election: 

I published my first post about the 2020 election back on June 17, 2017, which was 1,234 days before election day. (Read it here. To read my first post about the 2024 election, click here.) Now here we are with just one day to go, and Jonathan Bernstein says tomorrow won't be a normal election day: 

I’ve written a lot of items about how much I love Election Day and the affirmation of democracy that it represents. But this time around I have to agree with Larry Sabato: “Never in my 60 years around politics have I encountered this many people so tense, so full of dread and foreboding about an election — and what comes afterward. Of course, we’ve never before had a president undermining confidence and predicting fraud & mayhem — if he doesn’t win.”

That was before President Donald Trump applauded a group of supporters who attacked one of Joe Biden’s campaign buses; before it was reported that Trump plans to claim victory well before the votes are counted; before Trump’s staffers went on the Sunday shows and talked about their plans to stop states from counting legitimate ballots after Election Day; before the president talked about unleashing a blizzard of lawsuits as soon as the polls close; before he started fantasizing in public about assaulting Biden; and before Trump supporters shut down highways as part of ... a protest? A threat? It wasn’t quite clear.

In other words: Before Sunday. Of course, Trump has been stirring up chaos around the election for months. It’s possible that this is all part of a systematic plan to disenfranchise Biden voters. More likely it’s just the way this president operates, without any particular goal in mind. Claiming that he’s being cheated is second nature to Trump, the way most presidents automatically pledge loyalty to the entire nation and its laws and democratic customs.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Trump’s bluster is generally worse than his follow-up, and that the biggest danger in what he says is often the reaction (or overreaction) that it causes. So everyone should listen to Richard H. Pildes and Rick Hasen, who remind us “not to undermine our elections by giving excessive play to typical, Election Day problems or hastily spreading viral posts before the facts are verified.” While it’s possible that there will be serious disruptions this year, things could also go as smoothly as ever — which means that there will be plenty of minor glitches. As Pildes and Hasen point out, it’s critical that the news media separate the important from the trivial, and that everyone avoid spreading stories over social media without being sure that they’re true.

But we’ve already reached the point where it’s hard to treat this Election Day as the celebration of democracy it normally is. Instead, folks like me need to remind everyone that they shouldn’t panic about rumors. That it’s absolutely normal for the count to take days, and that no one has won any state until all the votes are counted. That voter fraud remains extremely rare. That, fair or not, it’s the electoral vote, and not the raw total vote, that determines the outcome in presidential elections. That accuracy, not speed, is the most important goal of tabulating the vote. That every legitimate vote needs to be counted.

And so all sensible American citizens are reduced to reciting the election administrator’s prayer — please let the winner win in a landslide — instead of rejoicing in the renewal of the republic. And yes, the fault lies mainly with Donald Trump.
(This is the column in its entirety.) 

270 is the magic number right now, the number of electoral votes needed to be elected president. As I've been thinking about that, and our weird "the popular vote doesn't pick the winner" system, I found myself wondering how many electoral votes recent presidents have gotten. Out of curiosity, and to distract myself, I did a little googling. 

I looked at the last 15 elections, from Kennedy's win in 1960 to Donald's win four years ago. The results range from George W. Bush winning by 1 in 2000 (seriously, he got 271 votes) to Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection in 1984 with 525 electoral votes.  

Here's the full list, from lowest to highest:

271 Bush (43), 2000

286 Bush (43), 2004

297 Carter, 1976

301 Nixon, 1968

303 Kennedy, 1960

304 Trump, 2016

332 Obama, 2012

365 Obama, 2008

370 Clinton, 1992

379 Clinton, 1996

426 Bush (41), 1988

486 Johnson, 1964

489 Reagan, 1980

520 Nixon, 1972

525 Reagan, 1984 

Why start with 1960? The number of total Electoral College votes was increased from 531 to 538 for the 1960 election after Alaska and Hawaii became states in the late 1950s. It's been 538 ever since. 

To do a little presidential sorting, four of these presidents served two complete terms: Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama.  

Two served one full and one partial term: Lyndon Johnson, who served the final 14 months of Kennedy's term then was elected to a full term in 1964, and Richard Nixon, who was elected twice but resigned due to the Watergate scandal halfway through his second term. 

Two presidents served one full term then lost their reelection bids, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. 

Finally, two served less than one term: Kennedy because he was assassinated and Gerald Ford, who served out the second half of Nixon's second term then lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. 

And consider this interesting historic tidbit: In six of the seven previous elections (1992 through 2016,) the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote. George W. Bush, in 2004, was the only Republican in that period to win both the Electoral College and the popular vote.  

