(ZH) The Death Star Strategy: Is Trump Contemplating The Ultimate Constitutional

The Death Star Strategy: Is Trump Contemplating The Ultimate Constitutional Trick Shot?

Below is my column in The Hill on the possibility of contesting electoral certifications by key states. With the adverse ruling in Pennsylvania, the Trump legal team is still pledging new evidence of massive fraud as certifications are completed. The options for the team seem more and more reduced to the ultimate constitutional trick shot in engineering a fight on the floor of Congress. Here is the column:
The Thursday press conference by President Trump’s legal team left many breathless as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani alleged a global communist conspiracy to steal the 2020 election. While making passing references to credible election challenges over provisional ballots or “curing” rules, he repeatedly returned to the allegation of a purported massive conspiracy directed by Democrats to change and “inject” votes into state tallies.
It was a strange narrative that seemed to move away from the provable to the unbelievable. The question is, why?

One possibility: to raise sweeping allegations with insufficient time to resolve them in order to force an Electoral College fight. The idea would be to give license to Republican-controlled legislatures to intervene with their own sets of electors or block the submission of any set of electors. Concern over such a strategy was magnified when Trump called key Republican leaders from Michigan’s legislature to the White House on Friday.
Call it the “Death Star strategy.”
In “Star Wars,” a struggling rebellion was in full retreat on every front against an overwhelming force in the Empire. The rebels were left with just one strategy and literally one shot. Luke Skywalker had to skim the surface of the Death Star along a trench and fire a round into a small thermal exhaust port to travel down an air shaft and cause an explosion in the core reactor. Then poof! No more Death Star.
However, if this is the Trump team’s plan, it will make Luke Skywalker’s shot look like a beanbag toss.
The electoral ‘trench’

The “trench,” in this instance, is found in state election systems leading to the electoral equivalent of the “exhaust port” in the Constitution’s Electoral College. It is the Electoral College where the actual election of an American president occurs. Each state certifies votes to the Electoral College — a figure that adds up to the number of members the states have in the two houses of Congress, or 535. (In addition, for Electoral College purposes, the District of Columbia is given three electors, for a total of 538.) Thus, a candidate must have at least 270 electoral votes to become president.
To reach that “exhaust port,” Trump’s legal-team equivalent of X-wing fighters must get all the way down the electoral “trench” by creating challenges to multiple state certifications and deny Joe Biden the 270 threshold or claim those votes for Trump. The Trump team has focused on states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania. If the litigation can create serious doubts over the authentication or tabulation of ballots, the Trump campaign could force fights on the floors of these state legislatures. However, after meeting with the president on Friday, the Michigan legislative leaders dealt that potential strategy a serious blow by saying they are unaware of anything that would change their state’s certification for Biden.
The electoral ‘shaft’
Once litigation introduces doubt as to the validity of the vote, the matter travels down the electoral version of the Death Star’s air shaft to individual state legislatures. This is when things move into some uncertain constitutional physics.
Article II of the Constitution states that electors are appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” All but a couple of states have directed that all of their electoral votes will go to the candidate with the greater number of statewide votes. The question is, what happens if legislators decide they cannot say with confidence who won the greater number of votes?
Such controversies have arisen before, as in 2004, when Democrats objected to counting Ohio’s electoral votes due to voting irregularities. The greatest controversy occurred in 1876 after a close, heated election between Republican Rutherford Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden. Like Biden, Tilden won the popular vote and more electoral votes (184, to Hayes’s 165). The problem was that rampant fraud was alleged in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. (For example, South Carolina reported 101 percent of voters voting). The controversy led to rival sets of electors being sent to Congress. A long fight led to the improbable election of Hayes as president.
For Trump to pull off a similar maneuver, he would need the cooperation of Republican state legislators. He also would face collateral litigation over who should certify electors — a state’s governor or its legislature. In Bush v. Gore in 2000, the Supreme Court ordered an effective halt to further litigation, but that was just one state. It is possible that such multistate litigation could push the challenges beyond the end of the safe-harbor period for certification on Dec. 8 or beyond Dec. 23, when those votes are supposed to be submitted to Congress. Indeed, it could force a fight on Jan. 6, when Congress gathers in joint session to count the votes.
The electoral ‘reactor’
Only then would the action make it into the “core reactor” equivalent of our constitutional system — the joint session of Congress. This would trigger a law passed after the Hayes-Tilden election. Unfortunately, the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887 is hardly a model of clarity and would become the focus of litigation itself. Under some circumstances, Vice President Pence could issue a ruling in favor of Trump, but one senator and one House member could challenge his ruling.
What if there were insufficient votes overall to elect a president? This is where we could see a rare court intervention in a contested election in Congress. The ECA is ambiguous on what it means to have a majority of electors; it does not clearly state whether a majority of “electors appointed” means a majority of the 538 electors (270) or simply a majority of those electors accepted or successfully certified (allowing election with less than 270 electoral votes). There also are untested terms and provisions, ranging from the weight given to the decision of governors and the meaning of what is “lawfully certified” or whether votes were “regularly given.”
There also is the potential under the 12th Amendment for a “contingent election” when there is a tie or insufficient votes. In such a case, Trump could win again. In that case, the vote for president is held in the House based on state delegations, not individual members. Republicans likely will control a majority of state delegations in the House, despite having fewer seats overall — as well as the Senate, where Pence could be reelected.
Again, that is all quite a long shot — a bit more than Luke Skywalker’s boast that he could sink it because he “used to bull’s-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home.” It is enough to make an Ewok weep. All one can say, to paraphrase Han Solo’s parting words before heading out for Death Star, is “Hey, Rudy. May the Force — and the ECA — be with you.”

WSJ : GM to Recall About 5.9 Million Vehicles With Takata Air-Bag Inflaters

GM to Recall About 5.9 Million Vehicles With Takata Air-Bag Inflaters
Auto maker has 30 days to provide safety agency with a plan to notify vehicle owners and start repairing its air bags

General Motors Co. GM 4.02% has agreed to recall 5.9 million SUV and pickup-truck models to replace potentially faulty Takata air-bag inflaters, a fix that could cost the auto maker more than $1 billion.

GM had asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not to order a recall of the vehicles because the auto maker believed they were safe. The agency denied that request Monday, saying its research shows Takata inflaters installed in GM vehicles are prone to the deadly explosions reported in other auto makers’ cars.

The vehicles GM has agreed to recall include some of its bestselling models from the 2007 to 2014 model years, including Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups, Cadillac Escalade SUVs, Chevy Tahoe and Suburban SUVs and GMC Yukon SUVs.

The Takata air-bag recall has been one of the largest and most complex in U.S. history, involving 19 auto makers and tens of millions of vehicles, according to the NHTSA.

The agency says a design defect can cause the air-bag inflaters to degrade over time, putting them at risk of exploding during a crash and sending shrapnel-like metal fragments into the cabin.

Joyson Safety Systems, which acquired Takata’s assets after the air-bag maker filed for bankruptcy in 2017, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Incidents involving ruptured Takata air bags have killed 18 people in the U.S. and at least 12 more elsewhere, the NHTSA said. GM has previously recalled some models for faulty Takata inflaters, but it had petitioned the NHTSA four times since 2016 to avoid this latest one.

The auto giant said evidence from independent evaluation shows inflaters don’t need to be replaced. It has said that it is aware of nearly 67,000 air-bag deployments without a single rupture involving the models the NHTSA identified and that the vehicle and inflater design differs from that of other affected cars, making the models safe.

The NHTSA said in its decision that GM’s claim that the vehicles aren’t at risk is unfounded.

GM, which has said in previous federal filings that replacing the inflaters would cost about $1.2 billion, said Monday that it would begin the process of fixing them.

“We disagree with NHTSA’s position. However, we will abide by NHTSA’s decision and begin taking the necessary steps,” GM said.

