Month: May 2018

Trump International Hotel, Pyongyang

This is a work of fiction.  But today it’s burgers, tomorrow, who knows?  If it were true, would anyone be surprised?

Breaking News – Today – Potomac Falls, Virginia (Trump National Golf Club)

President Donald Trump made a surprise announcement about negotiations with North Korea from the ninth tee of his Trump National Golf Course.  The President revealed plans to build a Trump branded international hotel in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea.  Mr. Trump spoke glowingly of the multi-national financing, including large investments by Chinese and Russian banks.

“We have gotten the biggest players in Korea to put their money into North Korea instead of their troops. My friends Presidents Xi of China and Putin of Russia have joined in making this happen.  We will all have enough invested in the project to make it worth avoiding a nuclear war.  It’s a great deal!!”

The North Koreans, who have been desperately looking for a way to end economic sanctions, spoke exuberantly about the new construction.  The spokesman for the Supreme Leader stated:

“The Supreme Leader Kim is very pleased that President Trump, his dear friend, finally has recognized the economic and tourist values of one of the world’s great cities, Pyongyang.  In return for his investment, the Peoples’ Republic will end nuclear testing at the facility we recently destroyed, and will give our used nuclear weapons to the United Nations.”

The Presidential announcement follows a frantic series of negotiations among the various powers. China gained a series of economic incentives from the United States, most notably the removal of sanctions against ZTE, the giant mobile phone company.  And while the incentives that produced Russian involvement in the deal have not been revealed, the Russian banks do have a big interest in the success of the President’s initiative, freeing up investment money frozen by US sanctions.

Analysis of the agreement is still incomplete.  The North Koreans, in addition to getting a break from the long-term economic sanctions, also now have a “hostage.”  The United States would be less likely to attack Pyongyang if a large US economic investment, particularly one bearing the President’s name, is located there.  Chinese and Russian financial involvement would also increase the stakes of any military action.

It is unclear whether the North Koreans have actually agreed to “de-nuclearize” the Korean peninsula. Their statements don’t seem to include the ballistic missile development program, nor unused nuclear weapons or materials.

Democrats claimed that this is just another case of the President mixing his personal finances with the office of the President.  Richard Painter, former legal counsel to President George W Bush and now a registered Minnesota Democrat, stated,

“…this is just another instance of Trump violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, using the office of the Presidency to make a personal profit.  Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceedings.”

Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was able to make a brief statement after the President teed off with friend, Newsmax publisher Chris Ruddy, slicing his shot down the fairway into the rough.  Sanders stated that the Trump Organization was fully behind this effort, and that Donald Trump Jr. would immediately leave for Pyongyang to start the process.  When asked by media if Trump Jr.’s departure was timed to avoid potential indictment by the Mueller investigation, Sanders replied:

“While the media is constantly obsessing on the Mueller investigation, now known as Spygate because the FBI put a spy in the Trump campaign, President Trump and the White House are more interested in working for world peace, continuing to rebuild the American economy after the Obama disaster, and freeing Americans from regulation.  Donald Trump Jr. is willing to sacrifice his time by going to North Korea and building for peace, and any attempt by the Mueller investigation to reach him is simply another attempt by Democrats to obstruct the President.”

 

 

Fools?

You may fool all the people some of the time;  

You can even fool some of the people all the time;

But you can’t fool all of the people all the time

(attributed to Abraham Lincoln, 1858)

I live in Pataskala, Ohio.  It’s a suburban town, twenty miles east of downtown Columbus.  When I moved here in 1978, it was just changing from farm town to bedroom community.  The grain elevator still stands but hasn’t been used for years.  The railroad tracks still run through town, but the sidings used to load farm products have been torn up; the loading area is now a Veterans memorial.  McDonalds, Subway, Tim Horton’s and Taco Bell line Broad Street where the farm equipment used to be stored.

Gas prices today are $2.87/gallon, up fifty cents from last year. In Pataskala that’s a big deal, since there is no public transportation, the buses to Columbus stopped running in the 1980’s.  Everyone has to drive to go anywhere; dramatic rises in gas prices hit fast and hard.

Health insurance has increased by five percent since last year.  Unemployment is down, from 5.1% to 4.3%, but the average wage hasn’t changed.  The “tax cut cut” has incrementally increased some paychecks, but the continuing price increases have more than offset that savings. And most folks here in Pataskala are working hard, overtime, extra, with second jobs; all to make ends meet.

They see that “Fortune 500” companies are saying that pay increases are over.  They read about the Harley Davidson plant in Kansas City, cutting back and laying off workers.  They know the Carrier Plant in Indiana that became a Trump campaign prop, is losing the jobs he promised.  They hear the President call for a 25% tariff on cars made in Mexico, and taxes on steel and products from China and elsewhere in the world.  They understand that those costs will end up as their burden.

And those same folks are seeing an America they don’t like.  They aren’t Americans that rip children from their mother’s arms, regardless of their immigration status.  They don’t see an America that is cruel, to the poor or disabled or addicted.  These are the same kind of Americans that brought those boats to Houston to help save families from the flood, without regard for the differences.  They are Americans that supports their neighbors, their schools, and their towns without a whole lot of regard for race, gender, or all of the other labels.

Pataskala was “Trump Country.”  The city voted 60% for Trump, and 33% for Clinton.  And while there are still many that support the President, after the election most went back to work and worried more about kids, homes, and jobs.   They stopped worrying about what went on in Washington.  They still are hard at work; but they recognize that the changes that were promised, from “draining the swamp” to the “booming economy” doesn’t include them.  They won’t admit it publicly, and they might not even say so in polling.  But they know what’s going on.

Chet Huntley, the NBC news anchor from the 1960’s  (“Goodnight Chet, Goodnight David, and Goodnight from NBC News”) in his farewell from the Nightly News said, “…This land contains an incredible quality and quantity of good common sense…” He was talking about places like Pataskala, Ohio, where folks might for a while be misled by the promises and schemes of politicians, but quickly will return to the “good common sense” that is the bedrock of their lives.

That common sense will also apply to whatever Robert Mueller reveals at the conclusion of his investigation.   Common sense:  if what the President did is “clear-cut wrong” then they will recognize it.  All of the words and maneuvers of today won’t mean much. Common sense will.

There is a kind of panic growing in the opposition to President Trump. That feeling is fueled by the “asymmetric” attack on Special Counsel Mueller; all they hear is the attacks without answers.  Mueller and his team are keeping their “heads down” and doing their job.  When it’s time for them to indict and try, they will make their case.  The Mueller team knows that common sense will win out.

So for those who feel panicked; who worry that “the truth” will be “relative” when it arrives (thanks to Mr. Giuliani), know this:  whether Lincoln really said it or not, you really,  “can’t fool all the people, all the time.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorial Day

I don’t remember growing up with any specific “Memorial Day” activities.  My parents were both veterans; unusual for the World War II, “Greatest” generation.  My Dad was a Warrant Officer, part of the Army finance operations.  My Mom, a British citizen (she never gave it up) was an agent of the Special Operations Executive.

Memorial Day was many days during the year, with parties in the “living room,” bourbon, scotch, and whiskey in tumblers and cigarettes in the boxes on the table.  The conversation often turned to what they did during the war. It allowed me to grow up with a special awareness of the impact of World War II; after all, I wouldn’t have been here without it.

My Mom and Dad met in London, a blind date at the Queen’s Brasserie restaurant. (As a child I wasn’t really sure what the Queen’s Brassiere was all about.) He was from Cincinnati, stationed in England waiting for the invasion, she was home in England, back from being behind enemy lines making preparations to invade.  According to them, they fell madly in love at the first dinner and walked the blacked out streets as the bombs fell.

There wedding was scheduled for June 6, 1944.  In early March they were both notified that they would be unavailable for that date (it turned out to be D-Day) and the wedding was moved up to March 27^th. Soon after, Dad went to a secure base outside of Southampton to wait, and Mom went back over to France to coordinate with the Maquis.

They both managed to survive the ordeal of the last year of the war.  They came home, back to Cincinnati, with drive and determination to start a family and make their life strong and successful.  Their friends did as well.  Art ended up serving in both World War II and Korea.  Buddy commanded segregated troops before the invasion.  Walter was a prisoner of war.  We grew up with their stories.

It was never a question about honoring their service.  They knew they had saved the world from Fascism, and we recognized their sacrifices. They had missing friends; the stories of those who didn’t come home.  My Mom’s fiancé (before my Dad) was one of those.

As I grew up in the throes of the Vietnam War (I was a couple of years too young to go) it was a difficult contrast:  the sacrifices my parents made to “save the world” versus the sacrifices my older friends were being asked to make in Southeast Asia.  And even a more challenging distinction:  being against the war without being against those who fought it.  Memorial Day was difficult. America didn’t get that part right then, and we still owe those folks now.