Which of these categories will Donald end up in? My fervent prayer is that he'll be a one-term president, having gone down in a landslide ignominious defeat. Another option, that's been floating around since the beginning of his presidency, is that Donald might not serve a full term, for one reason or another. The Mueller Report. The impeachment. Donald's poor health. The various crimes he's committed throughout his life and his presidency. Or maybe, Donald would just get tired of it all, pack up his toys and go home.  

In the last few months, as polls appear to predict a Trump loss, I've seen speculation that if he loses, Donald would resign before Inauguration Day, with the sole purpose of putting Mike Pence in position to issue a presidential pardon. And every time, I want to respond that I don't think a Pence pardon is a given, in fact, I think it's unlikely. I first wrote abut this about halfway through Donald's term, when many of us were hoping the Mueller Report would be strong enough to force Donald out of office. I pondered what Mike Pence might do if he were elevated to the presidency: 

I know I've wandered into the weeds a bit in this post, but there's one more thing on my mind as I ponder Mike Pence's future. A month after Gerald Ford became president he issued an unconditional pardon of Richard Nixon. He did it partly out of compassion for Nixon and his family, partly because he believed that having to resign the presidency counted as a serious punishment, meaning that Nixon didn't "get off scot-free," and partly so he (Ford) and the country could move on from Watergate.

Would Pence follow Ford's lead and pardon Donald, if he was in a position to do so? Ford's pardon of Nixon was volcanically unpopular and the conventional wisdom is that it played a significant part in Ford's loss to Jimmy Carter in 1976. I think it's accurate to say that Ford didn't anticipate how unpopular the Nixon pardon would be. (In his memoir, Ford wrote that he was surprised at how little compassion American voters felt for Richard Nixon after he resigned. I wonder how much compassion Americans would feel for Donald Trump.) President Ford had no historic precedent to look to for guidance but Pence would have one. Based on Ford's experience, my best guess right now is that even if Pence wanted to pardon Donald, he wouldn't do it before the 2020 election. Too risky.

In our "what if" scenario, Donald's best shot at a pardon would probably be a Pence loss in 2020. Soon-to-be former President Pence could issue the pardon on Inauguration Day, 2021, right before he walks out the door of the White House for the last time, which is when outgoing presidents traditionally issue pardons that are expected to be controversial or unpopular. Would he? Pence, who would be 61 at the time, presumably would be looking forward to enjoying the cushy life of a former president. (He could also, of course, be thinking about running again in 2024.) Would he be willing to risk his popularity, and possibly some of his future income from paid speeches and a memoir, by taking the heat for letting Donald off the hook? There's no way to know right now but I'd say it's not a given.
(Read the entire post here.)

Now writing at Politico, Garrett M. Graff ponders a Trump pardon, from himself to himself, or by resigning with the expectation of a pardon from President Pence: 

The biggest open question would be if Trump could engineer a way to ensure that he himself isn’t charged: The Mueller Report accepted that a president has federal legal immunity while in office, but currently there’s nothing to stop a federal prosecutor from picking up post-January 20 where Mueller left off. Trump has previously asserted he has the “absolute right to PARDON myself,” but legal experts doubt whether a president could successfully “self-pardon,” and the legal battle over such an attempt would unfold only after criminal charges were brought against the former president and he sought to offer as a defense the fact that he’d pardoned himself.

The cleanest — and legally bulletproof — way for Trump to escape any further federal investigation post-presidency would be for him to resign early, even just minutes before noon on January 20, and have a newly sworn-in President Mike Pence grant him a full and complete pardon. However, such a move would seem to be un-Trump — he seems unlikely to be willing to leave the presidency a minute early — and would be incredibly dicey politically for Pence, who clearly has own presidential ambitions for 2024.

Politically dicey indeed. Consider: 

"Mike Pence was elevated to a historically short lame duck presidency in exchange for granting a presidential pardon to his criminal predecessor."

That would be the first line of Pence's obituary, as the saying goes, not to mention the tagline of every political ad the Democrats run against him, from the day of the pardon to the end of time. Mike Pence might want to pardon Donald or feel he owes it to him, but in the end I believe, if nothing else, it would be a very hard decision. 

The New York Times has posted a new story titled "As Election Day Arrives, Trump Shifts Between Combativeness and Grievance: 

President Trump arrives at Election Day on Tuesday toggling between confidence and exasperation, bravado and grievance, and marinating in frustration that he is trailing Joseph R. Biden Jr., whom he considers an unworthy opponent.

