Building Bridges
Last night I went to a candle light vigil “against corruption” in the Trump Administration. It was a small affair in Columbus, Ohio; less than one hundred, holding candles, listening to speeches, chanting and singing songs in the plaza outside the Republican Senator’s offices. I posted pictures on social media, and they ignited the usual back and forth among my “Radical Leftist” (though not really very radical) and my more “Trumpian” friends.
Some of the comments were predictable. The conversation trended down to the most polarized, bringing up all of the old complaints and stories. They come from both sides, but the real problem is that there is no agreement on “the facts.” What is a factual statement by one side is regarded as a complete lie on the other. It goes both ways.
This national crisis is going to get worse before it gets better. Inevitably there will be a segment of our political population who feel they have been betrayed by the rest of the country. That segment (whichever side) will burn with animosity, reminiscent of the “lost cause” Confederates of the Civil War. It has taken more than one hundred and fifty years to begin to get over that, though the battles over the “flag” still go on.
So while we will still “burn bridges” to reach a conclusion to our current catastrophe, perhaps we can lay the foundations for some new ones as we do. That will depend on developing a common truth based in real facts. So here are some of them.
Collusion is not a crime, but conspiracy is. The Mueller investigation has charged some with “Conspiracy Against the United States (18 USC § 371).” This is committed “…when two or more people work to either defraud the government…or to interfere or obstruct with a lawful government function.” Interfering with elections, using foreign money or foreign aid illegally in a federal election, or hacking into the election process all are under this provision of law. When President Trump says there’s been “no collusion” it really doesn’t mean much.
By the way, in the recent indictment of twelve Russians for interference in the US elections, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein made it clear that no US citizens were included. What was left out was the word “yet.” More indictments are expected. Rosenstein also emphasized that in the indictments the stated goal of Russia was to confuse and divide the American public. He did not mention, but the indictment states in several places, that the Russian’s were also acting in support of the Trump candidacy.
President Obama was NOT perfect. While many of us supported and worked for him, we recognize that we were not all in agreement with everything he did. His actions at the Southern border, while in no way as inhumane as our current policy, did little to resolve the migration crisis. His failure to enforce the “red line” in Syria showed weakness. But, he did do his best to make the world safer, with one of his most controversial actions the Iran Nuclear Deal.
The Iran deal did nothing to reduce Iran’s support of terrorism. And it DID transfer cash from the US to Iran. That cash was NOT a payment from the US government, it was Iranian cash seized when the Iranian revolution took place in 1979. It was, essentially, Iranian money being returned to them. It had to be a cash transfer, because US sanctions kept Iran from using the world banking system. What the deal did do was to stop Iran’s nuclear program for a number of years. It was a starting point, buying time, not a final solution to Iran’s behavior in the world.
The Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, did NOT hand over 20% of our uranium to Russia. They did allow a sale to go through, where a Canadian company, Uranium One, owned by a Russian company, Rosatom; gained ownership in 20% of US uranium mines. This deal went through a rigorous screening process, in which then Secretary of State Clinton had one vote out of many. In the end, it was allowed, with the provision that NO uranium was to leave the US or Canada without permission of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Clinton Foundation donations during that time look shaky as Hell. In the midst of the mine purchase by Uranium One, a total of $2.35 million was donated of Rosatom, the Russian owners, to the Foundation. While there has been no direct connection made between the purchase and Hillary Clinton, who played a small role in US actions, it still looks terrible. And while the Foundation has done amazing work throughout the world, there was an ongoing ethical question of the husband of the Secretary of State running a foundation worth $250 million based on domestic and foreign donations.
There is an amazing amount of Russian money floating around the US. The NRA got some, the GOP got some, and the Trump Organization may well be financed by some (Russians certainly have bought a great deal of Trump properties.) But when Vladimir Putin claimed that Bill Browder gave $400 million to Hillary Clinton, later reduced to $400000, it was “fake news.” Browder actually donated $17,700 to Clinton, and his associates donated $297000 to the Democratic National Committee.
But with the Supreme Court opinion in Citizen’s United, there is very little control and limitation on the donation of money to political committees. The Court decided that money is equal to speech, and the voices of most Americans are drowned out in a tide of cash, American and foreign. It makes the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice even more important.
These are the facts. While the far-right will dispute some, and while the left doesn’t want to hear others, it’s the truth. And maybe, maybe, if we could just agree on some of them, we could begin to rebuild.
As one of your more vocal and “Radical Leftist” friends, I’d like to admit that there are times where my frustration gets the better of me and I would like to apologize for that. It can be difficult to deal with the denial and to ignore the arguments that start with name calling instead of addressing facts but, I’m willing to own my part and you’re absolutely correct that we need to work toward common ground if we want to make things better.
I’d also like to say that there isn’t anything you’ve written here that I disagree with. I realize that my views are now considered “radical,” I’m just not sure how we got to a point where they fit that description.
I agree. Never felt “radical” before. Always thought radical was someone else. Oh well