Election Integrity and the Electoral College; One underappreciated benefit of voting by states.

Volokh Conspiracy  "With the Electoral College still in the news, I thought I'd note one small argument for keeping it that I haven't seen much elsewhere. (Though I'm quite sure it isn't original to me.)

"As Ross Douthat suggests, the stakes in the electoral college debate may be smaller than we think. Today's institution may not have the deliberative advantages the Founders hoped for, but it also may not produce quite as many democratic costs as critics fear. (Cf. Lyman Stone's argument that the U.S. electoral system actually has less structural bias than those of peer countries.)

"Ross's claim is that a state-by-state vote in the electoral college encourages broad electoral coalitions, as opposed to regional parties chasing 51% majorities. With the country so polarized, he writes, both parties are chasing 51% anyway—so maybe all the electoral college does is to delegitimize the occasional winner.

"My suspicion, though, is that it's precisely in these circumstances—with high degrees of polarization and partisan distrust—that the electoral college does the most for election integrity.

"In a nationwide popular vote, every false vote that's cast anywhere in the country adds to the vote total in exactly the same way. For the same reason, every true vote that's suppressed anywhere in the country will subtract equally from an opponent's numbers. (Thus the concerns about nationwide recounts: as Keith noted, "we might need to be prepared to deal with the new incentive to shade the vote count in every county in the Union.")

"A world of highly polarized states makes the problem even worse. In a deep-red or deep-blue state, where one party occupies the vast majority of state offices, there'd be means, motive, and opportunity for serious fraud. The whole nation would be at stake, and fewer people would be in positions of power to discover or punish any shenanigans. And if you think your political opponents might be rigging a national election somewhere halfway across the country, well, you're just a sucker if you don't beat them to it.

"By contrast, in a districted system like the electoral college, widespread election fraud in Alabama or Massachusetts would be entirely pointless. " . . .

The media profession takes a hit to its reputation

Ann Althouse: How any good news for Trump will be reported — the rule is quite clear.  "I'm seeing 2 big examples of how the media are reporting good news for Trump this weekend. It's really embarrassing for them because the 2 stories are very big and very good for Trump and, in both, the same move is made to turn it into something negative and ominous." . . .
From the NYT: "1. The Mueller investigation has concluded, and though we can't read it yet, we know that it means that there will be no charges against Trump or any of his people that have to do with colluding with Russians to affect the election. " . . .
. . . "It all but ensures that a legal threat will continue to loom over the Trump presidency."
"2. Under Trump, the Islamic State has been ousted entirely from the territory it had taken over. This is a distinct, satisfying military victory in what has been a long and difficult war. It is the second story on the NYT front page right now, where it looks like this: . . .
"Its Territory May Be Gone, but the U.S. Fight Against ISIS Is Far From Over"
. . . "So watch for it. The rule is: When something good for Trump happens, find the nearest bad thing and make that the focus of the news report." . . .

Lara Logan’s Response To Mueller Report Is An Indictment Of American Media
"Journalist Lara Logan said Saturday that the response to the Mueller report was striking because of what was not happening: there were no blaring headlines boldly proclaiming the vindication of President Donald Trump."
. . . “ 'As a journalist, I find it disappointing that people will create one impression with their reporting, correct it later and then claim that they have been honest and objective,” Logan concluded." . . .

Tony Branco

Forget "Forty-five", impeach Maxine waters!

Maxine Waters is a prime example of how power corrupts. The woman has been in office for nearly three decades and her reputation as a Congresswoman is abysmal. Waters’ situation is bigger than Democrats vs. Republicans. It speaks to a system which allows the elites to get away with scandals, corruption, and dishonesty. There must be serious changes put in place if we are to ever evolve as a nation.  Gabrielle Seunagal, 2017

Maxine Waters Named Most Corrupt Member of Congress 4 Times & Passed Just 3 Bills.  "Maxine Waters was elected to Congress in the year of 1990. During her time in Congress, her family has made over a million dollars in revenue from Waters’ government connections. Throughout Waters’ 27 years in Congress, she only managed to pass three bills: a Haiti relief bill, the renaming of a post office, and a modification of the national flood insurance program. Additionally, Waters failed to gain much popularity in Congress. Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington labeled her as the most corrupt member in Congress during the years of 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2011."