The auto maker’s shares were up 2.8% in midday trading.

The NHTSA said it had conducted engineering and field tests that show “the GM inflaters in question are at risk of the same type of explosion after long-term exposure to high heat and humidity as other recalled Takata inflaters.”

The agency gave GM 30 days to submit a schedule for notifying vehicle owners and beginning the process of replacing the parts in question.

The problems that led to the recall and Takata’s bankruptcy stem from its use of ammonium nitrate in air-bag inflater propellants. The chemical was later found to become unstable and lead to ruptures after aging and prolonged exposure to heat and humidity. The problem led to explosions that spray shrapnel in vehicle cabins, officials said.

Takata filed for bankruptcy in 2017, and auto makers set aside billions to cover settlements and replacement costs.

The recall—the largest-ever automotive-safety campaign in the U.S.—affected cars from about 20 manufacturers, including Honda Motor Co. , Ford Motor Co. and luxury makers like BMW AG and Tesla Inc.

FT : The shift to remote work carries an inherent risk

The shift to remote work carries an inherent risk
If your job can be done from home, can it be offshored somewhere cheaper?

This year’s mass experiment with remote working has, for some, triggered a prickling sense of unease: if I can do my job from home in London, Brooklyn or Canberra, could someone else do it more cheaply from Sofia, Mumbai or Manila? In the corporate world, we might have enjoyed skipping commutes and ditching office wear, but will we feel as smug in a few years if we have joined factory workers in the ranks of the “left behind”?

It is not a new fear. In 2007, Alan Blinder, an economist at Princeton University, estimated that “stunning advances in computerised telecommunications technology” meant that between 22 and 29 per cent of US jobs were already offshorable, or would be within a decade or two. Many lower skilled service-sector jobs did indeed move to cheaper countries such as India, from call centres to IT and back-office support. But most office jobs stuck around. A follow-up study last year found that, of 26 occupations deemed potentially offshorable in 2007, 11 shrank in the US while 15 grew.

Yet Richard Baldwin, an economist at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, believes this time will be different. Covid-19 has forced employers to embrace the technology required to run dispersed workforces. “We spent five years trying to get people to adopt Microsoft Teams, and we had 60-fold adoption in a week,” Mark Read, chief executive of advertising company WPP, told a (virtual) Financial Times event this month.

The crisis also caused redundancies, especially where governments didn’t subsidise wages to keep people in jobs. Once the employment connection is broken, Prof Baldwin argues, it’s easier for companies to re-hire in a different country, especially given that many will be keen to cut costs.

That doesn’t mean all the jobs currently being done remotely in the rich world can move offshore. Shared language, culture and time zones will continue to matter. In addition, many employees working remotely this year have relied on accrued social capital with colleagues and clients that will eventually need to be refreshed with face-to-face contact. These jobs are more likely to become “hybrid” after Covid-19, with a mixture of office and remote days. They may move out of cities, but not countries.

The pandemic also highlighted the risks associated with offshoring: when some call centre offices had to be shut down in India and the Philippines, staff didn’t have the laptops, internet access or security clearance to work from home. Telstra, an Australian telecoms company, was badly hit by shutdowns in the Philippines and decided to hire 3,500 temporary staff in Australia.

For this reason, the “new” offshoring is more likely to be via platforms such as Upwork and Fiverr, which connect employers with freelancers for task-based work and take a cut of the pay. Engaging freelancers is more flexible and avoids the risk of an outsourced office being closed. Upwork and Fiverr reported 24 and 88 per cent year-on-year revenue growth in the third quarter respectively and their share prices have risen sharply this year.

White-collar platform work ranges from simple jobs, such as a piece of copywriting, to complex project work. The competition is borderless. A search on Fiverr found someone in Sri Lanka who would write a blog post in 24 hours for $5 (he has more than 1,000 reviews with an average score of 4.9 out of 5), someone from India who would charge $15 and someone from the US who would charge $10.

