Tom with the BTRTN
October 2019 Month in Review, and our take on where it is headed.
THE LEAD
·
The House impeachment inquiry moved along at a lightning pace, as a
series of diplomats and White House advisors disdained “stonewalling” and described
the Ukraine fiasco in full, revealing a shadow foreign policy hinged on a quid
pro quo – Trump would release U.S. aid to and provide public support for Ukraine, in return for publicly declared and politically motivated Ukraine investigations into the
Biden’s, and Hillary Clinton’s server.
·
The White House “strategy” shifted from defending the “substance” of Trump's policy to attacking
the impeachment process, as the talking points (“there was no quid pro quo”) kept getting
undercut by the testimony, as well as by Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
·
Trump continued to argue that his July 25 phone call to Zelensky was “perfect” and
expressed frustration with tepid GOP support in general, and then, more
recently, with the GOP focus on process rather than substance.
·
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, suddenly in possession of a wealth of
incriminating evidence, must now decide how to balance the desire for additional
corroborative testimony from willing witnesses (including, potentially, John
Bolton) with the need for speed.
·
Meanwhile, there are glimmers of what the endgame might look like –
which we will describe below.
THE MONTH
October, 2019 was consumed by the impeachment inquiry,
which was launched not long after a whistleblower came forward with concerns
about a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Zelensky. In
that call, Specifically, Trump demanded politically self-interested investigations
of Joe and Hunter Biden and their involvement with a Ukraine company, Burisma, and
also a look into the whereabouts of the infamous Hillary Clinton server with
her emails. In return, Trump would release
nearly $400 million of congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, and agree to a face-to-face
meeting for Zelensky with Trump, which Zelensky, new in office, wanted to help
solidify the ties between the two nations.
After the whistleblower report, the White House released a
summary of the July 25 call, which supported the whistleblower’s account in
full. The impeachment inquiry began with
the usual requests for documents and the White House adopted a combative
approach, declaring the entire inquiry a sham and refusing to participate. But cracks quickly appeared in the stonewall,
and on the very first day of testimony Congress secured texts between senior
diplomats that involved the quid pro quo.
Soon thereafter, various diplomats – former U.S. Ambassador
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch (who had been forced out by Trump), her de facto
replacement, the esteemed Bill Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent
and other senior officials – went to the Hill to tell their story. And this was the story of a “shadow” diplomatic
effort led by Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, abetted by Trump flunky
Gordon Sondland, a former real estate mogul and Trump’s E.U. Ambassador. Far from “no quid pro quo,” Taylor testified that the entire shadow policy was the quid pro quo.
National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman was next,
and he offered particularly compelling testimony. Vindman has a remarkable life story: he was born in the Ukraine, emigrated with his
family to the U.S. at age three, became a Harvard-educated policy maker, saw
live combat in Afghanistan, and earned a Purple Heart in an IED explosion while
serving his country. Vindman proved to
be as close to an unimpeachable witness as the Democrats could conceive. He was also the first White House official to
defy the stonewall, and was the first to testify who actually listened in on
the infamous July 25 phone call. He not
only upheld the veracity of the whistleblower story but also stated that the
written summary excluded other references to Burisma and Biden.
The initial overall GOP Trump defense strategy, such as it
was, focused on the substance: first, “the
whistleblower is wrong,” then, “there was no quid pro quo.” Each line of defense, however, was subsequently
undercut by either Trump himself, chief of staff Mick Mulvaney or witnesses,
forcing Trump defenders to not just continually “move the goal posts” but to essentially
vault them out of the stadium entirely.
The next stratagem was to attack the Democrat’s impeachment
process. All testimony was given in the
secure basement of the House (designed for security purposes), under the
bi-partisan watch of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees. The taking of depositions in private is a
standard procedure of many investigations, akin to a grand jury. This process allows for the proper uncovering
of facts used to build a case. Despite
the long history of following similar processes by both parties, the GOP chose
it as an attack point, because, frankly, it became harder to defend Trump’s
action as the testimony mounted.
The low point of the “attack the process” charade was a farcical,
five-hour “Pizza In” disruption of the depositions by a gaggle of GOP
congressmen, designed to protest the “secret nature” of the process. The main problem with such process attacks,
apart from the many ample precedents, was their short shelf-life: Pelosi always intended to proceed next to public
testimony, which would undercut the “secret deliberations” argument, and the
Senate trial would include all the “due process” features typical of the U.S.
judicial system.
Trump, already annoyed at the less than full-throated support he was receiving from the GOP, was then annoyed at all the process talk, demanding the GOP defend his policies instead. But at this point, GOP senators have become largely silent, insisting that given their potential role as jurors in the trial, they had
best, at this point, say nothing at all.
