Month: July 2017

Seeing Through the Smoke

White House Special Advisor Jared Kushner testified to the House Intelligence Committee last week regarding his role in the “Russian connection.” According to Adam Schiff, the California Democrat and ranking minority member of the Committee, “(Republican) Mr. Gowdy took the role as a second attorney for Mr. Kushner…” [1] Gowdy not only soft-pedaled his own questions, but prevented Democrats from asking tough questions and advised Kushner on what to answer.

This is the same Republican Trey Gowdy who took great pride in the interrogation of Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearings, and continues to this day to call for further investigation of the Clinton emails. He clearly has determined that his role is to deflect attention away from “Russia” and bring back the old tales of the past two years – the flaws of Hillary Clinton. Benghazi cost Congress over $5 million,[2] and estimates adding in the FBI’s email investigation drives the cost to over $20 million.[3]

Over the next several weeks, expect to hear from or about former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power, and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. This is all a part of the same smokescreen: let’s talk about the “good old Obama days” as a way of distracting from the reality of the Trump/Russian issue.

There is also a different screening operation going on, but this time aided by the “mainstream media” that the President has so often accused of “fake news.” The premise of this insidious argument: that the Russian “collusion” was in fact a plan by Russian Intelligence simply to create chaos. Russian agents DID make the contacts with the Trump campaign and administration that are slowly coming to light, but they did so NOT to arrange for campaign coordination, but simply to create the appearance of that conspiracy. Meanwhile the Russians DID manipulate the campaign, but the “Trump connections” are in fact simply to create more chaos in the American political system. There’s smoke but no fire, because the whole idea was to create smoke.[4]

This concept plays the Trump campaign/administration as unwitting participants in the Russian operation. They are not cooperators, colluders or conspirators; they are fools who fell for it. That makes them naïve, perhaps stupid, but probably not felons.

The third smokescreen is the ongoing chaos that IS the Trump Administration. With the firing of Preibus, the hiring of General Kelly (don’t we all trust a Marine Four-Star?) and the (temporary?) ascendency of Scaramucci to power, foul-mouth and all; it’s hard to keep focused on what’s going on.

This will get worse before it gets better. As the investigations (Senate, House, Mueller, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman) grow more intense, the counter-reaction will grow greater as well. It will be hard to stay focused, and it will make the US government seem to be even more disrupted. Whether there was a conspiracy or not, if Richard Engel of MSNBC is right, the Russians have achieved their goal: chaos.

[1] Gowdy Protects Kushner

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/07/26/top-intel-democrat-just-accused-trey-gowdy-protecting-kushner-private-house-hearing/

[2] NPR Cost of Benghazi Investigation

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/benghazi-committee-tops-5-million-in-spending/

[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investigating-clinton-many-millions-were-211500881.html

[4] MSNBC – Richard Engel Reports

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/russian-goal-of-us-chaos-already-accomplished-1012666435586

 

To Re-Cap

We are six months into the Trump Administration. Late last night, the Affordable Care Act dodged a bullet by two votes (thanks to Murkowski, Collins, McCain and the Senate Democrats). Now hopefully they can find a way to actually govern instead of posturing.

We are deep into the investigation of the Trump Campaign’s connection to the Russian State – so deep that the Trump Administration is willing to do almost anything to change the subject – from calling for a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton and James Comey[1] to talking dirty to the Boy Scouts and the New Yorker[2].

It’s time to recap. What do we know, what do we think, and what do we hope?

We know that the Trump Campaign received significant and potentially outcome changing help from the Russian government in the form of social media manipulation and control, and the theft and release of Trump’s opponents’ electronic communications.  We know that the manipulation and hacks were not only widespread, but also targeted and sophisticated. We know that 17 US Intelligence agencies have “high confidence” that there were Russian Intelligence operations[3]. We know that President Trump still publically and consistently questions this intelligence finding.

We also know that the Russian Intelligence agencies probed the actual electoral databases of at least twenty-one states (and possibly more) in the 2016 election cycle, and breeched at least three, in Florida, North Carolina and Illinois[4].

We know that in the writing of the party platform at the Republican convention, the section calling for arming Ukraine with “lethal defense weapons” against Russia was watered down at the behest of the Trump campaign, to read “providing appropriate assistance.[5]”

We know that members of the Trump Campaign were in contact with representatives of the Russian government throughout the summer and fall of 2016. This includes the famous meeting in Trump Tower on June 9^th, with Donald Trump Jr., Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and several Russians with links to the Russian government; and also multiple meetings by Advisor Michael Flynn, Senator (now Attorney General) Jeff Sessions, and advisor Carter Page.

We know that members of the Trump Campaign was openly looking for “negative information” about Hillary Clinton, and demonstrated willingness to accept information from Russian government sources (as seen in emails by Donald Trump Jr.)

We know that campaign advisor Roger Stone bragged about contact with Julian Assange of Wikileaks and “Guccifer 2.0” during the campaign, even to go so far as predicting when the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta would be “dropped.” Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 were the websites where the hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign were released[6].

We know that there was a computer email server, registered to the Trump organization and in Trump Tower, which was in consistent and near exclusive communication with a server owned by Alfa Bank, a Russian bank that has close ties to the Putin regime. Analysis of those servers show activity increases corresponding to important events during the campaign. Both Alfa Bank and the Trump organization deny that there was a linkage and that they had any business connections, though metadata logs demonstrate a consistent pattern[7].

We know that Jared Kushner apparently was looking for ways to avoid US Intelligence surveillance after the election, asking the Russian Embassy if there was a way to establish secure communications through their facilities.

We know that President Trump has shown a consistent pattern of “being nice” to Vladimir Putin, and being unwilling to press against Russian aggressions.

We know that the Trump team, from Michael Flynn to Jeff Sessions to Jared Kushner; have a remarkably unclear memory of meetings they had with Russians and members of the Russian government.  We know that Kushner in particular has had to revise his SF 86 Security Clearance multiple times, and all seems to only admit to meetings when the evidence is put in front of them.

