Month: April 2018

Trashing the White House

Andrew Jackson became the President of the United States in the election of 1828.  Jackson saw his election as a victory for the common man. In the 1824 election, Jackson received the most popular votes but failed to gain electoral victory.  The election went to the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams gained the Presidency through a series of political deals. Jackson held a grudge against the “powers that be” from that time on.

At Jackson’s inauguration, the White House was thrown open to the “common man.”  Kegs of beer were brought in, free food was available; men were crawling through the windows to celebrate their conquest of the establishment. They trashed the place.

Jackson used his philosophy of the common man to hire Federal employees. Jackson believed that any good citizen could do the job, therefore, the most important criteria for employment was their support for Jackson.  He cleared the Federal payroll for his supporters, and this became American tradition for the next fifty years. “The spoils system” began with his administration.

In the late nineteenth century, President’s recognized that there was a need for a professional class of government employees, and civil service was instituted in the US.  While there remains thousands of political appointments for each new administration, there is the constant of the civil service employees that serves as the backbone of the government.

Enter Donald Trump, choosing Andrew Jackson as his Presidential role model.

Like Jackson, Trump’s ultimate job qualification is loyalty to Trump.  While there are a myriad of examples of this, three recent incidents stand out. James Comey, who was specifically asked to pledge loyalty to Donald Trump, in a dinner which Comey took as an “interview” to keep the FBI directorship. Comey declined, and ultimately lost his position.

Vice President Pence needed a new National Security Advisor.  He asked that Jon Lerner, a top advisor to United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, be split between the UN and his office.  Trump blocked the move; Lerner worked for a pro-Rubio organization during the election, proving his “disloyalty” to Trump.  Pence was forced to choose someone else.

And this past week, Trump picked Admiral Ronny Jackson, White House physician, to head the Veterans Administration.  Jackson, a surgeon with battlefield experience, was the leader of the seventy-member White House medical team.  He was picked to lead the 400,000 employee VA, based on what ultimately seems to be his personal relationship with the President.  Now, as allegations fly about his past bad acts, Jackson has withdrawn from the nominating process, his reputation in tatters.

The allegations against Dr. Jackson were easily found, and a critical Navy Inspector General report was on file.  But Trump never had these things checked out, and literally threw “his friend” Jackson to the wolves.  To Trump, he was a doctor, he was a friend, and he looked good on TV.  That was all the qualifications that Jackson needed to gain the nomination.

The historic view of Andrew Jackson’s Presidency has changed in the past twenty years.  When I was in school in the 1960’s, Jackson was seen as a powerful President who led “the people” to the fore.  Today, Jackson is seen through his actions, including defying the Supreme Court and forcing the euphemistic “Indian Removal,” better known as the Trail of Tears, where hundreds of thousands of Native Americans were forced out of their homes and marched out of the way of American expansion. Thousands died in the process.

Trump has chosen that as his role model, and he probably is getting what he deserved.  Andrew Jackson opened the White House, and it got trashed. So did Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

The Curious Case of Rand Paul

Like a little kid constantly demanding attention, Senator Rand Paul whined and squirmed this week, stating he wasn’t going to vote for Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  His reasoning was that as a “Republican/Libertarian” he was against American interventionism, and Pompeo might be too willing to enter into the world’s problems.

And, like a little kid bribed with the right amount of attention, he got several calls from the President and lots of media speculation about whether he would be the decisive vote. Paul switched and voted for Pompeo.

It’s not that there aren’t lots of questions about Pompeo’s fitness to do the job.   He has impressive academic credentials, finishing first at West Point and earning Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law.  But, he has taken concerning stands: coming out against LGBTQ rights and blaming all of Islam for terrorism.   These are views that shouldn’t be represented as “American” to the rest of the world.

But those views aren’t Senator Paul’s issue.  And clearly Senator Paul’s “Republican/Libertarian” foundation is flexible.  He abandoned it in this case.  This year, time and time again, Paul has grandstanded on his principles, garnered the publicity, and then knuckled under.

In the continuing budget resolution debate in February, Paul exercised his prerogative as a Senator to “filibuster,” forcing the government to shutdown temporarily.  As the Senate was ultimately able to end debate, the government reopened in the middle of the night, but Paul got the “stage” for his period of time.  In the $1.6 trillion budget debate of March, Paul again threatened to hold up the voting, but on the last day merely scolded the Senate for the “…monstrosity of bloated government spending.”

In the Affordable Care Act debate, Paul actually stuck to his views, voting against the repeal (the vote when John McCain put his “thumb down.”)  In keeping with his philosophy, his negative vote wasn’t in favor of the Affordable Care Act’s survival, but because the repeal that was offered was not complete enough.

So the question is: is Rand Paul a principled Libertarian, or is he a grandstanding Senator, looking to get fifteen minutes of fame.  Or, is there a more nuanced way to analyze Paul’s behavior.  He wants to get along, especially with President Trump (his fellow Senators have definitely had their fill of him.)  It’s not so much out of affection for the President, but out of affection for the “Trump Base.”

Paul’s vision of the future may be a collapsing Trump administration, with an open lane for a race to the Presidency in 2020.  Whoever can claim “the base” has a strong starting point for the Republican nomination. And if Trump runs again (oh boy!) in 2020, well, Paul is relatively young at fifty-five, he can wait.

There are several “principled” Senators, who follow their established beliefs, on both sides of the aisle.  Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Flake of Arizona both have taken different but clearly defined paths about what’s good for America.  And there are Senators who, due to politics or their ideological beliefs, stand in the middle.  Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Susan Collins of Maine are good examples of that.

But Paul’s stands are curious, as he follows his own Libertarian bent.  It’s not that following a philosophy is wrong whether you agree with it or not, it’s that his views seem to conveniently bend to the needs of his political life.

Maybe that’s why the neighbor next door decided he’d had enough and attacked Paul in a backyard brawl. I’m sure Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have all wanted to do the same.

 

 

 

A Passing Era

Barbara Pierce Bush, First Lady of the United States with President George H.W. Bush and mother of President George W. Bush was buried yesterday.  She was ninety-two and, in keeping with her lifetime of strong decision making,  chose palliative care in the last few days of her life.   She was the backbone of the Bush family of six children, fourteen grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

She was the last of the “Greatest Generation” to serve as First Lady.  Her death marked the passing of an era.  The funeral echoed an earlier time, when our nation could check partisanship at the Capitol or White House door.   While the Bush family has produced many Republican officeholders, former Presidents Obama and Clinton and other Democrats and Independents were invited to the ceremony.  The current First Lady, Melania Trump was present as well.

George H.W. Bush served only one term as President. He was defeated in a hotly contested 1992 election by Bill Clinton.  The on-again, off-again candidacy of Ross Perot as a third choice impacted the outcome.  Yet when Clinton’s term was over, it was Bush and Clinton who came together for disaster relief, starting with the Tsunami in Indonesia.  Clinton became a “surrogate son” to the Bush’s, not only in public settings, but also with the family at their Maine vacation home in Kennebunkport.  Despite the electoral contest, two former Presidents were able to work together, improve the world, and build a friendship.  Barbara Bush was a huge part of the success in that relationship.

Comity: defined as, “courtesy and considerate behavior towards others.”  The funeral, filled with laughter and tears  and memories of a life well lived, echoed the comity of a previous era, when there were clear lines of behavior that weren’t crossed.  Granddaughter Jenna Bush quoted from Romeo and Juliet:

“When she shall die take her and cut her out into stars and she shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.”

Some will reach a conclusion that Jenna meant the “garish sun” to be someone specific (just as many accused Robert Kennedy of attacking President Lyndon Johnson with the same quote in 1964.)  But in the Bush spirit of comity, I think she was speaking more of her “Ganny’s” plain speaking style,  as a woman of grace and strength.

We are not in a time of comity – and certainly the fact that Jenna works for NBC will be the subject of Tweets and columns, as will the smile that Barack Obama elicited from Melania Trump.  But for those of us who had the opportunity to watch or listen to the celebration of Barbara Bush, it brought back a more settled world, where every statement and decision didn’t feel like life and death.

Robert Kennedy also had a quote that fits our current situation:

“There is a Chinese curse which says ‘May he live in interesting times.’ Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind.”

Interesting times is what we have.  What we make of it, is up to us.

 

 

Partisan Hacks

Yesterday, the Department of Justice fulfilled the demands of House Committee Chairmen Bob Goodlatte, Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes to send the “Comey Notes” to the Congress. Taken by former FBI Director James Comey after his conversations with President Trump; they are potential evidence of Presidential obstruction of justice.

The notes were sent in two forms: the originals and a redacted form that the Department of Justice felt protected the evidence.  Literally within minutes of Congress receiving the notes, Fox News had the redacted version. Last night the whole world was reading them (OK, that might be a little hyperbole, just MY whole world.)