Pelosi now faces a balancing act. Given that the facts are largely known, based
on the evidence and testimony to date, what is the value of additional
witnesses? Is it better to proceed to
the public testimony now, while the story is clear and the momentum is in the
Dems’ favor? Or go for more revelations,
but at the risk of detracting from the 2020 election as we head into primary
season?
This would likely be a reasonably easy call if not for John
Bolton. The well-known former National
Security Advisor, notoriously conservative and even more notoriously
independent, is known to have opposed the shadow Ukraine initiative. Testimony against Trump by a figure of
stature among the base could be a ground-shifter, if not a game changer. But to get Bolton on the stand will require a
subpoena (he has already turned down an invitation to testify voluntarily) and
his lawyer, Charles Cooper, would likely leave it to the courts to decide (the
method he is following with another client).
That will take some time.
Pelosi did have the full House vote to authorize the impeachment
inquiry process, not because she felt she needed such a vote in order to proceed,
but instead to undercut GOP howls that lacking such authorization the inquiry
was a “sham.” And so Pelosi allowed the
authorization to come to the floor, and it passed along partisan lines, save
two Democrats in Trump-heavy districts that voted against it.
Remarkably, at a time when Trump badly needs the support of
GOP House members and particularly the Senate, during the month he undertook
two acts that they simply despised. The
first was the shocking and abrupt decision to abandon the Kurds in Northern
Syria, effectively ceding the region to Turkey.
And the second was the announcement that the 2020 G7 would be hosted by
Trump at his very own hotel complex at the Doral in Florida.
The blowback on both was instant and bi-partisan. Almost immediately after the Trump
announcement of the U.S. troop withdrawal, the Turks moved in. Not only were the Kurds forced to abandon
their battle against ISIS – our allies in this cause – but also lessen the
priority on watching over 12,000 ISIS prisoners held in the area, a number of
whom escaped. GOP wrath even included Chief
Acolyte Lindsay Graham, who emerged from Trump’s hindquarters long enough to
bark a loud objection (which he later more or less retracted).
The blowback on Doral was so intense that Trump was
actually forced into a rare retreat (reversing himself on Doral as a site),
with much sputtering about the “phony” Emoluments clause, which in reality does
exist, right there in Article I, Section 9, Article 8 of the Constitution of
the United States, penned by our forefathers to prevent things like, well,
hosting the G7 at Trump’s own Doral.
The month also featured the arrest of two Rudy Giuliani
Ukrainian associates, hours after they had lunch with Rudy and en route to
Dulles Airport with one-way tickets to Europe.
The two were charged with violating campaign finance laws. The obvious implication was that the two were
involved in UkraineGate in some way, and their arrest forced Giuliani to seek
legal counsel of his own.
At the end of the month, Trump did achieve a badly needed
win, with the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by U.S.
commandos. But Trump undercut his own
victory with his graphic, tasteless and semi-fictional account of his
death. Trump claimed that the terrorist
was “whimpering and crying and screaming all the way” to his death, when no such
evidence exists to support the characterization and no military figure will
confirm it. He also said that the
killing was bigger than Barack Obama’s conquest of Osama bin Laden, which of
course is simply not true.
Finally, there was indeed the usual array of Trump
madness. Our favorite included Trump
various immigration ideas such as shooting migrants in the legs and building an
alligator-infested moat.
Where Is This Going? Our Impeachment/Trial Prediction
The endgame is beginning to come into view. Here is the BTRTN prediction, barring any further even more spectacular revelations.
Pelosi will opt for speed over further fact-finding, and
public testimony will begin in mid-November.
The tightly choreographed testimony will be managed for maximum effect,
going for the power of a first-round knockout rather than a graceful win on
points built over 15 rounds. Trump will
be impeached by the holidays.
McConnell will conduct some measure of a proper trial. While not the full two-month trial that
Clinton endured, this one will go for 30-45 days under the watchful eyes of
John Roberts.
The Senate will acquit, largely along party lines, and GOP senators will use the following logic to justify
their position: “Trump did offer
a quid pro quo to Ukraine, and that was indeed poor judgment, out of
bounds and, yes, an abuse of power. But
it does not rise to an impeachable offense.
Trump is an unconventional politician and, in this instance, he went too
far. But Trump brings new thinking to
stagnated world problems, his creativity and deal-making prowess are well worth
the occasional slip-up. And he was poorly
served by advisers who should have known better.”
There will be no attempt to justify Trump’s actions, or
defend them beyond that.
What will be interesting is how far (some) Republicans go
beyond simply acquittal:
·
Will any Republicans vote to convict? If Trump cannot muster a majority of the
Senate, that will be news. Keep an eye
on Romney (untouchable in Utah), Collins (under heavy fire in Maine), Gardner (a
potential loser in blue state Colorado), others in close elections, and other
oft-critical GOP types like Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowsky. Look as well at red state Democrats who
might vote to acquit, such as Doug Jones of Alabama or Joe Manchin of West
Virginia.
