Michael Flynn-Victim or Villain?

The Michael Flynn case has been a lightning rod for controversy with both sides calling foul play.  The Republicans say that Flynn is a victim of a Deep State frame-up and an Obama campaign against his eflynnnemies. The Democrats say Flynn is a villain and that the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case is an instance of Trump using undo influence to release a crony who plead guilty.

The following lays out the key facts in the Michael Flynn case.


Timeline of Key Events

August, 2014

Flynn was the director of intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan.  He was the leader in charge of fighting Al Quaeda and the Taliban.  Flynn publicly strongly disagreed with the Obama Administration’s statements that Al Quaeda was defeated following the death of Osama bin Laden, and he was a harsh critic of the Iran deal.  Obama fired Flynn.  It is a matter of speculation as to how much the firing was related to political differences and how much was related to job performance.

February 2016

Flynn joins the Trump campaign.  He often speaks before Trump at his rallies.

Summer 2016

The FBI begins investigating Flynn, supposedly because of his Russian contacts.

November 2016

Trump wins and appoints Flynn as his National Security Advisor.

December 29, 2016

Obama announced that as retaliation for Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections he was expelling 35 suspected Russian intelligence operatives from the United States.  He was also imposing sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services.

Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls Flynn who is vacationing in the Caribbean to discuss this.   Flynn asks Kislyak that Russia not escalate the situation.  The transcript of this call was just released.  I will excerpt the key part of this conversation later.

December 31, 2016

Kislyak calls Flynn to tell him that Russia has decided not to escalate.

January 4, 2017

The FBI Washington Field Office informs the intelligence community that they are closing the investigation of Flynn because they could not find any evidence he did anything wrong.  FBI Assistant Director Peter Strzok responds telling them not to close it.

January 5, 2017

There is a meeting at the White House to discuss the Michael Flynn investigation.  President Obama, Vice President Biden, CIA Director Brennan, National Intelligence Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, Advisor Susan Rice, and Assistant Attorney General Yates are all present.  During this meeting they discuss using the Logan Act to go after Flynn.  The Logan Act, instituted in 1799,  states that a person cannot falsely claim to represent the United States government.    Flynn would not officially be in the government for three more weeks.  Nobody has ever been prosecuted under this act.  A recently released document by Yates states that he asked her to stay behind and that Obama himself personally briefed her on the Flynn investigation.  She had known nothing about it and was surprised at Obama’s involvement

January 23,24 2017

The FBI decides to spring a trap on Flynn.  A recently released handwritten note summarizing the meeting by FBI Agent stated Bill Prestap includes  “”What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

January 24, 2017

Deputy FBI Director McCabe calls Flynn and asks if some agents can talk with him.  McCabe tells Flynn it is “no big deal.”” The FBI interviews Flynn. They never tell him that he is under investigation.  Subsequently, the FBI says that Flynn lied to them when he said he didn’t discuss sanctions with Kislyak.

February 13, 2017

Flynn resigns as National Security Advisor after Pence stated that Flynn lied when he told him that he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

May 17, 2017

The Mueller investigation begins.  Flynn is one of the targets.

December 1, 2017

Legal fees have bankrupted Flynn.  He has had to sell his house.  The FBI has told him they will prosecute his son if he doesn’t plead guilty.  He finally pleads guilty to lying to the FBI.

April , May 2018

Testimony from the House Intelligence Committee was released saying that Comey testified that the FBI agents who interviewed Comey did not think that Flynn was lying.  In response, Comey states that he was misunderstood.

December, 2018

Flynn fires his old attorneys and hires Sidney Powell to represent him.  Powell states that Flynn’s previous law firm, which has former Attorney General Eric Holder as a partner, gave him inadequate representation.  She begins efforts to reverse the guilty plea stating that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.

May ,2020

Many documents pertaining to the Flynn case are finally provided to the defense team.  The justice department files a motion stating that the prosecution was improper and asking for the case to be dismissed.

June 23, 2020

The justice department turned over a handwritten note from Peter Strzok from what the department says is January 3 to January 5, 2017.  Strzok was reportedly not at the key January 5 meeting so it is unclear where he got his information.  As Strzok repeatedly showed through many texts that he is an anti-Trump zealot, one can presume his notes were not intended to help Trump.

These notes have three blockbuster pieces of information:

  • FBI director Jim Comey stated that Flynn’s phone call with Kislyak was “apparently legit.”
  • One note said “VP: Logan Act” implying that Biden was the one who raised the Logan Act as an issue.  Note that Biden previously said he knew nothing about the efforts to prosecute Flynn, so his being at the January meeting proves this was a definite lie.  His actively participating with ideas makes it even a bigger lie.
  • Another note said “P – Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it.”  Assuming that P is president, this means that Obama directed the FBI to go after Flynn.  It would be fairly easy for investigators to determine if Strzok used the “P” notation to refer to Obama in other notes. If so, Obama said this immediately after the FBI agents on the case decided to close the investigation on Flynn saying there was nothing there.


Transcript of December 29 Call

The transcript of the key December 29 call between Flynn and Kislyek has just been released.  Here is the key part of the conversation:

FLYNN: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I understand. Okay, um, okay. Listen, uh, a couple of things.

Number one, what I would ask you guys to do – and make sure you, make sure that you convey

this, okay? – do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay? Um –

KISLYAK: We have conveyed it. And –

FLYNN: Yeah.

KISLYAK: It’s, uh, ifs uh, very very specifically and transparently, openly.

FLYNN: So, you know, depending on, depending on what uh, actions they take over this current

issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they’re looking like they’re gonna, they’re gonna

dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that and I understand that~

that, you know, the information that they have and all that, but what I would ask Russia to do is

to not – is – is – if anything – because I know you have to have some sort of action – to, to only

make it reciprocal. Make it reciprocal. Don’t – don’t make it- don’t go any further than you

have to. Because I don’t want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a

tit for tat. You follow me, Ambassador?

KISLYAK: I understand what you’re saying~ but you know, you might appreciate the sentiments

that are raging now in Moscow.

FLYNN: I know, I – believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it. But I really don’t

want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know~ where we do this and then you do

something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth and everybody’s got

to be the tough guy here, you know?  We don’t need to, we don’t need that right now, we need to- we need cool heads to

prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we’re going to do because we have

absolutely a common uh. threat in the Middle East right now

KISLYAK: We agree.