The platforms open up opportunities to those with in-demand skills who want the freedom to freelance — especially valuable for talented people in poorer countries. But for those with more generic skills, there is the risk of commoditisation, compressed pay and no employment protections, in the developed and developing world alike. A 2017 International Labour Organization study of 3,500 workers from 75 countries on five microtask platforms (which feature simpler tasks) found average hourly earnings ranged between $2 and $6.50 per hour, with a high proportion of workers earning below the prevailing minimum wage.

Office jobs aren’t going to disappear, but the past year might persuade companies to shrink their “core” of permanent staff and expand their periphery of on-demand workers based anywhere. This confluence of globalisation and casualisation could have big consequences, especially for younger and lower-skilled white-collar workers. Unlike the decline of manufacturing, it will happen quietly inside homes rather than on the factory floor. But it will be no less painful for that.

Venture Beat : Biden’s top tech adviser makes regulation more likely

Biden’s top tech adviser makes regulation more likely

(Reuters) — President-elect Joe Biden’s top technology adviser helped craft California’s landmark online privacy law and recently condemned a controversial federal statute that protects internet companies from liability, indicators of how the Biden administration may come down on two key tech policy issues.

Bruce Reed, a former Biden chief of staff who is expected to take a major role in the new administration, helped negotiate with the tech industry and legislators on behalf of backers of a ballot initiative that led to the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act. Privacy advocates see that law as a possible model for a national law.

Reed also co-authored a chapter in a book published last month denouncing the federal law known as Section 230, which makes it impossible to sue internet companies over the content of user postings. Both Republicans and Democrats have called for reforming or abolishing 230, which critics say has allowed abuse to flourish on social media.

Reed, a veteran political operative, was chief of staff for Biden from 2011 to 2013, when Biden was U.S. vice president. In that role, he succeeded Ron Klain, who was recently named incoming White House chief of staff. Reed then served as president of the Broad Foundation, a major Los Angeles philanthropic organization, and later as an adviser to Laurene Powell Jobs’ Emerson Collective in Palo Alto, California.

The Biden campaign identified Reed as its top person on tech policy but declined to make him available for an interview.

California privacy
Reed, 60, became involved in the California privacy campaign in his capacity as a strategist for Common Sense Media, a nonprofit set up by Stanford University lecturer James Steyer to advise parents and companies on healthy content for children.

Tech companies initially lined up in staunch opposition to the ballot initiative that set the stage for the law, which gives consumers the right to learn what information about them is being given to which companies and to have that information deleted.

But Reed helped peel Apple away from the pack by drafting language it could live with, according to Alastair Mactaggart, the real estate developer who masterminded the ballot initiative.

“He understands that there needs to be good regulation,” Mactaggart said. “He wants to get something done. He wasn’t an ideologue who would take his toys and go home if it wasn’t perfect.”

With the initiative then a more credible threat, the rest of the industry was willing to come to the table as California State Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg drafted a last-minute bill that kept most of the initiative’s power but offered big tech companies a chance to soften it in following years. Reed was the core of the group that worked on that bill, Hertzberg told Reuters.

“This initiative would not have happened without Bruce, there’s no question. He took it seriously when everyone else did’t,” Hertzberg said.

Reed’s position on Section 230 could prove more controversial. In a book published last month, “Which Side of History? How Technology Is Reshaping Democracy and Our Lives,” Steyer and Reed co-authored a chapter that called 230 an enemy of children. Though 230 had allowed tech freedom to flourish, they wrote that it has now gone against the desires of its backers by giving companies a financial incentive to encourage hate and abuse.

“If they sell ads that run alongside harmful content, they should be considered complicit in the harm,” Steyer and Reed wrote. “If their algorithms promote harmful content, they should be held accountable for helping redress the harm. In the long run, the only real way to moderate content is to moderate the business model.”

>>> US Close Dow +1.12% S&P +0.56% Nasdaq +0.22% Russell +1.85%

Closing Stock Market Summary

The S&P 500 gained 0.6% on Monday in a recovery trade fueled by momentum and another round of encouraging COVID-19 vaccine/treatment news. The Russell 2000 rose 1.9% to new record highs, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 1.1%. The Nasdaq Composite underperformed with a 0.2% gain. 

