Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Obamacare is a disaster; Long live Obamacare

Doug:
Well, that was interesting. Last week the Republicans, who control the House, the Senate, and the White House, couldn't pass their Obamacare replacement in the House. The House! That was surprising to me. What do you think that says about the Republican party and what they will be able to do over the next two years?

David:
Is there anyone who writes opinion pieces or blogs who is not talking about Obamacare this week? And with good reason! Back in January, I had two different groups ask if I could talk to them about how the new health-care laws and changes would be affecting them. I jumped at the chance, and had thought, like everyone else, that I'd be evaluating how the new system would be phasing in as Obamacare ended. Well, not so much, eh? I'm very disappointed.

Doug:
Back in January? That was pretty risky not knowing what the new health-care law would even be. On the weekend before January 15, 2017 Trump claimed “We’re going to have insurance for everybody.” Candidate Trump claimed via Twitter “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.” Candidate Daddy Trump also claimed “I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

David:
However, everyone was certain that after Obamacare had been repealed over and over again in Congress as an exercise of legislation, that once Obama was out, Obamacare would be repealed as a fact. The only question was what would the replacement look like, and what would that mean for all of us.

Doug:
"Exercise of legislation." I like that. Apparently that kind of exercise doesn't make you stronger though. But it does add the necessary distraction from what it really was.

David:
Politics is usually the art of talking about something other than what you're really talking about. As Charles de Gaulle once said, "Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." 

Of course, the politics of the times makes the whole exercise more difficult than it needs to be. Republicans were always against Obamacare, mainly because of the mandates, and none of them ever signed on to the bill. That turned out to be not only a matter of principal, but also a good political move, as Democrats suffered in election after election at the voting booths across the country. Republicans in the House continued to keep it on the front burner by voting to repeal it umpteen times, knowing that Obama would veto it. Now, that they are in charge, they have to have an end game, because they'll be responsible for outcomes.

Doug:
A good political move? I would have thought that the number of Americans now insured was an indication that it was a good move, even if it cost the Democratic party politically. We'll see if the Republican political repeal theater is seen in the same light since they didn't repeal it when they finally, actually could.

David:
The number of newly insured Americans could have been accomplished if the Democrats had just expanded medicaid. They could have done that without upending all of healthcare.


But you are absolutely correct in the sentiment that Republicans may get stuck with the bill, now that they didn't repeal it.

The main problem for us all is still the politics. Republicans had no political reasons to bail out the disastrous errors that were put into the original bill.

Doug:
How about country before politics? America first? That seems like a good reason.

David:
You need to meet more politicians. Many of them are truly nice, caring, and thoughtful people. But they are going to get re-elected no matter what. And party leadership often has different thoughts on what's best for everyone. And the differing parties have differing thoughts on what course is best for the country.

Doug:
I never know what voice you are using. When you say "Republicans had no... reason to" fix the health care system, are you speaking as you, or as a politician? And now you tell me I need to meet more people that will do whatever to get elected? Maybe we need less people like that.

David:
I'm talking about our elected officials. Getting elected, especially to the House, is a grueling experience. Why do you think they call it a "campaign"? And, to be fair to the Freedom Caucus members, there were significant things in the Republican bill to raise questions about. These issues would have been ironed-out through legislation later, but only if some Democrats would join in to help. Now, Democrats (in Congress) have no interest politically in coming together with Republicans to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something workable for the reasons we already mentioned: Republicans (in Congress) may now be left with the disasterous outcomes in their laps. Because Democrats won't lift a finger to help, Republicans have to repeal the bill through the reconciliation process to avoid the inevitable (and promised) filibuster from Democrats in the Senate. They can only repeal portions that affect the budget, and they could only replace portions of the bill with rules that affect the budget. Things like being able to buy insurance across state lines would have to be done later and through the regular process. The Freedom Caucus apparently didn't believe that step-wise process would come to fruition, and ended up killing the whole deal.

Doug:
Oh, those poor Republicans! The evil Democrats won't help them kill Obamacare. The Republicans have some issues to iron out with themselves. By the way, it looks like some battles are brewing in the Republican ranks:
  1. Trump tweets: "Watch @JudgeJeanine on @FoxNews tonight at 9:00 P.M." @realDonalTrump
  2. Judge Jeanine says that night at 9pm that Ryan needs to go.
I'm so embarrassed for the Republicans. They have turned American politics into a 24/7 soap opera.