We also know that the Trump Administration has shown an apparent and ongoing desire to obstruct and stop the “Russia Investigation.” This was first demonstrated by the firing of FBI Director Comey, and continues with pressure from the President (via Tweets) on Attorney General Sessions to either quit of “un-recuse” himself so that he can protect Trump.[8] The Trump team also is raising questions about Special Counsel Mueller and his team, questioning whether they have “conflicts of interest,” and recently have begun attacks on Acting FBI Director McCabe, the default overseer of the investigation should Mueller’s team be fired.[9]

What we don’t have – direct evidence that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian intelligence during the campaign. We know that they were willing to do so (at least Donald Trump Jr. was) but we don’t have evidence that they did – yet. We don’t have direct linkage of President Trump with Russian connections, though his micro-management style of his organization suggests he would know about what his subordinates did.

We don’t know yet, what the financial information about the Trump organization may bring. We know that Trump was known for playing “fast and loose” in the New York real estate market. One of the administration’s strongest protests is that the Mueller investigation should NOT be looking outside of the 2016 Presidential campaign. As Mueller was rumored to be asking for tax returns, all of a sudden Trump raised the heat on the Special Counsel.

We don’t have direct information about the “kompromat,” the potentially damaging information Russian Intelligence might have on the President. This might range from the amount of Russian money that has been invested into the Trump Organization (one potential reason for Trump’s unwillingness to reveal his taxes) to actual money laundering by Russian organized crime through Trump properties, to more salacious and immoral suggestions including sex trafficking.

What we can hope? That sooner rather than later, the Mueller investigation will begin to reveal what it has found. This is not just because it could be the beginning of the end of the Trump Administration, but, just as Watergate did over forty years ago, the scandal has gripped the nation, and paralyzed any other actions that the government might take. We can’t move on, with or without Trump, until we know.

Will it happen soon? Don’t hold your breath.

[1] WAPO – House Judiciary Committee Votes to probe Comey and Clinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/26/house-judiciary-committee-votes-to-probe-comey-and-clintons-2016-campaign/?utm_term=.4419ae91f7c2

[2] New Yorker – Scaramucci Rant

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

[3] Time – Inside Russia’s Socia Medial War on America

http://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/

[4] Bloomberg – Russian Breach of 39 States

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

[5] Business Insider – Republican Platform Changes on Ukraine

http://www.businessinsider.com/jd-gordon-trump-adviser-ukraine-rnc-2017-3

[6] CNN – Stone and Wikileaks

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/index.html

[7] Slate – Trump Server Communicating with Russia

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

[8] Vanity Fair – Sessions

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/why-jeff-sessions-can-tell-trump-to-kiss-his-ring

[9] NYT – Session and McCabe

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/jeff-sessions-trump-mccabe.html

 

The End of Reconstruction

It started with a political deal in 1876. The Democratic candidate, Governor Samuel Tilden of New York apparently won the election for President over Republican Rutherford Hayes, Governor of Ohio. Tilden won the popular vote by 50.9%, with 4,288,546 votes to Hayes’ 4,034,311. The apparent electoral vote total was 184 for Tilden and 165 to Hayes. At the time, 185 was the number needed for majority. There were two sets of votes sent from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and one disputed vote from Oregon, making a total of twenty votes in question.

Who was right, who was wrong no longer was the point. There was a deal to be made between the Southern Democrats and the Republicans that controlled Congress. The Southern Democrats agreed to cede all 20 votes, making Hayes the President, in return for the end of the military occupation of the South (from the Civil War) and political control of those states. The deal was made – and Tilden was left behind.

It was the end of Reconstruction, and the end of the Radical Republican dream of racial equality enshrined in the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution. Soon new laws were introduced in the South, the “Jim Crow Laws,” which guaranteed separation of the races and there was a steady movement towards discriminatory laws in both the South and the North. It took close to a century to undo the damage done by this deal.

This morning, in a “tweet,” the President of the United States began the undoing of the advances made by the LGBTQ community in the past decade. It didn’t take a nefarious committee of the Congress, it didn’t take a national discussion: President Trump picked up his phone, and removed the right and opportunity for transgendered folks to serve in the military. What about the estimated 1320 to 6630 transgendered who are already serving? What about the fact that those folks have served openly, because there were told they could,  now facing discharge? What about the newly graduated transgendered from the national military academies? They’re out.

With all of the craziness that goes on in the Trump Administration (this morning: the health care votes in the Senate, the cyber-bullying of the Attorney General, the firing of White House staff by Scaramucci, John McCain, and on and on) we shouldn’t miss this. The President is rolling back the advancement of LGBTQ rights. He’s doing it not through a Presidential order, not through a press conference where questions can be asked: no – only through a “tweet” which allows for no questions.

From a more global perspective the Trump administration represents a real turning point in the progress of human rights in the United States. It’s the “voting commission” and the national restriction of voting rights, the Education Department’s change on transgendered policy, the call of the Vice President for the teaching of the science of “creationism” versus the “theory” of evolution in school, the willingness of the President to remove Medicaid from 20 million to 30 million people. It all represents a “roll back” of rights, much like the end of Reconstruction.

Let’s hope it doesn’t take a century to fix.

 

PBS – The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_election.html

Rand Study – Transgendered in the Military

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html

Atlantic – Sec’y of Defense Carter – allows transgendered to serve

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/transgender-military/489584/

Pence and Creationism

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/

 

 

The Boy Scout Oath

On my Honor, I will do my Best,

To Do My Duty, to God and my Country, and

To Obey the Scout Law.

To Help other people at all times.

To Keep myself physically strong,

Mentally Awake,

And Morally Straight.

Honor, Duty, Helping Others and Yourself: those are the keys to the Scout Oath. The Boy Scouts was established in 1910 to use the outdoors as a way to teach these principles. As an organization it has struggled with the changes of America. As a Scout myself in the 1960’s, the contrast between those ideals and the activism of the “sixties” was striking and confusing. I remember an indoor event at Hara Arena in Dayton, Ohio, where my troop was building a signal tower from logs and rope. As we worked, we listened to another troop’s project, a rock band, play “American Band” by Grand Funk Railroad (“…we’re coming to your town, we’re going to party it down, we’re an American Band…”.) We were enjoying the show, but the adult leaders literally ran to the stage to stop the music: it wasn’t considered the “Scouting Way.”

The Scouting organization has tried to catch up ever since. It took Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, to move the Scouts to recognize LGBTQ rights for Scouts and leaders. As President of the Boy Scouts from 2014 to 2016, Gates, an Eagle Scout (the highest rank a boy can achieve in the organization) understood that either the Scouts needed to move forward with our society, or be isolated and wither away.

