Month: December 2018

Hostage

In 1978, Shi’ite revolutionaries in Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the US supported Shah (King) Pahlavi.  Soon after, the Shah was given sanctuary by the United States, and Iran wanted him back. On November 4^th, 1979, fifty-two Americans were taken hostage by Iranian Revolutionary Guards to “trade” for him. 

For four hundred and forty-four days, President of the United States Jimmy Carter did everything he could diplomatically and militarily to bring them home, including the first highly complex Delta Force rescue mission – that failed spectacularly. 

1980 was an election year, and Carter was running for his second term in office.  However, he pledged to stay at the White House until the hostages were freed, and was forced to run a large portion of his Presidential campaign from “the Rose Garden.”  While the strategy was good enough to win a contested primary against Ted Kennedy, it became symbolic of Carter’s inability to solve the hostage crisis in the general election.

Carter was trapped in the White House.  It was a choice he and his advisors made, but it allowed the Ayatollah to dictate events in the American election.  Ronald Reagan was able to play his best role, the “cowboy” riding into town and taking charge, and Carter looked like the banker hiding behind a desk.  Reagan won in a landslide:  the hostages were released during the actual inauguration, and former President Carter flew off to welcome them home.

President Donald Trump has orchestrated a shutdown of the United States government.  He signaled the coming confrontation in a televised “meeting” with Democratic leaders Pelosi and Schumer; the goal to display Trump’s strength by being willing to “close it down” to get “Wall.”  Pelosi and Schumer used the cameras to make it very clear that a shutdown was “on Trump.”

A week later, he seemed poised to compromise, signaling to the Senate that he was willing to deal on “Wall” later.  After the Senate unanimously passed a Continuing Resolution keeping the government open, overnight the pressure from the media, particularly Fox and Friends and Rush Limbaugh, made Trump change his mind.  He ordered the Republican leadership in the House to pass a $5 Billion Wall bill, which the Senate rejected, and the shutdown was on.

Trump found himself trapped in the White House, much as Carter was forty years before.  He couldn’t go to Mar-A-Lago for the Christmas golf and buddy-fest; he had to stay in the White House, watch cable television and tweet.  When that became too much, he secretly flew to Iraq to do “Christmas with the troops,” but even that turned into an issue.  He tweeted the classified location of a Seal Team, and somehow his campaign paraphernalia ended up handed out to the military crowds. Trump Flags and MAGA Hats looked odd in the hands of American troops on foreign soil, and Trump’s campaign style speech made it worse.  On top of all that, he managed to offend the Iraqi government.

So he’s trapped back in Washington.  His lawyer, Rudy Giuliani complained that Nancy Pelosi went to Hawaii for Christmas (reported by Fox News and the rest of the alt-right press but oddly NO mainstream media outlet) but it only emphasized the point:  it’s Trump’s shutdown and he’s stuck.  

The Dems will stay out of town until Pelosi is installed as Speaker.  When she gets back in Washington, things won’t get much better for Trump.  

He can continue to keep the government closed, with over 800,000 employees without pay (he’s already rubbed salt in the wound by denying them a scheduled pay increase.)  He can demand that the Congress accede to his demand for “WALL.”  It seems unlikely that if the old Republican majority House and Senate couldn’t pass “WALL,” that a new Democratic majority in the House would do so. 

The House and Senate could agree to the original Continuing Resolution, but it would require Trump’s signature to become law.  If he refuses to sign, it seems unlikely that Congress could override it.  If nothing is solved – he will remain trapped in the White House, unable to get beyond the issue.  While his “shut down stand” may look strong to his base, his ineffectiveness, like Carter’s, will begin to take its toll.

If there is one way to characterize Mr. Trump, it’s “mercurial.”  He has consistently changed his mind on a dime.  So perhaps he’ll flip again, and make a deal with “Chuck and Nancy” for immigration reform with some “WALL” included:  but he’s already missed Christmas, and the 2018 New Year’s Eve Party at Mar-A-Lago without him will be — SAD. 