FLYNN: We have to eliminate this common threat.

KISLYAK: We agree. One of the problems among the measures that have been announced today

is that now FSB and GRU are sanctions, are sanctioned, and I ask myself, uh~ does it mean that

the United States isn’t willing to work on terrorist threats?

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah.

KISLYAK: Because that’s the people who are exactly, uh, fighting the terrorists.

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah, yep.

KISLYAK: So that’s something that we have to deal with. But I’ve heard what you say, and I

certainly will try·-

FLYNN: Yeah.

KISLYAK: – to get the people in Moscow to understand it.

FLYNN: And please make sure that its uh – the idea is, be – if you~ if you have to do something,

do something on a reciprocal basis, meaning you know, on a sort of an even basis. Then that,

then that is a good message and we’ll understand that message. And, and then, we know that

we’re not going to escalate this thing, where we~ where because if we put out- if we send out 30

guys and you send out 60, you know, or you shut down every Embassy, r mean we have to get

this to a -let’s keep this at a level that uh is, is even-keeled, okay? ls even-keeled. And

then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where,

where we’re gonna go, uh~ regarding uh, regarding our relationship. And also, basically we have

to take these, these enemies on that we have. And we definitely have a common enemy. You

have a problem with it, we have a problem with it in this country, and we definitely have a

problem with it in the Middle East.

FLYNN: And we have to, we have to do something about it. So, um

KISLYAK: General, I completely agree with you.

FLYNN: Yeah, yeah. So anyway. Okay?

KISLYAK: Thank you.

The first key thing to note here is that there was nothing inherently improper about the underlying conversation.  Flynn was just asking the Russians not to escalate the situation.  Second, Flynn was talking about expulsions.  In the middle, Kislyak does mention sanctions, but Flynn responds with nothing more than “Yeah, yeah”.  He then goes on to talk more about expulsions, “if we send out 30 guys and you send out 60…”

Based on this actual transcript, is it unreasonable for Flynn to say to the FBI four weeks later that he didn’t recall discussing sanctions.  Is this clear grounds for criminal prosecution?

As a side note, the December 31 call which was also cited by the prosecution did not mention sanctions at all.

And now we know that Comey said the call “appears legit.”

These transcripts were not made available to Flynn’s defense.

The FBI 302 Report

After an interview, the FBI routinely files a “302” report where the agents write up the results of the interview.  Typically, this is completed right away, at most within a few days.

Here are some highly unusual things about the report on the interview with Flynn:

  • The final report was not submitted until three weeks after the interview.
  • The original version of the 302 report is “missing”.  Why would such a key document in such a high profile case be missing?
  • The subsequent reports went through many rounds of editing.
  • The first version that is not missing has no mention of sanctions in it.  There is no mention that Flynn was asked about sanctions.
  • How can Flynn lie about sanctions when according to the FBI document, he was never asked about sanctions?

The Unmasking Controversy

One controversy relating to the Flynn case was that Obama officials made numerous requests to unmask Flynn,  The law states that the United States does not need a warrant to wiretap foreigners.  If the wiretap picks up a US citizen, then that citizen’s identity is masked.  If there are security concerns, then there can be a request to unmask that person.  For example, if a terrorist plot was overheard, the US citizen could then be unmasked,  Properly used, unmasking is a normal activity.

The key word here is proper.  Typically unmasking is done by security people such as the FBI and CIA.  In Flynn’s case some of the unmasking requests came from political people such as UN Ambassador Samantha Power, Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, and even Joe Biden made requests to unmask Flynn. Why would they need to do that.

Perhaps the most interesting unmasking, is the unmasking that did not happen.  Flynn’s call was on December 29 and we know the call was discussed on January 5, but there were no unmasking requests for Flynn between those days.  How did they know about the conversation without the unmasking?  This is still an open question.

Obama’s Involvement

We now now definitively that Obama participated in the January 5, 1017 meeting where the FBI decided to pursue Trump.  Strzok’s notes indicate that Obama himself directed the FBI to go after Flynn.  Is there any doubt if Trump was found to send the FBI after a Democrat under these circumstances that Democrats, the media, and most likely Republicans would be calling for Trump’s impeachment.  Obviously Obama cannot be impeached now.  Should there be any consequences for this action?


Based on these facts, I cannot see how any reasonable person can conclude anything other than Michael Flynn was the innocent victim of a political persecution.  There is also strong evidence, which should prompt further investigation, showing that Obama directed this persecution and Biden participated in it.

All the President’s “Lies”

The Setup

Mr. X is a person I admire greatly; however, we have a major difference in politics.  Mr. X will frequently ask me at the end donald trump with long noseof our conversations if I still support Trump.  How can I support Trump when he is always lying?  My response is generally that Trump is a Big Fish liar who frequently exaggerates but that he does not tell lies of substance.  In our most recent conversation, I asked him if he could name a single substantive lie that Trump has made.  He could not think of one off his head, but he contacted me later that day to tell me that CNN was running a special that night called “All the President’s Lies”.  I agreed to watch the special and I said the following in an email:

This is my prediction and we will see if I am right.

I am predicting that every “lie” will fall in one of the following categories:

 The big fish lie.  Trump is prone to exaggeration.  He will say that this is the biggest crowd ever when it is a large crowd but not the biggest crowd ever.

  • Refusal to admit a mistake.  Trump never admits a mistake.  He will say what he believes to be the truth at the time but he learns that it isn’t.
  • Matters of opinion.  For example, Trump will say that the wall is well underway. Others call him a liar for that.  This, however, is an opinion statement.  People’s definitions of what is well underway and vary greatly. 
  • Trump is actually telling the truth.  There have been many instances where Trump has been called a liar when he was right.  For example, he was called a liar when he said the Obama administration was spying on his campaign.  We now know that they were (Carter Page monitoring).  One can debate the phrase spying, but they were definitely monitoring the campaign

I am also predicting that none of the lies will be substantive and on real issues such as Obama’s lie that “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

 I recorded the show.  As I watched it I would pause and write down the lies they talked about.  I did not have the time or energy to write down the lies they gave a soundbite for but did not talk about.