David:
If you believe that American politics are only now becoming a soap opera, you have not been paying attention to American politics since about 1800.

Here's the reality: Democrats know that there are things that are fatally flawed with Obamacare, and Republicans know there are things in Obamacare Americans like. There were also things in the Republican bill that were problematic, but necessary because of the manner in which the bill was going to move forward through reconciliation. Will they all be able to come together now, for the good of the country?

Doug:
The Democratic party was able to give us Obamacare without any help from the Republicans when the Democrats had less control than the Republicans have now.

David:
That's entirely false. Democrats had the Presidency, the House, and a supermajority in the Senate (greater than 60 votes). Republicans couldn't stop them. Democrats were filibuster proof, right up until the moment Scott Brown became the Senator from Massachusetts. His election is what caused the Democrats to rush the Senate version of Obamacare through (with a lot of bribery for some members) at midnight. Scott Brown would have enabled a filibuster by the minority. Have you forgotten all of that drama so soon?

Doug:
The real reality is that Obamacare is an "entitlement", a redistribution of wealth. You are right: there are things in it that Americans like. But it is a redistribution of wealth! Conundrum for the Republicans. Philosophically, they hate that, but the ACA also saves lives and money. What to do? They can't do anything. They have to keep it to fight it, but they could get rid of it. They'll call it a disaster, but will have to move on and leave this "disaster" so that they can... raise more money to fight it in another election? I don't think Americans are going to buy it.

David:
I have no idea why you believe Obamacare saves lives or money. It does neither.

Doug:
Oh, that's easy: I understand it and how it works. I don't listen to Fox News. Watching Fox News makes you less informed than watching no news at all.

David:
I live it every day. I'm a physician, remember?

Right now, Republicans (evidenced by President Trump's recent tweet) appear ready to just sit back and let the original bill continue its trajectory towards disaster.  The insurance I provide my employees went up another 25% this year (after similar increases every year since Obamacare was enacted) and my deductible is now $10,000! Many Americans are in the same boat. They have insurance, but can't afford to use it. Obamacare is in a death spiral, but as you say, Democrats won't help to kill it and replace it with something better.

Doug:
The ACA was designed to keep costs down, while making insurance available to everyone. I bet it can be made even better.

David:
Well, since it didn't come close to providing insurance for everyone, and costs have skyrocketed, I'd say it certainly could have been better. Starting over (repealing) seems like a reasonable course of action.

Doug:
Either you are purposively trying to fib your way through this, or you are believing a fiction. By all accounts, costs are rising more slowly than they would without Obamacare. And there are (as you have pointed out) many small things that can be done to make it better. Between 1999 and 2004, health care premiums rose 72%. Under Obamacare they have risen much, much less (down to 26%):


David:
I believe you said cost would go down, and everyone would get covered. Now you're saying that cost are still going up, and that's the same thing?

Doug:
No one reading this is falling for that trick. The costs were rising more slowly than they would without the ACA.

David:
You can't say that premiums and costs would go down, then say that they went up, and pretend that you're saying the same thing. You're attempting to cook the numbers. No one can know what the numbers would have done without the ACA. You cannot prove a negative. But costs and premiums have gone up under the ACA, and they've gone up considerably.

I don't want to drown you with data, but let's look at some numbers:







The majority of people who didn't have insurance before, and have it now, got medicaid. They still have no doctor because of a continuing shortage, and they still go to the emergency rooms across the country. Before, they were seen and treated (just like everyone else) and paid nothing. Now, I get paid something from the Federal Government when I treat them. Everyone else is now paying more for their insurance, but their deductibles are so high, they can't really use it. As an ER doctor, I have financially benefited from the ACA, but I'm still vehemently against it.

Doug:
It does seem like you are trying to drown us with pictures, not data. You didn't provide any links for those pretty pictures. It isn't that complicated, but you can try to obscure a few things. One is that costs are still rising, but not at the same rate that they were before the ACA. Second, more people have health care than they did before. That means that they are paying now where before they were not before. That means that they are spending more money on health care. That is a good thing. We want there to be health care for every man, woman, and child in the US. Third, there were some "health care" products before the ACA that cost money, but didn't actually give people medical treatment that they needed.

David:
The graphs are mainly from Kaiser, one of the largest health care providers in the country.

The vast majority of newly insured under the ACA are medicaid recipients. They don't contribute any dollars into the system. The ACA really is a redistribution bill, but it's just running up the debt. Medicaid costs along will more than double within the next ten years, according to Obamacare's own supporters.

In more and more localities, there is only one insurance carrier left in the Obamacare world. So much for competition driving costs down. Obamacare has driven companies out of the markets, and costs have risen. These things are not good. They're disastrous.

Doug:
If keeping the costs from growing faster is "skyrocketing" then we need more of that. But even if that weren't true, the ability to take care of poor and sick people would be worth it, in my opinion. The fact that it also saves money is just icing on the cake.

David:
Where is it saving money? Just saying it does not make it so. The new medicaid recipients are getting their bills paid for with your tax dollars. Before Obamacare that wasn't so. No one paid those bills. So Obamacare is running up the deficit at an ever increasing rate. It's a fallacy that Obamacare somehow is saving money.


Please note that this chart is from the CBO, the government's own prognosticator.

Doug:
Funny that you start that projection in 2015. What happened in 2015 that would affect the projection? Ah yes, a Republican House and Senate. If we fix a few things (some that you mention: lower deductibles, give more options, pay you less) then we could fix the ACA. Repeal the ACA is not a fix.

David:
You make it sound like Republicans changed something in 2015. They didn't. The ACA is still right on the disastrous track it has always been on. And Democrats promise to filibuster any changes going forward.

But why is that? Why won't Democrats vote for something better? During the past seven years, they nixed multiple Republican amendments to the bill in the Senate. Healthcare has become a political bludgeon that leaders on both sides of the political aisle feel they can use against the other. That doesn't leave all of us in a good place. At least not for a while.

Doug:
Something "better"? I'm not sure you understand our goals and how to make them better. Better is universal health care.

David:
As the government has become more involved in healthcare, costs have risen, and our life-expectancy has decreased. Medicine continues to make great advances, but that's all in the private sector, despite the government. Ask any veteran you know how the VA system works for them...

Doug:
I know many VA's and some like their system! I think that with the Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and White House, if health care doesn't get better, then I think I know who we can blame. At least for a while.

David:
See, you're doing it yourself; using healthcare as a weapon. The Democrats wrote a terribly flawed bill and passed it without a single Republican voting for it. Now, if Republicans don't fix all of the problems with the bill, it's their fault. At least you're admitting that the adults  are now in charge. I consider that some progress. Unfortunately, It looks like most of them are still choosing to sit at the kid's table....

Doug:
I always get lost in your analogies; you're claiming that the Republicans are adults, but they don't act like it because they are at the kids table? How does that make them adult? They have to fix all of the problems? Why? I'd be happy if they fix one. Just a little one. If they don't, we know who to blame. In any event, Democrats can't do anything to make Obamacare better---they do not have the votes.

David:
You're saying Republicans are the ones who need to step up and fix this disaster. I'm saying that prospect now appears unlikely to happen. Democrats passed a crappy bill in the first place when they controlled everything with supermajorities. Then, they did nothing to fix it for years when they still had the Senate and the White House. It's their lack of repairing Obamacare that has partially led to their current minority status. And before you say that Democrats had no help from Republicans in fixing the bill, you're now saying that it's the responsibility of Republicans to fix it without the help of Democrats. Will Democrats help fix anything, or follow through on their promise to filibuster everything?  Filibusters don't fix things, nor do they help people in need.

This past week we saw that the only way to repair the damaged and financially failing system is for some hard, bipartisan work to get done. Is there anyone in Washington up to that task? Can Trump swing a deal? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Doug:
Trump already said that he is done with health care. He worked on it for 18 days, isn't that enough? He now says that he wants the ACA to explode. (It isn't currently.) He wants it to fail. Most Republicans want it to fail. Most reasonable humans want to fix it. People will die without it. But the Republicans are in charge. The Republicans are the government. If they want to break it, they can. Nothing the rest of us can do. Except protest. And then vote.

David:
Most Republicans are unreasonable, and want people to die?

Ah yes, I remember before Saint Obama became president, and back before we had the ACA, when everyone was dying. And then after Obamacare, when death was relegated to the trash heap of history. yes, everyone will surely die without it. Maybe that's why all of those dead people vote for Democrats.....

Doug:
People used to die from not having health care. For the past 7 years, they have had healthcare. Without it, they will again die. Anyone that wants that to happen is unreasonable. I'll leave the implications to the reader to make.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

America is great, and getting greater?