Raising the Stakes

President Trump is a man of his word; sort of.  Two weeks ago, he told incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would shut down the government if he didn’t get $5 Billion for his border wall.  Then, he made a deal to keep the government open and argue the issue later, a deal Vice President Pence delivered to the US Senate.  That was the Continuing Resolution the Senate unanimously voted for; but then the President changed his mind.  He told outgoing Speaker Ryan to get his $5 Billion, and the House voted for that on party lines.  The Senate voted against it, and the government closed for lack of funds.

So the government shut down over Christmas.  Over 800,000 government employees are effected, some working without pay (including the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and the TSA, airport security) and some were laid off.  Both of those groups expect to be paid for their lost time and money, though that is dependent on the President and Congress.  On the other hand, the contractors who work for the government, including thousands of custodians, just lost two weeks wages.  There has never been a “make-up” provision for them.

The Office of Personnel Management has sent out sample letters for employees to send to banks and landlords begging for extended time or reduced amounts.  That is of little help to those who are left with empty bank accounts.  The national impact is even greater: the 2013 shut down took $24 Billion out of the US economy, effecting us all.  That was thirteen days:  we already on the sixth day now.

Today President Trump raised the stakes even higher.  The President has threatened to close the entire Southern Border unless he gets his $5 Billion. Trade across the Southern Border is $1 BILLION A DAY:  the President is willing to shut this down not because of a particular security threat, but in anticipation of passing legislation that will fund what he wants, eventually.  The border wouldn’t remain shut until the “wall” is built, only until the President gets his way.

The President told Pelosi, Schumer and the country that he would take responsibility for the shut down, but now he’s blaming Pelosi, saying Schumer would make “a deal.”  He’s doing this because Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives come January 3^rd, and the President will be forced to deal with a Democratic House rather than one dominated by his friends in the Freedom Caucus.  Pelosi should put the Continuing Resolution to a vote in her House where it would pass.  The Senate, still controlled by the Republicans, would then be faced with the same “deal” they passed unanimously; but what Senator McConnell will allow the Senate to do is still unclear.

So what happens next? In the beginning of December there was a deal on the table for $1.6 Billion of “border security improvements.” With the new House, is that deal now off the table?  Or will McConnell, who was ambushed by the President in the first place, allow a vote on the Continuing Resolution?  Should that pass the Senate and House, will the President veto it?  And is it conceivable that Congress could generate a two-thirds override?  Some claim that’s possible, though I imagine the Republican Senate would rally round the President, and the shut down would continue.

There is still a deal to be made; though with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker it’s going to need more “sweeteners” for the Democrats.  DACA or other immigration reforms might be alternatives, and maybe $2 Billion for “border security” so the President can claim victory.  But if Mr. Trump is determined to get his $5 Billion without any form of compromise, then the author of  “The Art of the Deal” may find himself without a functioning government for a long term.  That may work to his advantage in delaying civil lawsuits in New York, but it’s no way to run a country.  

.

Where Ends the First Amendment?

Steve Bannon sees himself as the maestro of the Trump 2016 victory.  He viewed Trump as a “tabula rasa,” a blank slate upon which he could write his own ideology.   While Trump “before Bannon” was already projecting some of those views, including the “America First” and “Make America Great Again” mantras; Bannon (and Stephen Miller) were instrumental in painting in the colors.

Bannon is a nationalist and has brought Trump to that belief.  Nationalism is defined in part by the word patriotism, a belief and pride in your country. But it goes farther than that, to a belief in the superiority of your country, and often your ethnic group or race, to the exclusion of others.  It is this xenophobic view that led to the extremes of 20^thCentury ideology, when nationalism morphed into Nazism and Fascism, and led the world to catastrophe.

Mr. Bannon doesn’t see it that way.  He sees the world as a “zero sum” game, where the United States either wins of loses. With that arithmetic, a global warming solution like the Paris Accords wasn’t acceptable.   Less advanced industrialized countries were given more leeway to pollute, while the more advanced sacrificed more (given that they were able to add a great deal of pollution as they developed.)   The logic of that fairness didn’t fit the equation of America “winning,” regardless that the ultimate outcome improved the entire world.

This same equation applies to other international groups, including the United Nations, where the raw power of the United States is restricted in order to gain the benefit of international cooperation.  Bannon’s view is that the US can “win” any one-on-one confrontation, so why should we “dilute our authority” by using an international organization. 

Bannon’s nationalism has also revealed the same ugly tendencies as the nationalist movements of the past.  His ethnic views have resulted in inhumanity at the US border with Mexico, and the mantra of illegal immigrants as “…rapists, murderers, and drug dealers” has opened the door to hatred.   His views have given us a look at our ugly past.

Bannon was fired by Trump, and now is working to export his views to the world.  Yesterday the Washington Post reported that one of Bannon’s closest European associates is seeking to rent an Italian Monastery, where, hidden in the mountain forest, he hopes to develop a“…gladiator school for culture warriors.”  Bannon’s efforts are already taking root in the United Kingdom with Brexit, Hungary with the election of Orban, and growing nationalist movements in Italy, Austria, Germany and France.

The “liberal” view of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is that in the “marketplace of ideas” all views can be aired, with the people being wise enough to chose “correctly.”  The Courts have explained the “slippery slope” of restricting freedom of speech, that once you begin down that path it becomes easier to restrict critical thought at every end of the spectrum.  

While defending the “right” to express ideas, regardless of how repugnant they may be, is ingrained in Constitutional lore, the First Amendment applies to governmental actions, not private choices.  While the government cannot, and should not, control speech, private industry is under no such restriction.  In our world today, where Facebook and Twitter control so much of our social/political communications, those organizations are not required to protect or promote “free speech.”  They make choices, clearly based on their own economic well-being, to determine who to amplify and who to restrict.

In the same way, private and public institutions such as universities have to decide whether to give a stage to nationalism.  This should be a decision based on the interests of the students, not fear of attack or violence from one side or the other.  The difficult problem:  when does a legitimate political view become a stage for political provocateurs whose goal is violence, not discussion.  

These choices become even more difficult when we know the “Pandora’s Box” that nationalism has been in the past.  There are those who say we “…have grown beyond the hatreds;” but ten minutes of Facebook, or a perusal of recent newspapers will demonstrate that folly.

These past few years have given us a peek under the lid; we can see the hatred and even violence that comes with it.   The question is:  are we strong enough to allow these views to have open discussion and amplification, or is the poison so dangerous that it must be quarantined from discussion? And, would a quarantine work, or would it simply “romanticize” nationalism, making it even more seductive?  These are the dangerous waters where Bannon, and Trump, have steered America.

The Calm Before the Storm

It must be eerie, wandering the halls of the Congress with no one there.  The offices have cleared out, an NBC reporter, standing in one of the office buildings, yelled for anyone to answer.  No one did, it’s as empty as a college dorm on vacation. It’s Christmas, and in our representative democracy, everyone is home – not in Washington, DC.  

Everyone, that is, except our “lonely” President, all by himself (well, there’s his staff, his wife, and his son) in the White House.  He has “shutdown” the government, at least twenty percent of it, to get his “Wall.”  In shutting down the government, he has trapped himself in Washington, unable to leave for his home in Florida.  The “optics” of the President playing golf while the government is “shut down” is too much even for Mr. Trump to take.  So he’s miserable, watching cable news, tweeting, and wanting to be anywhere else than in DC.  He’s like the exchange student at college, with nowhere to go for the holiday.

In Washington, some of the tourist sites are closed.  You can still wander the mall, and walk up to Mr. Lincoln on his chair, or Mr. Jefferson watching over the city.  But you can’t get into the restrooms there, or at the MLK or FDR memorials.  The Smithsonian museums are still open, at least until the 1^stof the year.

Congress is due back on Thursday, to try to work out some kind of arrangement with the President. While both sides claim to be immobile right now, there was a deal on the table a couple of weeks ago, a deal that could resolve the shut down.  If everyone gets miserable enough, perhaps those immovable forces will become ambulatory once again.  If not, a titanic struggle between the Democratic House and the President is coming soon, when Nancy Pelosi takes the gavel on January 3^rd.  