These notes seem to completely confirm what their author, James Comey said, both in Congressional testimony and in his recent book.  Why the Republicans defending President Trump wanted them out, I can’t figure out. They show nothing that seems to help the President’s cause.  It does set a precedent that the Justice Department will accede to Congressional requests for evidence, even if it’s evidence in an ongoing investigation. While this particular one doesn’t reveal much new, the next time it might alter or destroy a case.

I have read some of the notes, and listened to Comey get drilled on their contents by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC (no friend of Comey.)  I don’t find them revealing.  Comey was looking for protection from the President, his superiors weren’t interested in giving it to him.  Comey was “trapped”:  follow the President’s clear wishes and drop the Flynn and Russia investigations, or be “disloyal” and face the consequences.  While I keep waiting for the “Clear and Present Danger” scene when Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan stands up to the President (check out the “junk yard dog” moment) it doesn’t happen.  Comey never stands up to the President in person, he simply does not do Trump’s bidding.

Comey was fired.

What are Goodlatte, Gowdy, Jordan, Nunes and other “Radical” Republican Congressmen trying to do?  They are claiming there was an FBI conspiracy to get Hillary Clinton elected and stop the Trump campaign.  If that’s true, the FBI is the most incompetent law enforcement agency ever created.

The chronology of the summer and fall of 2016 should lead to some common sense conclusions. Throughout the early summer, it was well known that the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. During that time, Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport, and afterwards Lynch said she would accept Comey’s recommendations for action (though she did not recuse herself.)

Comey gave his famous July speech, clearing Hillary Clinton of charges, but criticizing her actions as reckless.  Trump supporters were incensed, and castigated Comey as a Democratic lackey. Democrats weren’t happy either.  Comey never mentioned that the  Trump Campaign was under investigation as well.

During the fall, it was leaked that there was an investigation of the Clinton Foundation (Andrew McCabe was later found to be the leaker.)  And then, Comey made the famous October 28^th announcement, reopening the Clinton email investigation.  Oddly, Rudy Guiliani seemed to know what was going to happen two days in advance.

(Side Bar:  if Guiliani knew about the investigation being reopened before the Comey announcement, doesn’t that mean that the FBI was leaking to the Trump campaign, and doesn’t it make Guiliani a witness in the overall investigation?  Will that mean that ultimately Guiliani will need to withdraw as Trump’s attorney due to his conflicted position?)

While Comey came back two days before the election and said that no new information was found, the damage was done.  Clinton went from an eight to ten percent lead in the polls to a dead even race.

McCabe leaks that the Clinton Foundation is under investigation.  Guiliani seems to have inside information from the FBI.  Comey drops an “October Surprise” that wipes out Clinton’s lead in the polls.  If this was an FBI conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton, someone, please take their badges and guns away.  They blew it.

And to claim, as the White House has continually done, that they were “partisan hacks” of the Democrats, is ludicrous.  It can be argued that Lynch, Comey, McCabe, and the rest made questionable decisions, but they couldn’t have been so clumsy as to try to elect Clinton, and by their actions, elect Trump. They couldn’t be that incompetent. It makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Real Conspiracy

As Democrats, Liberals, and “Resistance” members watch the drama unfold in the Trump investigation, there is an entire other “universe of conspiracy” developing.  And while it might seem like “fake news” easily ignored, this universe has the potential for having a real impact on events as they play out with the Mueller investigation.

This alternate universe proffers that the leadership of the FBI, along with President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, rigged the investigation into the Clinton emails in order to protect her run for the Presidency.  It also theorizes that the same plotters were working to discredit the Trump candidacy, by beginning an investigation into the possibility of conspiring with Russians, and eavesdropping on at least one Trump advisor, Carter Page.

The evidence is based on the texts of two senior members of the Clinton investigation.  FBI agent Peter Strozk and Department of Justice Attorney Lisa Page engaged in a months long elicit affair, and during that time sent thousands of texts via their Department issued cell phones.  The transcript of those texts became part of an internal investigation and was then “leaked” to Republican Congressmen, who have made portions available to the public.

Based on these texts, some Republicans argue that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was predisposed to find no criminal intent.  It furthers argues that the lead investigator, Strozk, was in league with the Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, as well as Page and others (perhaps FBI Director James Comey) to protect Clinton from criminal indictment. They align these “facts” with the meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport, where they believe a “deal” was made to protect Hillary.

In addition, some of these same investigators were involved in eavesdropping on Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page using a FISA warrant.  The officials who signed off on that warrant, including McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and later Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; all were participating in “creating” a Russia crisis, with the intent of delegitimizing the Trump campaign and later administration.

Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has been at the forefront of the FISA investigation.  He has received support from many of the members of the “Freedom Caucus;” the far right group of Republican Congressmen led by Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Nunes has demanded that the full documentation for the Carter Page FISA warrant be given to his committee.  That committee, by the way, has concluded its brief investigation into the Russia conspiracy, determining that there was no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians, despite not hearing testimony from dozens of critical witnesses.

Meadows, joined by Freedom caucus member Jim Jordan of Ohio, is demanding an investigation into the Clinton email investigation.   They argue that the Clinton email investigation results were a “sham”, and that the probable cause to open the Trump investigation was a “sham” as well. They claim that the basis of the Trump investigation was the Steele Dossier, and since that Dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign, it was tainted and unacceptable as any form of evidence.  The Justice Department and FBI deny that the Steele Dossier was the basis for the investigation.

All of this ignores the real fact that the action of the FBI Director, in re-opening the Hillary Clinton email investigation ten days before the election, was the proximate cause of Clinton’s loss to Trump.  It us hard to see that as an FBI rigged towards Clinton.

Nunes, Meadows, Jordan, and retiring Congressman Trey Gowdy are all continuing to pursue their “alternative” theory.  These are powerful men, and their actions cannot be pushed aside as “wack theories” or “fake news.”  Even if they are unable to make much headway in their pursuit of “facts,” they are continuing the process of delegitimizing the Department of Justice and the FBI.

This has a political effect, in what will ultimately be a political process.  While criminal indictments may be issued against members of the Trump campaign, the President of the United States will likely not be charged.  The only action that can be taken against him is a vote of impeachment by the House of Representatives, and a trial for removal by the Senate.  This is a political process (shrouded in judicial language) with political influences.

If the Freedom Caucus and other Republicans can get a substantial number of Americans to believe that the entire Department of Justice is “rotten,” then the Mueller investigation will be tarred as well.  If the FBI was plotting against Trump, then certainly the Mueller team is doing the same, and it will be up to the Republicans in the House to stand up against that corruption.

And while a change in party control of the House this fall is likely, it may not change the outcome. Once the “facts” proffered by Nunes, Meadows and the rest are established, they will be difficult to overcome.  And those “facts” will lend strength to the Republican Senators should a Democratic House send an impeachment resolution to them. While it only takes a majority of the House to impeach, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict. Even if Democrats win a majority, some Republicans would have to cross over to remove Donald Trump.

The real conspiracy may not be the FBI trying to overthrow Trump, but the “Radical” Republicans trying to denigrate the FBI and the Mueller investigation.  Their success will be measured in votes, both in elections and on the floor of the Congress.  And they may already be winning that contest.

 

 

 

Stature of the President

On Friday night the United States went to war.  US military forces attacked targets in Syria.  Lives were at risk, and the full force and might of the strongest nation in world history was on display.

Following tradition dating back to the founding of the Republic, President Trump spoke to the nation. He outlined his reasons for the attack, and he explained what choices Syria could make to alter their future. He ended his speech with the phrase, “God Bless our military, and God bless the United States of America.”  It was, as another President stated, “…all together fitting and proper…”

It was quite a turnabout for President Trump.  Just a few weeks ago, he was making fun of “being Presidential,” and even made fun of the phrase “God bless you, and God bless the United States of America” as pompous and outdated.  He is the President who talks “real.”  But when the US forces were at risk, when missiles were striking, Trump wanted to be traditional, and Presidential.  He knew that the situation required the stature of the President.

The stature of the President:  it is more than just a performance.  When President Trump agreed to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, he “equalized” Kim in the eyes of the world.  The North Koreans are desperate to be seen as a legitimate, in fact, so desperate that they starved their own people in order to pay the cost of developing the missile and nuclear technology that is their pride.  Now Trump is meeting head-to-head with Kim, two heads of state sitting together, equally.

The stature of the President:  the White House invited Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to visit.  He is a man who likely had a reporter thrown to his death from a fifth floor window last week; who master-minded the 2016 attack on our elections; who sheltered Syrian weapons and troops from the US attack last weekend. He is to be “wined and dined” with full honors in view of the eyes of Americans, Russians and the rest of the world.  His actions and his country equalized by the stature of the President.

The stature of the President: Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, obviously knew that the Administration was agreed in placing additional sanctions on Russia. Trump clearly changed his mind Sunday afternoon, then let his advisors try to make the mixup about Haley’s confusion.  Her response: “with all due respect – I don’t get confused.”  Her stature remains clear, while the President’s looks indecisive and confused. Is that the view of the President we want the world to see?