·
Will some heads roll? We might see the rapid departures of some of those
who “poorly served” Trump, including Sondland, Mulvaney – and perhaps even
Pompeo.
·
Censure?
The House and/or Senate could vote to censure Trump on his conduct,
which would be a humiliating black eye, though well short of conviction, of
course.
·
Keep in mind that some “acquittal” votes may be
horse-traded for some of the above concessions from wavering Republicans and
Democrats.
And while Trump thus is ultimately acquitted, and the 2020
campaign moves to the forefront, Ukraine will not go away. The public trial of Rudy Giuliani will see to
that.
Trump will not benefit from this acquittal. The public nature of the testimony and the
tepid support from GOP Senators will have some modest impact in the court of
public opinion, and Trump’s cries of vindication will ring hollow. He may lose a bit on the margin, and he
cannot afford any such losses given the current electoral dynamics.
You heard it here first.
TRUMP APPROVAL RATING
Trump’s approval rating decreased by a negligible one
percentage point in the month of October, from 44% to 43%. His approval rating was in the 40-45% range
for the 22nd consecutive month. Neither snow
nor rain nor heat nor gloom of an impeachment inquiry has changed anyone’s mind
about Trump.
TRUMP MONTHLY APPROVAL RATING
|
||||||||||||||
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
||||||||||||
Jan
|
Jun
|
Jan
|
Jun
|
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
|
Approve
|
45
|
40
|
41
|
42
|
42
|
41
|
42
|
42
|
43
|
43
|
43
|
43
|
44
|
43
|
Disappr.
|
44
|
55
|
55
|
53
|
54
|
55
|
54
|
54
|
54
|
54
|
54
|
53
|
53
|
55
|
Net
|
1
|
-15
|
-13
|
-10
|
-12
|
-14
|
-11
|
-12
|
-11
|
-12
|
-11
|
-10
|
-9
|
-13
|
TRUMPOMETER
The Trumpometer did not change from September to October, holding
steady at +10. The +10 Trumpometer
reading means that, on average, our five economic measures are +10% higher than
they were at the time of Trump’s Inauguration, per the chart below (and with
more explanation of methodology below).
Per the chart below, none of the five measures showed much movement
month to month.
The “Trumpometer” was designed to allow an objective answer
to the economically-driven question of the 1980 Reagan campaign: “Are you better off than you were four years
ago?” The Trumpometer now stands at +10,
which means that Donald Trump can definitively claim that the answer to that
question is “yes.” (Whether he deserves
credit for that score is another matter.)
Clinton
|
Bush
|
Obama
|
Trump
|
|||
TRUMPOMETER
|
End
Clinton 1/20/2001
|
End
Bush 1/20/2009
|
End
Obama 1/20/2017 (Base = 0)
|
Trump 9/30/2019
|
Trump 10/31/2019
|
% Chg. Vs. Inaug. (+ = Better)
|
Trumpometer
|
25
|
-53
|
0
|
10
|
10
|
10%
|
Unemployment Rate
|
4.2
|
7.8
|
4.7
|
3.7
|
3.6
|
23%
|
Consumer Confidence
|
129
|
38
|
114
|
125
|
126
|
11%
|
Price of Gas
|
1.27
|
1.84
|
2.44
|
2.74
|
2.69
|
-11%
|
Dow Jones
|
10,588
|
8,281
|
19,732
|
26,917
|
27,046
|
37%
|
GDP
|
4.5
|
-6.2
|
2.1
|
2.0
|
1.9
|
-10%
|
If you would like to be on the Born
To Run The Numbers email list notifying you of each new post, please write us
at borntorunthenumbers@gmail.com.
Notes
on methodology:
BTRTN calculates our
monthly approval ratings using an average of the four pollsters who conduct
daily or weekly approval rating polls: Gallup Rasmussen, Reuters/Ipsos and You
Gov/Economist. This provides consistent and accurate trending information and
does not muddy the waters by including infrequent pollsters. The outcome tends to mirror the RCP average
but, we believe, our method gives more precise trending.
For
the generic ballot (which is not polled in this post-election time period), we
take an average of the only two pollsters who conduct weekly generic ballot
polls, Reuters/Ipsos
and You Gov/Economist, again for trending consistency.
The Trumpometer aggregates a set of
economic indicators and compares the resulting index to that same set of
aggregated indicators at the time of the Trump Inaugural on January 20, 2017,
on an average percentage change basis... The basic idea is to demonstrate
whether the country is better off economically now versus when Trump took
office. The indicators are the unemployment rate, the Dow-Jones
Industrial Average, the Consumer Confidence Index, the price of gasoline, and
the GDP.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment