Friday News Roundup — February 14, 2020
Gaming Out 2020 from Today; Protecting Prosecutorial Independence; Modernizing Command & Control; Guest Op-Ed on American Politics; Plus News You May Have Missed
Greetings from Washington and happy Friday. While it’s Valentine’s Day, there’s little love in politics, as 2020 campaign rhetoric only continues to heat up. Although New Hampshire allowed for us to actually announce a winner on Tuesday night, Senator Bernie Sanders’ narrow victory over Mayor Pete Buttigieg provided little clarity as we now look to Nevada, South Carolina, then Super Tuesday. Dan made a bold 2020 prediction this week, and in this week’s roundup, he “shows his work” explaining his reasoning — and why he could be wrong.
Inside the Beltway, the case of Roger Stone’s sentencing and the resignation of the four career prosecutors assigned to the case is the latest post-impeachment drama. Chris looks at its ramifications for the rule of law in this week’s roundup.
This week’s roundup also includes Ethan’s continued analysis of military command and control, and why modernizing those systems is key for future military operations. We also welcome an inaugural guest contribution from Oliver Peter Thoma, an alumnus of our Presidential Fellows Program who has contributed with an “op-ed” this week decrying the state of our current politics. As always we wrap with news you may have missed, again with the contributions of Aida and Wyatt.
On 2020 Predictions — and Recipes for Crow
Dan Mahaffee
Early this week, I had the honor of speaking to the University of Delaware Lerner School of Business during their annual event looking mostly at the year’s economic outlook, along with some of the domestic and international political dynamics at play. At this panel, I made a bold prediction, that President Trump could win election, yet both houses of Congress would end up in Democratic hands.
In considering President Trump’s re-election prospects, the advantages he enjoys are the strong economy, the advantage of the electoral college, and the fragmented state of his Democratic opposition. While emboldened by his impeachment acquittal, the biggest obstacle to President Trump may very well be President Trump himself.
The national economic picture is strong, though hardly perfect. In his testimony to Congress this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell highlighted continued economic growth, falling unemployment, and low inflation. At long last, wage growth is steady, though the Fed Chair was quick to point out that regional, social, and racial disparities remain in the economic growth picture. In addition to a range of positive economic data points, there is another to consider: the RCP average of President Trump’s approval rating on the economy is 56%.
President Trump’s electoral college advantage was laid bare by his 2016 victory, and along with traditional swing states, Democrats will be torn between trying to retake Pennsylvania-Ohio-Michigan-Wisconsin, looking at an electoral map with North Carolina-Georgia-Colorado-Arizona in play, or some combination thereof. The challenge for Democrats is that there are many of them, but they are not spread out enough. Demographic trends and some realignment works in their favor, but the map still depends on the Democratic nominee.
This is where the current state of the Democratic Primary comes in. To provide a quick analysis, post New Hampshire, I believe the 2016 GOP primary provides a useful comparison. While it is not a perfect comparison, let’s say that the cast of characters is similar. There is the outsider, 2016 Trump and 2020 Bernie, with populist support and a strong base to build on in each contest. The establishment front runner, Jeb Bush/Joe Biden, appears strong at first, but fades through the first contests, a victim of high expectations and underperformance. A fresh face, Rubio/Buttigieg, provides an interesting alternative, but cannot consolidate the centrist/establishment vote as a more experienced, Midwestern alternative, Kasich/Klobuchar, continues to compete, but never with enough resources to go the distance. One candidate tries to appeal to both establishment and populist wings of the party, Cruz/Warren, but can never match the appeal of the pure populist, nor gain the trust of the establishment.
Where the Democrats’ current story diverges from the Republicans in 2016 is twofold: first, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is ready to upend conventional wisdom and carpet bomb Super Tuesday and other delegate-rich states with ad and campaign spending; and second, Democrats award their delegates proportionally, which will likely slow consolidation of the field and makes a contested convention — where no candidate has a majority of delegates — more likely. If it does come down to Sanders and Bloomberg, then Democrats in Milwaukee may be choosing between two candidates that have never appeared on a ballot as a member of their party.