Doug:
Last week you ended with the proposition that "America is great, and getting greater!" What in the world would make you think that?

David:
I suppose it depends on what your priorities are. America is currently the most prosperous country overall in the world. We have the largest GDP. We contribute more money to the United Nations than anyone else. We are a great country.

Doug:
Sure, GDP is one measure. But there are many other measures that most people would mention before they would get to Gross Domestic Product or counting how much money we give to the United Nations.

David:
And yet, we are number one on both of those lists, because we are a great and industrious country.

Doug:
You literally sound like Kim Jong-un, chairman of North Korea, when you say that. Can't every citizen from every country say that they are from a "great and industrious country"? That kind of nationalistic, jingoistic rhetoric makes me feel uncomfortable. And not just now, but even when someone I respect is in the White House. What's the point of claiming our country is great, and getting greater?

David:
North Korea may say these things, but what have they to show for it? Again, we have the largest GDP and share our wealth in more ways than anyone else. The US benefits the world. We are currently increasing job growth at a faster rate than we've had in some time. American's are more optimistic than they've been in a decade. (Although polling has continued to show that Americans are traditionally much more optimistic in general than any other group in the world.)

Doug:
That is an interesting statistic regarding American optimism. Here is a view of "satisfaction" over time:

Satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S.

It is a little hard to make sense of these data, especially how it compares over time. Take a look at what I consider to be one of the most depressing times on our lifetimes: the World Trade Towers attacks, 9/11/2001. I had just moved to the east coast, and was in my first week of teaching at a new place. Where was the U.S.'s satisfaction over that time period? Hovering around 70. Where are we now? Hovering around 30. Are we more satisfied than we have been in a decade? Maybe. But not nearly as satisfied as we were during the Clinton years (1992-2000). A lot was going on then, including the creation of the World Wide Web.

David:
Being satisfied is not the same as being optimistic. One describes how you feel about the present, the other, the future.

People tend to be more satisfied when we are at peace, as during the Clinton years. Obama has us involved in 5 different wars currently, and yet, optimism is higher now than it was during his presidency. (Your graph is of satisfaction, not exactly comparable to optimism.) The stock markets continue to break records indicating strong optimism for the future.

Doug:
The stock market has been on a mostly uphill climb since 2009:


Does that mean that people have been more and more optimistic over the Obama years? I don't think I would put much credence into attempting to explain the stock market in terms of enthusiasm. People want to make money in the stock market. If they think they'll make more by selling, they will.

David: More jobs, a stronger economy, and more educational choice for parents are all things to look forward to. Companies are choosing to stay in America rather than shipping their jobs and factories overseas.

Doug:
Well, that is a particular narrative. I'm not sure that it is true, and in some of those cases, I'm not sure it is a good thing.

David:
Why would any of that be bad? Because it comes during a Republican Congress and presidency?

Doug:
I could imagine that some people might choose not to send their kids to school, given the choice. How does that help, regardless of who is president?

David: Even during the Great Recession, The US continued to be the final destination point for more immigrants than any other country on the planet. Why? Immigrants chose to come for various reasons, such as to live in freedom, to practice their religion freely, to escape poverty or oppression, and to make better lives for themselves and their children. They can get that here in abundance. America is now, and will always be a great country for immigrants.


A decrease in the size and scope (and regulations) of big government is good for America. What's not to inspire a view of a more prosperous future for us and our kids?

Doug:
I can think of millions of regulations that are good for America. I can think of millions of funded items being cut that will harm America. I can think of lots of reasons why immigrants can't even get to America, let alone why they may not want to.

David:
And yet, they come. Again, more come here than to anyplace else. As far as programs being cut, not everything must be paid for by the government.

Doug:
Everywhere I turn, I see what I value being cut. I like, nay need, fresh air and fresh water. I need artistic creation---the arts. It makes life worth living. I need food to be inspected. I need health care. My wife and daughter need health care. I enjoy our national parks. The U.S. educational system thrives on immigrants. Did you know that 83% of top high school science students are immigrants? I value my colleagues from around the world. I value my LGBTQ+ friends. I value my undocumented friends. I value my black and hispanic friends. I value my muslim friends. I value science. I value the Earth. I value my internet connection. I value peace. I value fair elections. I value truth.