Still in the background are the next steps in the Mueller investigation.  The Supreme Court is hearing an unusual “sealed” appeal from the DC Appellate Court, fighting a Mueller subpoena.  It’s some kind of business, operating in the United States but owned by a foreign government.  The best bet is that it is a bank, perhaps Russian, refusing Mueller’s orders.  The Supreme Court is to make a decision before New Years.  

However that turns out, it seems clear that Mueller will soon release a series of indictments:  Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and maybe even Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner.   NBC news claims to have information that Mueller will release his “report on the President” sometime in February, though it’s odd that this is one of the few pieces of information leaking from the Special Counsel’s office.  Maybe the Acting Attorney General will let us see it, but more likely the House Judiciary Committee will have to force it out of him.  

And there’s still the fallout from the President’s Syria withdrawal order, and the proposed Afghanistan plan to withdraw, and the resignation of Defense Secretary Mattis, and the new Attorney General to be appointed.

So maybe it’s a good time for some quiet reflection.  We are poised on the brink of 2019, a year when many things will be figured out. Our nation, in turmoil just as we were in December of 1973, will be a nation resolved, one way or another, in December of 2019.  We will need to weather the storms, perhaps of impeachment, perhaps of Court Trials and Congressional Hearings, perhaps of intrigue and plots involving foreign governments.  Those storms will lead to crisis, but crisis also will lead to resolution.  For those who’ve been waiting since November of 2016, this is going to be the year. 

Regardless of that, we will need to prepare for the elections of 2020, to prevent our foreign and domestic enemies from manipulating our electoral process and our social media to reach some pre-determined outcome.  We are not innocent, even our own political parties the Democrats and Republicans, are “experimenting” with the same processes that Cambridge Analytica and Russian Intelligence used.  We might stop the Russian Internet Research Agency (where most of the Russian social media attacks originated) but we may need to stop actors here in our own country.  

Those attacks will continue to try to pry further wedges into our political divisions.  Not only will Trumpers be pushed by Republicans, but Bernies will be pushed from the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  Some of the dissension will be real and heartfelt, but pressure will be generated from the outside.  We need to be careful to keep our differences internal.

So enjoy the holidays, the calm before the storm.  When it all begins again, it will be for real and for good.  Senator Robert Kennedy, living in the tumultuous time of 1968 often spoke of the old Chinese curse: “may you live in interesting times…” He’d follow it up with – “…like it or not, we live in interesting times.” 2019 is our “interesting times;” so Happy New Year; and, as Rachel Maddow would say, “buckle up.”

Merry Christmas!!!  Here’s a wonky one about the Constitution and the President.  Enjoy – and have a great holiday!!!!!

One President, One Power

It’s an interesting theory, the Unitary Executive Principle.  And it actually makes some sense.  It says that the President of the United States is the Chief Executive of his branch (The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, US Constitution, Article 2, §1); and therefore everything done by departments, agencies, and members of the Executive Branch are done in his name.  So, continues the theory, when the Justice Department investigates other actions of the Executive Branch, particularly the President himself, the investigation is being done with the tacit consent of the President himself, since he is literally investigating himself.

This would mean that the President can stop any investigation by his branch that he chooses, as he is the ultimate boss.  Firing FBI Director James Comey, or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, or Special Counsel Robert Mueller, would all be “OK;” it’s all under his purview as President.

And it also means that the President is “incapable” of obstructing justice.  Any interference or lying he would do to the investigators is “OK;” he’s just lying to his own employees.  And it allows him to communicate with his employees:  talking to Acting Attorney General Matt Whittaker about the Mueller Investigation would be just fine. (Note – this would not be true about lying to the Courts or to Congress – as they are separate and co-equal branches.   But HIS Justice Department couldn’t bring charges on those lies, as he would be “charging himself.”)

This is the basis of the “legal” defense of President Trump.  Rudy Giuliani tries to explain it, though he often seems to get lost in the process.  Alan Dershowitz condescendingly  pushes it on Fox News, and the new candidate for Attorney General, Bill Barr, put the theory at the heart of his unsolicited twenty page memo to the Justice Department and the White House, his “try-out” for the job.

They say the ONLY way to stop a “criminal” President is through the Impeachment and Removal process of Congress.  Other than that, to use the famous Trump example, he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and no one would do anything.