Later, as a teacher and coach, I had the privilege and fear of watching many of my students go to serve. They were in Lebanon when the barracks were bombed, Iraq when the scuds were launched; they served as special operators in Iraq and snipers in Afghanistan.  Today they serve on Navy ships, fly Air Force planes, drive Army tanks and proudly wear Marine dress blues.  They take the lessons of our classroom, and maybe more significantly, the family of our team; and use those early experiences to help keep our country safe.

So it’s Memorial Day. Today, and most days, I think about the sacrifices of those who have passed, both from  the Greatest Generation and my friends who served in more recent times.  As the rabid politics of our time cloud the field, there is still one thing that is clear:  remember and honor those who serve.  They’ve earned it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day in Court

Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s attorneys, told The Associated Press on Friday that the White House hopes to get a readout of the information next week, particularly about the use of a longtime government informant who approached members of Trump’s campaign in a possible bid to glean intelligence on Russian efforts to sway the election. Trump has made unproven claims of FBI misconduct and political bias and has denounced the asset as “a spy.” Chicago Tribune – 5/24/18

{Full disclosure:  I am not a lawyer.  I am a retired government teacher, who for many years spent months of class time teaching students the criminal legal process}

The essence of the American system of justice is an opportunity for fairness.  Each side of a legal battle, at the appropriate time, gets to respond to the other.  Each side is also given the opportunity to gain a judicial ruling about the legality of the process.  It’s a carefully developed system, based on American and English law dating hundreds of years.

In a criminal case, the government, represented by the police and the prosecutor, build a case based on the evidence they can gather.  That evidence might include the results of questioning, search warrants, and other information.  The process of gathering this is carefully defined by the law, and police and prosecutors are required to prove to a judge the probable cause for warrants, and that warnings were given before questioning.

After the information is gathered, the prosecutor presents the evidence to a Grand Jury.  This group of twenty-four citizens is chosen from the area where the case occurred.  They listen to the evidence, and to the prosecutor’s explanation of the law.  They then conclude whether it is likely a crime has been committed, and if so, issue an indictment.

Once the indictment is issued, the defendant (the person indicted) has the opportunity to view the evidence, and raise questions about the legality of the process used to gather that evidence.   They also can raise questions about the legality of the charges.  Those questions are decided by a judge before a trial begins, a trial where a second jury of citizens, a petit jury of twelve, determines whether the evidence proving facts in a case reach a higher level of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, or about 90%.)

If the jury determines that the evidence proves the case for the prosecution, they can return a verdict of guilty.  If not, then the verdict returned is not guilty.  It requires all twelve jurors to agree.

Every citizen, from the list of those indicted for drug crimes in the Newark, Ohio newspaper, to Harvey Weinstein on every television in the nation, is guaranteed this due process of law.  Equality in the eyes of the law is a bedrock principle of this nation.  From the symbol of the “scales of justice,” weighing the evidence fairly, to the statues of “Lady Justice,” eyes firmly bound closed so she can rule without favor; trust in America’s justice system is based on fairness.

If those with authority could intervene to prevent investigations from starting, or prevent conclusions, then all of the principles we hold would be violated. Harvey Weinstein has been accused of using his political connections and donations to avoid prosecution, and it has taken the “eyes of the world” on his actions to bring him to justice.  In the same way, William Lager, founder of the now defunct Education Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) schools in Ohio, used his political connections to try to stave off investigation.  He managed to take $60 million in state funds, and only now faces possible charges.

Rudy Giuliani, lawyer for President Trump, believes that the President, the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, should have the right to see the evidence before the Grand Jury or indictment.  He believes the President should be able to make a “ruling” on whether the grounds for investigation were legal, before a court can hear the case.  He believes the President has the “unitary authority” to intervene on his own behalf to stop the investigation.

To use a legal term, this is a “prima facie” case of undue influence. If the President has committed no crimes, let the process play out (as Senator McConnell and House Speaker Ryan call for) and take the argument to court.  To interfere in the legal process, as Giuliani demands, is the act of a guilty man, unwilling to face the light of day a courtroom would provide.

I’m sure Harvey Weinstein and William Lager and those poor drug criminals in Newark would like the same power.  But justice is balanced, and justice is blind.  They must wait for their day in court, and so should the President.

 

 

 

Love It Or Leave It

I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. – Donald J Trump 5/24/18

What is American patriotism?  According to our President, patriotism is showing respect for the flag:  “standing proudly.”  What does the flag represent?  According to our President, it represents the military; so to  disrespect the flag, is in fact disrespecting those who serve us in the military.

The Department of Defense paid the National Football League over $5 million between 2011 and 2014 (PBS) and a total of $53 million to various sports to honor “service men and women and veterans.”   It was a good deal for both sides:  the NFL was able to brand itself as supporting “the troops,” and the Defense Department got a great recruiting tool, hitting their key demographic.  The agreement was first reached in 2009, and it was at that time that NFL players were required to stand on the sidelines for the National Anthem.

The NFL has made itself “patriotic” for the right price; with giant flags, B-1 Bomber flyovers, and returning soldiers family reunions. On the other hand, a true hero, Arizona Cardinal linebacker Pat Tillman, left football after 9-11 to join the Army.  He was killed in Afghanistan, and the NFL (rightly) continues to honor his service. So there’s a mix in the NFL, of true patriotism and marketing.

Flag ceremonies and the National Anthem have also been an historic event for political and religious protests.  From the 1968 Mexico Olympics (the raised fists of Tommie Smith and John Carlos) to the kids who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in high school during the Vietnam War, to the religious groups that see honoring the flag as worshiping a false idol;  flag ceremonies have been used to make a point.

The United States has always honored the freedom of speech of those who chose flag ceremonies as a place of silent protest.  By allowing these kinds of demonstrations, we honor the true values of the US; freedom for diversity of opinion.  The fact folks can protest during flag ceremonies is what makes America a different (and better) place.  Protestors hope, in their own way, to improve America.  They are Americans representing their view of America, not folks who should be exiled, as the President suggests.

So personnel in the NFL have to make choices.  As employees of NFL teams, they are reasonably required to participate in the marketing schemes and strategies of their team.  They wear uniforms, pink towels and socks, and customized shoes.  They receive a generous salary for their cooperation (and certainly for taking the risks that pro football entails, perhaps a topic for a different essay.)

The question then, is do they check their Constitutional rights at the door as well?  Can NFL players be required to “stand proudly” during the National Anthem, rather than kneel respectfully, as the Kaepernick protest movement has done?  The NFL has tried to give them an out, they can stay in the locker room (as was done by most NFL teams prior to 2009) during the anthem, then come onto the field.  Is that enough?

The National Basketball Association has reached a different agreement with their players.  While they do either stand or go in the locker room for the anthem, they are allowed to make political and social comments through messages on “shooting shirts” and shoes.  The difference:  the NBA found a way to cooperate with its players.  They have agreed to the National Anthem rules, in return for other means of expressing their views.

The NFL owners have chosen to arbitrarily make this rule, without agreement with the players or other personnel.  Many Americans would agree that it is in fact Un-American to deny someone their right to express themselves on issues of great concern. So it’s not as simple as standing or kneeling.  It’s about another great American tradition:  bargaining with employees to reach solutions to problems.

Patriotism isn’t always black and white; or red, white and blue. America is complicated; a nation of diverse opinions, ethnicities, and religious beliefs.  The simple “…stand proudly…” does not address any of those complexities, it simply tries to force compliance.  This isn’t and hasn’t been, what the United States is about.  So let’s honor the country and the flag by honoring what it really stands for:  a  complex nation of many views and opinions.   That is what America is really all about.

 

Oh Israel!

I was writing an essay the other day about the United States moving its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Throughout my life, I have considered myself a strong supporter of Israel, who believed that the foundation of a Jewish homeland was right and historically based. Israel was founded on the moral “high ground” of the Holocaust; a repayment from the nations of the world for the atrocities of the Nazis.

But now, I question my own views on Israel.

When Israel was founded in 1948, the surrounding Arab nations ordered the Palestinians (the Muslim people living in the area that would eventually become Israel) to refuse to cooperate with the Jewish government.  When the Israelis asked them to cooperate or leave, the Arab nations around Israel encouraged the Palestinian diaspora, built temporary refugee camps on the border, and assured the Palestinians that they would soon defeat Israel and move them back to their homes.

Wars were fought in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973; all with the Arab goal of destroying Israel.  Caught in the middle of these wars, often literally, were the exiled people of Palestine, used as pawns (by both sides) in the geopolitical game.  In 1967, Israel captured much of the land where the refugee camps, then almost twenty years old, were located, and by holding that land (Gaza and the West Bank of the Jordan) internalized the Palestinian problem.

