Meuller's invitations

Special Council Robert Mueller today made a brief public statement about his office's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the efforts by people associated with the Trump campaign and his administration to impeded his investigation. His comments were notable for three things.

First, he emphasized that were he confident that the Trump administration had not obstructed justice he "would have said so".  While this was straight from his report, that fact that he chose to reiterate this point specifically is telling.

Second, Mueller observed that long-standing DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president was the reason that no charges, sealed or otherwise, were brought against Donald Trump, a decision made at the outset of the inquiry and not ex-post. This contradicts A.G. William Barr's assertion the DOJ policy had nothing to do with the decision not to bring an indictment. In doing so, Mueller reminded us that Barr has been shading the truth and acting as a political accomplice to Trump, rather than an impartial actor, and provides important context for Barr's public statements, past, present and future.

Third, he set out carefully that his office considered that the constitution requires that a sitting president accused of a crime by held accountable not in the courts but through the process of impeachment.

Taken together, these three statements seem to indicate that Mueller considers there is evidence of obstruction, but that the court system is not the venue in which these alleged criminal acts should or can be tried.  His statements appear to be intended both to the correct the false "no collusion, no obstruction" narrative being vigorously peddled by Trump and his aids and to challenge Congress to take action.

To many observers, he could hardly have been clearer in intimating that he believes that obstruction took place, that it rises to the level of criminality, and that it is the role of Congress to pursue the matter.

Impeachment has been rightly characterized as more of a a political process than a judicial one. In this case, ironically, the politics is likely to mitigate if not eliminate entirely the likelihood of the House moving articles of impeachment. A failed impeachment process (and it would certainly fail, given the fealty of Republican Senators to Trump) would play in to Republican's fear-mongering "deep state" narrative in the run up to the 2020 election. 

Many on the left of the Democratic party who have been clamoring for impeachment seem to be motivated more by antipathy for Trump than by any evidence that he broke the law, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been careful to not allow calls for impeachment to get ahead of the evidence. Nevertheless, Mueller's statement today dramatically increases pressure on Speaker Pelosi to allow impeachment proceedings to begin.

To all intents and purposes, Mueller today declined Congress' invitation to testify. But at the same time he invited Congress to begin the impeachment process he seems to feel is warranted. 

Biden-Harris 2020

• Biden brings the swing state working class voters
• Harris brings the more liberal wing and can go on the attack leaving Biden to appear above the fray
• Both are popular with African American voters
• Harris is younger (and sharper)  

Because they can?

Imagine you are hours away from dying. Someone comes to you and offers to give you another year of life in return for some large proportion of all your saving and material possessions. I hazard that only a fairly few would refuse the offer. Indeed, the free market would tell us on average what the appropriate price for another year of life was.

Sounds rather extreme and ghoulish doesn't it? But that's the system we have. It's why 25% of all your medical bills will come in the last year of your life. Of course some will say it's not market pricing but the costs of the procedures but have you ever asked what medical procedures cost to deliver (as opposed to the price you are charged)?

This has the features of price discrimination - that is people are charged different prices for the same things based on their willingness to pay. For example you will likely pay over $300 for a dose of meclizine hydrochloride if administered in the ER, while the same compound can be bought in pill form for $5 for a 16 doses from Rite Aid.

Prices go up when the buyer in a transaction has no leverage or bargaining power. When you are gravely ill, you have none an will pay whatever is asked. The reason that health care costs so much in the US is because we allow this asymmetry of bargaining power. Health care outcomes are no better than in most European countries and in some areas are worse - yet we pay twice as much.