But the Unitary Executive Principal flies in the face of the Constitutional concept of “equal protection” under law (US Constitution, Amendment 14,§1 .)  It also ignores the wording of Article II and the intent of the Founding Fathers.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.  (US Constitution, Article 2, §2, paragraph 1).

He is the Commander in Chief of the military.  That is his “commanding” role.  He may require the opinion of the principal officer of the departments (confirmed by the Senate per Article 2, §2, paragraph 2) and while he is invested with the “Executive Authority,”  that authority is not the absolute power of a king, nor is it constitutionally the same power as Commander-in-Chief.  If the founding fathers had wanted it to be, they would have said so (yes – for this moment I do sound like the Federalist Society!)

The Founding Fathers never wanted a President who was a “scofflaw,” unwilling to abide by the laws that bind all citizens.  They saw the Presidency as a carefully circumscribed protector of those laws, and all citizens.

The President of the United States is Constitutionally required to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” (Article 2, §1, paragraph 8.)  A President who is using the powers of his office to further his own personal gain, or to hide his own criminal activity, is clearly not fulfilling that obligation.  A President might legally be able to pardon, but if he does so with the intent of hiding his own crimes,  he would still be violating the law by obstructing justice.  The pardoned person would probably remain pardoned, but the President would have committed an offense.

The United States NEVER conceived of a Presidency of absolute power. George Washington didn’t claim such a thing, and in fact, went to great lengths to avoid it.  Abraham Lincoln, faced with the greatest Constitutional crisis of our history, pushed the envelope of executive authority by exercising his plenary power as Commander-in-Chief, but that was quickly reined-in after his death and the end of the war. Nixon didn’t even make such a claim as he orchestrated a criminal conspiracy from the Oval Office.  He made his deal and left.

Which, by the way, I would be perfectly content to have Trump do.  Conspiracy to defraud the United States, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign country, obstructing justice, lying to Federal investigators, and violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution  are all crimes he may have committed.  Resign and take your family with you.  I’m sure there’s a deal to be made, letting you keep some of your “Trumpers;” before you put the nation through another Impeachment and our first Removal from office.

Is It Panic Time?

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis wrote a carefully constructed letter of  resignationlast week.  In it, he elegantly put forward the reasons he couldn’t continue to work for a President who seemed intent on “deconstructing” (Bannon’s word, not Mattis’s) the alliance systems that have stabilized the globe since World War II.  In it Mattis said, 

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.

“Four decades of immersion” for the General, to be contrasted with the President’s transitory interest in American foreign policy.  A “clear-eyed” view of malign actors, contrasted with the President closeness to Putin, Kim, Erdogan, and Duterte.  “Treating allies with respect” versus following a whim on a phone call and abandoning the Kurds to the Turks.

Mattis was done.  He fulfilled his duty as Secretary of Defense until he could no longer see a way forward.  And in leaving the office, he shared with the nation his reasoning, and ultimately his fears.  It took the interpretation of the media for President Trump to realize what Mattis really said, and in true Trumpian fashion, the President responded by tweeting that Mattis would be replaced as of January 1^st.   It is the old saw:  “you can’t quit, you’re fired.”

With the departure of Mattis, the “three generals” who were supposed to guide Trump are all gone: Mattis, Kelly and McMasters.  And with their departure a lot of the stability those men brought to the table is gone as well.  What they all three found was that no matter how much “immersion” in the events of the world they had with experience they literally earned in battle:  if the President wouldn’t listen to them, it made no difference.

So “the generals” are leaving.  The President struggled to find anyone to serve as his Chief of Staff; Mick Mulvaney of the Freedom Caucus, the Office of Management and Budget and the Consumer Protection Bureau was the last on the list and is now “temporarily” on the job.  And Mr. Trump has now been pushed into an ill advised government shutdown, not by the Republicans in Congress but by the shrill voices of the far-right as heard through Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Fox and Friends.  Their advice is what seems to count.

We don’t currently know how much effect the pressure of the scandals of the administration is having on the President.  He surely realizes that the Democratic Congress will soon be digging into every aspect of his election and his Presidency.  And the long shadow of the Mueller investigation looms;  the next round of indictments will cut close to his friends and family. 