David:
You've thrown a very large blanket covering a lot of things that won't change at all, but insinuating that they will. The EPA will still provide you with clean air and water (at least as well as when they were spending gazillions and regulating the mud puddles that occasionally shows up in my back yard after it rains. Flint Michigan occurred on the prior EPA's watch.). Did you have health care before Obamacare? Yes. And now you still have it. But most Americans can't use theirs because their deductibles are too high. My deductible this year is $10,000! You will still have health care after Obamacare is gone. Everything else you've written in the prior paragraph (as though those things will change) is utter nonsense.

Doug:
Cutting Meals on Wheels? Why? According to the Republican administration:
"Meals on Wheels sounds great," [Mick Mulvaney] said, arguing that it's the sort of program that is "not showing any results."
Not showing any results?! Time reports that "a 2013 review of research showed that most studies found home-delivered meal programs significantly improved diet quality, improved nutrition and reduced food insecurity among participating seniors." It just feeds people. Old people. What kind of results do the Republicans want out of these programs?

Do I see that our country is great and getting greater? I guess, as you said, it depends on what your priorities are. I don't expect you to have the same priorities as me. But I think you might agree that not everyone sees that "America is getting greater."

David:
The more prosperous we are, the more we are able to do. All of the things I have mentioned: more companies, more jobs, educational choices, better-run government, etc. all provide us with the ability to do more in the world, or to just make the US better by improving our own infrastructure. I know you think things were so much better under Obama, but he spent a trillion dollars more every year he was in office than his predecessors, ran up a huge mountain of debt, and we still don't have the infrastructure repairs that he promised (shovel-ready jobs) when he took office.

You may not have the same priorities as I do, but my priorities match the majority of Americans, who want more and better paying jobs. They want a secure retirement and a booming 401K. They want their kids to be better off financially than themselves. Right now, it looks like we're on our way to that happy place. But we'll have to wait and see.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

From Russia with Love?

Doug:
There have been a few claims of Russian connections in the last year in relation to our country. What are you concerned about related to Russia? Anything that you would like to know more about?




David:
That's a pretty broad question.


There are things that we seem to know, and other things that seem to border on being fake news.


Doug:
Let's be careful about using the term "fake news." Let's just use that term for articles that attempt to purposely deceive readers. I think we can agree that there aren't mainstream US news media that would purposively deceive the public. That would surely end their business.


David:
Reporting stories about fake things can also be considered news.  I thought you considered most of the stories reported about Hillary Clinton's potentially illegal server issues was about a fake topic.


Doug:
No! And you are blurring many lines here. "Fake topic" (a term you just made up) is (I presume) not the same as "fake news." The Republican-controlled congress really did investigate Hillary Clinton, and so reports of that action were real.


David:
The investigation was real. Do you believe that the investigation was warranted, and the reporting about her wrongdoing was justified? Or was it reporting about about an investigation about a fake topic?


Doug:
Many people believe that it was what it appeared to be: political theater. But let's not confuse that with "fake news." Fake news is purposefully deceptive created to attempt to sway opinion, or make money. Here is a collection of fake stories that were spread around during the last election cycle:




People don't argue whether those are fake or not. They are not real. Now, there are allegations regarding the Republican campaign that we need to find out whether they are true or not. But "allegations" are not the same as "fake news."


David:
If the allegations are false, what would you call it? False news?


Doug:
No. If the allegations are false then it is "political theater." If the allegations are true, then somebody is going to be in trouble.


David:
Sometimes you only know that the allegations are false after you investigate.

Doug:
Sometimes!? Sometimes!? What world do you live in where the allegations are true even before there is an investigation?

David:
You’re saying if the investigation turns up a crime, it was justified, but if the investigation does not find evidence of wrongdoing, then it was just political theater?

Doug:
In the case where there is no evidence, but an investigation is carried out anyway. Yes, that is the definition of political theater.

David:
That’s like your insurance denying payment for a medical test if the results are normal. You only know the results are normal if you actually do the test. But if the test indicates you have appendicitis, well, then the test is justified. You can’t make those determinations of value in hindsight.

Doug:
You really shouldn't try to make analogies. What is the "denying payment" in the political theater analogy? Here, let me help you: if a door-to-door salesperson told you that you needed to have a medical test done, and then the insurance agency denied payment, then we wouldn't be surprised. If a doctor getting kickbacks (or otherwise benefiting) from a procedure requests the procedure, the insurance agency might also deny payment. The results of the tests are irrelevant to the motivations of having the test done in the first place. But, if you find cancer, great! Well, not great... cancer sucks. But the person is still in trouble.