Briefly, AstraZeneca (AZN 54.70, -0.60, -1.1%) and the University of Oxford said their vaccine has an efficacy rate of up to 90%, and Regeneron Pharma (REGN 523.61, +4.87, +0.9%) said it received emergency use authorization from the FDA for its antibody cocktail. While AZN and REGN shares traded mixed, the value, cyclical, and small-cap stocks took the news in stride. 

The S&P 500 energy sector surged another 7.1% to extend its monthly rebound rally to 32.0%, followed by respectable intraday performances from the financials (+1.9%), industrials (+1.6%), and materials (+0.9%) sectors. Advancing issues outpaced declining issues by a 3:1 margin at the NYSE and a 2:1 margin at the Nasdaq. 

On the downside, the health care (-0.3%), real estate (-0.3%), information technology (-0.03%), and communication services (-0.02%) sectors held back the benchmark index, which briefly turned negative in the morning. Stay-at-home stocks also underperformed.

Other positive factors today included encouraging preliminary Markit PMI and Services reports for November, the NRF expecting holiday sales to grow between 3.6-5.2%, versus 2019; and TSA data showing the highest number of airline passengers through TSA checkpoints since mid-March on Sunday.

Separately, the market received a temporary boost in the afternoon after The Wall Street Journal reported that Joe Biden will nominate former Fed Chair Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary. Ms. Yellen has been vocal about the need for more fiscal stimulus, and there are expectations that the Senate would approve her nomination.

U.S. Treasuries finished on a lower note, as the positive news flow aided risk sentiment and helped money flow out of defensive assets. The 2-yr yield increased two basis points to 0.17%, and the 10-yr yield increased three basis points to 0.86%. The U.S. Dollar Index increased 0.2% to 92.54. WTI crude futures 2.2%, or $0.92, to $43.09/bbl.

Looking ahead, investors will receive the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index for November, the FHFA Housing Price Index for November, and the S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index for September on Tuesday.

  • Nasdaq Composite +32.4% YTD
  • S&P 500 +10.7% YTD
  • Russell 2000 +9.0% YTD
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average +3.7% YTD

FT : Yemen Houthi rebels claim missile attack on Saudi oil facility

Yemen Houthi rebels claim missile attack on Saudi oil facility
Assault would signal their ability to strike deep into the heart of the country

Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi rebels claimed on Monday to have damaged an oil facility in the Saudi port city of Jeddah in a rocket attack, in an assault that would demonstrate their ability to strike deep into the country.

Brigadier General Yahya Sarea, military spokesman for the Iran-allied fighters, said a new Quds-2 cruise missile had been accurately targeted at a distribution station, prompting fire engines and ambulances to rush to the scene.

The Houthi rebels regularly fire missiles into the kingdom but while most have been around the border area, Jeddah is about 700km to the north. State oil company Saudi Aramco said late on Monday that the attack had caused a fire in a fuel tank but there were no casualties or interruption to oil supplies. 

“This operation came in response to the continued siege and aggression [against Yemen] and in the context of the [Houthi] armed forces’ promise to carry out large-scale operations deep inside Saudi Arabia,” Brig Gen Sarea tweeted on Monday.

Brig Gen Sarea also posted a satellite map image of the facility that tallies with a Google map of Saudi Aramco’s North Jeddah Bulk Plant on the north-eastern outskirts of the city near the airport. On social media, users posted videos of an apparent fire in Jeddah.

The strike, coming after Saudi Arabia’s virtual hosting of the G20 summit on Sunday, would mark an uptick in the Yemen conflict and highlight the increasing range of Houthi missiles.

The facility in Jeddah is less crucial to the kingdom’s oil infrastructure than the oil-processing hub of Abqaiq, one of the world’s largest processing plants, which last year was damaged by a drone attack claimed by the Houthis.

