Month: May 2018

Pathways of Resistance

Donald Trump has been President for 1 year, 105 days, 22 hours, 55 minutes and 33 seconds at the moment I’m writing (there’s a webpage for that, surprise!)  From that moment of his inauguration, folks who couldn’t believe he was elected President have been saying:  what can I do to resist the changes he is making to our country?  How can I help to protect:

• the environment
• healthcare
• voting rights
• Dreamers
• Women’s Rights (including reproductive rights)
• Middle Class incomes
• Education
• Gun control
• Our children from going to war.

America has always had a tradition of loyal opposition.  In the past few years, as our politics have grown more divisive, it has become more difficult to see the “loyalty” in the actions of the opponents.  Everyone claims to be fighting for the “America” they believe in, but we seem to have an increasingly different view of what that nation looks and acts like.  Historically we’ve been here before, most notably in in 1850’s prior to the Civil War, but also in 1800, the mid-1820’s, the late 1880’s, early 1920’s, and the 1960’s – opposition and resistance are not new nor uncommon and it doesn’t always end in war.  Sometimes, it has brought wars to an end.

So in our current climate, what can be done to “Resist?”

First of all, the primary duty of all Americans, vote.  Past elections show that the more negative a campaign gets, the fewer people come to the polls.  Negative campaigns are designed to drive down the opponents’ votes, and clearly the 2016 election was impacted by the negative ads on both sides.  If this year’s primary is any indication, the general election of 2018 (at least here in Ohio) will be one of the “dirtiest” in history.  Low voter turnout inevitably favors Republicans, don’t let the trickery of campaign advertising keep you from voting.

Keep in mind it’s not just advertising on television, radio, or newspapers (for those who still read them.) It’s ads in social media, it’s biased or faked news articles, it’s the re-tweeted or shared post that makes outlandish claims.  All of these become a part of the decision making process, but, more importantly they create a climate where voters choose not to cast a vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but to sit out the whole process.  Don’t be “conned” that it doesn’t matter who you vote for:  if the election of 2016 taught us anything, it’s that every vote counts, even if it’s a “lesser evil” choice.

In keeping with advertising and social media, the second duty is to ascertain what is fact and what is propaganda.  In our ‘post-truth” society, reaching some common truths about issues is becoming more difficult.  Actual research may be required.  As part of finding the truth, resistance means bringing that truth to the public, to your friends and family, even to those who you know disagree with you politically.  It doesn’t have to be in an obnoxious way, but ultimately “fake news” continues because we passively accept it.  If every fake item is called out, then it will be more difficult for it to become “real.”

For example, currently Facebook is trending with the claims by opponents of the Iran Nuclear Treaty that Iran lied during the negotiations, and that the American diplomats, notably John Kerry, were fooled.  The primary source for this information is a speech by Benjiman Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel.  Netanyahu dredged up old intelligence from several years ago about the Iranian nuclear program, information that was well known to the negotiators at the time.  It has been presented as a treaty violation, but in reality, it outlined actions that Iran gave up as part of the treaty.

So resist by knowing what is true and what is “fake,” then refuse to accept the premise of the fake. Speak truth, even when it has to be whispered softly to friends who believe the falsity.  Give them doubts;  then let those doubts increase as they see a President who willingly lies to America.

Third: participate in the most American of activities, protest.  It can change things, from civil rights to Vietnam, from the labor movement to abolitionism to women’s suffrage to the most recent marches of the Parkland kids. Step out into the world, make a sign, walk and chant and don’t be afraid to change the world.  There will be political campaigns in the fall to help, and there are continual actions going on (particularly in Columbus  – here’s a web calendar of events, Resistance Calendar.)  If marching isn’t for you, then make your voice heard by writing about what issue concerns you most and putting it out on social media, or as a letter to Congress, or to the news media.  Or, write a blog (here’s mine – Trump World). Find a way to publicly express your view:  here’s what my artist sister and her friends did (Outrage – Artists Respond to Trump  and Impeach.)

Fourth:  the Mueller investigation is critical.  Should the President take the ultimate action of trying to obstruct it by firing Robert Mueller, Congress must be pressured into reacting.  The “plan” is already in place – find a march and join in if things get that far (Find a March.)