Indicted: Democrat Maxine Waters Indicted On 3 Counts Of Violating Federal Ethics Codes & Congressional Rules  . . . "The panel said Waters, who sits on the Financial Services Committee, broke a House rule requiring members to behave in a way that reflects “creditably” on the chamber. The committee said that by trying to assist OneUnited, she stood to benefit directly, because her husband owned a sizable amount of stock that would have been “worthless” if the bank failed." . . .

Fact check:  No. The California Democrat was investigated for ethics violations following a 2008 meeting, but she was found to have broken no rules. 

. . . "The investigation of potential ethical violations concluded that Waters did not violate any rules or laws, because she didn’t know that OneUnited would figure so prominently in the meeting that she arranged.

“Representative Waters reasonably believed she was arranging the Treasury meeting on behalf of a broad class of minority banks, and that in doing so she did not violate any House rule, law, regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct,” the final report said.

"The committee did, however, issue a letter of reproval to Waters’ chief of staff, Mikael Moore, for his role in facilitating help for OneUnited. Moore is also her grandson.

"When the recent story mentioning the investigation showed up on Facebook, users of the social media site flagged it as potentially false.

"It’s true that there was an investigation, but the story is misleading since it never discloses that the investigation concluded with a finding that Waters didn’t violate any rules." . . .

Judicial Watch: House Ethics Comm. Clears Another Corrupt Lawmaker

First JW discusses the above issue, then moves on to the following: 

In the 1980s Waters accused the CIA of selling crack cocaine to blacks in her south central Los Angeles district to raise millions of dollars to support clandestine operations in Latin America, including a guerrilla army. During the infamous 1992 Los Angeles riots she repeatedly excused the violent behavior that destroyed the areas she represents in the House. She dismissed the severe beating of a white truck driver by saying the anger in her district was righteous. She also excused looters who stole form stores by saying they were simply mothers capitalizing on an opportunity to take some milk, bread and shoes.

In the 1990s Waters convinced Cuba’s communist dictator to harbor cop-murdering Black Panther fugitive Joanne Chesimard, who is also known by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur. In 1979 Chesimard killed a New Jersey State trooper and a jury convicted her of murder and sentenced her to life in prison. In a daring breakout with the help of fellow cult members, Chesimard escaped from prison and fled to Cuba. U.S. lawmakers insisted she be extradited but Waters always stood by her side, even likening her to civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

More recently, Waters threatened to nationalize the oil industry and she was embroiled in a fundraising scandal for skirting federal election rules with a shady gimmick that allows unlimited donations from certain contributors. Instead of raising most of her campaign funds from individuals or political action committees, Waters sells her endorsement to other politicians and political causes for as much as $45,000 a pop.  

Maxine Waters Attended Nation Of Islam Convention Where Farrakhan Defended Suicide Bombers . . . "Farrakhan is a notorious anti-Semite who has called Jews “Satanic” and said that white people “deserve to die.” The Nation of Islam holds that white people are inherently inferior to black people and its leaders have criticized inter-racial marriage as unholy and wrong. (No report yet on Water's reaction to Farrakhan's insult of Jews and gays)  

"Waters’ office did not return repeated requests for comment. An interview request submitted to the Nation of Islam was not returned.

"Waters’ appearance at the Nation of Islam convention is just the latest tie to emerge between the hate group and Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)."

After Mueller’s Exoneration of Trump, Full Disclosure

Andrew C. McCarthy
The FISA applications, the testimony in secret hearings, the scope memorandum — all of it.

. . . "As we’ve noted before, unlike Mueller, who needs a crime to indict, Congress does not need a crime to impeach. The media-Democrat alliance does not need a crime to inflate Mueller’s not-quite-so stories into treason. To keep this carnival rolling on for another year and a half, they just need fodder for the narrative — which is so predictably morphing from the collusion narrative to the impeachment narrative to the campaign narrative.