I classified each of these reported lies with a letter in parentheses that I will discuss later.

The “Lies”

Trump said hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama and wouldn’t back down.

The likely explanation is that Trump misread a confusing map.  This classifies as Trump refusing to admit a mistake.  He had nothing to gain by making this mistake. (r)

 Trump said the rain held off during his inauguration speech.

It rained lightly during his speech.  He had been expecting heavy rain.  This classifies as an exaggeration.  Think of a baseball game that is expected to be rained out.  Instead, the game is played through a drizzle.  Would anybody call the announcer a liar if he said the rain held off? (e)

Trump said his tax cut was the biggest ever and it wasn’t.

Per Pollitifact this was the fourth biggest tax cut in history in inflation-adjusted dollars.  I couldn’t find anything on non-inflation adjusted dollars so it might be based on that.  I don’t know.  The statement is either true on some scale or it is an exaggeration. (s/e)

Trump said climate change is a hoax.

This is a matter of opinion.  Some climate change claims are undoubtedly true and others are undoubtedly false.  Trump believes what he is saying.  He might be wrong, but it isn’t a lie. (o)

Trump said we have the cleanest air.

CNN says this isn’t true because we have more carbon dioxide, but Trump never said that was the basis for a statement.  I am presuming he saw something, somewhere, on some scale that said this.  This is either true on some scale or an exaggeration. (s/e)

 Trump lied saying the whistle-blower was inaccurate.

The whistle-blower was inaccurate. For example, the complaint accuses the president of requesting that Zelensky “locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.”  That was not in the transcript.  It is clearly false.  There are many other similar inaccuracies.  Trump spoke the truth here. (t)

Trump lied when he said he was perfect on phone call with the Ukrainian president Zelensky.

That is a matter of opinion.  Trump is not the only one who said he did nothing wrong. (o)

Trump says he will always protect pre-existing conditions.

The Republican health care bill that lost by one vote protected pre-existing conditions.  There are no serious Republican proposals to reverse the protection on pre-existing conditions.  This is the kind of statement that needs to be considered true until it isn’t. When someone gets married and promises “till death do us part” it has to be considered true up until the point the person files for divorce.  (t)

 Trump says he is a deal-maker but he doesn’t make deals.

This is absurd.  The Canada/Mexico trade deal is just one of many examples.  They cited Trump saying he would make an immigration deal but he didn’t.  Trump offered many items which Democrats have been clamoring for such as amnesty for dreamers in exchange for the wall, but the Democrats wouldn’t budge on the wall.  They also cited Trump “blowing up deals”.  Trump has stated many times and written in his book “The Art of the Deal” that it is critical in deal making that you are willing to walk away if you can’t get a good deal. (t)

Trump says that China pays for the tariffs.

This is debatable.  In situations where if China passed the prices onto American consumers it would make them uncompetitive then China has had to absorb the costs.  In less competitive situations the cost is passed onto the American consumers.    I don’t know how much fits in one category.  If most business is competitive, then this is an exaggeration.  If not, I would call it an actual lie.

The report also showed business people who were hurting from the tariffs.  Trump never has said that nobody in America is hurt by the tariffs so this is all irrelevant to determining if this is a lie. (e/l)

Trump says we send 500 billion to China

CNN said that this is a lie because the trade deficit with China in goods was only 400 billion.  In 2018 we imported 540 billion from China and exported 120 billion.  Trump didn’t say the trade deficit was 500 billion.  He said we sent 500 billion.  The statement is true. (s)

Trump didn’t believe economic reports when Obama was president, but he believes them now when he is president.

There are two good explanations for this.  First, we all tend to believe reports that match what we have previously believed and tend to doubt reports that do not match our beliefs.  Second, he may have higher confidence in his appointees who supervise the reports than he had in Obama’s appointees.  In any case, believing or not believing something is not a lie. (o)

Trump is lying when he says we aren’t heading into a recession.

Recent economic reports have all been outstanding.  Some economists point to statistics that say the great economy will continue for a long time.  Other economists point to different statistics that say the economy is slowing.  Once again, he might be wrong, but it isn’t a lie to believe the economists with the more glowing predictions. (o)

Trump is lying when he says we defeated ISIS.

ISIS used to control territory the size of Ohio.  Now they control no territory.  It is a fair statement to say that we defeated them.  This doesn’t mean that there will never be another ISIS inspired terrorist attack. We can say that we defeated the Nazis in World War II, even there are still Nazis in the world. The statement is true. (t)

Trump lies in foreign policy when he only presents his side of an issue such as when he proclaimed the Turkish-Syrian cease fire.

Since when have politicians been obligated to present the other side of an issue?  How many Democrats are presenting the arguments against impeaching Trump?  Since CNN didn’t say that what he did say isn’t true, but that he omitted some things, I have to classify this as true.  (t)

Trump lies when he says Iran didn’t break the nuclear agreement.

Iran flaunted its breaking of the agreement.  Saying they didn’t break it at all is absurd.  Trump is definitely speaking the truth here. (t)

Trump lies when he says Joe Biden was corrupt in Ukraine.

CNN says Trump is promoting a conspiracy theory.  There are clear facts here.  Hunter Biden was paid over a million dollars by the energy company Burisma to be on their board despite having no experience with Ukraine or energy.  A prosecutor was investigating Burisma.  Joe Biden boasted on tape that he told Ukraine that if they didn’t fire the prosecutor they wouldn’t get one billion dollars in loan guarantees.  With all of these known facts, this sure looks like Trump is either telling the truth or at the very least expressing a reasonable opinion.  (t/o)

Trump lies when he says there is fake news.

One could write an almost infinite list of news stories printed by the mainstream media, especially CNN, that were proven to be false.  Of this entire Trump-related list, every single instance was a false story to make Trump look worse.  There has not been a fake news story by the mainstream media to make Trump look better.  Saying there is fake news is most definitely not a lie. (t)


I have categorized my analysis of the reported lies below.  Many of these I could not decide or did not have enough information to definitively classify, so I gave two classifications.  Each of these gets a half tally.

Exaggeration (e) – 2½

Trump exaggerated.  This is what I call the “Big Fish” lie.  A fisherman catches a ten inch fish and tells everybody it was two feet.