It has been seventy years since the Palestinians were placed in refugee camps.  Three generations have grown up, with little hope for a life outside. Terrorism has found a breeding ground. And while terrorist acts are abhorrent, terrorism itself grows from a reality that has no hope for change.  To change terrorism, change the environment that produces it.  Without making those changes, right or wrong, terrorism will thrive.

And so it has been in the Palestinian areas.

So Israel is faced with an intractable situation.  Within its control are huge numbers of Palestinians, raised in the West Bank or stuffed into the Gaza strip.  Israel has blocked their ability to gain employment outside of the controlled areas, citing legitimate security concerns.  They have built a “wall” to separate Israeli from Palestinian.  And Israel has responded to terrorism with tough and sometimes inhumane actions.  Each of those actions becomes fuel for more terrorism, and the cycle goes unbroken.

I always believed that Israel, with encouragement from its greatest ally the United States, would act in a moral way to try to resolve the Palestinian question.  The actions of the current Israeli government now lead me to question that belief.

There were shootings at the Gaza border last week:  over sixty Palestinians were killed, thousands wounded.  Women and children were among the casualties.  There is no question that the young were placed in the front of the line, intentionally made targets by the leaders of Hamas, the terrorist organization that also governs Palestinian Gaza.  They are terrorists, I don’t expect them to act in a “moral” manner; clearly the videos of the dead and wounded helped their cause. Their placement of children at the front of the line isn’t that different from the actions of the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s – the difference is that the Civil Rights movement was coming from a moral position of non-violence, unlike Hamas.

 But I do question why the Israeli government chose this response, when there were less lethal and just as effective alternate options.  By firing their guns and creating a whole new set of martyrs, the Israelis chose their own form of “terrorism” to answer the Hamas challenge. They gave up morality, and allowed Jewish soldiers to kill children; and gave Hamas what they needed to convince the next generation.  The United States not only acceded to these actions, but participated in a “celebration” a mere sixty miles away in Jerusalem.  The vision:  as Palestinian children died in the sand, the President’s daughter and son-in-law, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other notable Americans smiled and applauded.  We lost the moral high ground as well.

Israel cannot “absorb” the Palestinians into their nation without losing their national identity. I understand that, and respect that their nation was founded as a Jewish homeland and they fought for the right to maintain it.  This is different than the United States, founded as a refuge for those who left their homelands, where we should be respecting OUR identity by showing compassion and respect for immigrants.

If Israel cannot absorb the Palestinians, and they will literally “lose their soul” trying to control them as they did in Gaza, then it is incumbent on them to find a different solution.  A two-state solution has been on the table since the 1970’s; but Israelis rightly fear a terrorist nation on their border.  But instead of recognizing that terror begats more terror, the Israelis, with the affirmative support of the United States, continue on a course leading to no solution other than death and violence.  That course, we, the United States, should not condone or support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stressing the Foundations

The editorials scream out: “Republicans are making the case for Trump, Democrats remain silent!!”  The “internet soothsayers” claim that by the time the Mueller investigation releases its report, the Trump “machine” will have made it irrelevant.  And the “beat goes on;” the very real and strategic plan to build an alternative story to the Mueller investigation, where spies were sent into the Trump campaign, and the “deepstate” sought to stop his candidacy.

There is a well known political strategy:  define your opponent before they have the opportunity to define you.  Those who live in Ohio are familiar with it.  In the Senate election of 2016, Republican Rob Portman spent millions in the summer, defining his Democratic opponent Ted Strickland as the Governor who, “left eighty-nine cents in the state’s rainy day fund.”  It worked, and Strickland never made a serious challenge.  Currently, Sherrod Brown is trying to do the same to opponent Jim Ranacci, defining him as a full-time lobbyist even while serving as a Congressman.

So the Trump strategy is to define the investigation against him as illegitimate.  He is doing so without denigrating Robert Mueller himself (an impossible task, Mueller is truly beyond bulletproof.)  They are trying to invalidate the sources of the investigation.  They state the investigation is based on the Steele Dossier, and since Democrats paid for the Dossier it is a political but not legal basis for investigation.

They also claim that the FBI placed “paid informants” in the campaign, with the overtone that they served as “agent provocateurs” who encouraged illegal actions.  That makes the any subsequent charges illegally gained, the “fruit of a poisonous tree,” and therefore banned.  And they have reduced the Trump campaign members who may have violated laws as “volunteers” (Carter Page) and “coffee boys” (George Papadoupolos.) Even Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort wasn’t very important, “… and was only around for a little while.”

They claim that a “cabal” of FBI agents on the National Security team were trying to stop the Trump candidacy.  They present as evidence the text messages between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok and Department of Justice attorney Lisa Page.  Strzok sent a series of messages that were anti-Trump (and anti-Clinton and anti-Bernie) that were released by the Department of Justice to the House Oversight Committee.  The Republicans on the committee seized on this as evidence of the “deepstate conspiracy.”

They make a “fairness” argument; that the Democrats were doing things just as bad, starting with the Clinton email scandal.  This is a continuation of the Trump campaign theme, highlighting the emails, the Comey announcements, and the hacked messages released by the Russians. And, they don’t miss an opportunity to make the FBI or the other US intelligence agencies look bad.  If they are “bad” and “incompetent” then clearly the results of their investigations will be just as bad and incompetent.

They have found “Democrats” to come out in support of the President and in opposition to the Mueller investigation.  Two of the most recent, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, and former Clinton pollster Mark Penn, have called for the investigation to end.

And finally, they are using the interesting argument that whatever the President did before the election, either personally (the Stormy Daniels scandal) or in business, the election was the final adjudication, and those issues are no longer on the table. If and when the Mueller investigation raises questions about the Trump businesses or personal actions, they can cry “foul.”

Mueller, on the other hand, is running a legal investigation, not a political one.  The only information coming from the Mueller team is what is released in court documents:  he has not allowed any counter to the Trump strategy.  Mueller remains focused on the legal process, protecting the validity of his investigation by keeping it completely in control.  This is in marked contrast to the FBI investigation of the Clinton email server, where it became a public process with dramatic pronouncements from Director James Comey.

The Mueller plan: follow the investigation where it leads, and present the evidence found to the grand jury and courts.  Following legal precedent, Mueller knows he cannot indict the sitting President, so he will produce a report which will serve as an “indictment” to the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment purposes. He will let the evidence speak for itself.

It’s exactly what we would expect him to do.  The question: will the damage done by the Trump strategy make the impeachment process (a political one) a non-starter?  Or will the facts developed by Mueller overwhelm all of the stories and strategies.

We are facing a Constitutional crisis, where the foundations of our government will be tested.  Our system of three co-equal branches will be drawn into conflict, with the executive pitted against the legislative and judicial.  We will have to choose between the political messaging and the legal evidence.  We have been there before, and our Constitutional foundations have held strong.  So has the common sense of the American people.   In the next several months that common sense and those foundations will be stressed again.

“What’s good for General Motors is good for America”

It’s time to change perspective.  Take the view that America is an absolute meritocracy, designed to create opportunities for those who are capable and prepared to succeed.  If this is the ultimate goal, to encourage achievement and advancement and remove any impediments, then the Trump Presidency is a success.

The Trump Presidency has removed restrictions on business increasing profits and decreasing responsibilities.  This is certainly true when it comes to Scott Pruitt and his leadership of the EPA, where everything from coal mining restrictions to automobile emissions standards have been reduced.  The Trump FCC has allowed for greater monetization of the internet, with the abandonment of net neutrality.

And, of course, the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress have greatly increased the amount of capital available for investment and profit, by reducing the corporate income tax, and by increasing the amount of capital that can be protected by the wealthy from taxation.  This, according to them, has created a “booming” economy that we can see today, with less than four percent unemployment and increased business expansion. President Obama had nothing to do with this.

The President and his family are a great example of government getting out of the way of commercial success. From the Trump Hotel in Washington, to the $500 million Chinese investment in the Singapore project (part of which is Trump branded) to 666 Fifth Avenue, the Trump family has monetized the office of the Presidency  and found ways to profit their businesses.  Even Michael Cohen, the President’s personal attorney, as well as several other former Trump campaign operatives, have found ways to make millions of dollars peddling influence.

And, like a CEO of any company, the President has full authority of “his company,” our country. This Constitutional theory that scholars like Alan Dershowitz has promulgated of a “unitary Presidency,” places the President in full and total control of EVERY department in the executive branch, including making decisions, hiring, firing, and policy.  The current discussion of “norms” as the President deals with the Justice Department investigation into his Presidency, fails when compared to the absolute power of the Presidency itself over executive agencies. The only check on the President: Congress through lawmaking authority and impeachment/conviction.