Scouting is still struggling, as inner city kids find it irrelevant, and suburban kids are organized into travel sports. Today over 2.7 million youth and 950,000 adults are involved, down from 1970’s high of 6.4 million. It still provides kids opportunities to camp, learn life skills and learn to work together, as well as strong set of moral ideals.

One of the great experiences of Scouting is the opportunity to travel to a National Jamboree, where Scouts from all over the country come together for a week of camping together, doing activities, and getting the opportunity to know each other. It is a time of fellowship and renewal of Scouting ideals. It is a great honor to be asked to speak to the 40,000 assembled Scouts at the Jamboree. Certainly a President of the United States should at least recognize the Scouting ideals when speaking to the kids. It is his opportunity to emphasize both to the Scouts and to the nation the good that still comes from Scouting, and the importance of Duty, Honor, God and Country.

Unfortunately, this President doesn’t get it. He took the honor the Boys Scout’s gave him and used it to further his own political agenda. His address to the Scouts included promoting his health care plan, talking about his electoral win, slamming “fake news,” and demanding loyalty from his own subordinates. He even decided that it was appropriate to use profanity, and imply off color jokes. He also made the gross mistake of assuming that all Boy Scouts supported him for President and wanted him to “Make America Great Again.”

There were plenty of people around Trump to tell him how to behave (since he obviously didn’t know.) Cabinet Secretaries Zinke, Perry, Sessions and Tillerson are all Eagle Scouts. As Eagles they well know the traditions and ideals of Scouting, and they know exactly what role the President of the United States should take. Clearly he either never asked, or didn’t care.

The fact that the Boys Scouts of America asked the President of the United States to address their Jamboree shouldn’t reflect badly on the Scouts. Unfortunately, Donald Trump showed exactly what kind of man he is. He didn’t bother to do what was appropriate for the setting: instead, wrapped up in his own narcissism, he ignored the traditions of Scouting and insulted the organization and the Scouts by his political rant. Some say this is the Scouts’ fault, but the fault is that of America: we elected him.

 

Full Disclosure: Marty Dahlman, Eagle Scout, 1970

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Going to the Mattresses

(So What Could Trump Do, Part II)

No, no, no! No more! Not this time, consiglieri. No more meetings, no more discussions, no more Sollozzo tricks. You give ’em one message: I want Sollozzo. If not, it’s all-out war: we go to the mattresses.

Sonny Corelone speaking to Tom Hagen in The Godfather

Sean Spicer is out as Director of Communications: Anthony Scarmucci is in. Marc Kasowicz is “taking a reduced role” as the President’s Attorney for the Russia Investigation: Ty Cobb is in. Attorney General Sessions has been “disloyal” to the President by recusing himself from the Russian investigation. The President’s legal team is “looking into” Special Counsel Mueller’s team for conflicts and for exceeding the “bounds” of the Special Counsel’s investigation. They also are researching what the President’s power to pardon entails.

It looks like the President is getting ready to “go to the mattresses.” Spicer, a long time part of the Republican establishment and friend of Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is leaving his White House position as Press Secretary and Director of Communications. His replacement is the ultimate “Trump loyalist”, Anthony Scarmucci, Wall Street entrepreneur. Scarmucci’s first words are: “I love the President. I am serving the President, the President’s agenda.” Priebus days may well be numbered as well.

Going to the mattresses: the President is getting ready to go to war over the Russia investigation. He’s not looking for expertise in issues, he’s really not interested in his ongoing issues agenda: he’s looking for loyalists who will stick with him through the fight that is about to begin. Let’s look into the crystal ball to see what may occur.

Trump would like to fire Sessions, not for disloyalty, but because Session’s recusal has rendered him unable to defend Trump. If Trump could fire Sessions, and appoint a new Attorney General who is clear of Russian connections, he would. Then he could order that Attorney General to fire Special Counsel Mueller. However, the US Senate would have to approve that appointment, and it seems unlikely that they would do so if the appointee wouldn’t commit to keeping Mueller.

So Sessions, stays in the job. Trump will wait until the Special Counsel investigation gets into the Trump business finances, then claim Mueller is out of bounds (and bring out any “dirt” his legal team has found.) Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, is ordered to fire Mueller, and refuses. The next in line, the Solicitor General and the Associate Attorney General, also refuse, and all three are fired. The next in order is Dana Boente, US Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, and late acting Attorney General. He becomes acting Deputy Attorney General, fires Mueller, then heads back to Alexandria.

The Mueller investigation returns to the FBI, and the Special Counsel’s team goes back into private practice. Now it’s up to the Department of Justice to bring charges brought by the FBI, a much less likely prospect.

Meanwhile the Congressional committees are up in arms, claiming that Trump is obstructing justice. Trump uses Twitter to rouse his base, trying to keep the Republicans in line. Maybe that works, maybe not. Meanwhile the committees try to lever Manafort, Flynn, Don Junior and Jared Kushner to testify: trading immunity for their incriminating statements. The President “double-jumps” the committees by granting all of them pardons, telling the American people; “…this is the only way to end the witch hunt and get on with Making America Great Again.” Again, maybe this works, maybe not. If both of these moves work though, the President is clear until the elections of 2018.

Come 2018, if Democrats gain a majority in the House, impeachment would definitely be in the air. Should the House pass a bill of impeachment, it goes to the Senate. Two-thirds must agree to remove the President. If Republicans stay “in-line” then Trump survives, if they determine that he must go, then he resigns (saving the country the “agony” of an impeachment trial, and probably with an agreement with Pence that he receives a Presidential pardon.)

This strategy achieves several objectives for the Trump team. First, it will take years, if ever, for the final act of Presidential removal to occur. It delays, fulfilling the daily goal of “survive til tomorrow.” And, if Trump is able to hold his base, he may well be able to hold just enough of the Republican members of Congress to run the table and stay until 2020.

The question will ultimately fall to the Republican leaders of the Congress.   If they see that the conservative agenda items they have been dreaming about since 2008 are no longer an option, they may decide to cut Trump lose and try again with a Pence Presidency. Or, and one would hope, if they see that there is evidence of Trump’s illegal acts, perhaps they will stand up and do what’s right for the country for the right reason. They will show the courage of being more than just loyal to the President or the party, but loyal to the Constitution and the United States of America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So What Could Trump Do?