And finally, this morning the President tweeted about a sketch made by a porn star of her possible assailant.  It doesn’t even matter if he’s right or wrong, had sex with her or not; the President personally arguing and “dissing” a porn star?  Is that the stature he wants as President?

Most would say: this IS the President we elected.  He is a “post-stature” President, with tweets and porn stars and screaming fits in the White House.  He was elected “warts and all”:  we knew what we were getting.  And they would be right.

But, after the speech Friday night, it is clear that the President recognizes the power of his stature. He used it in the appropriate way for a most serious situation, I wish he could find it in himself to see that power in every action he takes.  He needs to recognize that his stature impacts the world – from Kim to Putin to Stormy Daniels.

 

 

 

The Backup

Scott Pruitt is the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.  The EPA has been the “bête noire” of the Republican and Conservative movements since the Clean Air Act of 1970.  The Agency has restricted using our air, water, and land as a dumping ground for industry.  Since our society has seen the environment as an “entitlement” since the first settlers arrived in the 1600’s, the laws and the EPA try to regulate and protect that resource from further abuse.

Scott Pruitt was the Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma for six years.  During that time, he dissolved the Environmental Protection Unit in his office, raised a ton of money from the oil and gas industry, and sued the EPA thirteen times.  He entered the EPA Directorship with a clear mandate to restrain the Agency, and under a cloud of questions about emails from the oil and gas industry, including Xeroxing industry language to file official protests against EPA rules.

Since he arrived in Washington in 2017, Pruitt’s cloud has grown darker.  The GAO (General Accounting Office) said he violated the law when he built a $31000 soundproof phone booth in his office and put a $5000 American flag behind his desk.  He has spent millions of dollars in travel, excusing his first class seats by citing “security concerns.”  He has twenty-four hour security coverage, including on trips to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl.  In his first three months in office his travel costs were more the $832,000; not including trips to Italy and Morocco.

He had a “sweetheart deal” for living in Washington, staying in a Capitol Hill area apartment.  The owner, the wife of a natural gas lobbyist, charged Pruitt $50 a night for use, far under the going rate for any accommodations in D.C.  Since Pruitt failed to even pay that amount, she eventually changed the locks to keep him out.

Compared to former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price or Veteran’s Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, both fired for inflated travel expenses, Pruitt has far exceeded their extravagancies.  So what keeps Pruitt in office, while Price and Shulkin are gone?

Pruitt has tremendous support from the conservative community.  Conservative moneybags, the Koch brothers, whose fortune is based in oil and gas, spent $3.1 million to help get the Pruitt nomination through the Senate. Pruitt is “their man” in the EPA, and they want him to stay there.  And, Fox News has made their support apparent. Just last week in an opinion piece, Fox praised Pruitt for de-regulating the environment without Congressional sanction:

“It would, of course, be better if the Senate passed the House bills and sent them to President Trump to sign. But until that can happen, Pruitt has taken the reins and implemented the policies on his own. Bravo.”

Pruitt is doing the bidding of his political masters, and they are willing to swallow his political indiscretions to get the job done.  But there is a more important reason keeping Pruitt in his expensive seat in EPA.

Much bigger than the Pruitt problem, the Trump administration is trying to survive the Mueller investigation.   Pruitt represents a possible move in that crisis, one that the President is unwilling to give up for mere corruption in office.

The scenario would be to remove Jeff Sessions from the Attorney General position.  Sessions, who early in the term recused himself from all Russia related issues, doesn’t control the investigation.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein does.  If Trump fired Sessions, he could move a Senate confirmed, cabinet level appointee in temporarily until a permanent nominee is confirmed.  That Acting Attorney General would not be recused, and could take control of the investigation away from Rosenstein: that control could mean restricting or even removing Muller.

Pruitt, the former Attorney General of Oklahoma and the Senate confirmed EPA Director, is the backup. He is the pawn that could move into the Attorney General “square” long enough to disrupt the Mueller team. With only four lawyers in the Cabinet, Pruitt is the primary choice, whose loyalty to “the cause” is clear. Trump is keeping his options open.

IF Trump can ignore the scandals that Pruitt creates.  However, with all of the other scandals in “Trump World,” Pruitt’s “petty” financial flaws are flying pretty much under the radar.  He continues to dismantle environmental protection in America, but even more importantly he stands ready to jump into Session’s chair and change the Mueller world.

He is the backup.

 

 

 

Known Knowns

Michael Ché on Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update made a telling comment:

 “FBI raids are like your girlfriend going through your phone, she’s only doing it to prove what she already knows.”

The investigators already know.  They already know whether the President of the United States conspired with the Russian government to influence the election of 2016.  While Fox News and the rest claim “…after sixteen months and millions of dollars there is no evidence of collusion,” investigators know the truth. As Don Rumsfeld so eloquently put it, it is a “known known.”

The raid on Michael Cohen’s office and home will prove what they already know.  So will the evidence gained through months of electronic surveillance on Cohen, all approved both by the Justice Department and by Federal Judges. So will the testimony of Popadoupolos, Flynn and Gates.  The investigators already know all of this, they already have conclusions drawn about what occurred in the years leading up to the election.

As James Comey said in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, after a year any good investigators will have conclusions.  If they don’t, they are incompetent.

Reporters are unearthing bits and pieces of what investigators have.  The McClatchy News is reporting that Michael Cohen did travel to Prague in the late summer of 2016, despite his denials. Others have linked Cohen to meetings in Prague with a close advisor to Putin, and to one of the Clinton email hackers. Should this turn out to be accurate, it more than confirms information from the Steele Dossier, lending more credence to the rest of the report.  If true, it also is the “smoking gun” of conspiracy, and probably the end of the Trump Presidency.

The Russiagate world will be focused on the Comey book this week.  While we are still waiting for our copy, I have listened to Comey’s interviews. He strikes me as a moral and honest man, who made difficult decisions.  While I disagree with what he did and believe that he altered the outcome of the election, I don’t think he used “bad judgment.”  I think he used his best judgment, directed by his own moral compass. He tried to make a “black and white” decision in what is ultimately a very gray and political world.

Comey is a prosecutor, a man who spent his career making judgments about whether the actions of people were legal or illegal.  He never stepped away from the high profile defendants from John Gotti to Martha Stewart to Hillary Clinton.  In listening to Comey’s interview, he clearly used those skills to evaluate Donald Trump. His conclusion:  a man morally unfit to be President.

The same applied to his decisions about Hillary Clinton.  Comey judged that she did something wrong in using her personal email. He couldn’t make it a crime, and his statement in the summer of 2016 showed his frustration.

This also applies to the “October Surprise” letter to Congress on reopening the Clinton investigation.  Comey knew that the Weiner Laptop email investigation was going to leak out, whether he announced it or not:

 “I don’t know whether that was part of a leak outta the– FBI office in New York that knew about the search warrant. But that was my concern, that once you start seeking a search warrant, especially in a criminal case– counterintelligence is different.”

In his world view, Comey would defend the integrity of the FBI by writing the letter to Congress, knowing it would be released, rather than have it leak out of the New York FBI office.  He wouldn’t see it as a choice he made, but as an outcome he wanted to control.

While James Comey will be the “show” this week, the legal actions by Michael Cohen (and Stormy Daniels) will be the best sideshow. Cohen has demanded that HE determine what pieces of evidence are covered by attorney-client privilege, rather than the Justice Department “taint team” (the team of lawyers, separate from the investigators, who are going through the evidence now.)  The judge should laugh this one out of court, but if not, it would create a huge shift in the investigation.

But regardless of this decision, in the end Mueller knows, and has the same relentless determination that Jim Comey showed in his career.

He will make sure that, eventually, we will all know too.

 

 

 

 

 

Get It Together

The United States, the United Kingdom and France attacked Syria Friday night.  We launched over one hundred and fifty missiles from ships and planes, attacking Syrian chemical weapons development and storage capacities. Syria claims that half of the missiles were intercepted before they reached their target; they have advanced Russian made air-defense weapons.*

Syria is a disaster. It is in the end stages of a civil war against rebel militias, with the brutal Assad regime regaining power.  Russia and Iran have committed weapons and troops to support Assad in his quest.  Meanwhile, the United States is fighting and supporting the Kurds in the north and east as they complete the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS).  Turkey has moved into parts of Northern Syria, and has attacked both ISIS remnants and Kurds.  And of course, the Israelis aren’t far away, and have launched recent attacks into Syria as well.

Assad has demonstrated a willingness to go to any length to survive.  This includes using chemical weapons on both rebel militias, and civilians. He has used Sarin nerve gas in the past, but this latest assault was with chlorine gas.  Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, estimates Assad has used chemical weapons at least fifty times in the past six years.

The Assad forces have also used barrel bombs dropped from helicopters on civilians, and have no compunction about shelling and bombing or starving any area where they find resistance, regardless of civilian casualties.

So what is the Allied strategy for Syria?  President Trump stated that this was a concerted effort, one that would be a continuing operation to make sure Assad didn’t use chemicals again.  Later, Secretary of Defense Mattis and General Dunford made it clear that our attack was a “one-off” mission.  If Assad doesn’t resort to chemical weapons, the Allies will leave him alone.

The answer is there is no answer for Syria.  Perhaps in President Obama’s administration there was an opportunity to act (as the Russians ultimately did) and overthrow Assad.  But the lessons of Iraq were clear to that administration:  remove the dictator and beware of the forces that are unleashed.  ISIS is but one example of what could happen.  President Obama chose not to intervene in the region.

So it’s hard to blame the Trump Administration for not having their Syria policy together.  It’s a conundrum, perhaps without solution. But the Administration could have at least coordinated the message between the President and the Generals.  The President intimated a long-term commitment to Syria (odd, as just a couple weeks ago he was talking about removing all US troops) while the Generals made it clear we don’t plan on continued action, as long as Assad doesn’t use his chemicals.

And the President, who made a major part of his Presidential campaign about not telling adversaries what he planned to do, tweeted our missile plans out on Monday.  Not only were the Syrians warned, they took the opportunity to move a significant amount of their weaponry onto Russian bases, where they would be shielded from Allied attacks.

This isn’t a case of “Wag the Dog,” the 1990’s movie where the President created a war to distract from his political woes at home.  Chemical weapons use has been banned since the end of World War One; even in the extremes of World War Two neither side resorted to them.  It is the one limited action the US and Allies can take:  do whatever else you want but don’t use chemicals.

But the current internal US crisis makes our alliance a less formidable force. This Administration has an aura of confusion and incompetence.   Rebel or Assad; Syrian, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, Russian, British or French:  it is hard to determine what the United States will do, and how committed it is to any strategy in the Middle East.  It isn’t just that the Administration speaks with multiple voices and messages; there is no clear plan of action, and the positions that should be communicating US views from the State Department have been left vacant.

They need to get it together.

*Note: US military states ALL  MISSILES hit their targets and all planes returned home safely  They also stated that Syrian defenses didn’t respond until after the attack was over

 

 

 

On the Cusp

We are on the cusp of the crisis.  The forces that have been investigating Donald Trump are converging.  Here are the facts.

Monday, the Federal prosecutors in Manhattan executed a search warrant on the homes and office of Michael Cohen, the personal attorney and “fixer” for President Donald Trump.  The President’s response was rage.  Wednesday night it was reported that some of the information seized included recordings of Cohen’s conversations.  These MAY include conversations about paying for silence about Trump’s behavior, and perhaps even conversations with Trump himself.

The searches set off a firestorm of Fox News fueled debate. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, and hired/not hired former US Attorney Joe DiGenova have called for the firing of Special Counsel Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.  Fox personality Sean Hannity compared the Special Counsel’s office to a Mafia family; DiGenova called former FBI Director James Comey a dirty cop.  Gingrich compared Mueller to the Gestopo.

Tuesday, current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan decided not to run for his Congressional seat.  Ryan, whose voice has been continually absent from the Trump debate, is now a lame duck, and the battle begins in the Republican House caucus for the spoils of leadership.  They are focusing on their internal issues, and unlikely to take up the burden of a Constitutional crisis.

Wednesday, former FBI Director James Comey’s book was “leaked” out a week prior to publication. Comey compared the Trump organization to an organized crime family, La Cosa Nostra, and claimed that the President’s biggest concern about Russian involvement in the 2016 election was whether there was any proof of Trump’s actions with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel.

The negotiations between the Special Counsel’s office and President Trump’s attorneys over testimony have fallen apart:  there will be no voluntary questioning.  Mueller will have to decide whether to proceed on with his investigation without Trump’s testimony, or try to force Trump’s answers by issuing a grand jury subpoena.  Should he compel testimony through subpoena a court battle is sure to ensue.  Trump could simply refuse to go:  US Marshals are not likely to fight off the Secret Service to force Trump into court.

If Trump does go to court, he may well invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. What a few months ago seemed unthinkable, a President taking the Fifth, now seems a plausible solution.  Undoubtedly the Fox News propaganda machine would back the move as a reasonable response to an “unfair and Gestopo-like” investigation.

And late Wednesday night, the Trump White House leaked the upcoming Presidential pardon of Scooter Libby. Libby was Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, convicted of obstructing justice and lying to the FBI. It is no coincidence that those charges are similar to ones faced by Mike Flynn and others from the Trump White House.  It is a not so subtle signal:  keep your mouth shut and maybe you too can get a Presidential “get out of jail free card.”

And finally, word has come out that the Mueller Investigation is preparing to release its first (of several) report on the conduct of the President.  This is in lieu of actually indicting a sitting President, an action that may or may not be Constitutional, but would violate current Department of Justice policy.  This first one would highlight the President’s actions in obstructing justice, and could serve as potential impeachment charges.

It’s Thursday morning. Here’s what may happen next.

The next step in the Mueller investigation will be into Trump’s inner circle.  Michael Cohen was the first.  Ivanka, Jared Kushner and Donald Jr are up next.  While Trump already made it clear that he will throw Cohen to the wolves by stating, “I don’t know anything about the Stormy Daniels contract” on Air Force One, his children might, and I do mean might, be a different matter.

How can Trump stop the investigation?  He could try to directly fire Robert Mueller, an action of dubious Constitutionality. This would cause a court battle, culminating in the Supreme Court, and likely would result in Mueller remaining in office.  But it would take time, time to continue to build the Fox News propaganda.

He could fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replace him. The replacement would not be recused from the Russia investigation, and could take direct charge of Mueller.  The new Attorney General could then stall, restrict, or fire Mueller.  This is the probable reason why EPA Director Scott Pruitt is allowed to remain in office despite his continual corrupt activity.  Pruitt, former Attorney General of Oklahoma, was Senate confirmed for the EPA, and could be placed in the Attorney General’s job as a temporary appointment without needing additional confirmation.

Trump could order the Department of Justice to rescind the Special Counsel regulations, simply wiping the Mueller investigation from existence.  This could trigger a Congressional action to protect Mueller, though House Republicans are still firmly behind the President.  Mueller could also simply turn the investigation over to others in the Department.

Or, he could fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, ostensibly because he signed off on the Cohen search warrants.  Trump would move to the next in line who could throttle or fire Mueller.  The problem:  this could cause a “Saturday Night Massacre” scenario reminiscent of Nixon, as those in line for the job refuse to act against Mueller and perhaps it could trigger Congressional action to protect Mueller.

Or President Trump could do nothing, allowing the investigation to proceed.  He could allow indictments to be handed down against Cohen, and ultimately his children.  He could “dangle” pardons to keep everyone in line.  And he can depend on the Congress to continue to ignore his behavior.

The Republican National Committee is “all-in” behind President Trump, even publishing a webpage defaming James Comey.  Members of Congress continue to act as Trump’s first line of defense.

So again, we depend on the sense of civic duty of the Republicans in the Congress.  At what point will they realize that the actions of President Trump and those surrounding him have brought the nation into disrepute, and threaten the foundations of our democracy?  They clearly haven’t yet.

We are on the cusp of the crisis.  It may happen today, it may happen in a month.  But it’s happening.

 

Headed Home

Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has given up.  He has chosen not to run for re-election to Congress from the 1^stDistrict of Wisconsin.  He’s going home to Janesville:  he’s had enough.

For the moment he will keep his Speakership, but a lame duck Speaker can do little to further legislation. Kevin McCarthy (California) and Steve Scalise (Lousiana), are the two leading contenders for party leadership maneuvering for his job.  Ryan knows that Republicans face a debacle in the fall election, polling shows that the Democrats may well gain the majority in the House.  The Republican leadership battle may be for Minority Leader, not Speaker.

Ryan has been a “rising star” for the Party since he was elected to Congress in 1999 at 29 years of age. He gained a committee chairmanship early, based on his special expertise in government spending, and chaired the Budget Committee from 2011 until he became Speaker in 2015.  In 2012, he was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States, running with Mitt Romney against Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

He has a “Boy Scout” image (though he was only briefly in the Scouts.)  His dedication to his family (wife Janna and three children) is legendary, he almost didn’t take the Speaker job because of the time commitment to travel and fund raising that would take him away from Janesville, where his family still resides.  He goes back to his family there almost every weekend.

So what happened to this “star” of the Republican Party?  Why has he left his party  and country at this most critical time in American history?  As third in line for the Presidency of the United States, with a looming Constitutional crisis, why has he taken himself “out of the game?”

Many site his distaste for President Trump.  Ryan’s “Boy Scout” image does not fit well with the President of Porn Stars, Playgirls, and Access Hollywood fame.  Others claim that Ryan’s ultimate goal was achieved by re-writing the tax code.  The tax cut bill passed, and so Ryan is done. And still others suggest that Ryan is disgusted with the compromises he has had to make, accepting a $1.6 trillion deficit in the last budget.  Ryan has always been a balanced budget proponent, now as Speaker he has led a huge increase in the United States’ debt.