So should the President decide the Mueller Investigation is over, he should fire Mueller and Rosenstein. If that is unjust, then it is up to the people’s representatives, Congress, to provide the remedy.  The concept that the President can’t control his own Justice Department is invalid under the “unitary President” principle.

Of course, the Constitution guarantees that the President is ultimately responsible for illegal acts that he may commit.   But, constitutionally it’s impeachment and conviction, or wait for the end of his term.   “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a Constitutional precept, but it is overridden by the Article II Executive privilege clause.

And for those who are concerned that the President could lead us into war, Congress has essentially given authority for war-making to the executive branch, through a series of laws. The last, passed after 9-11, allows the President to prosecute wars against terrorists and terrorism all over the world.  So as long as the President declares Iran or North Korea terrorist countries, he can wage war there.

So, from that perspective, all is right in the world.

As long as your not worried about the environment in the next twenty years; or, about the subverting of our democratic elections by foreign governments, or about the President benefitting financially from the Presidency, or whether we will end up at war with Iran or North Korea or both.

As long as your concern doesn’t include health care, or those who are less fortunate, or who by education, immigration status, race, gender identity, or other differences are denied the opportunity to participate in the meritocracy.

And, as long as you don’t like illegal immigrants, or polar bears.

Don’t worry – what’s good for Trump is good for America.

this is essay number 201!!!  

At What Price?

In late 2002 and early 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney pressed the case for a war with Iraq. His reasoning:  Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear weapon, and the security of the United States, and the world, could not tolerate a nuclear Iraq.  Cheney, and other members of the Bush administration including Secretary of State Colin Powell; presented a devastating case to prove that Iraq was close to having nuclear bombs.  It was clear and convincing; and it was false.

The evidence included Iraq acquiring “yellow cake” uranium from Nigeria.  Yellow cake uranium can be quickly processed into weapons grade uranium. Cheney and Powell used the acquisition of yellow cake by Iraq as prime evidence, with Powell sharing it in a high profile presentation to the United Nations.  Joseph Wilson, an American diplomat with career experience both in Africa and in Iraq, was sent to Nigeria to investigate.  He returned with a clear conclusion:  Iraq had NOT acquired yellow cake uranium.

This did not go along with Vice President Cheney’s program.  Wilson followed his conclusions up with an article in the New York Times, “What I didn’t Find in Africa.”  This was the first chink in the armor of the Bush rationale for the second Iraq War, a war the current President has stated shouldn’t have happened.

Cheney and his Vice Presidential Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, were “hardball” politicians.  When Colin Powell began to have doubts about the information he used to make the US case for invasion of Iraq at the United Nations, he was pushed out of the decision-making loop.  Powell ultimately resigned, and the more amenable National Security Advisor, Condolezza Rice became Secretary.  But what would they do about Wilson?

He had done some work for Democratic administrations.  But his real vulnerability was his wife, Valerie Plame.  She was a career CIA agent, but her career and identity were undercover.  How to get to Wilson?  “Out” his wife, and destroy her career.

A call was made to syndicated journalist Robert Novak (of the famous Evans and Novak pair that published for forty-five years) from a White House official.  While no one was ever convicted of the crime of revealing the covert agent, Scooter Libby was convicted of making false statements, obstructing justice, and perjury.  He was fined $250,000 and sentenced to thirty months in jail.  His sentence was later commuted by President Bush, and just recently he was fully pardoned by President Trump.

Novak claimed that while he was given Plame’s name as a CIA operative, he was not told that she was a “NOC” (an agent with Non-Official Cover.)  Novak never revealed his source other than saying “high White House offiicals.”

In the spring and summer of 2016, the FBI received information that members of the Trump campaign were reaching out to Russian intelligence.   While we don’t know all of the FBI’s sources of information, we do know how they gained information about two of the four campaign members. Foreign policy advisor Carter Page was being wiretapped under a FISA warrant.  While the wiretap order is still secret, it is known that Page had been involved with a Russian spy ring in New York in 2013.  Page was interviewed by the FBI at that time, and was never charged.  However, the information that Page was questioned found it way to Russian intelligence, raising questions about whether Page was still in contact with them. This served as one of the grounds for the investigation.

George Papadoupolos was also an advisor to the campaign.  In a drunken evening with the Australian Ambassador in London, Papadoupolos bragged about the Russians having Clinton and Democratic National Committee emails.  This is prior to the FBI, Clinton, or the DNC even knowing they’d been hacked, and months before the first emails were released on the web.  The Australian Ambassador notified the FBI about the comments, and two FBI agents were sent to interview him.  As part of the investigation, the FBI (and CIA) had a confidential informant make contact and gain more information from both Papadoupolos and Page.

In the current melee, with the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller investigating the Trump campaign and the President; some are making every effort to discredit their results. As part of the campaign, identifying information about the confidential informant has been leaked, enough information for some to name him, breaking his “cover.”

The FBI was investigating to see if a major US Presidential campaign was being infiltrated by Russian Intelligence.  They used national security investigative tools, including FISA warrants and National Security subpoenas to find out what, if any, impact Russian Intelligence was having.  The confidential informant was part of that investigation.

Had Russian been trying to infiltrate the Clinton campaign, there would be outrage.  Had they gained a foothold, and perhaps even cooperation by the Clinton campaign, there would have been “hell to pay.”  We would expect law enforcement to do what was needed to find out.  But because Trump has created a false narrative about an FBI “cabal” trying to de-legitimatize the Presidency, there is a portion of the American electorate who are allowing them to “get away” with possible Russian cooperation.

But more importantly, they are getting away with de-legitimatizing the FBI and other intelligence agencies, weakening public trust in their findings and their abilities.  And now, there is acceptance of “outing” covert agents; without concern about the other investigations that could be compromised. The damage done may well last far beyond this administration.

 

Lessons Already Learned

Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

{I was halfway through an essay on the “outing” of Americans who work undercover for our intelligence services.  You’ll see that one eventually; but then this happened}

It happened:  another seventeen year old white boy with guns; ten more kids and teachers dead, thirteen wounded.   It happened again.  And until we, as a Nation, do something different, we can only offer our “…heartfelt thoughts and prayers;” weak words with little meaning.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re ready to repeal the Second Amendment, or a card carrying NRA member, it is incumbent on all of us to DO SOMETHING!  There are areas we can all agree on, I think, without crossing the lines that drive us into paralysis.  So lets do those things, even though we know that one side or the other may be giving away “bargaining chips” in some later great debate about the weapons themselves.  If those bargaining chips can save some lives – then give ‘em up. Let’s get to work.

For example, there really isn’t an argument about background checks.  Only the most radical “black helicopter” folks are against a government-run system of determining whether someone is a criminal, or mentally ill, or under some other impediment that should prevent them from having a gun.

A full program might have stopped the Parkland shooter.  His record should have stopped him from having weapons anyway, but part of the problem is that there are no national standards, and no demonstration of national will for keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. And in the Parkland case, there was no responsible parent to intervene.

And like it or not, this has to be a national program, it can’t be state by state.  We learned that from the Tennessee Waffle House shooter, who was prohibited from having guns in Illinois and moved to Tennessee.  And we learned another thing from that shooting:  that when someone is the responsible party who owns weapons, they have to exercise that responsibility.  In the Tennessee case, the shooter’s father was given the weapons by the authorities; he gave them back to his son.

So Friday, in Santa Fe Texas outside of Houston, a boy took his Dad’s shotgun and pistol; made some fake explosives, and went to school.  He shot his way through a glass door and continued shooting classmates and teachers.  If we had responded to Tennessee, we might have made the father more responsible, and, maybe, prevented his son from getting the weapons.

No one expects their child to be a shooter.  No one expects their fourteen year old to steal the car and go for a joy ride.  But both of those things happen.  It’s up to the responsible adults to prevent both:  lock the car and keep the keys, and lock the weapons away.

We know from Columbine that schools must find ways to “know” their students.  It isn’t just happenstance, it has to be a concerted effort by school administrators to reach all kids.  It’s not about calling kids down to the guidance office and asking them if they might be “school shooters,” it’s about establishing ongoing relationships between kids and significant adults; teachers, administrators, counselors, custodians, coaches.  Kids themselves know when their friends are troubled, they need to trust to reach out to an adult. And it’s about establishing a “protocol” that recognizes when a kid is becoming disaffected, and how the school can intervene without making the situation worse.

