Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

Despite that fact that Paul Manafort has pleaded guilty to charges brought against him by special counsel Robert Mueller and has begun cooperating with investigators, one judge overseeing the case thrown the spotlight back on President Donald Trump’s former campaign chair by questioning the plea deal.

Judge T.S. Ellis issued an order Thursday calling part of the agreement “highly unusual.” His objection is based on the 10 charges over which a jury deadlocked in his Virginia court while finding Manafort guilty on eight other charges. Manafort later pleaded guilty to charges brought against him — also by the special counsel — in a separate case in Washington, D.C.

But the special counsel hasn’t determined whether it will drop the 10 deadlocked charges against Manafort. Instead, as part of the cooperation deal reached with Manafort’s legal team, the special counsel said it would make a decision about the remaining charges depending on the outcome of Manafort’s cooperation.

“It is not surprising that vexes the judge,” explained lawyer Ken White on Twitter. “It’s not usual to keep live counts (with no guilty plea or conviction) open indefinitely.”

However, White noticed that there was one part of Ellis’ order that was also out of the ordinary.

“The less usual part of Ellis’ grumpiness is where he suggests they should sentence Manafort promptly based on his cooperation to date. That’s very non-standard. Long sentencing delays to accommodate cooperation are routine,” said White.

This is because prosecutors want to use the prospect of a reduced sentence as an incentive for cooperators to provide useful information for other cases.

“Now prosecutors can ask the judge to reduce a sentence further after sentencing to reward ongoing cooperation — that’s Rule 35, to which Judge Ellis alludes. But that’s atypical in my experience,” White continued. “Usually they just wait to sentence until cooperation is done.”

White also acknowledges that Ellis has a history, particularly in this case, of making a lot of noise about a particular issue before making reasonable concessions. So he may well be convinced to eventually adopt the prosecutors’ timeline — which, presumably, they’ve chosen to obtain the optimal amount of cooperation from Paul Manafort that they believe is possible.

Cody Fenwick is a reporter and editor. Follow him on Twitter @codytfenwick.

 

Many Democrats are getting nervous about the upcoming presidential election. Ominous, extensively reported articles by two of the best in the business—the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin and The Atlantic's Barton Gellman—outline Boss Trump's plot to keep control of the White House in 2021 no matter how the American people vote.
Trump is hardly making a secret of it. He's pointedly refused to commit to "a peaceful transfer of power."

"Well, we're going to have to see what happens," is how he answered the question. He added that after we "get rid of the ballots"—presumably mail-in ballots he's been whining about for weeks--"there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."

Of course, Trump himself has always voted by mail, but then brazen hypocrisy is his standard operating mode. If you haven't noticed, he also lies a lot. Without prevaricating, boasting, and bitching, he'd be mute. And even then, he'd still have Twitter. He recently tweeted that the winner "may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED" because mail-in ballots make it a "RIGGED ELECTION in waiting."
Gellman gets this part exactly right in The Atlantic: "Let us not hedge about one thing. Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward. If compelled in the end to vacate his office, Trump will insist from exile, as long as he draws breath, that the contest was rigged.
"Trump's invincible commitment to this stance will be the most important fact about the coming Interregnum. It will deform the proceedings from beginning to end. We have not experienced anything like it before."
No, we haven't. However, it's important to remember that Trump makes threats and promises almost daily that never happen. Remember that gigantic border wall Mexico was going to pay for? Trump has built exactly five miles of the fool thing, leaving roughly two thousand to go.
His brilliant cheaper, better health care plan? Non-existent.
On Labor Day, Boss Trump boasted of his unparalleled success in strong-arming Japan into building new auto-manufacturing plants. "They're being built in Ohio, they're being built in South Carolina, North Carolina, they're being built all over and expanded at a level that we've never seen before."
Not a word of that is true. Two new plants, one German, another Swedish have opened in South Carolina, but construction began before Trump took office. Auto industry investment during Barack Obama's second term far exceeded Trump's. His version is sheer make-believe.
But back to the GOP scheme to steal the election.
First, it's clear that even Trump understands that he has virtually no chance of winning the national popular vote. He's been polling in the low 40s, with no sign of change. To have any chance of prevailing in the Electoral College, he's got to do the electoral equivalent of drawing to an inside straight all over again—winning a half-dozen so-called battleground states where he defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 by the narrowest of margins.
At this writing, that looks highly unlikely. The latest polling in must-win Pennsylvania, for example, shows Trump trailing Joe Biden by nine points. That's a landslide. Trump's down ten in Wisconsin, eight in Michigan. And so on.
So spare me the screeching emails in ALL CAPS, OK? Polls were actually quite accurate in 2016. Trump narrowly defeated the odds. It can happen. But he's in far worse shape this time. Furthermore, early voting turnout is very high, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans two to one.
Hence, The Atlantic reports, "Trump's state and national legal teams are already laying the groundwork for post-election maneuvers that would circumvent the results of the vote count in battleground states."
The plan is clear. Because more Democrats than Republicans are choosing mail-in voting during the COVID pandemic, Trump hopes to prevent those ballots from being counted. Assuming he'll have a narrow "swing state" lead on election night, he'll declare victory and start filing lawsuits. "The red mirage," some Democrats call it.
"As a result," Toobin writes, "the aftermath of the 2020 election has the potential to make 2000 look like a mere skirmish." With Trump in the White House urging armed militias to take to the street.
Mail-in votes take a long time to count. Things could definitely get crazy.
True, but filing a lawsuit to halt a Florida recount was one thing. Filing suits against a half dozen states to prevent votes from being counted at all is quite another. Public reaction would be strong. Also, winning such lawsuits requires serious evidence of fraud. Trumpian bluster ain't evidence.
The Atlantic reports that GOP-controlled state legislatures are thinking about sending Trumpist delegations to the Electoral College regardless of the popular vote winner—theoretically constitutional but currently illegal.
Fat chance. If that's the best they've got, they've got nothing.
Anyway, here's the answer: Vote early, and in person*.

[Editor's note: In some states, receiving an absentee ballot means that a voter can no longer vote in person* or may have to surrender the absentee ballot, including the envelope in which it arrived, at their polling place. Please check with your local election authorities.]