David:
What we do know is that Russia has aggressively been using cyber-attacks to try to disrupt elections that could undermine democratic nations. Although there is no clear-cut proof top Russian officials were behind the hackings of the DNC and John Podesta, there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence they were behind those hacks.


Doug:
That does seem to be the case.


David:
Even though there is no evidence at all that Russia altered any election results, the trickle of emails certainly damaged trust in Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Perhaps that was the ultimate goal.


Doug:
It does seem like it was the goal to damage Clinton and boost Trump.


David:
Not necessarily. The likely goal was to erode trust in the election, no matter who won. Since Clinton looked like a shoo-in for the presidency, eroding trust in her and the office would lead to a weakened US that Russia would be dealing with after the election. When Trump won, the mainstream media (reporting claims made by Democratic leaders) immediately proposed that Russian hacking led to his victory. It appears they succeeded in causing turmoil, as media and social media continue to falsely assert  that Putin altered the election results via hacking.


Doug:
How would you measure the effect that Russia's hacking had on the election?


David:
A poll was done, and found that about 60% of voters felt the Russian hacking had no effect on the outcome. Russia did not change election results. Yet we're still talking about Russian influence on the election.


Doug:
But how can one know whether what Russia did had an impact on the election? Are you claiming that propaganda doesn't work?


David:
Sure it works. So does negative campaigning. How much do those things work? I agree that it’s hard to tell for sure.


Doug:
"Hard to know for sure" is very different from "had no influence." According to the poll you cite, 40% of voters felt that the Russians had an effect.


David:
And a clear majority felt their efforts had no effect at all.

Doug:
What is this, a majority rules type of reality? As soon as it gets to 51% then we should investigate?

David:
We know that Russia appears to be behind attempts to influence the ongoing French elections. This is consistent with the reports they were behind the hacks attempting to influence our recent elections. They seem to be intent on stirring up trouble and uneasiness in the elections of democratic countries.


I think we need to know more. The FBI and CIA may already know much more than we're hearing about, but Congressional inquiries into Russian cyber-attacks is a good idea and a good place to start. We might both agree that cyber-security is a very pressing subject that needs to be addressed from Congress.


Doug:
What do you imagine that congress could do?


David:
I'm not sure I understand your question. Any alterations to national security based on information about Russian hacking would come through Congress. Since Congress determines spending priorities, they could shift money to security agencies to combat cyber-attacks.


Doug:
You just said that congress needs to address cyber-security. What does that mean? What can they do?


David:
How would you answer that very question?


Doug:
Congress can collect and allocate money to increased cyber security. That means they need taxes, and they need to invest in tools and expertise. Then they need to make sure that that information is disseminated to US companies.


David:
Or, they could allocate money they already have to cyber-security. Big Government needs to prioritize what it does, and what’s important. They already have our tax dollars. Let’s have them use the financial resources better.


Doug:
Of course. Anyway, what do I have questions about? Surely the firing of Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor raises some questions. Why did Trump fire him? Now Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any inquiry involving Trump, Russia, and the campaign. That seems strange. Why would he do that?


David:
Michael Flynn appears to have mislead Vice-President Mike Pence. He was asked to resign for that reason.


Doug:
Maybe. There seems to be questions now about when did the VP found out about Flynn's activities. Either Flynn lied to the VP, or the VP lied about Flynn. We aren't sure.


David:
We are sure.

Doug:
If you say it with conviction, and say it often, then we can be sure! If you say it with conviction, and say it often, then we can be sure!

David:
To suggest otherwise is to say that the Vice-President is a liar, without any evidence to back that statement up. Let’s try to stick with what we know.


Doug:
Let's consider that the VP is telling the truth. Why did Flynn lie to him? What was Flynn lying about? Was he hiding something? Why did he think that lying to the VP was worth resigning over? What exactly was Flynn saying to the Russians? Did he go "rogue" or did was he following orders? Did he potentially break the law? Since he quit (or was fired) these are questions that independently-minded people should explore.


The other alternative is that the VP is lying. That seems more likely now. It seems everyone knew Flynn was lobbying.


David:
Sounds like a witch hunt to me, but I’m fine with Congress investigating to find those answers.

Doug:
Well, I would think so.

David:
But be careful what you wish for. Late last week, a Russian spokesman stated that Russian officials were meeting with Clinton campaign officials as well. Were they also committing crimes? Is it a crime to talk to foreign officials?