"Since before Robert Mueller was appointed, I have been contending that there was no legal basis for the appointment of a special counsel because there was no evidence that the president had committed a crime. For nearly a year and a half, I’ve maintained that Mueller had nothing close to an actionable “collusion” case, that he had no prosecutable obstruction case, and that this exercise was an impeachment investigation geared more toward rendering Trump unelectable in 2020 than toward actually removing him from office." . . .

So, having considered that, Can Trump Win Again in 2020?   . . . "In 2016, Trump had no record to run on. That blank slate fueled claims that such a political novice could not possibly succeed. It also added an element of mystery and excitement, with the possibility that an outsider could come into town to clean up the mess.

"Trump now has a record, not just promises. Of course, his base supporters and furious opponents have widely different views of the Trump economy and foreign policy.

"Yet many independents will see successes since 2017, even if some are turned off by Trump’s tweets. Still, if things at home and abroad stay about the same or improve, without a war or recession, Trump will likely win enough swing states to repeat his 2016 Electoral College victory." . . .

Mere hours after delivery to AG Barr, MSNBC host charges Mueller Report cover-up

Thomas Lifson  "The Democrats just can’t help themselves; they are in thrall to a base that can’t let go of a discredited conspiracy theory.  Their media allies have made too much money pushing the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the election.  And candidates with nothing to offer but pandering are beating the dead horse of conspiracy. Now that President Trump has succeeded in doing what Barack Obama claimed required a “magic wand” – reviving manufacturing employment and raising wages for the lower end of the income distribution -- the entire party has nothing to offer but lower growth and less money in our paychecks.

So, a little thing like the inability of a team of passionate Trump haters armed with subpoena powers and unlimited funds to find any indictable offenses isn’t going to stand in the way of pushing for impeachment.

The charges of coverup began yesterday morning on Joy Reid’s MSNBC show. 

. . . 

"The Daily Caller recorded the madness:

MSNBC host Joy Reid said the Mueller investigation conclusion “feels like the seeds of a cover-up” during a Saturday panel discussion on “AM Joy.”

Reid was responding to a panelist who contended that no Trump administration officials have “conducted themselves honorably through this entire process” and that Attorney General William Barr would be no different. . . .

READ: Dems' Collective Letter To Barr Is A Sign Of What's To Come

Townhall

Six Democratic Congressmen who chair various committees on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr letting them know their expectations of the Muller report. 

The letter was signed by:

• Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY)
• Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
• Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA)

• Committee on Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters* (D-CA)

• Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA)
• Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY).

"The group released the following statement about the Mueller report (emphasis mine):

After nearly two years of investigation — accompanied by two years of unprecedented attacks on the integrity of the investigation by President Trump — the public and Congress are entitled to know what the Special Counsel has found. Reflecting the will of the American people, the House of Representatives voted 420-0 last week for the full release of the Special Counsel’s report to Congress and the American people. Earlier this week, President Trump himself endorsed making the report available to the public. . . .

. . . To be clear, if the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the President has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct, then the Justice Department has an obligation not to conceal such information. The President must be subject to accountability and if the Justice Department is unable to do so, then the need to provide Congress with the relevant information is paramount. Because the Justice Department maintains that a sitting president cannot be indicted, to then withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because a sitting President cannot be charged is to convert Justice Department policy into the means for a cover-up. Anything less than full transparency would raise serious questions about whether the Department of Justice policy is being used as a pretext for a cover-up of misconduct.

All emphases in the original except where noted. TD
*Emphasis mine, TD. Here is why: Maxine Waters Named Most Corrupt Member of Congress 4 Times & Passed Just 3 Bills.
Below:  "Blackish star Tracee Ellis Ross praised Waters in a gushing, emotional and completely ignorant speech: . . ."  (Below) Pardon the digression.

Like, like, like, you know, it’s true ’cause #AOC-ward told me so

Picture AOC in conference with Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. And Putin. Those people in the studio with her vote, you know.

Bookworm Room

"#AOC-ward (pronounced “awkward”), aka Donkey Chompers, aka Occasional-Cortex, is considered by many to be the voice of her generation. Some voice."