Last night the President of the United States gave a rambling interview to the New York Times. He made several statements that raised questions about what he intends to do. He voiced displeasure with the actions of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who recused himself from involvement in investigations about the 2016 campaign. Trump said he wouldn’t have appointed him if he known. He also placed a “ red line” on the Special Counsel’s investigation, stating that Mueller should not get into the Trump family finances. In addition, he claimed that there are multiple conflicts of interest in the Special Counsel’s office, though he wouldn’t reveal what they were (maybe later, just like the “tapes” of the Comey conversations.)

This raises the question: what would the President be willing to do to stop the Russia Investigation, what could he do, and most significantly, what would the possible outcomes of those actions be?

As William Mueller continues his investigation, clearly looking beyond “just” Russian connections to the Trump campaign, Trump has two paths to remove him and attempt to end his investigation. The first would be to order the removal of Mueller. The President does not have the direct power to fire Mueller, what he can do is order the Attorney General to do it. Since Attorney General Sessions is recused (and here’s the problem Trump has) that power devolves to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (Trump had plenty to say about Rosenstein, the former Baltimore US Attorney, saying that “…there are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any.”)

Should Rosenstein refuse to fire Mueller, Trump could fire him. That would move the authority to fire Mueller to the down the line in the Department of Justice; first to the Solicitor General, then the Associate Attorney General, and then US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in succession. This would be reminiscent of the “Saturday Night Massacre” of Watergate days, when Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the top two officers of the Justice Department refused to do it and were fired or resigned.

There is a second way that the President could end the Mueller investigation. The Special Counsel exists as a series of regulations within the Department of Justice. It is not a “law,” and since the President is ultimately in charge of the Department, he has the authority to alter or abolish those regulations. Therefore, President Trump could simply make the Special Counsel position disappear, thus ending that part of the investigation. While this gets the leaders of the Department out of the middle, it still might result in their resignation, and move the investigation back to the FBI.

Clearly firing or removing Mueller would be seen by many as the ultimate form of obstruction of justice. The investigation would continue through the FBI, and certainly one would hope that Congress (even Republicans) would take a dim view of that action, just as the Republicans did back in 1973. The Senate and House investigations would continue, and could lead to impeachment.

The President also has an unlimited power to “pardon” for Federal crimes. Pardoning is forgiving for crimes that may have been committed; once a pardon has been issued to a particular individual, all criminal action against the individual for those matters pardoned is ended. Despite “tweet chains” to the contrary, the ability of the President to pardon includes those who worked and campaigned with him even his family. There is no mechanism to restrict the pardoning power of the President during investigations.

So it is possible that President Trump could pardon Flynn, Manafort, and his children, for any crimes they may have committed involving Russia and the campaign. The biggest effect of such a pardon would be to remove the leverage that investigators, both Special Counsel and Congressional, have to gain testimony. Reaction to that action would be important, again, as the President depends on the Republicans in Congress to maintain their support. But, if the Congress moved to impeachment, there still is no precedent for “undoing” the pardons issued, and a great deal protecting the President’s power.

Presidential pardons have two restrictions: the President cannot pardon impeachments, and the President cannot pardon state offenses. So President Trump cannot prevent his own impeachment, and he cannot stop state or local investigations (such as the New York State Attorney General’s investigation into Trump finances.

Could President Trump pardon himself? It’s never happened. It certainly would be seen as an admission by some of guilt. If that didn’t trigger an impeachment process resulting in the removal of the President, nothing will. But all of that doesn’t mean he couldn’t do it. It certainly would put the country into a Constitutional crisis (if we aren’t in one already.) I would imagine that if President Trump did this, it would be soon followed by his resignation.

After reviewing the New York Times interview, President Trump presents himself as a man who will “go down fighting.” As the Special Counsel moves closer to the Trump finances and children, it would not be a surprise if he is fired. Since that only moves the investigations back to the FBI, the Presidential pardons would come next, with the President betting that his power base in the country would prevent the Republicans in Congress from moving towards impeachment. Ultimately it would still be the nation’s decision, with the final decision made in the Congressional elections in 2018.

New York Times – Trump Interview

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Order of Succession – Department of Justice

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/10/providing-order-succession-within-department-justice

Presidential Pardons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/25/AR2009012501774.html

 

Shanksville

It’s summer in America, and for us it now means loading up the camper and heading out on the road. This week it’s Pennsylvania, and while today will find us in Gettysburg (where I can transform into the history geek I’ve always been) yesterday it was Shanksville.

Shanksville has a population of 232. It is a rural village in the hills and dales of the Laurel Highlands of Southwestern Pennsylvania. It is coal and farming  and definitely Trump country. And if that name sounds vaguely familiar, it should. Sixteen years ago the quiet little village of Shanksville was ripped out of rural tranquility and placed front and center onto the world stage of terror.

It was in a old strip mined field of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that the fourth airliner hijacked on 9/11, United Flight 93, came hurtling into the ground at 543 miles per hour. It was bound for the Capitol Building in Washington, 19 minutes out, when the passengers decided that they were going to take control of history. They revolted on the plane, as passenger Todd Beamer was heard to say (on a airphone left connected) “Let’s Roll.” They tried to take control back, and ultimately brought the plane down.

It was an act of desperation, knowing from phone calls that the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers had already been hit, knowing that this was not a “hostage taking” exercise, knowing that they were in a flying bomb. It was an act of ultimate courage, willing to take the last chance, to at least choose their way of dying. It was forty passengers and crew versus four hijackers, and as the black box recording showed, the heroes succeeded in breeching the cockpit, as English and Arabic yells and curses mixed, and the hijackers, rather than be overcome, crashed the plane.

There are several memorials near Shanksville. The United States has created a Memorial and a Visitors Center near the crash site. The Memorial has low black limestone walls surrounding the debris field, and a high white memorial wall, names of the passengers and crew etched in stone, following the plane’s path of descent. In the center of the field, a boulder represents the covered impact zone, originally thirty feet deep, filled in as the final resting place for the fallen.