Paul Ryan failed to use his Speakership to defend the key values of the Republican Party against the short-term transactional deals of President Trump.  He failed to stand for the values he claimed to believe in: from balanced budgets and reduced government spending on entitlements, to ethical behavior and equal rights for all citizens.  Again and again, from the Convention in Cleveland, to Charlottesville, to corruption in the EPA; Ryan had the opportunity to standup for what the Republican Party believes. He didn’t.

Why:  again and again why did Paul Ryan swallow his distaste and stand beside the President?  Was the “Trump Base” so dangerous to the Republican Party that they must be coddled at the cost of the “soul ” of the party?  Others in the Party took principled stands:  John Kasich, John McCain and Jeff Flake among them.  Why did Ryan make his “deal with the Devil,” a deal that clearly has cost him his title and career?

The answer does not fit the “Boy Scout” image.  Ryan’s party raced away from him to follow Trump, and instead of standing for “something,” this supposedly principled man chose to follow instead of lead.  He did so with the hope of gaining power, of using Trump to pursue his own agenda.  What he found was that Trump, a rookie politician, out politicked the Speaker, and got what Trump wanted.

And Ryan and the Republican Party compromised themselves by accepting the same kind of Russian money that has so compromised the Trump family.  While little has been said, millions from such figures as Oleg Deripaska (of Paul Manafort fame) found its way into Republican coffers (Dallas Morning News.)  Perhaps they have little choice but to accept what Trump does, they are under the same influences as him.

Ryan was the “heir apparent” for Republican leadership after the 2012 Presidential election, he continued on that path to power by accepting the Speakership when John Boehner left. He has failed the Party, and his country.  It isn’t because he didn’t prevent the takeover of the party by Donald Trump, he joins the many who were unable to see that coming and couldn’t prevent it. No, he failed by not standing for what he believed, and what he clearly thinks this nation needs.

He’s headed home to Janesville, a figure of failed promise.  America needed his leadership before, and needs it even more today.  But he’s taking his ball and going home.

 

 

 

 

Listening to Mark

Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman of Facebook, testified to a committee of the US Senate yesterday.  Everyone wanted a piece of it; it was actually a joint meeting of two Senate committees, and forty Senators were poised with questions.

Zuckerberg was articulate and prepared.  He answered the questions with practiced politeness, and only occasionally descended into Facebook “geek-speak.”  To those Senators who didn’t have much of a grasp of the technology, Zuckerberg was kind, not making them look stupid.  To those who knew a lot though, he generalized, refusing to get specific about the technical details of his product.

I’m not a huge fan of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), but he made a significant point yesterday.  In questioning Zuckerberg, he asked him who Facebook’s biggest competitor was.  Zuckerberg came back asking about what area of the industry Graham was talking about: person to person, video and picture, messaging, and the like.  Graham pursued the question:  who is your biggest competitor:  “…if someone didn’t want to use Facebook, what would they use?”

Zuckerberg didn’t answer the question, but the answer was clear. There is no one media application that can do what Facebook does.  If you don’t want to use Facebook, you can’t replace it.  Graham’s point:  Facebook has a monopoly of two billion users with no real competition.  In America, being pegged as a monopoly can have dangerous consequences.

You can’t blame Facebook, it’s an American success story. Two kids in a dorm room come up with a computer program, they grow it, expand it, find financing for it, move it from Cambridge, Massachusetts to Silicon Valley, and make billions of dollars. There avowed goal:  connect the people of the world.  They are a third of the way there.

But monopolies have their downside.  Since there is no competition there is little incentive to change a “business model” that works.  And with the current financial capacity of Facebook, the new and innovative ideas that come up are bought up and subsumed into the Facebook system.

In America we either break up monopolies, forcing them to become multiple competing companies (Old ATT became eight different corporations), or we regulate them, as we do with public utilities in Ohio.  Breaking monopolies up creates competition, giving consumers choices and encouraging innovation and reduced costs.  Regulation controls costs and how business is conducted, but does not necessarily encourage innovation.

Mark Zuckerberg is willing to become a participant in developing regulations for Facebook (he said so to Senator Klobuchar.)  It’s a smart move: if it’s regulated, it can remain a monopoly.  Zuckerberg has made it clear that he is in favor of regulating “advertising” on Facebook – what he is avoiding is touching the financial heart of the Facebook model: user data.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) made a significant point in his questioning.  His first question to Zuckerberg:  “Will you tell me which hotel you stayed in last night,” followed by “…tell me who you messaged this week.”  Zuckerberg answered “no” to both questions, underlining Durbin’s concern about the loss of personal information control that Facebook creates.

Data is the heart of Facebook, and the ability to sell data and data use is the Facebook business model.  Collecting user data is what they do.  And it’s the heart of the problem as well:  how can American’s protect themselves from data “profiling,” and from those profiles being used to subversively influence them.

As a monopoly, there is no competition forcing Facebook to change. If users don’t want to use Facebook, they certainly can choose to delete their accounts.  But they can’t find a similar service, and Facebook is THE major form of communication for millions or more.

Regulation is the answer.  And while the “regulators,” members of the US House and Senate, may not have the technical insights to understand how to control Facebook, they can find the folks who do.  Maybe Mark Zuckerberg specifically, and Silicon Valley in general, will participate to lend their technical understanding.

Facebook influences what we think, what we buy, and who we vote for.  The past two years have made it clear that, knowingly or not, the leaders of Facebook haven’t found a way to get control of their “platform.”  If the American “free enterprise” system doesn’t provide a choice, then it’s up to the government to provide those controls.

 

 

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

(thank you Superman)

Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer for the President of the United States, was served with search warrants yesterday.  His home, office, and hotel room (where he is staying while his home is renovated) were searched.  Records, computers, and cell phones were taken.

The searches were conducted by the FBI, acting under the jurisdiction of the United State Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), Geoffrey Berman. Berman was appointed to the position by President Trump, and was a former partner in the law firm that included Rudy Giuliani.  In order to “pierce the veil of lawyer/client privilege,” a US District Court Judge has to rule that there is substantial and convincing evidence that the lawyer and client were engaging in criminal or fraudulent activity.

In addition, the top leaders of the Justice Department, the head of the Criminal Division, the Deputy Attorney General (and potentially the Attorney General), had to sign off on the warrants.  While the information that led to the searches emanated from the Mueller investigation team, it did not meet the criteria of Mueller’s mandate as Special Counsel to investigate matters pertaining to Russia, and was handed off to Berman.  Just as the law said it should.

It’s a big deal.  Not surprisingly, President Trump was more than upset. Talking to the press at the beginning of a National Security meeting to determine what to do about the Syrian use of chemical weapons, he want on a long “rant” about the situation.

“So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man. And it’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt.”

Trump went onto talk about the Mueller investigation.  He stated again and again that there was “no collusion.”  He missed the fact that this wasn’t part of that investigation.  And then he commented:

“And it’s a disgrace. It’s, frankly, a real disgrace. It’s an attack on our country, in a true sense. It’s an attack on what we all stand for.”

This raises the question:  what does Donald Trump think the United States stands for?  He was sitting at a table, surrounded by the leadership of the American military, the Vice President at one side and his new National Security Advisor on the other.  The uniforms and stars surrounded him.

President Trump confuses the Presidency with the country, just as he confuses the flag with the military.  The United States is a nation of laws, ones that he as President has taken an oath to uphold.  The law holds that the confidentiality of a lawyer and his client is one of the few legal secrets.  It takes an incredibly high standard to even begin to breech it, and even when evidence is gathered, a separate team of lawyers go through it first to guarantee all legal communications remain confidential.  This is a different team than the one doing the investigation..

Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution:  one of only two parts of the Presidential oath (the other – faithfully execute the office of President.)  The Constitution is the law, and  the careful actions of the Department of Justice were lawful.  But President Trump assaulted the law yesterday, claiming that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, biased, unfair, and conflicted.

His only legal defense is to claim “no collusion;” four times over.  But his real defense is to attack the integrity of those investigating him, over and over again.  He demands that this is a Democrat versus Republican fight to the death, and that even the long defeated Hillary Clinton is still involved:

“Democrats all — or just about all — either Democrats or a couple of Republicans that worked for President Obama, they’re not looking at the other side; they’re not looking at the Hillary Clinton — the horrible things that she did and all of the crimes that were committed. They’re not looking at all of the things that happened that everybody is very angry about, I can tell you, from the Republican side, and I think even the independent side. They only keep looking at us.”

To him, it’s all about taking sides.  And that’s what he projected in his rant, letting his base know that THEY are being attacked when HE is being attacked.  When he say s “everybody is very angry” that’s the everybody he means.

There is no reason the President should be happy about the investigation.  It represents a serious threat to him, and certainly a constant distraction.  But the President of the United States has an obligation, swore an oath, to defend the Constitution.  That document set out the standards that no one is above the law, and that we have a system of courts to insure and administer justice.