  • Trump said the rain held off during his inauguration speech.
  • Trump said his tax cut was the biggest ever and it wasn’t. (½)
  • Trump said we have the cleanest air. (½)
  • Trump says that China pays for the tariffs. (½)

Lie (l) – ½

This is an out-and-out lie.

  • Trump says that China pays for the tariffs. (½)

Opinion (o) 4½

A statement of opinion is not a truth or a lie assuming the person is giving his or her honest opinion.

  • Trump said climate change is a hoax.
  • Trump lied when he said he was perfect on phone call with the Ukrainian president Zelensky.
  • Trump didn’t believe economic reports when Obama was president, but he believes them now when he is president.
  • Trump is lying when he says we aren’t heading into a recession.

Refusal to admit a mistake (r) – 1

I would classify this as an out-and-out lie if it is about something important.  When it is about something unimportant, it is just plain stubbornness.

  • Trump said hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama and wouldn’t back down.

True with the statistic of choice (s) – 2

This is a category that I had not thought of at the start.  There are often many different ways of measuring things.  A statement can be true with one form of measurement and false with a different measure.  For example, you read an article that says “Avengers: Endgame” is the top grossing movie of all time and you tell this to others.  It is the top grossing movie worldwide, but Avatar is still the top grossing movie in the United States.  The top grossing movie adjusted for inflation is Gone With the Wind.  Someone might point to these two movies and say your statement is a lie.  It isn’t a lie.  It relies on a different statistic than the accusers are using.

  • Trump said his tax cut was the biggest ever and it wasn’t. (½)
  • Trump said we have the cleanest air. (½)
  • Trump says we send 500 billion to China.

True (t) – 7½

I believe that these Trump statements that CNN said are lies are actually true.  Now let’s say you read this and say I am wrong.  None of the statements are true.  If you are right and I am wrong, that doesn’t make me a liar.  Conversely, if I am right and you are wrong, that doesn’t make you a liar.  It is only a lie if you say something that you know is not true or you display a “reckless disregard for the truth”.  If you believe something to be true that isn’t true, then you aren’t lying, you are just wrong.  I not only believe that all of these statements are true, I think that Trump also believes they are all true.  Ergo, Trump is not lying.

  • Trump lied saying the whistleblower was inaccurate.
  • Trump says he will always protect pre-existing conditions.
  • Trump says he is a deal-maker but he doesn’t make deals.
  • Trump lies in foreign policy when he only presents his side of an issue such as when he proclaimed the Turkish-Syrian cease fire.
  • Trump is lying when he says we defeated ISIS.
  • Trump lies when he says Iran didn’t break the nuclear agreement.
  • Trump lies when he says Joe Biden was corrupt in Ukraine. (½)
  • Trump lies when he says there is fake news.


Before presenting my concluding thoughts on President Trump, I need to digress for a moment.  At the beginning of the “All the President’s Lies” special, the anchor said that all presidents lie at some point.  He gave as an example President Obama’s “If you like your plan you can keep your plan; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” promise that he repeated many times while trying to sell Obamacare.  I was surprised that CNN actually admitted that this was a lie.

Now why am I saying this was a lie?  Why don’t I say that at the time he believed it was true but he ended up being wrong?   Here is why.  Jonathan Gruber, MIT economist and principle architect of Obamacare boasted on video that they knew it was a lie, but if they didn’t say this Obamacare never would have passed.  This was not just a lie.  It was a monumental lie.  Whether you think Obamacare is wonderful or terrible, if not for this lie Obamacare never would have become law.

Now let’s put this in context.  CNN could choose anything that Donald Trump ever said that they thought was a lie for this special.  Since this was obviously meant to be a slam at Trump, we have to assume they found the most egregious lies they could find.  Let’s assume now that I am totally wrong in my analysis and that everything CNN says is a lie actually is a lie.   None of these is a fraction as monumental as Obama’s lies.

I don’t think anybody can say that the rain on inauguration day makes the slightest bit of difference.  One could say, however, that climate change, Chinese tariffs, and the Iranian agreement are all monumental issues.  The reason I say that they aren’t important though is that Trump’s statement doesn’t change anything.  These are all in areas that Trump has 100% authority.  His statements may seek to make his policy look better, but he can do what he wants to do here either way.  You may think his policies are wrong, but his statements basically have no impact.

So I would argue that in this whole list of heinous lies CNN presents, he did not make any lies that change anything.

Also I don’t see any lies that are total fabrications such as Hilary Clinton telling the story about how when she arrived in Bosnia she was met with gunfire when later video emerged to show that she was actually met with flowers.  I also don’t see slanderous lies such as Adam Schiff claiming that he had proof that Trump colluded with the Russians, which we now know he didn’t have.  I don’t see any self–serving lies such as Elizabeth Warren claiming for years that she was part Native-American  to advance her career.


In my categorization of “lies”, I would consider three of the categories a lie at any level:  lies, exaggerations, and refusal to admit a mistake.  Of the eighteen “lies” that CNN presented, I awarded only four points in these categories.  Only one of these, his statements about China paying all the tariff, is more than trivial.  The other fourteen were either statements of opinion or they were true and not a lie at any level.  The “lies” that I believe Trump is guilty of are basically nothing compared to the lies told by Democrats that the mainstream media typically choose to ignore.

In short, viewing this special did not change my opinion.  I still say that Trump is a “Big Fish“ exaggerator.  He refuses to admit a mistake.  He can be a bully.  I still wish he wouldn’t tweet so much.  Trump, however, is not the liar that CNN and all of the Trump haters claim.





New Year’s Prediction: Tax bill will cause economy to boom and the Republicans to maintain power.

The general consensus in the media is that the new tax bill is highly unpopular, Trump is highly unpopular, and therefore the Republicans will lose the house in the 2018 mid-term elections.  This will lead to a Trump impeachment and pave the way to the Democrats returning to power.

tax plan celebrationI just saw a video where an interviewer asked liberal New Yorkers what they thought of the new tax bill.  They said that it was terrible, would raise their taxes, and it was  just for the rich.  The interviewer then told them about the alternative tax plan proposed by Bernie Sanders.  They were enthusiastic and said they could support this plan.  The interviewer then told them that it was not actually a Bernie Sanders plan; he had just described the Republican tax plan.   Highlights from Video

The Democrats and the media have done a very effective job of telling people that their rates will go up, so of course the plan is very unpopular.  This, however, is a flat lie.  The Washington Post gave the statement that most middle class families would have their taxes raised four Pinocchios and said that in fact the opposite is true.