“Man, it’s going to be embarrassing if I lose to this guy,” Mr. Trump has told advisers, a lament he has aired publicly as well. But in the off-camera version, Mr. Trump frequently exclaims, “This guy!” in reference to Mr. Biden, with a salty adjective separating the words.

Trailing in most polls, Mr. Trump has careened through a marathon series of rallies in the last week, trying to tear down Mr. Biden and energize his supporters, but also fixated on crowd size and targeting perceived enemies like the news media and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the federal government’s infectious disease expert whom he suggested on Sunday he might try to dismiss after the election.

At every turn, the president has railed that the voting system is rigged against him and has threatened to sue when the election is over, in an obvious bid to undermine an electoral process strained by the coronavirus pandemic. It is not clear, however, precisely what legal instruments Mr. Trump believes he has at his disposal.

The president, his associates say, has drawn encouragement from his larger audiences and from a stream of relatively upbeat polling information that advisers have curated for him, typically filtering out the bleakest numbers.

On a trip to Florida last week, several aides told the president that winning the Electoral College was a certainty, a prognosis not supported by Republican or Democratic polling, according to people familiar with the conversation. And Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, has responded with chipper enthusiasm when Mr. Trump has raised the idea of making a late bid for solidly Democratic states like New Mexico, an option other aides have told the president is flatly unrealistic.

His mad dash to the finish is a distillation of his four tumultuous years in office, a mix of resentment, combativeness and a penchant for viewing events through a prism all his own — and perhaps the hope that everything will work out for him in the end, the way it did four years ago when he surprised himself, his advisers and the world by winning the White House.

But by enclosing himself in the thin bubble of his own worldview, Mr. Trump may have further severed himself from the political realities of a country in crisis. And that, in turn, has helped enable Mr. Trump to wage a campaign offering no central message, no clear agenda for a second term and no answer to the woes of the pandemic.

Most people in the president’s inner circle share his optimism about the outcome of the race, even as they fight exhaustion and the president’s whipsawing moods, interviews with more than a dozen aides and allies showed. But some advisers acknowledge that it would require several factors to fall into place. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.

Republican lawmakers have offered less rosy assessments of his prospects, and in private some Trump advisers do not argue the point. One high-ranking Republican member of Congress vented to Mr. Meadows last month that if Mr. Trump “is trying to lose the election I can’t think of anything I’d tell him to do differently,” the lawmaker recalled, noting that the aide only nodded his head in acknowledgment. “They just think they can’t do anything about it.”

Beyond the capital, though, some Republicans insist that Mr. Trump can again defy the odds, and that a devoted base will fuel a traditional G.O.P. surge in Election Day voters.

Joe Gruters, the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida who appeared with Mr. Trump in Tampa last week, described the president as “a lock” in the state.

“You can take it to the bank and cash the check,” Mr. Gruters said, adding of the Democrats: “We’re crushing them on the ground. That’s what’s going to make the difference.”

Seldom far from Mr. Trump’s thoughts, however, is the possibility of defeat — and the potential consequences of being ejected from the White House.

In unguarded moments, Mr. Trump has for weeks told advisers that he expects to face intensifying scrutiny from prosecutors if he loses. He is concerned not only about existing investigations in New York, but the potential for new federal probes as well, according to people who have spoken with him.

While Mr. Trump has not aired those worries in the open, he has railed against the democratic process, raising baseless doubts about the integrity of the vote and suggesting ways of undermining an election that appeared to be going against him, including interference by the Supreme Court.

He has also mused about prematurely declaring victory Tuesday night, but if there’s any organized plan to do so his top lieutenants are not conveying it to their allies. One congressional strategist said that he spoke to Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, on Sunday and that Mr. Kushner not only didn’t ask for buy-in from Capitol Hill Republicans for such a plan but also didn’t mention the prospect at all.

Mr. Trump’s advisers do continue to believe he has a realistic chance of besting Mr. Biden, but they concede it would take a last-minute breakthrough in one of the Great Lakes states where he is currently trailing, as well as a hold-the-line performance across the South and Southwest. Some Republicans, however, are already bracing for losses or close calls in a series of Sun Belt states — and expressing alarm that Mr. Trump may have turned some of them prematurely blue in the same fashion that Barack Obama’s 2008 landslide made Virginia and Colorado Democratic bulwarks.

“Arizona and Georgia are a big deal,” said Nick Everhart, a Republican strategist. “That’s a shift people thought would come but once they’re gone they’re hard to reel back.”

Even Mr. Trump’s advisers allow that if he wins in the Electoral College, it is likely he will lose the popular vote, potentially by an even wider margin than he did in 2016.