Like Superman’s cape, President Trump is wrapping himself in the flag and the military; using them as props behind his statements that erode American values.  Truth, Justice, and the American Way:  that’s what Superman, and the President, should stand for.  President Trump’s rant to the nation yesterday showed once again that his allegiance is to himself over his duty and country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While We Were Distracted

The United States is buried in “Russiagate.”  There no longer is a question that Russia attacked our election in 2016, and, according to a new study released by THE Ohio State University (yes, I live near Columbus) Russian actions on social media altered the election (WCMH – Channel 4.)  This doesn’t include collusion, conspiracy, and actual attacks on the voting process – all still being investigated.

The Mueller investigation has grown quiet again:  we are waiting for the “other shoe to drop.”  However, if someone has direct knowledge of Paul Manafort, Trump finances, or other aspects of the investigation, they need to be wary of airports.  The FBI is lurking, Mueller is looking for answers, and airports seem to be the place where potential witnesses/suspects are grabbed.

President Trump continues to distract America from the investigation.  It seems strange that the President may prefer being sued by a porn star, rather than questions about the Russiagate investigation.  By the way, a report just out states that the Trump Organization (Trump’s business) billed the Trump Campaign (the Presidential campaign) $129,999.72 a week after Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels (Inquisitr.)  Odd coincidence:  somebody owes Cohen $.28.

If the campaign paid hush money to Daniels, and didn’t report it, that’s illegal.  If the Organization (or Cohen) made an “in kind” contribution to the campaign to keep Daniel’s quiet – that’s illegal.  And since Trump now says he didn’t know about a contract with Daniels, then Cohen may lose his law license (for making a contract for Trump without Trump’s knowledge.) Even if you think Trump knew about the contract, it sure seems he’s willing to throw Cohen’s career under the bus. No wonder he can’t find lawyers.

In Syria, Assad, backed by Russia, continues to use chemical warfare against his own people.  This weekend’s barrel bomb dropped on civilians is only the most recent example, and while the US may react to that in some way (maybe a missile attack on airport runways again) it doesn’t change the multiple times we’ve turned our back to the problem.  Certainly President Trump’s statement in Cleveland last week that we were going to pull out of Syria may have given some license to Assad.

In Europe, Hungary elected a right-wing prime minister, Victor Orban, and gave him a super-majority in the Parliament.  Nationalists throughout Europe are rejoicing, as anti-immigrant, anti-European Union and pro-Russian candidates become ascendant.  How much help Russian social media intervention gave we aren’t sure: what is clear is that the vacuum created by the absence of a strong United States is being filled.

We have picked a trade war with China, but haven’t negotiated new trade deals with anyone else in Asia.  The argument made for pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was that we could negotiate better deals individually with countries rather than as a group; it now looks like we have abandoned Asia to the Chinese.  The new “President for life” of China, Xi, is acting as if we have.

In the Middle East, in Europe, in Asia; the lack of American presence has opened doors to China and Russia. The relative peace created by the “Pax Americana” after the Cold War concluded is ending, because the US has pulled away from engagement.

And the Trump administration has made it clear that we now “side” with Russia.  When Russians used chemical weapons to try to assassinate former spies in the United Kingdom, we joined most of Europe by expelling sixty Russian diplomats.  However, we now hear that they sixty will be replaced by sixty more, more of a substitution than an expulsion.

Russian mercenaries (so-called – it’s hard to imagine they weren’t under the control of Putin) attacked US forces in Syria.  The US forces defended themselves, suffering no casualties and leaving close to three hundred Russians dead.  One would think that’s a reason for public comment, but not a word was spoken.

With no Secretary of State, National Security Advisor McMasters seemed to be the one moderating force in the White House keeping America involved.  He departed on Friday; next up, John Bolton, who hasn’t met a war he didn’t like.  No one on the Republican side of the Congress says a word – Bob Corker where are you?

Russiagate has silenced them.  And Russiagate is consuming the American attention.  But as we wait for the next Mueller move, or the next woman to sue the President, the world goes on.  “Going to Hell in a hand-basket” is more like it.

For Dems, It’s Difficult

Free Trade: it’s the idea that the world’s trade should be unfettered by borders and nations. Free traders believe that ultimately American industry will win out, despite higher wages and costs, because we are more inventive and efficient. It’s been a Republican core value since Dwight Eisenhower beat Bob Taft for the 1952 Presidential nomination – that’s a long time (Washington Post.)

The opposite of free trade is protectionism: the idea that American industry can’t maintain the standards of higher wages and benefits, without putting barriers to competition from other countries. Tariffs – taxes on imports – have been put forward for years as a way to protect American heavy industry, particularly steel and aluminum. The supporters of protectionism have been those that supported the “workers,” particularly the unionized workers who faced foreign competition. In other words, the supporters were the Democrats.

So now President Trump has threatened $60 billion worth of tariffs on goods from China, with an additional $100 billion in the works. China is responding by targeting equal tariffs against American goods. Where are Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the “establishment” Republicans? Nowhere to be found as they remain silent to the President’s plans. But Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a Democrat representing the old steel workers of Youngstown and Cleveland is quietly supporting the President’s move. Life is complicated.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue. Protectionists argue that the Chinese government has “put their thumb on the scale” by helping to finance industries competing with the US, by paying workers low wages with little benefits, and by allowing rampant theft of intellectual property (read that: computer programs, videos, music, patented processes.)   That’s all true.

The problem with tariffs is that it doesn’t stop the import of goods, it simply raises the cost of those goods to the consumer. By raising the cost, it makes more costly American goods competitive in price. So what tariffs ultimately do is raise the price of goods, passing the increased costs onto the consumer. The United States is one of the greatest consumer nations in the world, so clearly our costs will go up.

That’s cost for things like: John Deere equipment (steel), Budweiser Beer (aluminum for cans) and flat screen TV’s; all likely to go up significantly (1300 proposed products, New York Times.) Whether that serves the Democratic purpose of re-invigorating the US steel industry, with all of the capital costs restarting steel plants entails, remains to be seen. What is for sure: the cost of buying lots of things is going up.

In addition, the Chinese are returning the favor. Tariffs on soybeans, Kentucky whiskey, American cars, trucks and motorcycles; all are likely to reduce the amount of those goods that are sold to China, putting their industries in a bind. These tariffs are nicely politically targeted:  Kentucky Whiskey (McConnell) and Harley-Davidson (Wisconsin, Ryan) as well as soybeans (Iowa farmers) and tobacco (North Carolina.) To an Iowa farmer, living on a small margin, selling fewer soybeans and spending more for the equipment to grow them means the difference between making it or not.

There is little argument that China hasn’t “cheated” in trade. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross stated that “…every war ends in negotiations.” If the US and China wage a war over these tariffs, it is in the interest of both sides to ultimately negotiate new deals that ends the pain.

In the meantime though, Republicans look at a two-fold problem. First, they are ideologically at odds with their own President, but recognize that the President’s base supports his plan. Second, it’s hard to campaign on the value of the “tax cut” when the money gained will quickly be eaten by higher costs of living.

And for Democrats: criticize Trump everywhere you want, but keep quiet on tariffs. The base that Trump is trying to reach was once your voters, a key to getting them back is the belief that the “rust belt” industries will return. That takes quite a bit of cynicism though, because the idea that steel will roll out of Youngstown and tires out of Akron again remains unlikely.

Hillary Clinton, whatever you think of her, had the courage to go to West Virginia and talk about the end of coal mining.   It didn’t do her any good politically, but it was real.

Troops to the Border

President Trump is sending troops to the border.   It sounds like the beginning of World War I, when mobilizing troops to the border was the trigger for starting a worldwide conflagration. It isn’t.

Troops to the border creates visions of tanks rolled up along the hills, and planes flying low over the Rio Grande, searching for those elusive “caravans” pulling up along the Mexican side and unloading their cargo of humans. At least, it’s patrols of Army units, searching the border, looking for “illegals,” rounding up those that are slipping through the Customs and Border Patrol efforts. It’s not.

President Trump is doing the same thing that Presidents Bush and Obama did. He’s asking the Governors of the border states to send THEIR National Guard troops to the border area. Those National Guard troops are legally allowed to assist in “policing actions,” something the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy are prohibited from doing in most situations (the Posse Comitatus Act.) Just as the National Guard is called out for hurricanes, floods and riots, they can be called out to help at the border.

And what can they do? We don’t have a “shooting border;” it’s not a “death zone” like the old East German border. Even if and when we build “the wall” for President Trump, it won’t be the “Berlin Wall.” Crossing the border illegally is NOT a death penalty offense, it’s closer to getting a parking ticket than “the needle.” The penalty for crossing the border illegally: getting sent back across the border.

And, by the way, illegal crossings at the border are estimated to be at the lowest level in forty-six years (National Public Radio.) The President is responding NOT to a national crisis of some sort, but to a Fox and Friends report of a Buzzfeed story about thousands coming to the US from Central America in a caravan. Whether those folks were really all coming to the US is in question: some will stay in Mexico, some will LEGALLY ask for asylum in the US, and some will undoubtedly try to cross illegally.

The National Guard, totaling around 2000 troops (Bush sent 6000),  will be used in supporting roles, backing up the Customs and Border Patrol. Logistics, building barriers, and helping with intelligence (especially aerial drones) are some of the areas where the Guard would be helpful. It will be expensive, and the states won’t want to cover the cost. Some states, notably California, may not send their troops. So if border crossings are at a low, what’s the crisis?

It’s not just because Trump saw it on Fox. It’s really about the 2018 election. Early election results show that the Democrats are turning the tables from 2016. The latest was a statewide judicial race in Wisconsin, for the first time in twenty years a Democrat won the judicial seat, this time by a twelve point margin. The “Trump majority” of 2016 is being flipped, and Trump needs to consolidate his base in order to try to maintain a majority of the House of Representatives.

Maintaining a majority in the House may be about staying in the White House for Trump. With the Mueller investigation (already the Washington Post is reporting the Mueller strategy of generating reports on Trump’s actions) getting nearer to a conclusion, it is clear that the House will be asked to consider impeachment charges against the President. To Trump, whether Paul Ryan and the Republicans are in charge, or Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, will likely mean the difference between impeachment or not.

So “troops to the border” means National Guard supporting the Customs and Border Patrol, just like they did before. But it sure sounds like much more, and that’s what the President wants his base to hear.

Quick Hits

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt can’t seem to get out of trouble. It started with “the cone of silence” (you’ve got to be old enough to remember Get Smart for that one), a secure communications booth built into his office (there was one upstairs) for hundred’s of thousands of dollars, then expensive flights all over the country, travelling first class.

two of his aides were given huge raises over the objections of the White House, and Pruitt has been accepting a “sweetheart” deal from a lobbyist to live in a DC condo for $50 a day (you might get a bed on Air Bnb on Capitol Hill for twice that.) Isn’t it odd that the owner lobbies for the LNG (liquid natural gas) industry, and Pruitt made a trip to Algeria to push their purchase of LNG. That’s not in the EPA’s authority.  And now, his security team has used “lights and sirens” to get him to a dinner appointment at a posh French restaurant.   It seems he’s gone from the shoe-in replacement for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to a man waiting for a tweet saying he’s fired.

His time will come, but it won’t happen until President Trump needs to distract from some other crisis that’s making him look bad. Whether it’s Robert Mueller or Stormy Daniels, when the next one comes up, Pruitt should pack his bags and get his own first class flight back to Tulsa. Trump will send him home.

 

A Subject Not a Target

The Washington Post broke the news Tuesday night: the Mueller team told President Trump’s lawyers last month that Trump was not the target of an investigation, but the subject of one. These are “terms of art” in the prosecution world. A target is a person who can reasonably expect to be indicted, or in layman’s terms, charged against them are likely to be filed. A subject is someone that prosecutors are checking out, but have not reached that conclusion.

While some Trump supporters are cheered by the news, the reality is that this is a legal distinction with little difference. President Trump is being investigated, and Special Counsel Mueller’s team is looking into his actions on multiple fronts. There is an investigation into his actions conspiring with Russia to influence the election (what has been categorized as collusion.) There is an investigation into the President’s finances, particularly as it relates to Russian influence. And there is an investigation into the President acting to obstruct justice by trying to stop the Mueller investigation.

So why a “subject” but not a “target?” First, the Mueller team may not have enough evidence to reach the “probable cause” level. Probable cause means that, taking the evidence at its face value, a crime has been committed. It requires probable cause to ask for an indictment (press charges). Certainly the pressure that the Mueller team continues to put on Paul Manafort might signal that Mueller needs more on the President.

But there is likely a more complicated answer. Most commentators believe that Mueller already has a “probable cause” case against the President for obstruction of justice. Given that, why would he signal that the President was not a target?

Can a serving President of the United States be subject to criminal indictment and prosecution? The Constitution does not give a clear-cut answer to the question. Article 1, Section 3 states the following:

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So this leaves the question up to interpretation, since the Constitution states that the President can be subject to law after impeachment and conviction, does that mean that he cannot be charged BEFORE impeachment has occurred.

There are differing opinions about this (New York Times) but there is one serious impediment to the Mueller team taking this kind of action. During the Watergate crisis, the Department of Justice developed internal policy stating that the President could not be indicted. While this is NOT law, it is a policy of the Department.

Robert Mueller serves as Special Counsel under a wide-ranging charge, supervised by Rod Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General for this investigation. One of the few ways that Mueller can be removed (as the charge is written) is by violating Department of Justice policy. If Mueller went ahead and indicted the President, it could lead the way to his being removed as Special Counsel, causing a disruption in the investigation.

So how did the Watergate investigators get around this particular policy? First, President Nixon resigned from office prior to his certain impeachment by the House of Representatives. In the Watergate indictments, there were multiple defendants charged, and one “unindicted co-conspirator.” While the co-conspirator went unnamed, it was clearly Richard Nixon. After he resigned, according to Article 1, Section 3; Nixon was subject to indictment, and the Watergate prosecutors moved to begin that process. It was the blanket pardon issued by President Gerald Ford, forgiving Nixon for anything he might have done, that stopped the matter.

Mueller will continue to pursue his investigation, and given his reputation, will follow all the evidence to the end. Mueller has already indicted several persons, including the former National Security Advisor, and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Trump 2016 campaign. Mueller will also issue a “report” on his investigation, a report that would serve as the basis for a Congressional impeachment hearing.

That the President will be indicted seems unlikely. What is likely, is that the Mueller investigation will send their results to the House of Representatives. The current House is not likely to impeach the President, and the current Senate less likely to convict. So the real fate of Donald Trump may rest on the results of the 2018 Congressional elections. Should Democrats win the House, then impeachment is likely. Should Democrats control the Senate, it still would require a two-thirds vote (67) of the Senate to convict and remove Trump from office.

We have a long way to go.

 

 

I’m Not the Customer?

Please don’t talk about Facebook images of cats and kids. That’s not what the Facebook “crisis” is about, and it diminishes the political and cultural importance of “the platform” (even though cats and kids are also a part of the plan.)

What an existential dream: to connect everyone in the world, letting them communicate, send pictures, even show live videos to each other. Borders are non-existent, language barriers overcome, even governmental differences in law and freedom leveled. It was what we all hoped that Facebook could be, and we marveled at the brilliance and technology that allowed us to easily participate in this world experiment.

We thought we were the customer. We thought that Facebook was serving us, both individually and as a world culture. And certainly this was what Facebook encouraged us to see, a benevolent technological force serving all.

But of course, that wasn’t true. Mark Zuckerberg developed Facebook, placed it step by step into the nervous system of our culture, and worked to gain a profit. But the profit wasn’t in a fee for membership, that wouldn’t generate enough income and would limit participation. So what was the “product” to be sold, to generate income, ultimately billions of dollars?

What were people willing to give up (knowingly or not) in order to participate in the “great Facebook experiment?” If they weren’t being charged a fee, then were they getting “something for nothing.” Of course, that wasn’t true, there’s always a cost: the information that the participants gave to Facebook. It was personal data, it was movie choices, song choices, color and birthday choices, and the massive amount of commercial data. What advertisement did you click on (ultimately linking your web browsing to Facebook) and what political “trends” did you follow.

What could Facebook sell? They could trade everything they knew about you, and they could trade it to people that want to sell or convince you of something. They developed micro-targeted advertising, telling companies that they could identify their potential customers by using the incredible wealth of personal information they willingly gave to Facebook. Facebook employees were “embedded” in the buyer’s offices, to help them direct their advertising campaigns.

And it wasn’t just car parts, clothes, and music vendors. It was political entities that weren’t trying to make money, but gain a vote. They were selling their ideas and beliefs, working to convince you to believe in them. And, as we now know, it was other nations pushing their propaganda, and working to persuade or inflame you with real or fake events and ideas.

It was all for sale. And the sale price was based on volume: how many “clicks” would your particular “post” gain. And Facebook discovered what probably makes common sense: controversy and divisiveness stirs users up more than joy and unity. Sowing the seeds of “Facebook craziness” gets everyone in the argument. If you’re not sure what that’s about, check out the hundred plus comments on any post about guns these days.

So, make things crazy, let the “bomb throwers” loose, and more people get in, the volume of clicks go up, and Facebook can raise their rates.

And most insidiously, Facebook would let “others” experiment on us. That little fun “quiz” that you took, determining whether you are “emotional or stoic” not only went into the pile of your data, it gave up all of your friends’ data to the buyer as well. Facebook put that data out seemingly without restrictions – passively allowing the creation of “psychographic polling” claiming to be able to identify and motivate targeted voters.

Facebook offered their customers tons of data – about us. Somewhere in the “user agreement” we gave them permission to do it. So we did pay for Facebook use, in a new currency called “data.” And Facebook recognized the dangers and justified it. Two years ago, long before the election of 2016, a man murdered another man on Facebook Live. It was shocking and outrageous. A leaked Facebook internal memo of the time stated:

“Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good.”