And there are school security measures that might work.  While I don’t agree with the Texas Congressman: “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” school resource officers (police) are useful. They not only represent a response to an ongoing shooting incident, but play an important role in mediating between two very different worlds, schools and law enforcement.  And while we can’t and shouldn’t make schools look like airports with security checkpoints and scanners, we can take some reasonable actions to improve school security.

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick showed his ignorance of schools, fire codes, and student behavior when he said “…there are too many entrances and too many exits…”  and suggested there should be one way in and out. But they are ways to restrict and control access to schools that can reduce or help contain the risks of a possible shooter.

All of these things:  improved background checks with mental health additions, additional controls on the responsibility of gun ownership (or custody), emphasis by schools on developing relationships with all students,  school resource officers, improved school security; they all cost money.  They are all issues with some disagreements.  But they are all areas where there is a great deal of agreement, and the “land mines” of the Second Amendment and the structure and function of weapons are not involved.

Let’s start the process. Let’s get going on fixing what’s broke. Let’s use the lessons we’ve already learned.

 

 

The News

Many Americans are shocked by the attack on “the news.”  They grew up in a different era, one where we accepted that the “truth” was told to us, in thirty-minute segments, by the three nightly news shows.  Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC, Walter Cronkite on CBS, and Peter Jennings on ABC (the mid-1960’s) delivered the facts, and as our nation went through the twin crises of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, they brought us the world.  It went from black and white to color.

They all were in the tradition of the “original” television journalist, Edward R. Murrow.  Murrow made his reputation on the radio during World War II, “…this is London calling;” reporting to the world as bombs fell and the city burned.  He came home to CBS, and led investigative reporting with his program “See It Now.” In the heart of America’s last great catharsis of internal hate, the McCarthy Era, Murrow took on McCarthy, his broadcast contributed to the downfall of the Senator and the end of the era. Citizens trusted him.

During the 1960’s a different kind of  “news” programming began.  In the town of Dayton, Ohio, the local variety show (songs and soft interviews by Johnny Gilbert of “tell us what they won, Johnny” fame) was replaced by an interview show with a local host, Phil Donahue.  Phil’s show went from ten to eleven in the morning, aimed at the “house wife” still at home in that era.  The trademark of the show was the telephone on the desk.  Phil invited the community to call in with questions, “…is the caller there,” and the women of Dayton had the most interesting questions and comments.  Phil world say they made the show.

Phil dealt with controversial issues, and wasn’t afraid to project his own liberal beliefs. From Madeline Murray (the avowed atheist who’s case to end school prayer went to the Supreme Court) to Jerry Rubin (the profane anti-war activist who was part of the Chicago Seven) Phil brought the leading controversies into homes.  His show expanded from Dayton, to a Midwest network (Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Dayton) and ultimately to over 220 markets in the United States.

Full Disclosure:  I had the remarkable opportunity of growing up with the Donahue Show.  My father ran the television station, Dayton’s WLW-D, and was ultimately responsible for the show.  Dad later took the show into syndication, selling it across the nation, and became President of the syndication division of Multimedia Television.

It was an interesting contrast, the “business Republican” management of the station, and the mid-1960’s protest culture view of the show.  And while there were many internal controversies (including the show about the anatomically correct doll, “Little Baby Brother,” that caused so many calls that the Dayton phone exchange crashed) the biggest pressure was from upper management, who didn’t agree with the politics of the show.  But while they disagreed with the politics, they certainly agreed with the profits.

So a new version of “news programming” was born.  It no longer took the view that it only presented the “facts,” the moderator (Phil) was willing to take a side as well.  This kind of programming is very familiar to today’s audience:  from MSNBC to Fox, the evening lineup are all “news with an angle.”  The other huge difference is the era of three stations, brought into your television from “the air” ended.  Cable television brought the capability of hundreds of stations. Programming all of those stations required a “niche.”  Broadcast was splintered, it took a smaller percentage of viewers to make a show popular because there was so much to watch.

This led to “tailored news;” news designed to match the audience.  Today there are still the “big three” news broadcasts out there, with Lester Holt (NBC), Jeff Glor (CBS), and David Muir (ABC) holding down the jobs.  But they no longer have the audience, influence, or reverence that their predecessors through the 1990’s had. Folks now trend to the news that fits their views, from Fox to CNN.  It’s a way of hearing what they “want” to hear.

I’m sure that’s not what the small group meeting in our family room in Dayton Ohio in 1967 wanted.  At the time it was a different kind of show (still would be) and they were breaking ground.  While Phil was more liberal, one of the group ended up working for Rush Limbaugh, and my father was what was called a “Rockefeller Republican,” more liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal concerns.

They were excited about a new format, and a new way to get folks involved.  And so was the eleven year old serving the drinks!

Note:  Phil retired “The Phil Donahue Show” after twenty-nine years.  He later hosted a show on MSNBC, but management cancelled him – he was against the War in Iraq – and too liberal.

 

 

Happy Anniversary, Mr. Mueller

If you missed yesterday, you missed a lot.

Yesterday the President of the United States filed a required financial disclosure statement. Buried on page forty-four was a footnote that noted that between $100001 and $200000 was spent to pay a debt to Michael Cohen.  It was the Stormy Daniels payment, reported a year late.

It demonstrated that the President directly lied to the American people, over and over again.  He lied about his affair with Stormy Daniels, and he lied about his paying her hush money.  And he lied on last year’s statement, which if intentional, is a federal crime.

Last week, Michael Avenotti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, released a report on the banking income of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.  The report was taken from bank warnings to the Treasury Department that Cohen was making suspicious transactions (SAR’s for Suspicious Activity Reports.)  It showed over $4 million in income from sources ranging from AT&T to Novartis to a Russian oligarch owned American company. It also showed the expenditure for the payment of $130000 to Stormy Daniels.  It opened an entirely new investigation into the actions of Trump associates.

Yesterday, in a New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow, we found out that this information was leaked by a law enforcement official, who found that it was one of three Cohen reports on the SARS system used to track finances.  The official leaked it because the other two reports on SARS were missing, an unprecedented situation.  The official doesn’t know what happened to the missing two, but was concerned that the third would go missing too.

To be fair, it could be that the Mueller Investigation, or the Southern District of New York US Attorney, may have restricted access to those documents as part of their investigation. But the “whistleblower’s” distrust of the Treasury Department, controlled by Trump appointees, is a sign of our times.  Whoever the whistleblower is, he/she faces felony charges, fines, and jail.

It also came out yesterday, that Cohen asked a Qatari financier for $1 million payment as a conduit to Trump.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for Russian connections throughout the summer of 2016.  The investigation, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane,” was focused on four connections to the Russian government:  national security advisor Michael Flynn, campaign manager Paul Manafort, and foreign policy advisors George Papadoupolos and Carter Page.  The investigation, unlike the Clinton email investigation, was kept closely secret, with only five Justice Department officials briefed.

It was serious enough that the FBI sent two agents to London to interview the Australian Ambassador, a complex diplomatic arrangement.  They wanted to know about Papadoupolos bragging about the hacked Clinton emails, before they were released or even before it was known they’d been hacked. The investigation was so serious that the FBI used National Security subpoenas rather than traditional subpoenas, so they could keep the investigation secret.

Prior to the election, the FBI had evidence that the Trump campaign was cooperating with Russian intelligence.  No wonder the “infamous” FBI investigator Peter Strozk, who texted Justice Department lawyer Lisa Page, was concerned about a possible Trump victory in November. The investigation itself was kept silent, unlike the Clinton investigation, so much so that the New York Times reported in October 2016 that the FBI didn’t know of Russian connections to the Trump campaign (whoops.)

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee released 2500 pages of testimony by Donald Trump Jr.  While the phrase made famous by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “I don’t recall,” permeated the testimony, there was one “known – unknown.”  After the famous meeting in Trump Tower with Don Jr, Manafort, Kushner, Goldstone and four Russians; Don Jr. had a four-minute call from a blocked phone number. Junior denied knowing who he talked to or whether his father had a blocked number (though it is known that he did.)  Blocked numbers are “known-knowns:” the Mueller team knows who Don Jr. talked to.

Today is the first anniversary of the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.  It’s been a busy year, with nineteen indictments and clearly more on the way.  The Trump legal team, led by former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, is trying to make this week about,  “…ending the investigation, after $10 million spent there is no evidence of collusion…”

Yesterday there was more evidence of collusion, and evidence of Presidential deception, and evidence that the Justice Department has known it for a while.  While it’s completely understandable that the Trump Administration wants the investigation wrapped up, Robert Mueller is going to do this in his own time; the results likely will not be good for the President.  Happy anniversary Mr. Mueller!