The president himself has done little to strengthen his chances in the final days of the race. On Friday, Mr. Trump used a rally in Michigan to float a baseless theory that doctors are classifying patients’ deaths as related to the coronavirus in order to make more money, drawing fierce condemnation from medical groups, as well as Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama.

And on Saturday, in Pennsylvania at the site where George Washington mapped out his Delaware crossing during the revolution, aides wrote out a sober speech for the president to deliver. Midway through, he seemed to get bored and began to riff about the size of Mr. Biden’s sunglasses.

He has frequently used his speeches to deliver long diatribes against Mr. Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, even though some Trump advisers believe the whole subject is a sideshow in the midst of a public-health disaster. But Trump associates say he simply enjoys attacking the Biden family.

Senator Kevin Cramer, Republican from North Dakota, said that he believed Mr. Trump did not let the possibility of losing interfere with his approach.

“He certainly isn’t going to buy into anybody’s argument that’s all over or that he’s lost,” Mr. Cramer said.

What confounds some Republicans is how little Mr. Trump is discussing last month’s confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court; some G.O.P. senators have made that achievement a centerpiece of their campaigns.

Campaigning in Kentucky this weekend in pursuit of his seventh term, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, repeatedly trumpeted Justice Barrett and the other two Trump-nominated judges on the high court while not mentioning Mr. Biden’s name once.

Though Mr. Trump has reconstituted parts of his 2016 inner circle in the waning days of the race, the operation lacks a figure who is both willing and able to force the president to stick to a script. Four years ago, Mr. Trump viewed the campaign’s top official, Stephen K. Bannon, as something of a peer— one who was able to focus the candidate. These days, Mr. Trump often rages to associates and aides that he believes they are failing him.

There was a fleeting effort to bring in a new voice as recently as three weeks before the election: Some Trump advisers floated the idea of recruiting Karl Rove, the former George W. Bush adviser, who has been involved in a super PAC supporting Mr. Trump, or someone like him.

But by the time that idea was discussed the election was already less than a month away. And advisers have been consumed by a significant cash crunch, one exacerbated by tentative plans for virtual fund-raisers that never materialized in part because of Mr. Trump’s own lack of interest in such events.

Some Republicans appear to be looking past the end of the Trump era, whether that comes on Tuesday night or in another few years.

Several ambitious young Republicans have recently made visits to the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Ms. Noem also quietly visited Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, which may become another stop on the G.O.P. primary circuit should Mr. Trump lose. Another, Senator Rick Scott of Florida, is maneuvering to take over the National Republican Senatorial Committee, an effort seen by other Republicans as a step toward running for president.

There is even quiet lobbying underway for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, a body helmed for four years by Ronna McDaniel, who is well-liked within the committee but has never become one of the people closest to the president.

Several Trump loyalists are seen as potential successors in that job, including Mr. Bossie, who is an R.N.C. member from Maryland, as well as the Ohio Republican Party chairwoman, Jane Timken, whom the president effectively installed in her post. Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and his girlfriend, the conservative pundit Kimberly Guilfoyle, have both been discussed as possible chair, though their aides said they are not interested in the job.

Mr. Gruters said he was not aware of any efforts by the president’s son to pursue the R.N.C. job, and praised Ms. McDaniel. But Mr. Gruters said a Trump scion could ascend to the job if she were to step down.

“Ronna has really done well and she certainly deserves the nod if she decides to continue on,” Mr. Gruters said. “Don Jr. obviously would be credible for anything he wanted to go after. He has a solid command of the base. He has the ability to raise a lot of money and would be another superstar for the party.”
(This is the article in its entirety.)

Update on Monday, November 9: The election was finally called Saturday morning and, Praise God, Donald will be a one-term president. Now, in an article at the Washington Post titled "Trump can still make it very hard for the FBI to investigate him next year," Asha Rangappa mentions the possibility of a Trump resignation followed by a pardon from President Pence, but unlike Graff, above, she neglects to consider any political consequences for Pence:  

The strongest, and broadest, immunity from federal prosecution for Trump would come from a presidential pardon. President Gerald Ford offered Richard Nixon a blanket pardon for any crimes committed while in office, and President George H.W. Bush — with help from Barr, then also the attorney general — pardoned six people involved in the Iran-contra affair in 1992, stopping two ongoing prosecutions dating back to the Reagan administration dead in their tracks. However, since President-elect Biden has categorically stated that he will not pardon Trump, Trump would have to engineer that during the transition.

He has two options. First, he could try to pardon himself. This is a risky move, as whether a self-pardon would be constitutionally valid is an unsettled legal question because no previous president has tried it. Most legal scholars agree that it’s not permissible, though, and if a Trump pardon of himself were later challenged and invalidated, he would be back to square one. Alternatively, Trump could resign at some point before his term ends at noon on Jan. 20, 2021, leaving Vice President Pence to assume the presidency, however briefly — giving him the plenary power to pardon Trump. Thanks to the precedent that Ford set with Nixon, such a pardon, which Pence could also extend to members of Trump’s family, would probably be constitutionally secure if it covered uncharged crimes committed while Trump was in office.
(Read the entire column here.)

Update #2: It's Tuesday, November 24 and I've mostly been away from the blog since the election. I just read this at CNN.com, and it goes further in discussing political consequences for Mike Pence if he pardoned Donald:

[Trump] could, like Nixon, resign and hand power in his final days to Vice President Mike Pence, who could pardon him.

He could even temporarily hand Pence power under the 25th Amendment and let Pence, as acting president, pardon him.

"The problem is that's fraught with peril politically for Mike Pence, because ultimately he would be stepping into a political timebomb," said Williams, who pointed out Pence very clearly may want to run for president on his own.

It could also open Pence up to allegations of bribery if he and Trump had a pardon agreement in place. Pence would be receiving something of value -- the presidency, even for a short time -- in exchange for an official act.
(Read the entire article here.) 

Monday, October 26, 2020

Enthusiasm

Do you remember Jason Miller? He's the deadbeat baby daddy in the "When AJ met Jason" story I've been writing about for the last three years. (You can read those posts here.) Jason is once again working for Donald's reelection campaign, and in fact, he's one of their top spokesmen. Today he said this on MSNBC, about Trump voter enthusiasm: "The Trump supporters? It doesn't matter if it's snowing, if it's raining, they're going to be there. There's a big question on that on the Biden end." 

Talking about Republican voter enthusiasm gives me an excuse to resurrect Peggy Noonan's unintentionally hilarious (and now infamous) paean to the "coming Romney moment" during the 2012 election, featuring lawn signs and good vibrations. Peggy's column, titled "Monday Morning," was published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, November 5, 2012, the day before that election. To pass the time as we wait for this year's election, I'm copying it here in its entirety: 

We begin with the three words everyone writing about the election must say: Nobody knows anything. Everyone's guessing. I spent Sunday morning in Washington with journalists and political hands, one of whom said she feels it's Obama, the rest of whom said they don't know. I think it's Romney. I think he's stealing in "like a thief with good tools," in Walker Percy's old words. While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney's slipping into the presidency. He's quietly rising, and he's been rising for a while. 

Obama and the storm, it was like a wave that lifted him and then moved on, leaving him where he'd been. Parts of Jersey and New York are a cold Katrina. The exact dimensions of the disaster will become clearer when the election is over. One word: infrastructure. Officials knew the storm was coming and everyone knew it would be bad, but the people of the tristate area were not aware, until now, just how vulnerable to deep damage their physical system was. The people in charge of that system are the politicians. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to have the Marathon, to show New York's spirit. In Staten Island last week they were bitterly calling it "the race through the ruins." There is a disconnect. 

But to the election. Who knows what to make of the weighting of the polls and the assumptions as to who will vote? Who knows the depth and breadth of each party's turnout efforts? Among the wisest words spoken this cycle were by John Dickerson of CBS News and Slate, who said, in a conversation the night before the last presidential debate, that he thought maybe the American people were quietly cooking something up, something we don't know about.   

I think they are and I think it's this: a Romney win. 

Romney's crowds are building--28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday. It isn't only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he's caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp--the one about what's going on at the rallies is moving. 

All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: "I joined because I was anti Obama--I'm a patriot, I'll join up. But now I am pro-Romney." Why? "I've spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He's a genuinely good man." Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant "Three more days" and "Two more days"--it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney. 

Something old is roaring back. One of the Romney campaign's surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd. "I worked the rope line, people wouldn't let go of my hand." It startled him. A former political figure who's been in Ohio told me this morning something is moving with evangelicals, other church-going Protestants and religious Catholics. He said what's happening with them is quiet, unreported and spreading: They really want Romney now, they'll go out and vote, the election has taken on a new importance to them. 

There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there's the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington D.C., I hear the same.   

Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we're not really noticing because we're too busy looking at data on paper instead of what's in front of us? Maybe that's the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us. 

And there is Obama, out there seeming tired and wan, showing up through sheer self discipline. A few weeks ago I saw the president and the governor at the Al Smith dinner, and both were beautiful specimens in their white ties and tails, and both worked the dais. But sitting there listening to the jokes and speeches, the archbishop of New York sitting between them, Obama looked like a young challenger--flinty, not so comfortable. He was distracted, and his smiles seemed forced. He looked like a man who'd just seen some bad internal polling. Romney? Expansive, hilarious, self-spoofing, with a few jokes of finely calibrated meanness that were just perfect for the crowd. He looked like a president. He looked like someone who'd just seen good internals. 

Of all people, Obama would know if he is in trouble. When it comes to national presidential races, he is a finely tuned political instrument: He read the field perfectly in 2008. He would know if he's losing now, and it would explain his joylessness on the stump. He is out there doing what he has to to fight the fight. But he's still trying to fire up the base when he ought to be wooing the center and speaking their calm centrist talk. His crowds haven't been big. His people have struggled to fill various venues. This must hurt the president after the tremendous, stupendous crowds of '08. "Voting's the best revenge"--revenge against who, and for what? This is not a man who feels himself on the verge of a grand victory. His campaign doesn't seem president-sized. It is small and sad and lost, driven by formidable will and zero joy. 

I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what's coming, and it's part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled. 

Romney ends most rallies with his story of the Colorado scout troop that in 1986 had an American flag put in the space shuttle Challenger, saw the Challenger blow up as they watched on TV, and then found, through the persistence of their scoutmaster, that the flag had survived the explosion. It was returned to them by NASA officials. When Romney, afterward, was shown the flag, he touched it and an electric jolt went up his arm. It's a nice story. He doesn't make its meaning fully clear. But maybe he means it as a metaphor for America: It can go through a terrible time, a catastrophe, as it has economically the past five years, and still emerge whole, intact, enduring.  

Maybe that's what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.    

Peggy was wrong, of course. A few days after the 2012 election, which Obama won and Romney lost, Peggy had this to say: 

President Obama did not lose, he won. It was not all that close. There was enthusiasm on his side. Mitt Romney's assumed base did not fully emerge, or rather emerged as smaller than it used to be. He appears to have received fewer votes than John McCain. The last rallies of his campaign neither signaled nor reflected a Republican resurgence. Mr Romney's air of peaceful dynamism was the product of a false optimism that, in the closing days, buoyed some conservatives and swept some Republicans. While GOP voters were proud to assert their support with lawn signs, Democratic professionals were quietly organizing, data mining and turning out the vote. Their effort was a bit of a masterpiece; it will likely change national politics forever. Mr. Obama was perhaps not joyless but dogged, determined, and tired.

For what it's worth, Peggy wasn't the only Republican seeing voter enthusiasm and translating it to a big Romney win. The candidate did too, and so did his campaign. According to the after-the-campaign book Double Down, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, by the week-end before the election, Romney and his staff were certain he would win:  

[His internal pollsters] had him running ahead in Florida, Colorado, and other battlegrounds; in Ohio, he was leading among independent voters, a reliable barometer of impending victory. Then there was the matter of Republican intensity, which Romney was experiencing firsthand--the size of the crowds, the rabid enthusiasm, the way Believe in America voters, for the first time, were really believing in him. All of it had Romney's gut screaming that he was going to win. 

Is there enough voter enthusiasm for Donald to carry him over the finish line first on election night? Current polls appear to say no, but after the debacle of 2016, I'm petrified to take anything for granted, so I'll simply say I hope not. I can't even begin to think how I'll feel if Donald is reelected. Seriously. It will be unbearable. 

And one more thing: Peggy Noonan has a website (peggynoonan.com, see it here,) and it includes an archive featuring over 1,000 of her Wall Street Journal columns going back to 1999. There are several columns written in 2012, but not "Monday Morning." Is it possible that, upon reflection, Peggy doesn't love her ode to lawn signs and is trying to keep it hidden? Maybe. I just happen to have printed it out back in 2012. Sorry, Peggy.                   

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Follow The Money

From AP News:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s sprawling political operation has raised well over $1 billion since he took the White House in 2017 — and set a lot of it on fire.

Trump bought a $10 million Super Bowl ad when he didn’t yet have a challenger. He tapped his political organization to cover exorbitant legal fees related to his impeachment. Aides made flashy displays of their newfound wealth — including a fleet of luxury vehicles purchased by Brad Parscale, his former campaign manager.

Meanwhile, a web of limited liability companies hid more than $310 million in spending from disclosure, records show.

Now, just two weeks out from the election, some campaign aides privately acknowledge they are facing difficult spending decisions at a time when Democratic nominee Joe Biden has flooded the airwaves with advertising. That has put Trump in the position of needing to do more of his signature rallies as a substitute during the coronavirus pandemic while relying on an unproven theory that he can turn out supporters who are infrequent voters at historic levels.

“They spent their money on unnecessary overhead, lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous activity by the campaign staff and vanity ads,” said Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican consultant who advised John McCain and Jeb Bush and is an outspoken Trump critic. “You could literally have 10 monkeys with flamethrowers go after the money, and they wouldn’t have burned through it as stupidly.”

For Trump, it’s a familiar, if not welcome, position. In 2016, he was vastly outraised by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton but still pulled off a come-from-behind win. This time around, though, he was betting on a massive cash advantage to negatively define Biden and to defend his own record.

Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien insisted money was no issue. “We have more than sufficient air cover, almost three times as much as 2016,” he told reporters Monday.

Biden, Stepien added, was “putting it all on TV,” as he eschewed most door-knocking because of the pandemic, while Trump has roughly 2,000 field staffers across the country knocking on doors and making calls for his campaign.

“Where we have states that are sort of tipping, could go either way,” Trump told campaign staffers Monday, “I have an ability to go to those states and rally. Biden has no ability. I go to a rally, we have 25,000 people. He goes to a rally, and he has four people.”

The campaign and the Republican National Committee will offer a glimpse of their financial situation Tuesday when they file mandatory monthly campaign finance reports.

Advertising spending figures, however, offer a bleak picture.

While a half-dozen pro-Trump outside groups are coming to the president’s aid, Biden and his Democratic allies are on pace to dump $142 million into ads in the closing days of the campaign, outspending Republicans by more than 2-to-1, according to data from the ad tracking firm CMAG/Kantar.

On Monday, the firm Medium Buying reported Trump was canceling ad in Wisconsin; Minnesota, which Trump had hoped to flip; and Ohio, which went for Trump in 2016 but now appears to be a tight contest.

It’s a reversal from May, when Biden’s campaign was strapped for cash and Parscale ominously compared the Trump campaign to a “Death Star” that was about to “start pressing FIRE for the first time.”

The ad campaign they unrolled over the next three months cost over $176 million but did little to dent Biden’s lead in public opinion polling.

Trump is now in a position that’s virtually unthinkable for an incumbent president, said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks advertising spending.

“Advertising obviously isn’t everything. But we do think ads matter for a couple percentage points in a presidential race. And it’s just not a good sign for the Trump campaign,” Ridout said.

A review of expenditures by Trump’s campaign, as well as the Republican National Committee, lays bare some of the profligate spending.

Since 2017, more than $39 million has been paid to firms controlled by Parscale, who was ousted as campaign manager over the summer. An additional $273.2 million was paid to American Made Media Consultants, a Delaware limited liability company, whose owners are not publicly disclosed.

Campaigns typically reveal in mandatory disclosures who their primary vendors are. But by routing money to Parscale’s firms, as well as American Made Media Consultants, Trump satisfied the basic disclosure requirements without detailing the ultimate recipients.

Other questionable expenditures by Trump and the RNC that are included in campaign finance disclosures:

— Nearly $100,000 spent on copies of Donald Trump Jr.’s book “Triggered,” which helped propel it to the top of the New York Times bestsellers list.

— Over $7.4 million spent at Trump-branded properties since 2017.

— At least $35.2 million spent on Trump merchandise.

— $38.7 million in legal and “compliance” fees. In addition to tapping the RNC and his campaign to pay legal costs during his impeachment proceedings, Trump has also relied on his political operation to cover legal costs for some aides.

— At least $14.1 million spent on the Republican National Convention. The event was supposed to have been held in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Trump relocated it to Jacksonville, Florida, after a dispute with North Carolina’s Democratic governor over coronavirus safety measures. The Florida event was ultimately cancelled, as well, with a mostly online convention taking its place.

— $912,000 spent on ads that ran on the personal Facebook pages of Parscale and Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson.

— A $250,000 ad run during Game 7 of the 2019 World Series, which came after Trump was booed by spectators when he attended Game 5.

— At least $218,000 for Trump surrogates to travel aboard private jets provided by campaign donors.

— $1.6 million on TV ads in the Washington, D.C., media market, an overwhelmingly Democratic area where Trump has little chance of winning but where he is a regular TV watcher.

There are signs Trump’s grassroots fundraising operation has slowed. Once a driving force, the campaign is now spending about 77 cents for every dollar it raises, typically through online ads asking supporters to chip in a few dollars.

Between July and September, it cost the campaign $181 million to raise $235 million through such small contributions. That’s a considerable break from earlier in the year, when it raked in hundreds of millions while spending far less.