Jeff Sessions recused himself from investigations that might involve Russians trying to influence the current administration. As an appointee of that administration, that was the right thing to do to avoid any appearance of impropriety. That isn't strange, it's what's supposed to happen. It's what Loretta Lynch should have done (but didn't) when she was found to have met with former President Clinton while Hillary was under investigation. I watched the entire back-and-forth between Sessions and Senator Franken, and find Session's response to be answering a question whether he had talked to any Russian officials as part of Trump's campaign, not as part of his job as Senator. Franked was asking specifically about a news story that had just come out that day.


Doug:
Hillary was always under investigation by the Republican congress. I'm not sure why she still isn't. Unless it really wasn't about illegal activity. If she broke the law, she should go to trial. If found guilty, they should lock her up, right? The same with Sessions, or Flynn, or anyone.


Regarding Sessions testimony under oath, it does remind me of another careful parsing of language:




It is pretty clear that Sessions did lie, but probably isn't prosecutable as perjury, as Tapper explores here. But I'm not concerned with the lie, I'm concerned with what the conversations between Sessions and the Russians were about.


David:
Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a US Senator, along with plenty of Democratic senators. Are they all committing crimes? Should they all be investigated so we know just what illegalities Senators like Claire McCaskill are up to?


Doug:
Talking to the Russians as a Senator is, of course, not a crime. Perhaps you are not aware that that is part of their normal jobs. However, discussing the sanctions before taking office could be a serious crime. Lying to the FBI about that definitely is a crime.


David:
So you feel a candidate for POTUS or his aids talking to a foreign official about sanctions the US is enforcing is a crime? Just what is the crime?

Doug:
There are many possible crimes. Why would Flynn lie to the VP (if he did) if there wasn't a crime? Why would he resign/get fired if there wasn't a crime? We just need to find out which crimes were committed.

David:

Or, misleading your boss is a reason for losing your job, without any crime being committed.

What I find more concerning at this point are the new revelations that the Obama Justice Department was wiretapping Trump and his aids since last October  (it’s reported they had tried to get a FISA judge to allow the wiretap as early as June) and then had disseminated all of the information gathered through as many means as possible. Even though they found no evidence of any wrongdoing, The reasons given for these unprecedented actions were to save the information for future investigations, and to prevent the destruction of the information by the Trump team. That narrative create an impression of some type of guilt when there is no guilt. The Obama administration left all sorts of innuendo in many inappropriate places to cast dispersions on the Trump administration, and to create this narrative of Russian collusion well before Trump ever even took office. President Obama was harsh in his rhetoric towards Trump, and this looks like a revenge move after the election. The fact that so many high ranking Democrats have jumped on this bandwagon, asking for resignations before any investigations have even been done,  leaves me with an impression that they may have all been given a heads-up on this information.


Doug:
Well, you certainly have an active imagination! But this just shows that we need a very thorough investigation to know who said what to whom, and who was listening to it and why.


David:
I think we can agree to that.


"It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama. Sean Spicer, the Trump White House spokesman, said, “The only new piece of information that has come to light is that political appointees in the Obama administration have sought to create a false narrative to make an excuse for their own defeat in the election.” He added, “There continues to be no there, there.” ~excerpt from the NYT article


Doug:
Not much has been confirmed yet. More evidence that we need to explore what happened.


David:
This opinion piece outlines Russian financial ties that the Clintons had while Hillary was SOS. The Obama Justice Department didn't raise a finger, and the media wasn't interested.


Doug:
Yes, we know who Peter Schweizer is. Which is it:


A) Trump should be treated like Clinton and get a "free pass" (even though they really should not, if we want to get to the bottom of some issue).


B) Clinton, like Trump, did nothing wrong.


It can't be that "Clinton did something wrong" AND "Trump did not do something wrong." It has to be (A) or (B) by your own analogy. I find your argument convincing, but that neither should get a "free pass." We should investigate both, and if either broke the law, they should both be locked up.


David:
It isn’t (A) or (B). There is no evidence Trump has any ties to Russians, or that there was any collusion at all, yet there is a constant drone for investigations.


Doug:
I guess you have added to the "drone" by being "fine" with an investigation. But there are lots of ties between Russians and Trump. How could there not be, with a company as vast as Trump's?