The President Trump Model

“As you are all aware, he’s the best negotiator.”  – Sarah Huckabee Sanders – 5/16/18 

Last night, the “Big Button” strategy of US negotiations with North Korea took a hit.  The North Koreans fell back to their older model of negotiating, changing the prerequisites for talks at the last minute. The North Korean regime made it extremely clear that they were unhappy with current US/South Korean joint military exercises.  And, in response to National Security Advisor John Bolton’s comments on Sunday news shows, they also made it clear they would NOT give up their nuclear arsenal.

From the North Korean perspective it’s not so surprising that Bolton’s description of disarmament as the “Libya Model” doesn’t appeal to them.  Muamar Gadafhi, the dictatorial leader of Libya, allowed the NATO powers to remove chemical and nuclear weapons in return for reducing economic sanctions on his nation.  Within two years, Gadafhi was overthrown (with US assistance) and shot dead on the side of a road.

To be clear, the North Koreans have not cancelled the summit, scheduled on June 12 in Singapore. They did cancel today’s meeting with South Korea’s Prime Minister Moon, and are threatening the Singapore meeting. So what happens next?

President Trump has allowed expectations for this summit to grow sky high.  Chants of “NOBEL, NOBEL” for the Nobel Peace Prize were at his rallies, and he has said the “aw shucks – just doing my job” line when asked about the prize by the press.  He has even used the summit to push off his decision about whether to voluntarily testify to Special Counsel Mueller.  Both Trump and the North Koreans know he is fully vested in having the summit go through.

In a lawn interview in front of the White House, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that the North Korean move was “expected.”  She claims that there is a new model of negotiating, the “President Trump Model,” and that she anticipates that the summit will go through.  Trump himself has stated that if he doesn’t get what he wants at the summit, he will, respectfully, walk away from the table.

It is hard to imagine there is an incentive, short of all-out war, that would induce North Korea’s President Kim to give up his nuclear weapons.  Not only did those missiles give him the status to gain a summit with the President of the United States, but they also are the result of tremendous sacrifice by the North Korean people.  They have endured starvation and deprivation due to economic sanctions and the Kim regime’s willingness to sacrifice them at the nuclear altar.  Even the offer of a full US withdrawal from the Korean peninsula (something that would be regarded as the ultimate betrayal by our ally, South Korea) probably isn’t enough to get the North to give up the bomb.

Given that, what are we negotiating about?  The United States policy is that North Korea will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Now that they have them, what can we do? National Security Advisor Bolton would have us negotiate, fail, and then begin an economic sanctions process. Should that process fail, and it will; he would have us go to war.  His argument: better to fight North Korea at a time and place of our choosing, rather than risk an unexpected nuclear missile launch against the US or allies.  The conflict is that a war with North Korea, whether we choose it or not, will always now entail the risk of nuclear-tipped missile attack.

The alternative is to try to bring North Korea into the “community” of nations.  Talks with South Korea, an economic powerhouse, might help achieve that aim.  A stronger economic relationship between the two Koreas might give the North an incentive to hold their bombs, and build their nation.

Should the summit occur, it will be interesting if that view ever gets on the table.  If that is what the “President Trump Model” means, then by all means, good luck.  But it seems more likely that the summit is simply an exercise in persuasion for US citizens, to show that the Trump Administration tried to avoid war, and now it’s time to “gear up.”  John Bolton could then have his new Korean War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Money Can Buy

Fifty-eight Palestinians died yesterday.  Over 2700 were injured. They were protesting the United States move of the embassy from Tel Aviv, where it was located since the founding of Israel in 1948, to Jerusalem. While many Israelis celebrated the move with pomp and ceremony and speeches; Palestinians saw it as giving away their future capital.

Israel, of course, blamed the injuries and deaths on Hamas, the radical organization that was freely elected to control the Gaza area.  Gaza is just outside the Israeli border where Palestinians were pushed when Israel was founded.  Two million Palestinians are jammed into the 140 square mile area (the city of Columbus, Ohio; 217 square miles.)  They are not allowed to travel outside of Gaza, blockaded by the Israelis on one side and Egypt on the other.

Yesterday was Jerusalem Day in Israel, commemorating the 1967 war when Israel reunified the city, taking the old section from Jordanian forces.  Today Palestinians commemorate “The Day of Catastrophe” (Nakba Day,) the day in 1948 when Palestinians were driven out of what would become Israel.  The conflict between them is raw.

The death and injuries were eminently predictable.  So why did the US make this move at this time?

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has pushed this for many years.  It puts the United States firmly on the Israeli side, wiping out the “honest broker” position taken by the Obama Administration.  It puts into question whether there will ever be a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian crisis; certainly the “two state” solution that the US (and most Israelis) has supported is farther away than ever before. It puts Israel in the position of a Jewish democracy running a police state against the Palestinians.

The hope would be that this dramatic move would have been strategically thought out, with long discussions of the pros and cons, and input from our leading foreign policy authorities and allies. However, it seems that the driving force behind this move wasn’t the foreign policy intelligentsia, but instead, the billionaire owner of casinos, Sheldon Adelson.

Adelson, who owns much of Las Vegas and is ranked as the fourteenth richest man in the world ($42 billion) is a close friend of Netanyahu, and has long pressed for the move to Jerusalem.  According to President Trump, Adelson put $120 million into the Trump election effort, including a direct contribution to the campaign for $25 million.  He also was the largest single donor to the inauguration fund at $5 million.

Adelson is an American success story, a self made man who started his first business selling newspapers in Boston at sixteen.  He now owns the Venetian casinos around the world (Las Vegas, Singapore, Macao, Bethlehem PA) as well as several Israeli newspapers, in addition to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

He has been adamant on the need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital, and has had several meetings with President Trump, and others in the administration.  He has also been a driving force against the United States deal with Iran, shadowing the view of Netanyahu, and has pressed for the US to withdraw from the agreement.  A couple of weeks ago, the US did.

Adelson has represented the hardline Israeli position here in the US for years.  He has also become one of the key financiers of Republican politics (along with the Koch brothers and the Mercers.)   It has earned him a seat behind Vice President Pence at the Trump Inauguration, and honored-guest status at the Jerusalem ceremony.  It has also earned him the ear of the President, and a key appointment with John Bolton as National Security Advisor.

Most US foreign policy advisors, including most Republicans, were against the recognition of Jerusalem as the legal Israeli capital.  Jerusalem was the ultimate bargaining chip in a “two state” settlement, the final street by street negotiation that would recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinians, and allow Israel to get away from the draconian measures now required to keep them in check.

With the US recognition, Palestinians will be forced to continue what they did yesterday: protest and riot until Israeli soldiers are pushed to respond.  Palestinians can only hope that the images of the dead and wounded will gain world recognition and pressure on Israel.   In the end, the bodies of young Palestinians will be the price of the US decision.

It’s what money can buy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lester Kahrig

Lester passed away this week.  He was in his nineties.  I got to know Lester as a fellow employee; I was coaching and Lester was our frequent bus driver for team trips.  He took us all over the Midwest, staying with us on overnight trips. I think he enjoyed being in the hotel, amused as my coaches and I wrangled the kids into their rooms for the night.

When we stopped at my parents’ house in Cincinnati after a cross country meet, Lester managed to back the school bus down their long driveway, then manned the grill as we cooked for forty kids.  He never raised his voice, he never complained, he was forever a kind, caring friend both to me, and to the kids on the team.

Lester’s passion was his kindergartners.  His regular route was transporting those little ones to school and back, on what was often their first excursion away from parents.  Lester was gentle; he was their protector.  He loved those kids, and they knew it, and they loved him back in return.

The week after 911 was traumatic.  I spent four days struggling to explain to my high school classes what happened, why it happened, and what might come next.  On Friday night, I wrecked my car, totaling the Suburban.  I was shaken but uninjured.  Saturday morning I arrived early at the school; we were headed to Galion, Ohio for a cross country meet.  Lester was our driver.

As I got on the bus, Lester and I talked about the week.  We talked about what could happen to the kids we were driving, some of whom did end up serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He told me his story:  a seventeen year old boy from Eastern Ohio who went into the Army in World War II, invaded the Philippines, then caught malaria.  He spent the rest of the war in Hawaii, stacking bombs in the caves above Pearl Harbor.

I don’t know a whole lot about Lester’s life in between.  I did know his wife, she did beautiful paintings on saw blades.  I have one, a scene from a cross country meet, hanging in my home.  But what struck me most about Lester, was the contrast of the seventeen year old, wading ashore in invasion, who became so important a part of so many little lives.

Lester passed away this week.  He was one of the “Greatest Generation,” and was one of the finest men I’ve known.