You may worry that you will lose your “friends” who disagree with you politically.  While this has happened to me, I’ve found that most of my friends respect my views, even if we don’t agree.  As polarized as our politics have become, most Americans are willing to accept that others may have differing beliefs, and still be “good” people. And, most Americans recognize that legitimate protest is our tradition, one that should be cherished even if we disagree.  This time it’s “our side,” who knows what the next time will be.  Find a way – and resist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rosenstein’s Dilemma

Rod Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, second in command in the Justice Department.  Born in Philadelphia, Summa Cum Laude at Wharton School of Economics and Cum Laude at Harvard Law; he has spent his entire career in service of his country with the Justice Department.  His previous job was as US Attorney for Maryland, where he was chosen by Republican George W Bush, and continued under Democrat Barack Obama.

Rosenstein became Deputy Attorney General by appointment from President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Due to his involvement in the Trump Campaign, Sessions recused himself from the Russia Investigation, leaving Rosenstein as the supervisor.  Rosenstein appointed his old boss, former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct the probe.

Rosenstein has the obligation to serve three masters in his current assignment.  The first, as a member of the executive branch of the government, is the President of the United States.  While the Department of Justice has a long tradition of maintaining independence, ultimately they are a part of the Executive.  The President hired Rosenstein, he can fire him as well.

The second is his Constitutional duty to accept oversight from the legislative branch, the Congress. Congress has the authority to oversee the actions of executive agencies, and also has the power to control funding for those agencies.  Congress can, and should, know what actions are being taken, and have the obligation to ask questions and get answers.

The third is to the Constitution and law itself.  Rosenstein, as a career Department of Justice employee, has spent his whole career following the law.  He sees as his duty to prosecute those who break the law, and to make sure that no one is above the law.  As part of that duty, he cannot allow obstruction of an ongoing criminal investigation.

His dilemma:  the Mueller investigation is clearly centering on the actions of his ultimate boss, the President of the United States, Donald Trump.  Trump has to ability to fire Rosenstein (and appoint someone who would subsequently stop or fire Mueller) so Rosenstein’s job and career are in peril.  In addition, some Republican Congressmen, notably members of the “Freedom Caucus,” led by Chairmen Gowdy, Goodlatte and Nunes; are demanding un-redacted versions of the “scope and sequence” documents for the Mueller probe.  These documents are the roadmap for the investigation, and should they leak to possible subjects/targets, would make investigating much more difficult.

While the three Chairmen claim they are acting in their oversight role, it has already been demonstrated that classified information given to them has been used for political gain (see the House Intelligence Committee FISA report) rather than oversight of the Department.

In essence, the Chairmen are acting as “investigators” for the Trump defense team, trying to glean details so that the President can defend himself as the named “subject” of the Russia Investigation.

So Rosenstein faces the supreme dilemma:  which of the three masters has the highest call?  In statements made this past week, he made it clear where he stands.

On Monday, President Trump issued a Law Day Proclamation. The President said, “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty.” The point is that we do not achieve justice by polling the opinion of any person or group. We achieve justice through a process that seeks objective truth based upon credible and admissible evidence.

Rosenstein’s remarks (definitely worth reading in full) make it clear.  He said, “…when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation.”  The privilege of spending a career in the Justice Department obliges him to follow his highest loyalty, to the Law and the Constitution. This requires him to perform the “unpleasant duty” of refusing the requests of the Congressmen.

The Freedom Caucus may try to impeach Rosenstein for this refusal.  While one would hope Speaker Ryan would step into such a situation, his pending retirement may have emasculated him (or he retired because he already was.)  Clearly there is no majority in the House, far less a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict.  Rosenstein won’t lose his job by Congressional action.  And should President Trump use that as his excuse to remove Rosenstein, it will ignite a Constitutional crisis.

If we are a nation of laws, then obstruction of those laws is in itself a crime.  Rosenstein will not be a participant in obstruction, and Congress should not become a tool of obstruction either.

 

 

The Post Truth Era

James Comey was fired for his handling of the Hillary Clinton emails; or he was fired for failing to end the Russia investigation; or for not publicly stating the President was not a target; or failing to pledge loyalty to the President. Donald Trump didn’t know Stormy Daniels; didn’t pay Stormy Daniels; didn’t know Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels; paid Cohen back for paying Stormy Daniels.  The United States is going to build a wall on the Mexican border, we are building a wall on the Mexican border, we are repairing existing walls on the Mexican border.

We have entered a new era, when the “truth” ain’t true.  This isn’t only a Donald Trump phenomenon, this is a widespread occurrence, almost normal in daily life.  There is little that is universally accepted as true; every political, religious, and cultural faction has their own version of the truth.