Saudi Arabia and several of its allies said last year that Iran was behind the strike, a claim denied by Tehran. 

Oil prices edged higher on Monday to above $45 a barrel, but traders said most of the increase was due to the latest positive news on coronavirus vaccines rather than concern over supplies.

The uptick in Yemen tensions comes as the Trump administration is reportedly drawing up plans to designate the Houthi movement as a terrorist organisation, a move that aid agencies fear would restrict humanitarian supplies and damage the UN’s efforts to broker a peace deal. 

The impoverished Arab nation has been plunged into a humanitarian crisis since a Saudi-led coalition intervened in the civil war in an effort to restore the internationally recognised government that had been ousted by the Houthis.

The five-year war has descended into a deadly stalemate, with the Houthis still in control of the northern heartlands and the capital, Sana’a. Houthi attacks on Saudi infrastructure targets have increased since May when a ceasefire drawn up to deal with coronavirus ended.

Most Houthi strikes have focused on areas near the Yemeni border, such as the Red Sea port of Jizan, where there is a large oil refinery under construction, and the international airport at Abha.

This month Saudi Arabia said it had dealt with a fire at an offshore oil loading facility near Jizan, after its forces had intercepted two waterborne remote-controlled vessels armed with explosives.

FT : Joe Biden poised to pick Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary

Joe Biden poised to pick Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary
Former Fed chair would be first woman to serve in top economic role

Joe Biden, the US president-elect, is poised to choose Janet Yellen as his Treasury secretary and top cabinet official in charge of the American economy, as it faces a painstaking recovery from the shock of the coronavirus pandemic. 

The likely choice of Ms Yellen, 74, will cement her status as one of the top US policymakers of her generation, given her previous role as chair of the Federal Reserve, president of the San Francisco Fed, and chair of the White House council of economic advisers under Bill Clinton. 

Ms Yellen recently nudged ahead of Lael Brainard, a Fed governor, as Mr Biden’s leading choice to lead the Treasury department with an announcement expected in the coming days, according to people familiar with the matter.

She declined to comment through a spokesperson for the Brookings Institution. 

Other contenders for the job included Sarah Bloom Raskin, the former deputy Treasury secretary; Roger Ferguson, the chief executive of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association; and Raphael Bostic, the president of the Atlanta Fed. The Biden transition team declined to comment.

Assuming she is confirmed by the Senate, Ms Yellen will be the first woman to serve as Treasury secretary in the institution’s 231-year-old history. She will take over from Steven Mnuchin, Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary, with the difficult mission of jolting the US recovery with billions of dollars of new stimulus called for by Mr Biden, while keeping financial markets stable. 

Those efforts are likely to involve painstaking negotiations with Capitol Hill, given Republican resistance to large-scale spending increases, and a close relationship with Jay Powell, the Fed chairman, particularly since Mr Mnuchin recently moved to wind down several emergency lending facilities at the central bank that have been crucial to its crisis response. 

Mr Biden’s move to choose Ms Yellen for the Treasury role will bring a steady hand and a well-known figure to the tiller of the American economy, but her nomination also reflects his desire to finely balance demands from the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic party.

As the manoeuvring for the top Treasury position intensified in recent weeks, Ms Yellen was considered to be sufficiently to the left of Ms Brainard and Mr Ferguson to satisfy the liberals, but not quite as progressive as Ms Raskin. 

Ms Yellen is a native of New York City who received her undergraduate degree in economics at Brown University then secured a doctoral degree at Yale University where she was taught by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

As well as her time at the White House, she served in several different senior roles at the Fed before being nominated to chair the US central bank by then president Barack Obama in late 2013, taking up the post in early 2014. 

Ms Yellen led the Fed through a tightening cycle as the central bank tried to normalise its monetary policy in the latter stages of the recovery from the financial crisis.

She was considered to be among the more dovish monetary policymakers, but the interest rate rises under her watch were later judged to be excessively hawkish by the US central bank, which found that unemployment could fall to far lower levels before triggering inflation.