 

 here’s the story of Lester’ here’s the story of Lester’s family from the local Monroe County Newspaper

Dirty Money

President Trump is constantly calling the Mueller Investigation a “Witch Hunt,” repeating over and over that there was “no collusion” and that it’s a waste of his time.  The Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, led by Chairman Mark Meadows and founding member Jim Jordan are demanding that the Mueller Investigation end, and that a Special Counsel be appointed to go back through the Hillary Clinton emails once again.  House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, with the “blessing” of retiring Speaker Paul Ryan; are demanding the scope and sequence documentation for the Investigation to make sure it has not gone “out of bounds.”  From past actions, Nunes will read the classified information, then run (not walk) to the White House to tell them what’s going on.

Yesterday, the normally reticent Vice President Pence called for an end to the Investigation. Articles of Impeachment have been drawn up for Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein, then leaked to the public. And of course, the Trump (FOX) Cable channels are echoing every cry to end the Investigation, castigating the Mueller team, and discounting any news that might indicate the Investigation has merit.

For the majority of Americans who want to see the Mueller team complete their work (Boston Globe) the right-wing political and media blitz calling for an end is like a constant dull throbbing.  Many despair that the results will ever be known, fearing that the growing swamp of Trumpism will somehow swallow the probe and its results.

But, over the last couple of weeks, the “Investigation” has fought back.  It might be a series of happy coincidences, it might be parallel strategies, or it might be a “conspiracy.”  Whatever the plan, there is some hope.

It started last week with two public appearances by Rod Rosenstein.  In one, a question and answer session, Rosenstein stated, “…the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.”  He also called out those that wrote and leaked the Articles of Impeachment, saying they “…didn’t have the courage to associate themselves with the effort.”

In the second appearance, a law day speech to Maryland’s Montgomery County Bar Association, he laid out the case of a career Department of Justice employee, who would not be deterred or deflected from his search for the truth.  He made it clear that he would allow the Mueller Investigation to follow through, as long as he remained in charge.

Then the attorney for Porn Actress Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, came from a completely different direction.  Avenatti, who has become a regular on MSNBC and CNN, managed to connect the Daniels lawsuit to the Mueller Investigation.  He reported that Trump attorney Michael Cohen received payments of millions of dollars from multiple sources, including ATT and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and most importantly, a US company that is ultimately owned by Russian oligarch Victor Vekselberg.

With millions funneled to Cohen, including the Russian money, it comes closer to answering the question that Mueller critics keep raising:  after a year of investigation, is there a “there – there.”  Avenatti’s information, however he was able to get it, shows that there was a direct financial transfer from Russia to a Trump employee, in fact, his personal attorney.  It leads of course, to the obvious question, where did that money go?

Cohen  claims that he had to borrow money with a second mortgage on his home to pay off the $130000 owed Stormy Daniels.  He also has taken out a loan on his condo in Trump tower for $9 million.  He’s borrowing a lot of money for someone who has been paid multiple millions in the past twelve months for “influencing” the President.  If he doesn’t have that money, then who does?

Retired US Prosecutors have opined that the Avenatti information could hinder the Mueller probe, by warning possible witnesses that they may be questioned.  However, Mueller has already questioned ATT and Novartis (in November and December) and stopped Vekselberg for search and questioning at a New York airport in March.  In short, Mueller is months ahead of the public release of information.

Rosenstein has made it clear that he will fight to continue the Mueller investigation.  Avenatti has presented information that shows that there is a financial connection from Russia to the Trump organization.  He is willing to use his position to publicly “out” Trump finances.  While the “stop the investigation” drumbeat may continue, it’s clear that the “no collusion” claim is untrue.  As it grows nearer to the “top,” the cries to end the Investigation will grow more shrill.  But now there is a public “there-there,” and it will be that much harder to stop.   How far and high it will reach, we don’t know yet – but Mueller does.

What WE’ve Done

In the days after 9/11, as the rubble in Manhattan smoked and the nation was in shock, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on “Meet the Press.”  Cheney was grim, and when moderator Tim Russert asked about the role of US intelligence in battling terrorism, he said the following:

 You need to have on the payroll some very unsavory characters if, in fact, you’re going to be able to learn all that needs to be learned in order to forestall these kinds of activities. It is a mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena. I’m convinced we can do it; we can do it successfully. But we need to make certain that we have not tied the hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities in terms of accomplishing their mission.

It was the first notice that the policy of the United States was changing.  Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, led an effort for a “no holds barred” approach to terrorists.  “Black sites” were established by the CIA to hold and interrogate captured terrorists, kept outside of the United States for the specific purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of US Courts.  Guantanamo Naval Base was chosen as the “prison camp” for the same reason: avoiding US Court jurisdiction, and therefore the rights and protections of the Constitution.

In August of 2002 the “dirty business” was codified by a Justice Department finding on torture. The finding, authored by John Loo (now a law professor at University of California, Berkley) drew a distinction between “enhanced interrogation techniques” and torture as defined by the Geneva Convention.  Loo argued that there was a difference between the “feeling” of extreme suffering and fear of death, and “actual” extreme suffering and fear of death.  The finding was signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee (now a Federal Appeals Court Judge.)

This then made waterboarding, feeding by “rectal infusion,” solitary confinement and long term forced nudity “legal.”  In a specific case where a terrorist was known to have a fear of insects, the Justice Department:

 “…advised the CIA that they could place the detainee in a box with an insect but that the CIA must ‘inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain.’”

The CIA conducted these “sessions” at the black sites.  They also brought “contractors” in who had fewer restrictions, leading to the abuses at the Iraqi prison Abu Gharib where “enhanced interrogation” led to rape, sodomy and murder.  Eleven soldiers were court martialed and sent to military prison and the commander demoted from general to colonel.  No other senior officers or civilians in the Defense Department were held accountable, though it certainly played a part in Rumsfeld’s ultimate resignation.

Gina Haspel, a career clandestine CIA operative has been nominated to lead the agency.  She has almost unanimous support of former CIA employees, and has had a distinguished career, rising through the ranks from a reports officer to station chief, clandestine site supervisor, Director of Clandestine Services, and Deputy Director of the CIA.  She is widely regarded as incredibly competent.

It was during her oversight of the clandestine site in Thailand that she supervised the “enhanced interrogation” of terrorists.  It was as Deputy Director of Clandestine Services that she signed an order authorizing the destruction of videotapes of those interrogations, tapes already subpoenaed by Congress and that showed hundreds of hours of torture.  She did both of these actions on the orders of her superior officers at the CIA.

Haspel’s nomination is controversial.  While she followed the orders of her superiors, Senators now are asking why she didn’t speak out against the torture that was going on under her command.  They also are demanding why she was complicit in the destruction of the evidence of that torture.  It’s appropriate for the Senators to ask these questions, but they are avoiding the bigger issue.

While Haspel’s nomination is in front of us, it isn’t fair to use her as the vehicle to confront this national shame.  The “Nuremberg Defense,” (only following orders) is not acceptable, but it also is not acceptable to attack the “little fish” while letting the leaders go free.  Torture is wrong now, it was wrong then, and it doesn’t work (ask John McCain.)

WE, the United States, have never held the “leaders” of the enhanced interrogation plan accountable.  WE have convicted soldiers, and demoted officers; but Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and President George W Bush have avoided responsibility.  And WE, Americans, are of mixed view as well.  WE have not really confronted that in our moment of peril, WE were willing to allow these actions.  Cheney made it clear from the week of the attack that WE would do anything.  WE did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bomb Iran

Three years ago, John Bolton, now President Trump’s National Security Advisor, authored a New York Times Op-Ed with the title: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”  In it he made a case for using military force against an Iranian nuclear program.  He stated:

An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

Yesterday, Ambassador Bolton got his first big success in the Trump Administration as the President withdrew the United States from the “Iran Nuclear Deal.” {While the deal is not a treaty, it is a technical agreement that the United States would remove sanctions on Iran in return for Iran stopping nuclear weapons development and allowing inspections. Rather than Bolton’s three to five-year set-back, it froze nuclear development with a ten year window.  The US withdrawal reneges on the agreement, and re-imposes sanctions.}

The Iran deal was the signature foreign policy success for the Obama Administration (and therefore a key target for Trump) and was negotiated with multi-lateral cooperation by many nations; the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China among them. Critically, it did NOT address Iranian support of terrorism in the Middle East, nor did it deal with Iranian territorial aspirations in Iraq.  It fixed on what was considered the most important issue:  preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  It provided a ten-year window for further negotiations, and continual inspections even after the agreement expired.

But President Trump changed that yesterday.  And while the other nations who were part of the deal vow to continue, the United States sanctions will make it near impossible for them to afford the economic cost.  So the Iran nuclear deal is probably over, and we are looking at a different Middle East today than we did yesterday.

The US resumption of sanctions will certainly have widespread consequences.  Internally, US businesses with open contracts in Iran (notably Boeing) will be cut off.  Internationally, sanctions will force our allies to choose between dealing with Iran or dealing with us.  Perhaps they will succumb to US pressure, or, just as the Chinese responded to new tariffs, they will simply choose to find other supplies.  China is buying Mexican soybeans, leaving US farmers out.

It is likely that Iran will begin to work on nuclear weapons, and will achieve nuclear “breakout” within a couple of years.  John Bolton and friends will then say, “I told you so” to their critics, though their actions opened the door to Iran’s effort.   Israel, and other Middle East powers, notably Saudi Arabia, will feel the military necessity to try to stop the Iranians, and we will see Bolton’s bombs falling soon.  The Middle East will be drawn to an all-consuming conflict, one that will inexorably draw United States to war.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only supports Trump’s decision, but was complicit in releasing “new information” (though it was known for years) to back Trump’s claim that the Iranians were cheating.  US officials, including Mattis at Defense and Pompeo at State, said that Iran was not.  Netanyahu sees Iran as the ultimate threat to Israel’s existence, and is more than willing to take military action to stop Iran’s nuclear progress.  While Israel can bomb alone, to get more comprehensive change they would require US assistance. Netanyahu would, along with Bolton, like to see regime change in Iran, in order to protect Israel’s long-term interests. However, the US has had little luck with regime change:  the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of good intentions gone wrong.

Should this happen, a regional war might not be the only consequence.  War in the Middle East would inevitably cause an energy crisis in the rest of the world, with petroleum supplies threatened and prices skyrocketing. And the other “major powers” of the world would maneuver to isolate the United States.  This might well put Russia and China on the Iranian side (Russia is cooperating with Iran now in Syria and China has helped Iranian missile technology in the past) creating a threat of escalation to a world war.

But the United States, who yesterday had the choice of using the next few years to negotiate a more comprehensive deal with Iran, now is left out.  President Trump, whose reputation is based on being the “great negotiator,” is gambling that the world will be forced to accept US sanctions, and will be able to drive Iran back to the table for a “better” deal.  The US, who two years ago was the world leader in striving for peace, has now lit the fuse to war, and is daring the world to respond.

 

 

 

 

The “Wiseguys” of Trump Tower

In the lingo of the “mafia,” a “wiseguy” is a member of a mafia crime family

James Comey in his recent book describes what President Trump reminds him:

“…flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob. The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.”

Comey critics condemned the statement as hyperbole and exaggeration.  But in the past few weeks, evidence has emerged of actions by the Trump “team” that is more like the Mario Puzo’s “Godfather” than the business or political operation they claimed to be.

The first piece of evidence is part of the Stormy Daniels’ story.  Daniel’s, an adult film star, claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump in the 2006.  In 2011 a man approached Daniels in a parking lot.  Daniels states:

“(he told me) ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.’ And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.”

Daniels’ infant daughter was in the back seat of the car.  Later, Michael Cohen, acting on behalf of then candidate Trump, offered Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about the affair.  Daniels, on advice from her then-counsel (who may have been in league with Cohen) accepted the deal.

The second piece of evidence deals with the bizarre doctor that served as Trump’s physician for the past thirty years.  Dr. Harold Bornstein, known for writing the “note” for Trump saying he would be the healthiest President to take office (Bornstein later admitted that Trump himself dictated what to write) claims that his office was “raided” by Trump operatives.

The raid was led by then Trump bodyguard (and at the time Director of Oval Office Operations, whatever that meant) Keith Schiller. Joining him was a Trump Organization lawyer and a third unknown individual, who came into Bornstein’s offices, demanding and seizing all of the Trump files.  In addition, they demanded that all Trump memorabilia, including pictures, be removed from the office.

The third piece of evidence is more insidious and concerning.  “Black Cube” is a private intelligence firm in Tel Aviv made up of former Israeli intelligence agents.  It gained unwanted recognition when it was publicized that film producer Harvey Weinstein hired them to get information to discredit the women accusing him of sexual assault and abuse.

According to multiple sources, Black Cube was hired to investigate two former Obama aides who were involved in the Iran Treaty negotiations.  The idea was to find ways to discredit the aides, in order to make it easier for Trump to discredit and withdraw from the Iran nuclear treaty. In both cases, Black Cube attempted to gain inside information by sophisticated “phishing” email attacks, as well as direct contacts where they pretended to be journalists.

Michael Cohen has stated that, “…he’d take a bullet for him (Trump).”  Trump himself has made it clear that the first priority is loyalty to himself.  The Trump organization has acted more like a criminal family than a corporation, threatening, refusing to pay bills, and ultimately using their size to bully competitors and contractors.

Robert Mueller continues his investigation of the Trump group and the Russian connections. Russia too is run like a gangster family, with Putin acting as the “Godfather” of the national regime. Perhaps this is the way to view both that makes the most sense.  Instead of thinking politics, think criminal.

Cohen, Stone, Don Junior, Eric and the rest:  they are the “wiseguys” of Trump Tower.

 

The Impeachment Machine

Let’s warmup the impeachment machinery.  There’s going to be plenty of use for it, and even the Radical Republicans of the Freedom Caucus are getting ready.  So let’s warmup on an easy case, one that everyone agrees makes sense.  In fact, this case makes so much sense that it’s hard to understand why the President hasn’t exercised his “executive authority” to fire the guy.  But the President has his own reasons for keeping him, so Congress should fire things up!

It starts with the House Judiciary Committee.  Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia is the leader, and several of the Freedom Caucus members are on the majority side, including Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, and Ohio’s own Jim Jordan.  They have continually argued against corruption in government, and they were some of the first in line to “drain the swamp.”  Here’s their chance!

No, it’s not President Trump.  Maybe later, if Democrats gain control of the House and the Mueller investigation shows direct conspiracy between Trump and the Russians. But it’s not time, not yet. And it’s not Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General either, though he seems to be the current target of the Freedom Caucus, and their compromised friend, Devin Nunes,  disreputable Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

There is a consensus candidate for impeachment, that almost everyone can get behind.  Since Trump won’t fire him – let’s impeach and remove Scott Pruitt, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Talk about draining a polluted swamp.  Pruitt has been the subject of weekly stories about his own personal corruption and aggrandizement.  Here are just some of the charges floating around.

• Even before he was confirmed as EPA Director, Pruitt was accused of taking direct funds from the Petroleum industry as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Not only did he accept political funding, but he directly used their language for proposed laws, and got a sweetheart deal for an expensive home.
• Once he arrived in Washington, Pruitt “rented” a trendy Capitol Hill townhouse from a lobbyist for the natural gas industry. His cost, $50/night, and only for the nights he stayed there.  Since Pruitt was often travelling (see below) he had the perfect hotel room.  By the way, getting a hotel room in DC for $50/night would mean staying in a place that the EPA would deem a Superfund Cleanup site.
• On assuming the Directorship, Pruitt demanded 24/7 security. This was a big change from the past – past Directors got protection from their residence to the EPA and back.  Pruitt wanted full time, full location security protection, causing a huge increase in personnel and obviously raising the cost.  He also wanted a bulletproof desk, and car, and lights and sirens (he tried to use them to get to a dinner reservation on time.)
• Pruitt had installed in his office a $43000 soundproof phone booth (not a secure communications site – or SCIF – which was upstairs) in order to have “private” conversations.
• Pruitt flew first class (against government regulations) and used charter and military aircraft. In the first four months his travel cost over $100,000.  His security detail cost even more, as he had full security protection for visits to Disneyland and a football bowl game.
• Pruitt gave subordinates huge raises, after the White House denied permission to give them. He redirected money from the Clean Water Act.
• Pruitt exiled or fired EPA administrators who criticized his actions.
• Pruitt travelled to Algeria to lobby for Natural Gas, an odd position for the EPA Director. The natural gas lobbyist was the owner of his townhouse.

With all of this, why doesn’t the President just fire him?  After all, he’s seems to be able to fire others at a “tweet,” just ask the huge list of former administration officials.  But, there are a couple of compelling reasons for Trump to keep him.

Pruitt is the “man off the bench” to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions if Trump decides to fire Sessions.  Pruitt, a former state Attorney General, could step in and as a loyal Trumpster; fire Rosenstein, Mueller or whoever else is in the way. In addition, Pruitt’s EPA is deregulating the energy industry, making things good for the petroleum industry (which means the Koch brothers and their huge political fund) as well as encouraging “clean” coal, whatever that means.

So Trump will keep Pruitt. But, if Republicans in Congress, and particularly the “holier than thou” Freedom Caucus, wanted to show that they could “drain the swamp” as promised; Pruitt is the obvious choice.  So crank up the machine:  Impeach Pruitt.