Some of Trump’s wealthy supporters are also exploring their options.

Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, recently donated $75 million to Preserve America, a new pro-Trump super political action committee that is not controlled by Trump World political operatives.

One of the reasons the group was founded in August is because there is deep distrust among some GOP donors that the existing pro-Trump organizations would spend the money wisely, according to a Republican strategist with direct knowledge of the matter. The strategist spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive discussions with donors.

Dan Eberhart, who has given over $190,000 to Trump’s election efforts, said many Republican donors are now focused on keeping control of the Senate in GOP hands — not Trump’s chances of winning.

“The Senate majority is the most important objective right now,” he said. “It’s the bulwark against so much bad policy that the Democrats want to do if they sweep the elections.”
(This is the article in its entirety.)

Monday, October 19, 2020

Can Donald Win?

In a post titled "Could Trump Still Pull Off an Upset?" and subtitled "With two weeks left, the president's chances are dwindling. But don't count him out just yet," political scientist Jonathan Bernstein ponders Donald's chances with 15 days to go: 

Fifteen days to go.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has maintained his polling lead over President Donald Trump; the FiveThirtyEight polling average has Biden at 52.4 percent with Trump at 41.9 percent. That’s a whopping huge lead with only two weeks to go and more than 28 million votes already tabulated. Still, it’s not hard to see where Trump could make up enough ground to win, even though it’s by now an unlikely outcome.

So let’s go through one more time all the ways that Trump could do better than the current polls suggest — or worse. The numbers here aren’t meant to be taken too precisely; they’re just rough estimates to show the range of realistic expectations.

Biden’s recent gains fade (Trump potential gain: 0 to 4 percentage points). As recently as Sept. 29, Biden’s lead was only 7 percentage points. That was on the low end of where polling averages have been, but overall — until the news about Trump’s taxes, the first debate and Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis — the typical Biden lead had fluctuated between 7 and 9 percentage points, only occasionally going a bit lower or higher. It’s possible that as those events fade so will Biden’s surge.

Late events shift the contest (-5 to +5 percentage points). Nate Silver has a chart comparing polling leads 15 days out to the final numbers in the last 12 presidential elections, and the news isn’t good for Trump. In nine out of the 12 contests, the lead shifted by fewer than 2 percentage points. Still, the polls shifted significantly in 1992, with Bill Clinton losing half of a 14-point lead; Trump gained 3.1 points in 2016, and Bob Dole gained 2.1 points in 1996. Let’s say that the plausible maximum shift here is five points, in either direction, but it’s much more likely that any such shift will be small.

Polling error (-4 to +4 points). National polls may not get things exactly correct, but they’re usually pretty good, and large errors are rare. In 2016, Trump only exceeded the final national polls by 1 percentage point, although he did better in a handful of states. As with late events, this could go in either direction. I can imagine some reasons that polls could be underestimating Trump’s support, but I could do the same for Biden. I don’t see any reason to think one is likelier than the other.

Electoral College bias (2 to 4 points in Trump’s favor). It’s likely that Trump wins the Electoral College if the national vote is tied. The question is how big his advantage might be. Right now, it looks pretty large — the “tipping point” state, the one that would give Trump the election if each state shifts the same amount in his favor, is Pennsylvania, where the president is losing by only 6.7 percentage points. That may be an artifact of which outfits have conducted recent polls. Still, the forecast models from FiveThirtyEight and from the Economist project about a 3-point tilt.

If you add up the best-case scenario for Trump from each of those possibilities, you can see how he could win. But remember: There’s no particular reason to think that there will be any shift at all from late events, or that the shift would be toward Trump rather than away from him. Same for any potential polling error.

The best news for Trump in October: Biden has been unable, so far, to push any of the other states that Trump won in 2016 into the same range as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. What that means is that Biden probably has to win both of those (and Michigan, where he’s opened up a somewhat bigger lead). If Biden’s lead in Arizona or Florida or North Carolina were comparable to those two states, he’d be safer. As long as Biden’s lead is large it won’t matter, but if it gets under 5 percentage points, then Electoral College considerations start kicking in.

The best news for Biden in the last week: His post-debate surge doesn’t appear to be fading. If anything, his national lead seems to be a bit larger than it was a week ago. That strongly suggests that the top category above is going to zero out. Which is good news indeed for Biden, given that the next two categories, late events and polling error, are as likely to help him as hurt him.

Of course, we could toss all of that out and go back to basics: A president at 42.8% approval and 54.2% disapproval two weeks before the election, and who has been underwater virtually his entire presidency, is simply very unlikely to win re-election.
(This is the column in its entirety.)