We stop listening to those things we don’t believe are true.  We tune (or are tuned by our media) to see and hear our OWN TRUTH.  When an “opposing” truth slips in, we immediately see it as an outlier, not real, or in the President’s term, FAKE NEWS.   Our media sources will do this for you, selecting stories that you agree with and weeding out those that you don’t. It’s in the “algorithm.”

As someone with a political cross-section of friends, I still get to see some of the “other sides” truths.  One of my “annoying traits” (I suspect) is that when I see a clearly outlandish claim, I go to work to check it against fact (even if it’s not their truth.)  I never get thanks for that, more often, my sources of “truth” are attacked.  For example, George Washington NEVER SAID the following about the Second Amendment:

A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

It’s out there on the internet, you can see it with a nice portrait of the first President on Facebook. But he never said it.  Several fact checking groups including Snopes agree, as well as the Mt. Vernon Historical Society.  But beware of questioning someone else’s truth.

Speaking of George Washington, he didn’t say, “I cannot tell a lie,” either.  A later biographer, Parson Weems, made that up along with the cherry tree.  But it doesn’t seem quite so long ago that there was a price to pay for telling a lie. Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  He said that to the public, and then again under deposition. He later said he believed oral sex wasn’t sexual relations, but the House of Representatives voted to impeach him for perjury, and he stood trial in the Senate (where he was NOT removed from office.)

Full disclosure:  THEN and now, I believe Clinton should not have been impeached.  I did and do believe he should have resigned for disgracing the office of the President, by taking advantage of an intern. If he had, Al Gore might have been President instead of George W Bush and the world would be a very different place. 

Agree or not with the actions taken, “back then” even the ultimate politician, Bill Clinton was held to some standard.

Today, it’s not so much. Today there is a media network devoted to one truth, Fox News, and there are other networks closer to what may be REAL truth, including my addiction, MSNBC.  But there is no common denominator, no common set of facts that can serve as a bridge from one view to another.  We are in a “post-truth era.”

So what happens in our new era?  When I was in high school, I read  George Orwell’s  “1984.”  In that book, the enemies of yesterday (Russia?) become the friends of tomorrow, and the Ministries of Truth, Love, Peace and Plenty told lies, hate, fought wars, and rationed goods.  Today we have an Environmental Protection Agency that has stopped protecting, a Justice Department that is struggling to be just, a Homeland Security Department that rounds up people, and a State Department that gave up diplomacy.  Words no longer have the same meaning.

Our view of politicians is so low that we no longer hold them to any standards.  If it was known that President Kennedy was having affairs in the White House, or that Woodrow Wilson’s stroke was so severe, would they have remained in office?  In 1988, Colorado Senator Gary Hart was running for President.  He challenged rumors that he was having an affair, almost saying “…catch me if you can.”  The press did, and Hart was done.  Today, he could have simply called them all liars, purveyors of Fake News, or paid Donna Rice off with a “do not disclose agreement.”

In a recent Ohio political campaign, a candidate wanted to make a point about his opponent.  In a commercial, he took a picture of the opponent shaking hands with President Trump and “Photoshopped” it so that the opponent was shaking hands with Hillary Clinton.  When he was called out for it, it was simply “creative campaigning,” another version of Fake News.  There was no apology, no retraction, no withdrawal from the campaign.

We get what we accept. While there are a lot of reasons that “good” people avoid politics (raising money for campaigns is one huge factor) another is that they are afraid to sully themselves in the field.  We get what we deserve if we don’t hold politicians, and certainly, the current President, to a higher standard.  The standard set by Speaker Ryan, “…don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does,” is unacceptable if we want something different and better than what we are getting now.

The real danger is the one prophesied in 1949 by Orwell in “1984.”  When we no longer value truth, when we no longer share a common knowledge of fact, then our government can do what it wants, whether it’s in our interest or not.  We will lose our democracy if we don’t find a common truth.  Big Brother will do more than watch.

 

 

 

The Button Strategy

The chants in Michigan went on for a while – “NOBEL, NOBEL, NOBEL!”  President Trump’s modest answer, “I’m just doing my job.”

Will Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in North Korea?  Probably not, but it’s hard not to give him some credit for the changes in Kim Jong-Un’s behavior.  Did Trump’s strategy, including the “Rocket Man” and “Bigger Button” tweets, push Kim to the negotiating table?

It might have.

When a madman tries to burn your neighborhood, with all of the homes threatened; the fact you don’t like you neighbor won’t stop you from working together to stop the madman.  South Korean President Moon Jae-in was well aware of the ultimate truth about the next Korean war.  The battles would be fought in the most highly populated parts of his country, millions of people would be killed, and the nation that has been an economic and political success story since 1953 would be utterly devastated.

Kim Jong-Un of North Korea is also aware of what a war with the United States would cause.  While there is much less economic infrastructure in North Korea to destroy and Kim is less concerned about civilian casualties, if the US waged war one of the primary goals would be the end of the Kim regime.  Look at Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Gaddafi in Libya to see Kim’s prospective fate.

So while Moon and Kim are neighbors who don’t like each other, Trump served as the raging madman threatening them both.  Perhaps this pushed them both to the negotiating table.  But there are alternative reasons the two might have reached across the border.

Kim and North Korea represent the ultimate threat to South Korea.  President Moon has followed a well thought out strategy, first engaging Kim in participating in the Olympic Winter Games, then pursuing greater contacts culminating in their meeting at the “Peace House” on the demilitarized zone. If South and North Korea can develop economic commitments, they are less likely to try to destroy each other.

Kim has also followed a strategy, working to build a nuclear arsenal, now complete; and developing missile delivery systems that can threaten beyond the region to the world. He worked to make himself, “a member of the nuclear club” (US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan.) Now he (and therefore his country) is recognized as a major world player, and gets to meet man-to-man with the President of the United States.

It was easy for Kim to “give up” nuclear and missile testing:  the program is ready to go, “operational,” and there is no longer a need. He got what he wanted, now he wants to negotiate for economic benefits as an “equal.”  President Trump has accepted that equal standing, and is expected to agree to meet with Kim on Kim’s “turf,” back at the Demilitarized Zone.

Negotiation is better than war.  So whatever the mechanisms that brought North Korea to the table, it beats dropping missiles on Seoul, Tokyo, San Francisco, or Pyongyang.  Whether this was some well thought out strategy by Trump or simply the innate knowledge of one bully for another, the “madman US President” plan deserves credit for getting there.

What happens next is questionable.  The United States has negotiated with North Korea several times, each time the North has promised to stop nuclear progress.  They simply lied, and continued to build and develop their program.  Now that Kim has the “bomb” and a delivery system, it’s unlikely he’ll give them up for anything.  The United States is trying to negotiate for a “denuclearized” Korean peninsula.  It’s difficult to see a “carrot” that they can offer North Korea to give up their bombs. And of course, “the stick” would mean nuclear war.

And South Korea (not given a seat at the table with Kim and Trump yet) has the world’s fourteenth strongest economy. Much as West German success contrasted with East German privation, South Korea is thriving as North Koreans continue to literally starve. The South has a lot to offer the North.

There is a possibility for progress, though it may only come at the cost of accepting a nuclear North Korea.  South Korea may be willing to take that chance, but it’s unlikely the Trump Administration will accept any outcome short of nuclear neutering.

So we are a long way from the Nobel Peace Prize.  Likely, we are closer to nuclear war.

 

 

 

 

 

Three Dimensional Chess

(I took a little break last week, heading to North Carolina for Merlefest – a Bluegrass Festival – with three of my favorite people.  Back home now and a lot’s gone on – time to get back to work!)

This week the President’s team leaked a summary of notes taken in a meeting with the Mueller team. The topic:  will the President answer questions from Special Counsel Mueller. Further leaks reveal that when negotiations over the “interview” (shades of a movie about North Korea – maybe there are more similarities than we think) got tough, the Mueller team suggested they would subpoena the President.  This would be unprecedented.

John Dowd, then the lead counsel for the President and since resigned, stated: “This isn’t some game – you are screwing with the work of the President of the United States.”

 But in a sense, it is a game:  a game with the most serious consequences.  The subject of the investigation is ultimately the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who in reality, is accused of conspiring with the Russian Government to change the results of the 2016 election.  While the legal niceties suggest that the President is a “subject” not a “target” of this investigation, that distinction has more to do with the consequences of a criminal indictment of a sitting President than the actual evidentiary outcomes.

The opposition: currently Robert Mueller, Special Counsel of the Department of Justice, who has been charged with determining what happened between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government during the 2016 election.  Mueller is supervised by the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; put in that role by the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who was involved in the Trump campaign.

What could be the outcome of this game?  The Mueller team could issue a report, essentially an indictment, to the House of Representatives, stating that the actions of the President should result in criminal charges, and only the Constitution prevents him from being dragged “before the bar.”  Since the judicial system isn’t available, the Constitution calls on Congress to deal with a President who committed “…high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Mueller could call for the impeachment and removal of the President.

This is the ultimate consequence.

The leak of the possible questions originally looked like it came from the Mueller team.  As such it would be a first, as Mueller has been completely tight lipped about the progress of the work, communicating only in court through filings.  The only reason it seemed like a Mueller leak, is the questions were limited to directly Russia and election related issues.  There were no questions about Trump’s taxes, previous investments, or business affairs. The topics all were “within the lane” of the Russia investigation, and didn’t cross the “red lines” that Trump himself had stated might serve as grounds for firing Mueller.

But it was leaked by the President’s side.  While we don’t know the direct source, it has been established that these were questions developed by the President’s attorney Jay Sekulow from the topics of the Mueller meeting.  And while the leak didn’t seem to serve the President’s cause, it did provide two new items of information about the investigation.

First, the topics and questions implied that there was evidence that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was in direct contact with the Russian Government looking for aid to the Trump campaign.  This would be a direct sign of conspiracy (collusion is the President’s term, but it has no legal consequence.)

And second, the Mueller team was looking at the use of possible Presidential pardons to obstruct the investigation, particularly with General Mike Flynn.  This “dangling” of pardon in order to keep Flynn from cooperating with the Mueller team, was supposedly done by lead Presidential counsel John Dowd, who resigned from the White House team shortly after the March meeting with Mueller.

So if Mueller didn’t leak this information, and it seems to benefit the Mueller case, then what was the “President’s team” thinking by putting it out there?

President Trump, using his preferred means of mass communication, has called the investigation a “witch hunt” or stated that there was “no collusion” six times in the past day. The Presidential team, stating that Trump is a “subject” not a “target” of the investigation, asks why there are questions about Trump’s direct actions involving the campaign and Russia.  If he’s not a target, then why are they asking these questions?

It’s a call to their base, who already have concluded that the investigation is a “witch hunt” and that there was “no collusion.”  Fox News has made it very clear, and the set of “facts” the Trump base uses supports that claim.  So when the President refuses to be questioned, or perhaps even invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, his base will accept his actions as necessary and proper for a man being hounded by the “deep state” and “Clinton/Obama Democrats.”

In the meantime, the leaked topics will lend further fire to the radical Republican Freedom Caucus members, who already have drafted articles of impeachment – for Rod Rosenstein. If they can involve him in a hearing defending himself, they can then call for his removal from supervision of the Russia investigation.  The President doesn’t have to fire Rosenstein, an impeachment hearing will force his recusal.

Rosenstein himself has responded, calling out the Freedom Caucus for leaking the impeachment articles anonymously.  He has made it clear that as the Deputy Attorney General he will continue to “…protect and defend the Constitution” and follow the facts to their conclusion.

Paul Ryan, the lame-duck Speaker of the House, could put an end to the Freedom Caucus foolishness. But he probably won’t, as it might trigger an inside battle for the Speakership, a job Ryan wants to “gracefully leave” next January.  It’s about Ryan staying under the radar, and not taking a stand.

So what’s the next move in this game.

New Presidential attorney Rudy Guiliani, far more politician than legal scholar at this point, will try to manipulate the public perception of the investigation.  While for everyone else there are serious legal consequences to federal charges, to Guiliani’s client, the President, there are only political ones.  Impeachment is a political process in the Congress, and subject to the “whims” of the voters as much as the facts of the case.  Keeping the Trump base activated and voting keeps the pressure on Republican Congressmen, and ultimately Senators, to avoid impeachment and trial.

The leak also puts emphasis on impeachment, a goal for Republican campaign strategists.  They believe that if Democrats can be forced to run on the question of impeachment, it will energize the Trumpian base to come out and vote to defend their man.  Since he isn’t on the ballot, voting for the Republican candidate for the House or Senate is the next best thing, and keeps Trump from facing Congressional consequences.

Democrats recognize this strategy as well, and are trying to keep the investigation at arms length while they campaign on the impact of the tax cuts and other cultural issues.  They aren’t much help to Mueller, but would be should they gain control of one or both houses of Congress.

And the Mueller team: they will continue to do what they’ve always done, keep their heads down and proceed with the investigation.  Regardless of the political consequences, they will conclusively let the nation know what happened between Trump and the Russians, particularly in the 2016 election. And ultimately, it will be up to the people of the United States to provide the political will to go from there.