There are plenty more contests to come, but there is currently little to suggest that the upcoming primaries and caucuses will make things clearer or consolidate the field. Thus, Senator Sanders continues to have the inside track for the nomination. Thus, we must consider his possible path to victory. Among the progressive to center right focus group that is the Democratic primary electorate, it appears that Sanders has a high floor, but also a low ceiling.
I believe the same will hold true in the general election. Already, the data from New Hampshire suggests that the biggest turnout spikes in the Democratic Primary were from moderate independents and “former Republicans” crossing the proverbial aisle to vote for Buttigieg and Klobuchar, not a spike in turnout for Sanders. Democrats were able to retake the House in 2018 by fielding candidates that could win in centrist suburbs and appeal to the white collar, college educated Americans who have been the biggest defectors from President Trump’s Republican Party. If Sanders does prevail, Republicans will be able to portray him as a direct threat to the livelihoods, health care, and prosperity of these voters. This will be on top of the data and targeted advertising machine already being built by the Trump campaign.There will be no return to “normalcy,” if the choice is between four more years of President Trump or Senator Sanders’ revolution. If running against Sanders, the Trump Campaign will actually be able to legitimately paint their candidate as a force for economic stability — even with the tweetstorm tariff tantrums.
Therefore, with this economic tailwind, a little help from the electoral college, and a muddled Democratic field favoring Sanders, President Trump has a narrow advantage in 2020. But as I said earlier, the biggest factor working against Trump could be himself. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard “I like what the President is doing, but I wish he would tweet less,” I would be able to run a campaign like Bloomberg’s. Even his own Attorney General shares this sentiment. Should President Trump continue to feel emboldened by his impeachment acquittal and invite further scandal — the Roger Stone case subsequently covered by Chris is a perfect example — it will only add to the pressure facing vulnerable GOP Senators and potentially galvanize moderates against him. Furthermore, that pressure facing vulnerable Republican Senators like Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, and Martha McSally — along with states like Georgia and North Carolina’s competitiveness — already favors Democrats’ efforts to retake the Senate in 2020. Whether it affects the president’s re-election depends on how far he goes, as well as the shape of the Democratic alternative.
As Eisenhower said, “plans are worthless, but planning is essential.” I feel much the same about predictions. Many factors remain to be decided, but the prediction exercise still allowed for a thorough analysis of the current political environment. It also allows us to begin to consider some of the contingencies that would take place if this prediction holds. We must consider what America would look like with four more years of a Trump presidency with at least two years of Congress under Democratic control. Would there be areas of potential cooperation? Would it be a nightmare for conservatives if President Trump’s legacy depends on cooperation with a Democratic Congress? Or, rather, is the pugilism of our current politics so intractable that it will endure no matter the outcome?
These are things that we must consider, while I google whether crow marsala or crow teriyaki is more palatable.
A “Miscarriage of Justice” Indeed
Chris Condon
Last November, infamous political operative Roger Stone was convicted of obstructing the Mueller investigation and lying to Congress. While the case has been dragging on for months, the Department of Justice took another step in the case this week by recommending a sentence for Stone. Following federal sentencing guidelines, the four career federal prosecutors in the case judged that a seven to nine year sentence would be appropriate for Stone’s crimes, and submitted their opinion to the court for consideration. Immediately following the announcement of this recommendation, President Trump, a longtime friend of Roger Stone, took to Twitter: “This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!” In this case, the real miscarriage of justice is the president’s decision to meddle in the affairs of the judicial branch.
While it would still be unusual and likely inappropriate for the president to weigh in on Stone’s case at this stage, it would have quickly blown over had the case moved forward normally. However, shortly after the president’s tweet regarding Mr. Stone’s case, all four of the career lawyers prosecuting Stone either recused themselves from the case or resigned from the Department of Justice entirely. A high ranking official then directly submitted an amended sentencing proposal that is reportedly far more lenient than the original. This move by a high-ranking Justice Department official is largely unprecedented, and is difficult to explain for a reason other than the influence of the president himself. While it is not unheard of for elected officials to take some role in the process of justice (by issuing a pardon, for instance), it is disconcerting that the president interfered with prosecutorial discretion in such a public and blatant manner.
Further complicating the situation is the fact that it was likely unnecessary to achieve the president’s desired outcome. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has routinely handed down less harsh sentences than those proposed by prosecutors, including in the case of known Roger Stone associate Paul Manafort. The president’s implication in the Department of Justice’s decision will also likely cause her to disregard the change entirely in making her decision to avoid the appearance that she can be influenced by elected officials. The president has also suggested that he intends to pardon Stone even if he is sentenced to serve time in prison, which will likely make the entire question moot. The only apparent effect of the president’s intervention was to create the appearance that he is inappropriately interfering in the judicial process.
While prosecutors in general are hardly immune to political considerations, there are circumstances in this case that render it exceptional. First, federal prosecutors are often career public servants who rely on their expertise rather than political loyalties to carry out their duties. This was the status of the original Stone prosecutors, who were so unnerved by the actions of the Department that they saw fit to resign from the case. Second, it is clear that President Trump’s interest in the case is personal. While it would be more understandable for a president to intervene in this manner if they believed that a case was simply being conducted in an unfair manner, perhaps fewer eyebrows would be raised. The fact that Roger Stone is an associate of the president and worked as an operative on his campaign begs the question of whether the president is using the power of his office for personal reasons.
In many countries, the judicial branch of government is controlled by or heavily influenced by either the executive or legislature. Until recently, the United Kingdom’s court of last resort was the House of Lords, the upper chamber of their legislature. In the United States, the judiciary is completely separate from its political counterparts for this very reason — to shield it from politics as much as possible. Although judges are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, the interactions between judges and political officials is meant to be rare after they are confirmed. In carrying out justice, actors in our legal system are supposed to be blind and deaf to concerns aside from the facts and evidence before them. If this were not the case, justice would be subject to the whims of the electorate or elected officials, with popular but guilty people walking free and innocent pariahs facing unjust penalty. Although the system isn’t foolproof, it’s the best we have.
By interfering with the trial of a personal associate, the president challenges this important norm of American governance. As the sizable Richard Nixon tattoo on Roger Stone’s back indicates, he holds little respect for these norms. This is fine for a political provocateur with no discernible power, but we must demand better from our elected officials.
All-Domain Command & Control — USAF Edition
Ethan Brown
As the Department of Defense prepares for its immediate future, subject to budget challenges and efforts to modernize the weapons catalogue, the innovative and effective development of functional command and control may ultimately decide continued dominance in the future fight. To this end, General David Goldfein, Chief of Staff (USAF), has made Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) the Air Forces’ top priority. Previous analysis on the broader DoD C2 efforts in this medium have identified the cloud/network initiatives, while this analysis will directly address the USAF recent JADC2 and what it means under the Great Power Competition paradigm.
C2 Versus ‘Joint’ Command & Control
Arguably the greatest lesson learned from 19 years of counter terror operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the US Military construct sorely needed, and only marginally addressed the command and control interoperability challenge between its components (land, sea, air, and cyber forces). Doctrine and TTPs (Tactics, Techniques & Procedures) are necessarily unique to each service branches mission/strategic power projection; simply, an Air Force Bomber pilot should never advise an Army Ranger Ground Force Commander on setting isolation & containment for a target building during a Direct Action Raid. This very specific and arbitrary example is intended to highlight that different service members think about warfighting and its TTPs in dramatically different ways as it pertains to mission execution.
Command and Control however, is agnostic of the color of one’s uniform or technical specialty. Per the US Army Field Manual 6–0: “[C2] enables commanders to use their authority to accomplish the mission and see to the health and welfare of subordinates. Using their command and control system, the commander directs the actions of their forces and imposes their will on the enemy. Through command and control, the commander initiates the actions of, influences, and synchronizes the elements of combat power to impose his/her will on the situation and defeat the enemy”.
In the preceding decades of the US military might, commanders at various levels have typically unilaterally applied these basic and universal concepts to their warfighting slant, and only at the higher levels (division-corps, combatant, theater or unified) had some semblance of a Joint theorem been applied. What the DoD learned through bitter lessons and much trial and error throughout the Global War on Terror, is that the Joint construct is the paradigm of modern warfighting. This necessarily includes the C2 constructs, which is driving the innovations of the CloudOne and JADC2 concepts. While commanders and their roles of imposing will on the enemy and dictating the execution of force actions, C2 has rapidly evolved into an information sharing construct to adapt to the modernity of the battlespace. The application of information sharing and comprehension across command levels has introduced new domains of doctrine and theory into the DoD enterprise, dubbed Information Operations. Going back to the Bomber pilot v. Ranger GFC analogy, while both commanders have a need to execute their respective and myopic piece of the puzzle, improved awareness between these two and all of the other warfighters in the system leads to battlefield adaptability and rapid decision making.
JADC2: Air Power Shared is Air Power Spared
Much like the aforementioned previous analysis addressing the cloud network for reporting and command efficiency, the JADC2 takes information exchange but applies it at the tactical level- where C2 meets the enemy. It is an iterative technological development under the broader Air Battle Management System which not only enables commanders to direct forces in engaging adversaries, but shares the battlefield data between sensors and shooters…all of them. Per Lt. Gen. Mark Kelly, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the JADC2 system aims to coordinate the finding, fixing, and shooting sequences across not just the Air Force tools, but across the DoD. Further, the new system integrates information sharing related to logistics, friendly battle-tracking, and links forward operating bases, creating a fully fused information network that enables all facets of the warfighting function to more efficiently take the fight to the enemy.
What JADC2 also alters in the broader C2 construct is the exchange of hardware for software, eliminating vulnerabilities like hard points, equipment, and fixed systems found in prior C2 infrastructure like radio arrays, built-up command centers and massive battlefield footprints. The Air Force Head of Acquisitions Dr. Will Roper announced in January that a comprehensive development approach has been taken to incorporate multiple vendors, including Northrop-Grumman, Honeywell and Lockheed-Martin, in the rapid evolution of existing C2 architecture into this platform eliminating, software based paradigm.
This endeavor is currently in its embryonic phase, and has only recently begun testing, but based on the 2021 budget, which projects over $3 Billion investment into these systems over four years, this new means of C2 seems likely to be experimental only in the near term. Further, the demonstration of cross-system interoperability and the potential to tap into cloud-computed capabilities means the Air Force, and the DoD writ large, have turned their hands to making the US military better equipped to deal with the 21st century warfighting…across every domain.
The views are of the author, and do not reflect the views, position, or policy of the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense.
What’s Wrong With America’s Future? Perhaps It’s Us.
Oliver Peter Thoma
When will our leaders get serious about the business of government? When will our elected officials care less about their Twitter following or cable news appearances and more about their constituents’ health care costs or wage growth?
I am afraid the answer to these questions lies in large part with us, the voters. We continue to support politicians who spend more time on talk shows than they do in committee rooms hammering out bi-partisan solutions to our colossal national debt or skyrocketing health care costs. We continue to vote for politicians who make unrealistic promises and criticize those who dare to shout “The emperor has no clothes!”
Today, our national politics bears more resemblance to the WWE than to “regular order.” Why? Because we are more interested in the horror of the impending train wreck than what we can do to stop it. Too often we are content to see politics as entertainment, and we are paying a steep price. At the core of this Faustian bargain — for nothing more in return than a cheap titillation — is a failure to remember a core American value: we are all created equal in the eyes of God. This core value of human dignity is what makes us different than our adversaries — China, Russia, and Iran.
The rhetoric we use, as Republicans and Democrats, is decaying into incivility and violence. Rather than seeing our political opponents “through the eyes of God,” or as we would see a friend or a neighbor, we distance ourselves from our opponent’s inherent human dignity. We have the Deplorables versus the Deep State, and we are all the worse for it. Every time we dehumanize our political opponents (whether President Trump or Speaker Pelosi), every time we cheer when our favorite talk-show host demeans those with opposing views rather than challenges the substance of those views, we take one small step towards discarding what makes us uniquely American. It is fine to disagree with one another; it is not fine to hate one another. The more we reward dehumanizing political rhetoric, the less likely we are to be able to preserve America’s exceptionalism and secure a prosperous and secure future for our children and grandchildren.
Observing our growing societal dysfunction, our adversaries have become emboldened to interfere in our elections, undermine our alliances abroad, and attempt to create a new world order dominated by fear and oppression. Republicans and Democrats alike must be wary. We must find a way to disagree without being disagreeable. We must remember that Republicans and Democrats alike all share inherent human dignity, and that core American value is what will bind us together to survive the challenges we face in the 21st Century.
America’s future is not foreordained to further dysfunction. If we are the problem, we can just as easily be the solution. Let us reclaim that core value of inherent human dignity: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As Republicans and Democrats, let us work together to seek justice, defend the oppressed, and provide better economic opportunities for all Americans regardless of political party, race, ethnicity, or religion. If we do so at home, we have a chance to preserve a future for our children and grandchildren — not to mention the world — that is centered on freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Oliver Peter Thoma is an associate at King & Spalding LLP in Austin, Texas, and is an 2010–2011 alumnus of the CSPC Presidential Fellows Program.
News You May Have Missed
Trump Administration Goes to War with States Over Immigration
Aida Olivas
The Trump administration recently filed lawsuits against California, New Jersey, and a county in Washington State over state laws and an order that federal officials claim subverts immigration enforcement. The suits focus on the California law that bans for-profit prisons and detention centers, the 2018 state law that restricts local New Jersey law enforcement from participating in federal immigration operations (except in violent or emergency situations), and the King County order preventing the use of the county’s international airport for deportations. Attorney General William Barr has criticized the actions of the state and local governments saying it goes against the interpretation of the Constitution to give the federal government control over immigration policy. Meanwhile, state officials have accused the Trump administration of filing politically motivated lawsuits to rally Trump’s base for re-election. This comes after the lawsuit filed by New York last week against the Department of Homeland Security which barred New York residents from certain trusted traveler programs after the state passed a law granting driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.
Virginia Government Votes to Give Localities Control Over Confederate Memorials
Wyatt Newsome
The Democratic controlled legislature in Virginia voted yesterday to allow localities to remove Confederate statues and monuments. Each chamber passed separate legislation, with the House requiring that cities notify museums and historical centers thirty days before taking the statues down, and the Senate requiring an evaluation from historians and a supermajority vote in the municipal government. Virginia code 15.2–1812 currently prohibits the removal or defacement of any memorial to war veterans. This issue is especially pressing for Virginians following the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and the resulting death of Heather Heyer. Democratic Governor Ralph Northam and Republican opponent Ed Gillespie made the issue central to their campaigns in 2017, and the Latino Victory Fund ran a controversial but memorable ad that featured a Gillespie supporter tormenting children of color.
UN Lists 112 Businesses Linked to Israeli Settlements
Aida Olivas
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) produced a report listing 112 businesses with involvement of specific activities in, or relating to, various Israeli settlements. The report includes American companies such as Airbnb, Expedia Group, General Mills, and Motorola Solutions. Despite the settlements being considered illegal under international law, there is currently no legal classification for businesses involved with the settlements which now results in the Human Rights Council member states to decide what further actions to take. The Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Minister has celebrated the report, calling it a “victory for international law” and is requesting the HRC member states to have the businesses “end their work immediately with the settlements”. The Israeli Prime Minister, however, tweeted a warning in response; “Whoever boycotts us will be boycotted. We strongly reject this contemptible effort.” The Yesha Council that largely represents the Jewish settlers have also replied to the list, claiming it has “clear anti-Semitic features” and that the businesses were striving towards greater peace by helping to strengthen the area’s economy. The businesses in question did not make any immediate comments regarding the situation.
Classical Pianist’s $194,000 Instrument Destroyed by Movers
Wyatt Newsome
Angela Hewitt announced that movers accidentally dropped her unique and valuable piano after transporting it from a recording session. Hewitt, a Canadian pianist with a specialty for Bach, had recorded all her Italian studio sessions since 2003 on the piano and described it as a friend. Parts of the frame, lid, and casing of the piano were damaged in the moving process, and Fazioli Pianos founder Paolo Fazioli deemed it “irreparable.” The piano was so valuable in part because it was the only F278 Fazioli with four pedals. Hewitt is known for performing solo and with orchestras over one hundred times a year, and for pioneering several music charity events and festivals.
The views of authors are their own, and not that of CSPC.