The problem for the Democrats is that in February the rate changes will significantly lower the withholding in most people’s paychecks and these people will see for themselves that their  taxes will go down.   At this time I expect this bill and the Republicans will get much more popular.

The economy has already improved greatly since the presidential  election.  I believe that this is due to Trump’s reduction of regulations and the general belief in the business community that now the government will no longer be their enemy.  I predict that in 2018 with the addition of this tax plan, the United States economy will have an amazing boom that most people can’t even imagine.  By the end of 2014, quarterly economic  growth will exceed 4%, a number that many economists now say is impossible.

As a result of this economic boom, I also predict that the Republicans will hold the house in 2018 and will actually increase seats in the Senate due to the high number of Democratic seats up for election in states Trump carried in 2016.

Am I right?  We will see in a year.

The Devastating Consequences of a Bad Assumption: The South’s Moral Justification of Slavery

I am a big fan of the historical novels of James Michener.  A Michener novel takes a location such as Hawaii, South Africa, or Israel and tells the story of this location from pre-history to modern times tracing the lineage of a few families and telling snapshot stories through the different time periods.  Frequently Michener will intermix real

john c calhoun

John C. Calhoun

historical characters with his fictional characters.  These novels tell wonderful stories while educating the reader on how the location evolved into what it is today.

I am currently reading Chesapeake, which focuses on Maryland by the  Chesapeake Bay.  I just finished reading a fictional debate between John C. Calhoun and a fictional Quaker abolitionist family.  John C. Calhoun was a former vice-president and a long-time senator from South Carolina.  Along with Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Henry Clay of Kentucky, Calhoun was one of a triumvirate of senators who dominated the first half of the nineteenth century.  He is typically ranked as one of the most influential American legislators of all-time.  He is best known as the primary spokesman in support of slavery.

I have long understood why pre-Civil-War southerners believed that slavery was vital to the functioning of their economy.  I also knew that many southerners also believed that their support of slavery was morally righteous, that slavery was good.  I never understood how they could possibly think that, until I read Michener.  While this debate is fictional, I have researched enough to believe that it fairly represents the attitudes of the time and can therefore be enlightening.

In this fictional debate, John C. Calhoun begins with the following statement, “I think we can start best by agreeing that the Negro is an inferior human being, destined to serve the white man in a secondary capacity.”  Calhoun starts his argument with the key assumption that blacks are inferior and are not capable of reasoning.  All of his arguments morally justifying slavery are based upon this assumption.   He thought that  black slaves in the south were much happier than free blacks in the north who worked in factories in horrible conditions.

Calhoun’s entire outlook on the world was built on this assumption.  If evidence pointed to his  assumption as being false, he refused to believe it.  When he was asked how if Negroes were inferior that Frederick Douglas could write so brilliantly, he said that white men must have really written the book.

This horrendous assumption that blacks were subhuman resulted in centuries of enslavement.  The Nazi’s assumption that Jews were subhuman resulted in the holocaust.  Other bad assumptions are less overtly evil, but may be no less devastating.  The alluring appeal of communism where everybody works for the public good instead of for the selfish reasons encouraged by capitalism resulted in Stalin murdering over 20 million people (New York Times), Mao murdering over 45 million people (Washington Post), and countless other people living in poverty and oppression.  Despite all of this, many people today, who may in every other aspect be wonderful people, still believe in the inherent goodness of communism.

In earlier posts I highlighted the top ten bad assumptions:

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 1 – If we disagree, you are either mean or stupid.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 2 – The intended effect is the only effect.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 3 – America should not favor Americans.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 4 – Government helps people. Business exploits people.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 5 – The way to peace is to be so nice that nobody will want to attack us.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 6 – Every problem has a good solution.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 7 – Judge a policy based on its benefits.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 8 –The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 9 – People making more cause other people to make less.

Top Ten Bad Assumptions: 10 – Welfare is charity.

These bad assumptions are prevalent in current politics and these also cause otherwise good people to promote policies with devastating consequences.  Alternatively, these people would say that my bad assumptions are the problem.  Either way, we must fight to resist our comfort zones and to constantly re-examine the assumptions that form the basis of our beliefs.  We should each endeavor to not be the twenty first century version of John C. Calhoun.

Trump’s attack on Freedom of the Press — Really??

Whenever President Trump criticizes the press, whether in tweet or in a statement, I see a chorus of commentators rising to condemn him for his attack on freedom of the press.  I would grant that it is fair to argue that Trump’s statements may be inappropriate, obnoxious, counter-productive, distracting or unpresidential, but is it an attack on freedom of the press?  

Freedom of the press is the right of the press to say pretty much anything it wants.  For the government to attack freedom of the press, it must attempt to stop someone from publishing or it must punish someone for their publications by throwing them in jail or taking some other harsh measure.  Hurting their feelings doesn’t count.  Just as the press has the constitutional right to criticize the president, the president has the constitutional right to criticize the press.

This reminds me of a story that my parents used to tell about me when I was a little boy.  I have no memory of this, but I trust my parents that this is true.  I had been in a fight, and my father asked me who started the fight.  I said, “He did.  He hit me back!”  The press is whining because the president hit them back.

In short, these statements that Trump is attacking the freedom of the press are flat out ridiculous.  This should be obvious whether you love Trump or whether you hate Trump.  Will the media ever realize when they make such absurd statements, they lose credibility for whatever valid criticisms they might make?  I doubt it.


Hate Crimes are Worse.

The recent horrible story of four black Chicago youths torturing a mentally challenged white teenager focused our attention on hate crimes.  First, was this a hate cnonazirime?  Obviously it was.  Second, should we have hate crime laws in the first place?

The logic against hate crime laws is that a crime is a crime. If a person is beat up, the person is not more beat up because of the motive.  The legal system should punish the action, not the intention.  Therefore, we should not have hate crime laws.  This link from Victor Davis Hanson, “Time to Scrap Hate Crime Laws“, reflects this position.

I have two arguments against this.  First, the legal system routinely includes intent in determining the severity of the crime.  First degree, premeditated, murder results in much harder sentences than manslaughter.Second, hate crimes have many more victims than the person directly affected.

For example, one person is beat up because the assailant doesn’t like him.  The victims here are the person assaulted along with friends and family who care about this person. Another assailant beats up a person because he is black or gay or Jewish or part of any other hated group.  Here we have additional victims:  the entire community of the hated group.  The criminal is terrorizing an entire community, sending a message that I attacked this person today and it might be you tomorrow.

Due to this terror, a hate crime is worse even if superficially the damage is the same. Therefore, it is proper for our legal system to have harsher penalties for hate crimes.

Steve Bannon: White Supremacist or Smear Victim

President Elect recently named Steve Bannon, a top executive on his campaign and the former chairman of the Breitbart website to be a senior adviser.  Following this appointment, there was an explosion from the left saying that Bannon was a white supremacist and just like David Duke of the KKK.    bannon

If true, this would be quite serious.  I decided to take a closer look at the charges.  Here is the key article by Media Matters making this accusation.

A White Nationalist Who Hates Jews Will Be Trump’s Right-Hand Man In The White House

Media Matters both that Steve Bannon is a white supremacist and compared him to David Duke.  This is one of the worst if not the worst thing you can say about a person.  To make a charge like this, one should be able to substantiate it.  So let’s look at the evidence in this article.

First, there is not a single direct, verifiable quote from Steve Bannon where he said anything racist or antisemitic.  The closest thing here is that his ex-wife said he doesn’t want his kids to go to school with Jews.  If he said this, it would certainly be an antisemitic comment.  We don’t know, however, that he actually said it.  His ex-wife claimed he said this as part of a divorce.  It is highly common for spouses to slander one another in the heat of a divorce.  I personally know several instances where a spouse said very vicious things about a friend during a divorce that I know not to be true.

Media matters then says that Breitbart.com is white supremacist and antisemitic.  They specifically point to David Horowitz calling someone a renegade Jew.  They don’t mention that David Horowitz is Jewish.  Horowitz says that he has known Bannon for many years and he doesn’t have an antisemitic bone in his body.  Here is a link to Horowitz’s comments on this:

Horowitz: Anti-Bannon Hysteria More Evidence the Left Has Lost Touch with the American People – Breitbart

If Bannon was antisemitic, you would think that there would be antisemitic and anti-Israel articles on the Breitbart site.  In fact, it is just the opposite.  Breitbart has been a champion for Israel and has highlighted the fight against antisemitism.  Here is a link by the head of the Zionist Organization of America describing How Bannon has been a champion for Jews and for Israel.

Bannon and Breitbart: Friends of Israel, not anti-Semites

While Media Matters shows very flimsy evidence about Bannon being antisemitic, it shows no evidence at all on Bannon being anti-black or a white supremacist other than other people calling him that.  Think about it.  Media Matters could have cited any article ever published in the history of the website. Breitbart has probably published tens of thousands of articles.  With all of these articles to choose from, the best they could come up with was one Jew calling another Jew renegade.  They compare Bannon to David Duke.  I bet that googling David Duke would find thousands upon thousands of extremely racist comments.  With Steve Bannon and Breitbart, they could not come up with a single racist comment.

Bannon and the Breitbart website are very right wing.  I would expect my progressive friends would strongly dislike Bannon’s politics.  I would also hope they would also be fair and realize that the white supremacist and David Duke comments are not justified.

The Transgender Bathroom Debate: A Conflict of Rights

Now that the gay marriage issue has been effectively settled, whether transgender people should be able to choose the bathroom and locker room of choice is the debate du jour. This issue took center stage when North Carolina passed a law stating a person must use the bathroom that corresponds to the birth gender.  This law was passed to override a new Charlotte law that said anybody could  choose a bathroom based on their sexual identity.  While this is not the most important issue of our time,  for some people this will significantly affect their lives, so it should not be dismissed as silly or irrelevant.


For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus more on the locker room situation than the bathroom situation.  While the same issues all apply for bathrooms, the effect of being in a closed stall in a common room is far less than the effect of sharing a shower with someone of the opposite gender.

What is the right and wrong of requiring that people be required to use the bathroom of their physical gender?  Some people firmly believe that transsexuals are sick and evil.  Others believe that those who oppose mix-gender locker rooms are homophobic and evil.  I reject both of these views.  I think of this as a case of competing rights:

  • A locker room or bathroom can be a hazardous and traumatic place for a transgender person.  The transgender person is a target for ridicule and bullying.  I would think that any reasonable person would not want to subject anybody to this unnecessarily.   The transgender person might also feel that he or she should have an inherent right to use whichever facility he or she chooses.  This right is much more debatable and a good person can take either side of this issue.  It also is unnecessary for this discussion.  The reasonable fear of bullying should be sufficient to establish that the viewpoint of the transsexual is valid.
  • A person should be able to use a locker room without being gawked at or exposed to a person of the opposite gender.  In particular, a fourteen year old girl should be able to take a shower after physical education class without having a boy walk into the shower with her.

Additionally, not all people who wish to use the locker room of the gender not assigned at birth are not the same.  Note that by definition a trans woman  is someone who is born as a man and identifies as a woman.  A trans man is someone who is born as a woman and identifies as a man.  We can divide these people into four groups:

  1. Some transsexuals have already had sexual reassignment surgery.  The North Carolina law says that people should use the bathroom of birth.  To me, it seems ridiculous to say that a person should not use the locker room that corresponds to their current genitalia.
  2. Some transsexuals look like their gender of choice.  If a trans-woman looks like the woman, it would seem reasonable that she should use a woman’s restroom and would be out of place in a men’s restroom.
  3. Some transsexuals look like their gender of birth.  If a trans-woman has a beard and looks like a trucker, it would seem reasonable that a woman would be very upset to have this person share a shower with her.
  4. Heterosexual men who are not transsexuals will take advantage of these rules to get see naked women and to expose themselves to women.  Does   anybody think that high school boys will not dare each other to claim that today they  identify as a woman and go into the girl’s shower?  Why should a pervert risk getting arrested flashing in a park or peering through a bedroom window when he can safely go into the women’s locker room?

I would think that a reasonable person would say that group 1 should be able to use the locker-room of their current physical gender, that group 4 should not be allowed to use the other gender’s bathroom, and that with groups 2 and 3 we should try to reach a reasonable compromise.  I think it is also fair to say that each case is different.  The transgender person is different and the available accommodations are different.  When we try to impose a draconian solution in either direction, we lose the ability to reasonable.   The Charlotte law was extreme in one direction and the North Carolina law was extreme in the other direction. Think of the zero tolerance policies in sexual harassment that result in a kindergarten boy being arrested for kissing a kindergarten girl.

I personally am not worried about true transgender people using a bathroom, but I think that the concern that it will be abused by straight people is quite real.  I have seen this concern dismissed in the media by two arguments:

  • First, they claim that this hasn’t happened.  While it hasn’t happened in numbers yet, it certainly has happened.  In one reported instance, a Seattle man invaded the woman’s locker room at a public pool.  It hasn’t happened more because until now, there were severe penalties.  Previously a high school boy entering the girl’s shower could get expelled and arrested.  When the penalties go away, the instances will go up.
  • Second, I have heard arguments that  women just need to get over their discomfort and get used to.  The Charlotte Observer compared it to white people needing to get used to sharing restrooms with blacks after desegregation.  This is a value rather than a factual statement so each person needs to evaluate this argument based upon his or her own values.  I do think it is interesting that the same people who complain about the “rape culture” and who claim a man who looks at a woman in a sexual manner is guilty of sexual harassment then claim that women just need to get over their discomfort with sharing a shower with a strange man.

If we accept the proposition that both sides in this argument have reasonable concerns, then, how do we come up with a reasonable solution?

  • First, we don’t make draconian laws in either direction.  We don’t have a law that saying no transgender people can use the bathroom for the non-birth gender.  We also don’t pass laws saying that anybody can use any bathroom they feel like using that day.
  • Second, if you want special accommodations, you should have an official diagnosis. By requiring a diagnosis, you are eliminating most if not all  non transgender people who would try to exploit the situation.This is entirely consistent with the way we handle other accommodations.  I have experience as my son had a diagnosis that was helped by special accommodations made by the school.  For example, he was allowed to pace at the back of the room instead of sitting at his desk.  He also was allowed to take a health course instead of the conventional physical education course.  We greatly appreciated how a team of counselors, teachers, and administrators would meet together with us to device reasonable accommodations that would help his educational experience.

    A transgender person with a diagnosis should receive the same kind of help.  Without this diagnosis, there should be no accommodations.

  • Third, we should look for reasonable accommodations that attempt to respect both the needs of the transgender person and the needs of others.  These accommodations should be decided on a case by case basis.  For example, in some schools it might be easy to designate separate gender neutral bathrooms.  In other schools, this might be cost prohibitive.

For example, here are  a few possible accommodations for a trans-woman who has an official diagnosis and would need to take a shower after physical education class.

  • Don’t require the trans-woman to take physical education.
  • Designate in advance one period where transgender showers will be allowed.  If you are transgender, you must take your PE class that period.  If you don’t want to shower with a transgender person, take your PE class any other period.
  • Have a separate gender neutral facility if one is available.

The key factor is to allow this flexibility.   In May 2016 the Obama administration issued a directive that require school districts to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice based upon the request of the parent or legal guardian (New York Times).  There are three problems with this directive:

  • While requiring a parental request is better than relying on a student request, it is not as good as requiring an actual diagnosis.
  • There is no flexibility to accommodate the rights of others.
  • There is no reasonable legal authority for the administration to issue this directive.  It relies on the Title IX prohibitions against sexual discrimination, but Title IX does not mention trans-sexuality.  There also were no other hearings or comment periods or any of the normal procedures required before any such directive can be imposed.

When we have right versus wrong, we don’t want to compromise.  We shouldn’t compromise with Nazis or terrorists.  When we have competing rights  then we should be able to compromise to find a solution that tries to respect the rights of all.  Let’s compromise and work this out.




Hillary at Halftime

I remember this classic question from one of my early science classes:  What happens if an irresistible force hits an immovable object?  At just past halftime of the 2016 presidential race, we have a similar question:  if we have two presidential candidates who can’t possibly win running against each other, who will win?HillaryClinton

In an earlier post I stuck my neck out and said that Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee for president.  My reasoning was that with Hillary Clinton facing a possible indictment, surely the Democrats would have a backup candidate.  I at least was partially wrong as there is no backup candidate.  We still need to see if Hillary will be indicted or if at least the FBI will recommend indictment.  Quite frankly, even if she is indicted I would expect that she will not withdraw.

Hillary laughs at the thought she might be indicted and her defenders all scoff and say there is nothing there.  I would think that the FBI would not devote months and dozens  of investigators if nothing was there.  Right now I don’t want to re-argue the email situation.  This is about so much more than the emails.

There is so much that most people don’t know about Hillary Clinton.  Here is a bit.

The Clinton-Russia Uranium Deal

In early 2015 Peter Schweizer published a book tiled “Clinton Cash”  This book outlined many instances where countries and companies with key requests before Hillary Clinton’s  state department would pay Bill Clinton up to a million dollars in speaking fees and at the same time would donate many millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. The state department would then approve whatever the “donor” wanted.  Prior to his publication, Schweizer shared his research with the New York Times about one of these deals where the Russians gained control over 25% of the United States uranium.  The New York Times published this front page story on April 23, 2015.


Having published this story, the New York Times did not follow up.  Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever asked Hillary Clinton about this or any of the many other instances where the Clinton’s profited despite a strong conflict of interest.  Hardly anybody knows about all of these deals where the Clinton’s traded influence for money.

Hillary’s Persecution of Bill Clinton’s Women

Most people also don’t know how Hillary Clinton led the “bimbo” squad, a team designed to make the life of any woman who accused Bill Clinton of sexual improprieties a living hell.  Here is a New York Times story on this:


Hillary then had the audacity during this campaign to tweet the following “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.

In this post Bill Cosby era, many who support Hillary as a champion of women will be disgusted by Hillary’s persecution of her husband’s victims.

Clinton vs. Trump

Currently 65% of those polled have a negative opinion of Donald Trump and 55% have a negative opinion of Hillary Clinton.  Over 70% of women have a negative opinion of Trump.  With high negatives like these, Trump shouldn’t have a chance of winning the presidency.  Against Hillary Clinton, however, he may have a chance.

There are many people who, to quote Bernie Sanders,  “don’t give a damn” about Hillary’s emails.  They couldn’t care if it was revealed that the nuclear launch codes were in her email.  They don’t care what happened in Benghazi.  They don’t care if she is caught in lie after lie.  They support her because they like her politics and they want a woman in the White House.

These supporters believe she is a champion of the poor.  They don’t know that the Clintons have amassed a fortune of, according to Fortune Magazine, over $100 million.  As Hillary said they were broke when they left the White House, much of this can be traced to her influence peddling.  They believe she fights for women.  They don’t know how she abused women who spoke out against her husband.  They support her because they don’t know.

Donald Trump has proven himself to be an exceptionally good attack dog.  He will attack “Crooked Hillary”, to use his new term for her.  He will attack her relentlessly.  People will learn about Hillary’s scandals that they do care about.   If Trump can drive Clinton’s negatives to be even higher than his, he might just win.

Hillary Clinton might be the only candidate that Donald Trump can beat.  If Clinton were to be indicted and withdraw and were to be replaced by Joe Biden or almost any other less tainted Democrat, his negatives would most likely stop him from winning.   Possibly the best thing that could happen for the Democrats would be for Clinton to be indicted and withdraw.   As I said though, even if she is indicted, I doubt she would withdraw.

I am not saying that Donald Trump will beat Hillary Clinton.  I am saying that those who think that he doesn’t have a chance don’t have any idea what will be coming.



Election 2016 – Halftime Notes on the Republicans

The 2016 presidential election is now basically at half-time with only the Wisconsin primary during a four week period.  Here are some basic thoughts on the Republican candidates and the Republican race in general.  I will have another post on the Democrats

Donald Trump

In my last post I wrote on the good and the bad of Donald Trump.  I stated some things I liked and some things I didn’t like.  In summary, I said that whenever I started to think he might be a good choice, he would say something that made me cringe and drove me away.

Up through the March 15 Super Tuesday 2 primaries, one could maktrump goode an argument that his attention-gathering statements were political brilliance.  If he had been ordinary, he would never have been taken seriously.  His blunt, non politically-correct statements drove him to prominence and to be the GOP front-runner.  Mission accomplished.  He was on the path to cruise to the nomination.  He said he could act very presidential.  It was the time to be presidential, the time to work on uniting the party around him and to reduce his negatives with a thought towards the general election.

Instead, he needlessly made abusive, divisive statements and has shown both a lack of thought on key issues and a total lack of self-control.  The post March 15 barrage started with another needless tweet out of the blue attacking Megyn Kelly.  He tweeted an awful picture of Heidi Cruz.  With polls saying 70% of women have a negative impression of him, how could he possibly think that these tweets would help him become the next president?

His statement saying women should be punished for abortions managed to alienate everybody, both pro-choice and pro-life.  It is obvious why the pro-choice would be alienated.  The pro-life movement has consistently stated it is not out to hurt the women.  Trump’s statement will be used against them for years.  Trump acted like someone who was not really pro-life, needed to act pro-life to get the nomination, and was spouting off what he thought was the pro-life position without understanding it.  He then went on to make a series of jumbled and thoughtless positions on foreign policy.

In fairness, many of the attacks on Trump say he is racist and sexist.  He is not racist or sexist.  He has taken controversial stands but there are reasons for his stands.  In his entire career, he has given major opportunities to minorities and women.  In the eighties, he put a woman in charge of constructing Trump Tower.  At that time very few women were prominent in construction.  No he is not racist or sexist.  He is just crude and offensive in general.

In short, in these last few weeks he has made so many cringe-worthy statements that I think he can not recover.

Ted Cruz

ted cruzTed Cruz’s biggest weakness is that he is rigid, uncompromising, refuses to work with others, so his colleagues hate him.  His greatest strength is that he stands staunchly behind his principles and doesn’t cave to pressure so his colleagues hate him.  His biggest strength and his biggest weakness are the same thing.

Perfect is the enemy of better.  In leading the effort to shut down the government to be perfect, he made things worse.  Trying to be perfect isn’t good.   Unless of course, you can achieve it.

I’ve heard people say Cruz is stupid.  Cruz is brilliant.  The well-known liberal Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz told Piers Morgan on CNN in 2013 that Cruz was one of the most intelligent students he ever taught:

One of the sharpest students I had . . . I’ve had 10,000 students over my 50 years at Harvard . . . he has to qualify among the brightest of the students.

Cruz was not my first choice.  I liked Walker.  I liked Fiorina.  I voted for Cruz in the primary.  Right now I think that Cruz, like Obi-wan Kenobi, is our only hope.


John Kasich

John Kasich has an outstanding record of accomplishment both in congress and as governor of Ohio.  If experience was the main factor in this campaign, he would easily be the nominee.  Kasich has failed as a candidate for two reasons.  First, he doesn’t inspire the Republican electorate.  Second, he cites many liberal positions,such as blanket amnesty, and he seems to eager to compromise with Democrats at a time when Republicans think we compromise too much.  His statement that he would consider a Democrat as vice president says all that you need to know here.john kasich

Kasich has no chance of winning the nomination and his continued presence in the race takes codes away from Cruz and helps Trump.  Unless Kasich has some secret deal with Trump, there is no reason for Kasich to still be in this race.  If Trump wins the nomination, he might have Kasich to thank.

Marco Rubio

Rubio is out of the race now.  His candidacy collapsed when he decided to make Trump-like comments about Trump.  It reminded me of the old like that you should never mud-wrestle with a pig.  You will just get dirty and the pig will like it.

Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or anybody else

There has been talk about the Republican establishment hijacking the convention and putting in Romney, Ryan, or another establishment candidate.  If this happened both the Trump and Cruz supporters would be furious.  I think that the Democrats could run Hillary from jail and she would still win.   If the Republican establishment tries to hijack the process, it will be a total disaster.  I really think that, unless Hillary is indicted, that the one Republican hope is to get behind Ted Cruz and help him win the nomination in a fair process.