David:
Now you’re just making assumptions. “How could there not be?” is not proof. There is clear, documented financial ties to Russians by the Clintons while Hillary was in office, yet there was never a whisper for anyone to take a closer look. The case against Trump is (so far) unproven allegations, the other (Clinton’s financial ties) is documented facts. Glad to see you’re all in for investigating the Clintons.


Doug:
If the Clinton's broke the law, wouldn't the Republican administration be prosecuting them? I would be in favor of it, if they broke the law. Why aren't you disappointed that Republicans are not investigating!? I would be furious if I thought that the Republican Congress wasn't doing their job. (Of course, I am not furious, because I don't believe that the Clinton's broke any laws. But you don't appear to be consistent.)


David:


Doug:
Come on! That was a snarky tweet. There is no evidence that there is any ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton. That would be front page news! If a tweet is all that it takes to convince you of something, you should read my tweets!




Regarding Obama trying to smear Trump: Why did they wait until March 2017 to do it? Wouldn't this have been much more damaging in October 2016? Why did they rely on leaks? Shouldn't Obama have declared the smear himself, via a Tweet in all CAPS! Obama really was the worst in his revenge plots. Sad!


David:
Democrats lost the election. Trump promised to undo all of Obama’s misguided legacy.  How could Obama derail that process? The Obama administration appears to have processed any information (which they admit does not link Trump to any Russian involvement in our election) about Russia, and then disseminated it as widely as they could, through any means possible. Then, they claimed through “leaks” that they had to take these extraordinary steps because Trump would likely destroy the “evidence”. Democrats were already stonewalling everything Trump was doing, even to the point of letting his cabinet through at the slowest pace in American history. Now they’re constantly braying that members of his cabinet should resign, and that Trump should be impeached.


Current media headlines link Trump to the Russians, yet there is no evidence that such a link exists. There was a link between Clinton and Russians, yet little or no reporting was ever done by the majority of the mainstream media. Why do you think that is?


Doug:
I don't believe your premise. As far as I see, the media always tracks down viable stories. Interesting stories sell papers. Interesting stories sell advertising. I just hope that a real investigation is made so that we will eventually know what really happened.


David:
I think it’s typical from both sides of the aisle: Let’s investigate everything the other side does exhaustively. No stone should remain unturned. But let’s turn a blind eye to what’s going on in our own backyards. That’s just politics. I always have to smile when someone is outraged about an administration’s actions, but soon after, a recording is produced showing that same politician endorsing the same behavior in one of their own.


Doug:
Well, if you are speaking for yourself, then I find that pretty disgusting. If I thought anyone was doing something illegal, regardless of what party they were in, then they should be investigated and prosecuted if allegations found to be true. Those are my politics.


David:
I’m speaking of our elected officials, not you and me. You and I were brought up with a code of ethics. It doesn’t take much searching to find blatant hypocrisy in Washington.


We’ve discussed before in the blog how the media is biased against conservatives.

Doug:
We have? Oh, you mean you have claimed that before. Sure, sure you have.

David:

For a man of science, you certainly toss it aside when it doesn'tfit your opinions. There are plenty of scientific studies that have been done showing liberal bias in the media. All media.

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2637/MeasureMediaBias.pdf?

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

It is my prediction that the next four years are going to be full of stories that you consider “viable”, but would never have seen the light of day if the same information was about a Democrat. Trump doesn’t help himself by constantly prodding them, but it probably doesn’t make much of a difference. But still, it’s better than Pravda.


Doug:
I would believe you if I ever heard of someone asking to see Trump's birth certificate. If Obama had withheld his income tax forms maybe people would have trusted him more. But alas, I predict that the future really will be filled with many stories that will have to be investigated. But I predict Trump won't make it four years. There is no way he will be able to keep this up, one way or another. I suspect a Democratic congress would impeach him.


David:
Let’s wait for the results of all of these investigations before you make your convictions, shall we?

Doug:
Why is it that your predictions ("It is also my [David's] prediction that the next four years are going to be full of stories that you consider 'viable', but would never have seen the light of day if the same information was about a Democrat.") are fine, but mine indicate that I am willing to jump to conclusions? Is that a debate technique, or do you really see a difference?

David:
In the meantime, let’s enjoy the accelerating economy, the increasing jobs market, and the higher wages employees are now seeing. America is great, and getting greater!

Doug:
I was going to let you have the last word, but that is just too stoopid to end on. If I thought that we were heading into even a remotely better place, then that would be tolerable. But we are not. We can discuss this, and more, next week at the same bat-time, on the same bat-channel...