Does Facebook believe in connecting people because it fulfills the existential dream, or the prospect of unlimited profit?

Should we abandon Facebook? Should we view Facebook as the real version of the “Skynet” (the malevolent computer system that took over the world in the movie “Terminator”) and step back? Or do we continue along the path, accepting that Zuckerberg is not working just for the “good” of mankind, and knowing that the “buyer must beware.”

Clearly we need to regulate this new, most valuable commodity, data (Zuckerberg would have us regulate advertising, but leave “his” data alone.) In order to gain the transparency that Facebook (and other platforms) have failed to achieve, intentionally or accidentally, we need a non-industry effort to gain control of the use of our data. It will be difficult because so much of what happens is proprietary to the platform, and in what to most of us is a “black box”.

But the existential dream shouldn’t be lost. The good of Facebook, opening the world and communication to all; is worth dealing with the problems. And, frankly, if Facebook was “shut down” someone else would find a way to modify the algorithms and continue the experiment. So let’s find a way to keep the good, moderate the bad, and work our way into a new world.

Hopefully it won’t take a “cyborg” returning from the future to protect us!!

“I’ll be Back!!”

A Well Regulated Militia

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – Second Amendment

I am a retired history teacher. I spent a career talking about the United States Constitution, from its advent to its current interpretation. With all of the controversy about the role of guns in American society, I decided to go back to my “roots” and re-read the decision of the US Supreme Court in 2008, The District of Columbia v Heller.

This was the last case argued over what the twenty-six words in the Second Amendment to the Constitution mean. It also changed over sixty years of Court decisions. It featured the giant of the Federalist Society and the doctrine of Original Interpretation, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in a five to four decision. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Kennedy joined in the majority.

Writing the dissent was Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. It was near the end of Stevens’ long service on the Court; he retired two years later. The dissent is why I went back to the Heller case, as Stevens, now 98 years old, wrote an editorial in the New York Times last week calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. This has raised the stakes of the current gun debate, lending some credence to the NRA’s claim that “…they are trying to take away our guns.”

Scalia was the leading Supreme Court product of the Federalist Society, a conservative movement in US law schools started in the early 1980’s. The Society believes that the only correct interpretation of the Constitution is the original intent of the words of the founding fathers. This group has been the source of Conservative Republican appointments, including Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch. Scalia looked not only to the founding fathers (James Madison actually worded the Amendment) but to the English Common Law that predated our statutory law.

Scalia interpreted the Amendment as forming two distinct parts: the establishment of militias by the states, and the individual right to bear weapons for the purpose of hunting and personal self-defense. This was a novel interpretation of the Amendment; in the past the first section, “a well regulated militia,” was seen as modifying the second clause. Scalia and the other Society Justices saw the second clause as free standing.

This overturned the significant precedence of earlier decisions that saw the government as having a clear ability to regulate weapons, based on the first clause, the “well regulated militia.”  The outcome of the decision placed  limitations on the local and state government’s ability to control weapons, and also put decisions on future actions on a “case by case” basis, without a clear standard that could be applied to every situation. Could, if there was the political will, the national government ban “assault style weapons?” That law, clearly allowed until the Heller case, now would have to be re-argued to the Supreme Court.   What the Court’s decision  would be is unclear.

Justice Steven’s dissent matched the precedence of earlier Court decisions, but it also went back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Stevens explained that the core issue of the Second Amendment was the fear of a national standing army. The American Revolution was fought in part over the constant presence and cost of keeping a British Army in the colonies. The Declaration of Independence spoke of the abuses of those troops, and the Third Amendment spoke directly to the struggles with a standing Army:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. – Third Amendment

Stevens wrote that the fear of a standing army led to the need for local militias, or civilians who were organized into military units to respond quickly. A limited standing army would be unable to protect against attacks in a far-flung frontier; “…well regulated militias…” were needed. And to be ready to respond, those militiamen needed to be able to “…keep and bear arms…”

Fear of a standing army: a statement that goes directly to the fears of many who demand the right to possess semi-automatic weapons with high velocity rounds in high capacity magazines today. It isn’t about hunting, in fact, James Madison had the right to bear arms for hunting and self protection as one of his choices in writing the amendment. He didn’t include it.

Today it is accepted that the “well regulated militia” is the individual state’s national guard. As far back as 1886 in Presser v Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that private militias are not “well regulated militias” as defined by the Amendment. The state National Guard serves the purpose of a quick mobilizing local force while not acting as a national standing army. We do have a standing Army (and Air Force, and Marines, and Navy); but they are prevented from acting in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. This law, written to put an end to the Union occupation of the South after the Civil War, prevents the military from engaging in policing duties in most cases.

Stevens in his dissent, saw the Scalia decision as opening the door to greater gun availability in the United States. His dissent outlined how the US could  gain control of guns, but as a dissent, had no legal authority. So now, ten years later, Stevens sees the only way to overturn Heller is to repeal the amendment itself.

Stevens is retired, replaced by Justice Kagan. Souter retired as well, replaced by Justice Sotomajor. The court still has a five to four conservative majority: the biggest prize of the 2016 election was the appointment of Gorsuch, a conservative, and the potential right to appoint the next justice should a position become available.

What will happen with guns in the United States is about what the Congress and individual state legislatures will do, but it is limited by what the Supreme Court will allow.  It all depends on the meaning of those twenty-six words.

 

 

The Voice of Sinclair

Sinclair Broadcasting owns television stations. Growing up in my family, with Dad running a television station in Dayton, Ohio (WLW-D now WDTN) we learned at a young age that just because a station broadcast NBC, ABC or CBS (the only choices in those days) didn’t mean that the network owned them. The station was a network “affiliate,” a deal was made for the station to run the network’s programming in order to get some advertising time during the network’s time.

But the owner of the station was the company that hired or fired employees, set the rules, and owned the buildings. In my father’s days he worked for three; Crosley, then Avco, and finally Multimedia. Dad was in Dayton for eight years, and the station went through three owners.

Sinclair Broadcasting owns one hundred seventy three stations in the United State today, in eighty markets. In the central Ohio market, they own WSYX (channel six), and they also have a management contract to run WTTE (channel twenty-eight.) They are currently asking the Federal Communication Commission if they can buy another fifty stations, ultimately reaching seventy-five percent of the United States. The FCC, the same group that ended “net neutrality” a couple of months ago so that internet providers could find more ways to profit from internet speed, is controlled by Republicans, so Sinclair’s politically conservative view will get a sympathetic hearing.

There is a valid argument that the FCC should prevent any one media source from so dominating the market. In the past, there were rules in place to prevent such massive saturation, and those rules served us well. Today, broadcasters are acting on the rules as they exist, and it’s hard to blame Sinclair for expanding their business.

This past weekend, Sinclair Broadcasting had many of its local “news anchors” read the same script, decrying “fake news” and “bias in the media.” Sinclair owns the stations, Sinclair employ the news anchors; those anchors did as they were told.

The Sinclair Statement

Sinclair is a private corporation, and has every right to have an editorial voice on the stations they own. Even back in the 1960’s, my father the station manager would occasionally read an editorial representing the corporation’s views (and we kids would gladly critique how he did on TV.) When USA Today, a newspaper marketed throughout the country, writes an editorial it goes out to the nation. So do they “national” newspapers like the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame) the New York Times and the Washington Post. It’s on the editorial page.

And Sinclair has a corporate spokesman that they use as part of their newscast. Boris Epshteyn, a former spokesman for the Trump campaign, now does editorial segments that are shown on the Sinclair stations. So what’s the big deal about Sinclair sending a script for their local news anchors to read.

The difference is the blending of factual news and editorial opinion. We have an expectation, especially of local news reporters, that they will give us the facts about the stories they report, without their own opinions. And while that distinction is more difficult to make on the national level, the news reporters of NBC, CBS and ABC (and NPR) are still generally reporting “the facts.” This is not as true of “cable news” of course, where it sometimes is difficult to determine bias, from CNN to MSNBC, and, Fox News.

But we expect the local news to gives us the facts (in fact, the National Association of Broadcasters is running an advertising campaign based on that expectation.) And when our trusted local reporter reads an editorial script provided by the national owner, it blurs the lines. Is this “facts” as in news, or is this “opinion” as in not news (or as the President might decry – fake news?)

We are a nation of “buckets.” Folks listen or read or see the news from the sources that agree with their existing political opinion. It might be why MSNBC is locked onto our televisions (on now as I type.) It’s also why I sometimes find the need to get out of my comfort zone, and watch Fox News for a while (but not for long.) But local television: Colleen and Mike, Stacia and Bob, and Jerry and Yolanda; we depend on them for facts about traffic, city government, fires, and all the events of local importance. When they get stuffed into political buckets, we lose an important source of information.

Sinclair can editorialize, but they should keep the lines clear.

 

Don Dahlman (1980) VP Multimedia Broadcasting