The Visitors Center gives a visual history of that day, from the clear blue skies that welcomed the children at the Shanksville school that morning, to the step by step realization that we were under attack, and finally the shocking assault from the sky. It is a National Monument to the heroic action of the forty, and it is an historical lesson so that the growing number of people who have no memory of 9/11 will learn. As Lincoln said, “…it is all together fitting and proper that we do this.”

Down the road is the Flight 93 Memorial Chapel. It isn’t mentioned at the National Memorial. It was an old church, turned into a grain barn, that after the crash a local priest determined to buy and create a space for those who wished to mourn, meditate, and remember. “Father Al” with help from the Hardys’ of 84 Lumber, remodeled the chapel in time for the first anniversary of the crash. It was where the families of the forty originally came. It is filled the not only with their memorabilia, but the gifts of thousands, from stained glass from a Jewish temple, to a US desert camo uniform from Iraq, to a United Airlines service cart. Outside, United’s own monument to the passengers and crew is placed. A memorial bell vintage 1861 is rung, loud enough to be heard at the crash site four miles away.

While the National Memorial represents the history and honor of the nation, the Chapel represents the heart and soul of the people of Shanksville. It is their ongoing gift to the families of the fallen, and also a memorial to their own loss of innocence.

With the political divide our nation is faced with today, where we can hardly stand each other across the chasm of differing beliefs, it is strengthening to realize that there still is an America where we can reach across our differences to unite. We can celebrate both the strength of the forty, and the strength of the folks in Shanksville in dealing with this tragedy. We can believe in America once again.

 

 

 

 

So Let’s Get this Straight

So let’s get this straight. After a week of “rolling revelations” from the Trump family, we finally have a sense of what went on leading up to the meeting June 16^th, 2016 in Trump Tower. Here’s the cast of characters (reads like the first chapter of War and Peace.) Links for more information are at the end of the article.

Donald Trump Jr – eldest son of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump and a chief advisor to his father and the campaign.

Rob Goldstone – publicist for Russin/Azerbaijani Pop Star Emin Agalarov. Acquainted with Trump Jr since the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, which the Trumps owned.

Emin Agalarov – Russian-Azerbaijani Pop Star. Performed at the Miss Universe Pageant and has had continued his relationship with the Trumps. President Trump appeared in one of his pop videos.

Aras Agalarov –Azerbaijani-Russian construction billionaire, and close friend of Vladmir Putin. Agalarov not only has sponsored his son’s performing career, but also is a prime candidate for Trump construction deals in Russia. Trump Junior and Senior both know him from the Miss Universe pageant.

 Natalia Veselnitskaya – Russian attorney, and lobbyist in the United States against the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act is a series of US sanctions against individual Russians accused of committing “human rights abuses,” which included the death of Sergei Magnitsky in Russian prison. Putin hates the Magnitsky Act. She also was an attorney in the Prevezon case, where the Russian company that benefited from Magnitsky’s death laundered hundreds of millions of dollars through New York real estate. The Justice Department just settled the case for a $6 million penalty.

Rinat Akhmetshin – Dual American/Russian citizen, who served as a counter intelligence officer in Russian Army Intelligence before immigrating to the US. Akhmertshin is known as a “fixer” in Washington, an expert on finding negative information about companies or people. Akhmetshin has bragged about his ability to find emails that have been hacked.

Paul Manafort – Manager for the Trump campaign in the late spring and summer of 2016. Manafort also has documented connections with the Russian government, including political work in Ukraine to elect a pro-Russian president. Manafort ultimately left the Trump campaign when his foreign dealings were revealed.

Jared Kushner – Husband of Ivanka Trump, and a leading advisor to then candidate, now President Trump. Kushner also was deeply involved in real estate in New York City.

Yuri Chaika – Prosecutor-General of Russia. A close Putin ally (and law school classmate) met with Veselnitskaya (according to her) before she came to New York for the meetings with Trump Jr.

So here’s the story.

Goldstone sent an email to Donald Trump Jr. In the email he requested to set up a meeting with Trump Jr and a “representative of the Russian Government” (Veselnitskaya) having negative information about Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr’s reply: “I love it.”

Currently known to be in the meeting were: Trump Jr, Manafort, Kushner, Goldstone, Veselnitskaya, and Akhmetshin. At the writing of this, there are rumors of two more participants, perhaps Emir Agalarov and another member of the Trump family. Those are unconfirmed rumors.

Trump Jr states the meeting was less than thirty minutes. He claims that the discussion was not about Clinton and the DNC, but concentrated on the Magnitsky Act and Russia’s retaliation by banning US parents from adopting from Russia. Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin have stated that a folder was given to Trump Jr, but the Trumps have not acknowledged that.

So what’s the take on this so far? I’m not addicted to too many television shows, but one that keeps me completely occupied is NCIS. The lead character, Gibbs, has a series of rules to live by. His Rule 39: there is no such thing as a coincidence.

The leaders of the Trump Campaign met with a Russian lawyer known for her connections to the Russian government. With her was a US/Russian citizen known for his abilities to run negative campaigns and get hacked emails. It seems unreasonable that this was all a cover to talk about the Magnitsky Act.

So that’s where things stand today, at least this morning. As this story has gone, I’m sure it will be completely different this afternoon!!!

On a different note; Vice President Pence fired the first shot of the 2020 Presidential primaries last week, calling out Ohio Governor John Kasich on Medicaid in front of the National Governor’s conference. A detailed look at the information shows that Pence got it wrong – but that wasn’t the point anyway. Let the games begin!!!

CNN – overview of Trump Meeting

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/15/politics/russia-donald-trump-jr-meeting/index.htm

Natalia Veselnitskaya

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/natalia-veselnitskaya-trump-junior/533670/

Rinat Akhmetshin

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/europe/rinat-akhmetshin-donald-trump-jr-natalia-veselnitskaya.html

Magnitsky Act

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537247838/what-really-irritates-vladimir-putin-the-magnitsky-act

Prevezon Case

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-was-russian-money-laundering-case-dismissed-house-dems-2017-7

Yuri Chaika

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russian-crown-prosecutor/533295/

Gibbs Rules

http://www.nciswikia.com

 

I’m not a lawyer, but…

The son of the Republican candidate for President, the campaign manager, and the son-in-law of the President chose to meet with a person they thought was a representative of the Russian government in order to get negative information about the Democratic candidate. They then denied that meeting for over a year, until the New York Times forced them to acknowledge it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html

It sounds incredibly shaky. It is completely unethical. Any normal politician would realize that it absolutely fails the risk/benefit analysis. Whatever they received in that meeting (and we only have Donald Junior’s word that there wasn’t anything) it wasn’t worth the very foreseeable outcome they are experiencing today. The question remains – was it a violation of Federal law?

