We’ve now seen what appears to be the second example of the Department of Justice intervening to assist Trump associates facing sentencing. We appeared to see it with Mike Flynn, when prosecutors shifted gear and said they were okay with no jail time after Flynn attempted to tear up his guilty plea and publicly claim to be the target of a witch hunt. I don’t think we knew it directly in that case. It just seemed like the most logical conclusion.
Here though we appear to have DOJ leadership intervening out in the open to protect a friend of the President. And not just a friend of the President but a criminal who was convicted for crimes intended to keep the President out of legal trouble.
Not only has the DOJ created a special “process” by which Rudy Giuliani will pass his “dirt” aka manufactured evidence to the Justice Department, they’ve now assigned some of it the US Attorney in Pittsburgh. Josh Kovensky has an idea what it’s about.
Like many of you I’ve been keeping tabs on the news of the novel Coronavirus in China. I’ve been using the Times as my go to source. They have a good, regularly updated run-down that let’s you follow the key details in a quick read. But here’s a piece from three days ago that goes a bit deeper and looks at six factors that will determine the scope of the spread of the virus.
I’m used to these various Trump associates getting what seem like extremely light sentences for various sorts of perjury, obstruction and the like. (Of course, many of those pled out, which makes a huge difference.) But federal prosecutors have recommended seven to nine years in prison for Roger Stone. Stone was convicted on multiple counts of obstruction, false statements and witness tampering.
Two important new polls have come out this afternoon. They’re clarifying on a number of grounds. The first is that President Trump’s rise in the polls is at best overstated. Quinnipiac puts him at 43% approval, on the high side for that poll but the same as their previous three polls back into December. Monmouth has him at 44%. Their previous three polls had him at 43%. Just moments ago Yougov released a new batch of polls which put Trump at 41%, basically where he’s been since forever. (I put more stock in Quinnipiac and Monmouth but it’s another important data point.) Take this all together and they suggest Trump is in a relatively strong position based on where he’s been over the last three years. But there’s little evidence here of some game-changing move. Certainly nothing like the 49% Gallup found last week, which remains a distant outlier.
From TPM Reader EC …
JoinAn ex Bernie supporters perspective.
A little background:I lived in Vermont for over 25 years.
My wife is a Vermonter and my 2 kids where born there.
I love and miss Vermont (not the weather).I would imagine I have voted for Bernie more than almost anyone not living in Vermont including for Mayor, 8 Congressional races and once for Senate.
I made calls, knocked on doors and catered fundraisers, most memorably an event at Ben Cohen’s house for Bernie & Max Cleland. I think during the 2002 cycle.
Win or lose I’m very concerned about Bernie.
From TPM Reader JB …
JoinWith all due respect to Reader EW, all I can say is “Really?”
I don’t know what country he/she is in, but this well-described set of policy preferences put into perspective of other nations and their leaders is never going to come up in an American Presidential election. These kinds of conversations happen amongst those who are interested in politics, read a lot, and have enough gumption to go deep. That is not the American public.
Vermonter and TPM Reader EW begs to disagree
JoinI think the coverage of Bernie is not just unfair, but dead wrong. I don’t just mean Bret Stephens who is lying when he compares Bernie’s socialism to the Soviet Union. The model has always been, for Bernie, the Nordics and next door neighbor Canada and others. His proposals actually put him to the right of government policies in those countries and others including New Zealand, the Netherlands and others. He is not more left wing than the leaders of most European Social Democratic parties. Even parties to the right of Social Democrats support universal health care systems state controlled or managed.
TPM Reader EH is a long, long time reader and frequent emailer …
JoinAs a Warren supporter who has watched her make too many political mistakes, not turn into an effective Bernie blocker, and seen her organizational competence which should have been a key strength get trashed with the Nevada walkout I’m actively looking for the next thing.
Recognizing there’s no perfect candidate, everyone left in the primaries feels high risk but Bloomberg’s commercials are hitting some sweet notes. Is he the bigger, badder New Yorker we need? Policy history aside, if he and Trump are on a stage together who owns the room? Would it be the real business guy, the real rich guy?
Would love to hear some NY perspectives.
TPM Reader RS is an anti-Sanders voter …
JoinThanks as always for the series of reader reaction posts this evening – they, together with your “Is There a Path to Post-Primary Unity?” post from a few days ago have been helping me think through the situation.
To put my cards on the table, I’m definitely an anti-Sanders voter. I’ll absolutely vote for and support the Democratic nominee in the general, whoever that ends up being — although my vote is itself irrelevant here in NYC — but there’s almost no serious Democratic candidate this cycle who I’d less like to end up winning the nomination. (I’d rank Gabbard, Steyer, Yang, and Williamson below him, but I’m not sure any of those were actually “serious” even though they debate-qualified; I’m genuinely torn over Bloomberg for other reasons.)