Much as “never-Trumpers” and others would wish it, the actions by the three are not a “slam dunk,” “go directly to jail” event. However, there are several theories that would allow for Federal prosecution.

The first, and probably most far-fetched, is the Treason section of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Treason is closely defined as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States. While participating with a foreign adversary in undermining the electoral process would seem to be doing exactly that, it is unlikely that Courts would see the current US/Russia relationship as one of enemies at war. Having said that, if in the end it is shown that the Trump campaign helped direct the ongoing Russian attacks, it could end up as an included charge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.04219371583c

The second and likely charge, would be a violation of the Federal Campaign Laws. It is illegal for a campaign to accept money donated by a foreign citizen (or government.) The stretch in this charge, is that the Russians weren’t offering money, they were offering information. This would have to be regarded as an “in kind” contribution, an action that can be assigned a monetary value. If no other evidence is available beyond what has been published, then the charge would be “intent” to accept this contribution, and the charge would get pretty thin.

http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections

The third possibility would require a lot more evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in directing the Russian attacks. Those actions began with a felony crime, the hacking of the DNC emails. The Trump campaign would have conspired with the Russians in the commission and/or use of those stolen documents, and therefore been involved in a pattern of corrupt practices. This could result in a “RICO” charge, like those used against organized crime.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html

Finally, there is the “cover up.” While it is NOT illegal to lie to the media or the people, it IS illegal to lie under oath, to lie or misrepresent on Federal security documents, and/or to lie or misrepresent to Federal investigators. As occurred in the Watergate prosecutions, many of the charges in the Trump case may end up being the “cover up” rather than the base crimes.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf

What about the President himself? As President of the United States, he is immune from criminal prosecution (though there is discussion as to whether he can be indicted.) He can be civilly sued (that’s what caught up Bill Clinton, lying under oath in a deposition.)  There are only two processes for removing the President, impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by two thirds of the Senate; or temporary removal from office under the 25^th Amendment (a majority of the cabinet and the Vice President, and ultimately two thirds of the House and Senate.)

http://dahlman.online/index.php/2017/03/11/process/

We are (still) a long way from that.

 

 

 

An Ethical Dilemma

It was 1995 here in little Pataskala, Ohio. There was a local fight between a small faction that wanted to take over the school board, and the “good guys” allied against them (guess which side I was on!!) It was ugly, at board meetings, in the newspapers, and even with threats of lawsuits (and challenges to duels!)

I was a participant in the fray, both as a teacher/coach, and an officer in the local teachers’ union. I awoke one morning to find a manila envelope wedged in my front door. I opened and read damaging material about one of the “bad guys,”  incredibly personal and intimate. It would decimate him and destroy their “cause.”

Was it true, or not? Was it someone settling a personal grudge? Did it matter, if it achieved the political goal of “beating the bad guys?”

In any kind of political career you make ethical decisions; weighing right versus wrong against cost versus benefit. Some aren’t a big deal: do you put signs up in the road right-of-way (technically illegal).  Some are tougher:  do you “go negative” in a campaign with facts against your rival (and how far do you go.) Some are even worse, do you accept the support of someone who clearly will expect something in return. And then there’s the ultimate question: are you willing to do anything and everything to win?

Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner were faced with this kind of ethical question. A meeting was arranged with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, with the goal of getting “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370

A brief Google search would have found the linkage between Veselnitskaya and pro-Putin positions. A little further digging would have found that she represents some of Putin’s closer allies. Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner walked into a meeting with a Russian with government connections at a time when the Trump campaign was pivoting to attack Clinton, and looking for a way to get it done (and Trump himself was calling on Russia to find Hillary’s 30,000 emails.) That this particular source (whether it was fruitful or not, we really don’t know yet) was so obviously linked to Putin’s regime should have warned them off. But they took the meeting, making the ethical decision that the benefits would be worth the cost.

If they got information “hacked” from the Clinton campaign and the DNC it was illegal. If they were searching for information from any source (especially foreign) to “get Clinton” they may have participated in a pattern of corrupt activity (RICO violation.) Either way, they showed they were willing to do whatever was needed to win.

So those were the ethics of the Trump campaign senior staff. They couldn’t have been so ignorant of campaign ethics and law especially with such a seasoned campaigner as Manafort in the room. No, they made a choice.

I made a choice too. Regardless of our political differences, I called the “bad guy,” met him at the local restaurant, and handed him the envelope. Though the information, true or false, would have changed the debate and destroyed him, I had good reason to believe it wasn’t true. It was a choice, one that I taught my students and my athletes: that cheating to win isn’t winning at all. I considered the consequences, and decided the results weren’t worth the cost.

We won our issue in the end, campaigning on the ideas we believed in. Perhaps the Trumps would have too. We’ll never know, and the price of   “winning at all cost” ethics may be their utter destruction.

 

So What have We Done?

 

President Trump met with Vladimir Putin yesterday and many in America are breathing a sigh of relief. Trump didn’t seem to give away “the farm”; he (maybe?) seemed to be on an “even field” with the “KGB Master.”

And that’s the problem. President Trump met with Putin, and placed Putin’s Russia on an even playing field with the United States. Does Putin belong there? Currently, Russia is ranked 12^th in the world by GNP (gross national product) with the US 1^st, China 2^nd, and even Canada and South Korea rated ahead (10^th and 11^th). The United States GNP is over 14 times greater than Russia.

And while Russia still has the second largest military in the world (and arguably the biggest nuclear force) that military force has been used to sustain the Assad regime in Syria, takeover Crimea from the Ukraine, threaten several other Eastern European states, and put down factions within the Federation. And, of course, the Russian security apparatus has assassinated its opponents, and attacked the US by effecting the 2016 election. Just yesterday they were accused of attempting to penetrate US energy infrastructure.

Putin made his own “deal with the Devil” when he took power in Russia in 1999: he allowed the “kleptocrats” to continue to loot the people of Russia, as long as they agreed to support him. And he took care of himself, with a current projected net worth of over $200 Billion. Not bad for a former KGB colonel.

So when Trump sat down with Putin for over two hours, he validated Putin’s desire to make Russia “an equal” to the United States. Putin’s ultimate goal is to regain the Russian Empire, the old Soviet Union, and to regain the power and prestige of the Stalin/ Khrushchev/Brezhnev glory days. Trump sat down with a leader of a sovereign state of organized crime, a murderer, and a dreamer of world conquest. Trump treated him as an equal, while proceeding to continue to ignore our world allies, most notably Angela Merkel of Germany. He even felt it “proper” to leave his daughter in his place with the leaders of the world, clearly not concerned about the message that sends.

No, President Trump didn’t give away “the farm” in talking to Putin. He didn’t become hypnotized by Putin’s dead blue eyes. Trump treated Putin as an equal – just what Putin needed.

 

While Rome Burns

North Korea launched its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) this weekend. For the first time, they have the ability to directly strike at the United States, and most targets on the Pacific Rim. North Korea not only launched this missile after repeated warnings from the United States to cease, they then dropped it into an exclusive Japanese economic zone of the Sea of Japan.

While the North Koreans have not shown they have the capability of creating a nuclear warhead to cap their ICBM, it really seems to be only a matter of time. That the Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, will control the ultimate weaponry available is the most destabilizing issue in the world today.

President Trump has pressed the Chinese, North Korea’s major trading partner and lifeline to the world, to somehow rein in Kim Jong-un. Trump anticipated that he would be able to convince President Xi Jinping that trade with the United States is worth the rigors of trying to control North Korea.

US Admiral (retired) James Stavridis made it clear why the Chinese are reluctant to become involved in restraining North Korea. He sees China as taking the “long view.” If China  intervenes, precipitating the fall of Kim Jong-un, it could result in a unified Korean peninsula. Like the union of Germany after the fall of the Soviet Union, China sees a unified Korea as a huge economic rival on its own backdoor. The threat of that is great enough, that China is willing to risk Kim’s “twisting the tail” of the nuclear threat.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/what-are-us-options-for-dealing-with-north-korea-983666243827

Or, perhaps China is looking for a trade. China and the United States are involved in a territorial dispute over the South China Sea. The Chinese are expanding and militarizing small coral islands there, in order to claim territorial sovereignty over the entire area. The United States has disputed this claim, performing “Freedom of Navigation” exercises by sailing within twelve miles of the island of Triton last week. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/02/politics/us-navy-south-china-sea/index.html)

The deal might be, China gets what it wants (control of the South China Sea) in return for reining in North Korea. The problem: the United States is unwilling to cede control of this main sea lane to China, and at the same time is unable to tolerate North Korean threats to South Korea, Japan, and of course, the US itself. It is the United States that “needs” the deal, more than China does.

Meanwhile the US is considering a military option. This would involve targeted strikes against both the missile and nuclear facilities in North Korea. It would certainly trigger a North Korean attack against South Korea, where 38,000 US troops are stationed, as well as millions of South Korean citizens, and ultimately a renewed Korean War.

The other option is status-quo, allowing the North Koreans to continue their nuclear/missile development. Once they have reached the capacity for a nuclear attack on the US (they already may be able to deliver one on Japan and US bases in the Pacific, and certainly on South Korea) the stakes will be extremely high. The US is continuing testing and improvement of the anti-ballistic missile system, but there is no “guaranteed 100%” system.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/pentagon-missile-test-north-korea-iran/index.html

While the US is entranced with the spectacle of the Trump Administration, and we all wait for the next “shoe to drop” in the Russia controversy, North Korea is a problem that won’t go away. Hopefully President Trump and the rest of the government aren’t “fiddling” while Rome burns.

 

 

 

 

 

Are You Talking to Me?

As a teacher, it was always easier to lecture, rather than engage in discussion. Lecture was one-way communication. It could be planned out with ordered ideas in advance and presented in a logical fashion. If the lecture was entertaining and engaging, so much the better, as the student/audience stayed attuned to the subject.

The harder way was to engage the students, shaping the discussion using their questions and answers to still cover the topic in a logical manner. It took time, listening, and a lot of thought to make a “Socratic” method work, and often the questions were tough and formulating answers tougher.

One-way communication works well if you are talking to an audience that agrees with everything you say. It’s the Trump Administration’s favored means of communication. While they will send out the lower level “surrogates” to talk to the mainstream news media, strictly staying on “the point of the day,” in general the White House prefers to speak directly to the base through “tweets.” The President himself will talk to “safe” questioners, sticking to “Fox and Friends.” https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/06/22/donald-trump-loves-safe-space-fox-friends/216997

It has been abundantly clear that the Trump Administration strategy is to continually fight the mainstream media. This is a political decision: undercut public confidence in the press and communicate directly to the Trump base (30-40% of the current electorate.) Without awkward questions to be answered, without implied criticisms of executive actions, direct communication works perfectly.

Since Press Secretary Sean Spicer has been thoroughly burned out by this process, they brought out Deputy Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The White House determined not to have televised press conferences for several days (with some not even allowing audio), but when CNN retracted a story and fired three reporters, everyone was called into the press room with the cameras running. After a softball setup from the Breitbart News reporter, Sanders opened up on the press:

“I don’t know that it’s that the response isn’t good enough for the president. I think it’s the constant barrage of fake news that is directed at this president, probably, that has garnered a lot of his frustration. You point to that report; there are multiple other instances where that outlet that you referenced has been repeatedly wrong and had to point that out or had to correct it. There’s a video circulating now — whether it’s accurate or not, I don’t know — but I would encourage everyone in this room and, frankly, everybody across the country to take a look at it. I think if it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism…”

Brian Karem, correspondent from Playboy (I forgot they had good political articles, were they there when I was a kid?) responded, calling out Sanders and the administration for their ongoing attacks:

“Why in the name of heavens — any one of us, right, are replaceable. And any one of us, if we don’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years, at least; there’s no option other than that. We’re here to ask you questions. You’re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, “See, once again, the president is right, and everybody else out here is fake media.” And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/politics/donald-trump-sarah-huckabee-sanders-media/index.html

The “press conference” lasted just a few more minutes followed by Huckabee Sanders walking out, her message delivered. Her reference to a video was an “ambush” video of CNN personnel by “Project Veritas” edited to suggest that CNN was only reporting on the Russian connections for ratings (http://projectveritas.com/2017/06/28/van-jones-russia-is-nothing-burger-american-pravda-cnn-part-ii/)

CNN’s response http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html

The White House then continued its all-out twitter war against MSNBC and CNN. It’s one way communication, it’s a distraction from the real issues this Presidency faces with it’s program and it’s survival, and it’s a way to deny the truthfulness of those who question, much less answer.

In one of the first blogs written in February here on this site,  Two Universes of Facts, it was lamented that there could not be “civil discourse” it there are no “common facts.” Over the past several months, it has become clear that the war on facts has continued, and hope for civil discourse has faded away.

If a majority of Americans feel left out and confused by the Trump communications strategy, they should. It’s not aimed at them, it’s aimed at generating the “base.” Ultimately it will be when “the base” determines that Trump’s results haven’t lived up to his promises that the Administration will be forced to answer.

 

 

 

Patriotism

 It’s the Fourth of July in the first year of President Trump. With all of the distress and disgust, with all of the “hate” among us; it still is the Fourth of July. It is the celebration of the 241^st year of the Republic.

 If there is a day for patriotism, for love of country despite its flaws, the Fourth of July is the day.

 Over twenty years ago I was teaching high school kids government, and faced the question: “what is patriotism?” I tried to come up with an answer for those students. And while it was in a very different era (those students are almost forty now), on this Independence Day in particular, it is a good time to re-visit Patriotism.

I spent the day reading student essays on patriotism. Some students confused it with right wing ideas, some students thought it had to do with politicians, a lot of students just had no idea what patriotism was. Many, many blamed a lack of patriotism on a lack of knowledge. “We were never taught about it!” they cried, “we should have known it at an early age — then we would have ‘patriotism.’”

Is that true? Did we miss an opportunity to teach these young people? Have we created the cynicism they are so well known for; are they too aware of the world without having the background to see through the flaws; are they too jaded by the post-Vietnam “everybody is screwed up” world we have created?

What comes to mind is this: teacher, teach. Explain to them what is right with America, why this is a good place, and what makes it a country that demands loyalty despite its flaws. Explain to them what is “patriotism”, and why you are a patriot.

Do you know? How long has it been since you have asked yourself that question? A teacher of history and government, and lover of the events that made America what it is, why are you a patriot? Explain: that’s what you do for a living, isn’t it? Teacher, teach.

It seems awkward, even trite, to write down why you love something. It exposes your soul to the world, it leaves you open for attack. But how can you ask it of someone else when you are unable to do it yourself? What is patriotism, and why are you a patriot? Answer the question, in 300 words or less (right!).

Patriotism is a love of your country, a love for what America means and what it stands for. Patriotism is not fanaticism, it allows for criticism and fault. Patriotism accepts the fact that others may not be patriotic, but it requires that at the end of the day, there is a basic loyalty to one nation, our nation. It means a love of what America was and is; with flaws, with unfairness, with discrimination; but with an essential rightness that rises above the inequities.

Why love this country? Because it began with goals that even then far outstripped the reality. So what if Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so what if George Washington needed his land in Ohio to be open to settlement? They looked beyond their own material gains, they tried to establish a nation with a purpose that far exceeded their own potential benefit. Did they mean to, or was it a subterfuge to cover their own material desires? It really doesn’t matter, they set the tone either intentionally or despite themselves. They established the dream.

I once went to a Fourth of July picnic at a friend of my family’s house. He was a federal judge, and he brought a fellow judge with him to the picnic, Judge George Edwards. Judge Edwards had been put in jail fighting discrimination long before it was the “right” thing to do, he had used his great mind not to benefit financially, as many lawyers do, but to further what he thought was right. Judge Edwards lost his most precious gift in the end, he had a stroke that took away his mind, and this was near that time.

But Judge Edwards got up at the Fourth of July picnic, and in a quavering voice read the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

 

            …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 those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

They were not just words. They were his life. They are what he staked his whole being on. He was the government, a federal district judge. He believed in the dream of Jefferson and Washington, and knew that reality did not reach the dream. It did not matter, he believed.

I walked Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, by myself, in the heat of the day in July as did the soldiers in Longstreet’s command. I looked at the low ridge, Cemetery Ridge, where Hancock and the Federal troops waited to dispatch them. I thought, how could they do this? How could they walk this long mile, climb the fence, cross the road, and run up the hill into what could only have been a flaming wall of musket fire?

They were a mixed bag, but mostly simple country boys. So were the Federals who just as bravely stood to meet them. Why go? It wasn’t a belief in slavery, or a hatred of it. It was simple: a man ought to have the right to determine what will happen to him. Both sides believed it, just one side thought they had to be on their own, and the other side thought they had to be together. It was a simple belief; and it wasn’t pressure, the officers in the rear with pistols, or the penalties for desertion that drove men to fight that day. Men ought to fight for what they believe, and in the Civil War both sides believed. A cold wind blew through my soul that day, even more that night as I stood on Cemetery Ridge and watched the sun go down behind the sad statue of Robert E. Lee on the far side of the field. They gave more than anyone could have asked; they were all patriots, they died for us all, both sides.

I have a friend, a man now, who once was a student of mine. He was born in the worst of situations, abandoned by both parents, raised by relations, lived in tough financial circumstances. But he had a mind that could reach beyond it all, and a heart of gold. He used his abilities, both mental and physical, to move himself to the top of America’s academic world. He earned scholarships, he met all of the challenges, and he never let the circumstances of his birth dictate what his life would be. He has stayed himself, but he has made himself, because he believed in the power of his dream.

Why love America? Because men like George Edwards made it their life’s work. Because the soldiers at Gettysburg were willing to die for their belief in it’s freedom. And because America allows those with the worst disadvantages to use their talents to rise to become its best.

Why love America? Because in your own way, you too are part of its story, its tradition, and its future. Because each person at Gettysburg, George Edwards, my student; all did not see themselves as a “great piece of history”, but only as doing what they thought was right. So should we all, and because we are in a country that allows it, we have reason to love America.