Mr. Trump can’t go to Mar-A-Lago for Christmas.  It’s not just the shutdown; how is he supposed to face his “friends at the club” with the disarray that surrounds him. They’ve lost millions in the market this month.  His “kitchen cabinet” there will tell him things he doesn’t want to hear, it’s better to surround himself with…Stephen Miller and Trump’s constantly used twitter account?  

What is clear is that the President has sold out to maintain his “base.”  Politically, the one area where President Trump has shown brilliance, he knows he cannot survive, much less run for re-election, without their support.  So whatever “wall” really is:  concrete, or brick, or steel slats; he’s got to fight for it, whether it actually happens or not.  It’s about votes in the Senate in the impeachment trial, not defending the border.

The United States is much like a great ocean liner.  No matter what commands are given at the helm, the momentum of its direction is so great that it takes miles and miles to accelerate, or turn, or stop.  For the past two years of the Trump Presidency, America has continued on the momentum of the past decade; economically improving and serving as the world’s ultimate authority.  But even this ship must be guided, and should a real crisis occur; should an iceberg appear on the horizon; who will guide it to safety?  

It certainly doesn’t feel like this President will, and the number of “steady hands” within earshot are fewer and fewer.  It might be “panic time,” if only panic would provide some alternative to the present. But it doesn’t – so we will have to live through whatever challenge the horizon brings.  Let’s hope we can avoid sinking.

Merry Christmas Rush

It’s not a small group that listens to Rush Limbaugh, or gets their daily “news” from “Fox and Friends.”  It is in the millions, nearly thirteen million weekly listeners for Rush, and one and a half million morning Fox viewers.  That’s a lot of Americans, and for the President of the United States, that’s a lot of Americans who agree with him.  

The Mueller Investigation has placed the Trump Presidency under a microscope.  Already several of the “President’s Men” are convicted felons, clearly more are coming under scrutiny.  Who knows when the next “shoe will drop” from the Special Counsel, perhaps members of the President’s own family are soon to be in the dock.  

The Democratic House of Representatives will join-in come January, taking away Trump’s biggest defenders, the Freedom Caucus.  No longer will Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Trey Gowdy be able to distract with Hillary’s emails or Stzrok’s love notes; now it’s going to be all Trump, all the time. Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight Committees are just a few that will be sending subpoenas and demanding answers.

The President’s only choice is to maintain strict control of his base.  The support of the “Trumpers” allows him to blackmail the rest of the Republican Party.  His control is so great that the Republican National Committee is going to merge with the Trump 2020 campaign (and we thought the Democrats were bad to Bernie.)  It’s kept Speaker Ryan in line; he is willing to end his Speakership in a government shutdown.  He can’t do much more than laugh (not so funny to the millions impacted.) The President’s got them all by the votes.

So when Rush and the “guys” on Fox and Friends speak, the President needs to listen.  He can’t afford any cracks in his base.   He sold his base on a single concept, from the moment his came down the golden escalator in Trump Tower back in 2015 and announced his candidacy:  WALL.  (Somewhere, somehow, we lost the articles that go with it, it’s not THE WALL or A WALL or SOME WALL, it’s simply WALL, the way a two-year old would say it.  Secretary of Homeland Security Neilsen even stated it that way in Congressional testimony; “…we need WALL.”)

WALL started out as “the Great WALL of Trump” like the Great Wall of China:  a shining concrete edifice that would stretch from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.  And, of course, for some inextricable reason Mexico would pay for it.  No matter that it wasn’t the best way to secure the border, or that it would destroy many natural wonders along the way, or that it would take thousands of acres of private property, or that the President of Mexico said “F**K no we’re not paying for it.”  Trump sold his base WALL, and now he has to deliver.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox and Friends may have a better understanding of the future than the President. After two years of not being able to get WALL through a Republican controlled House and Senate, now the House, where WALL got the most support, is going to be Democratic.  It’s WALL now or never!!!!!  When President Trump went along with his Congressional leaders and agreed to sign a continuing resolution pushing WALL debate into February, Rush and “the Friends” raised “HELL.”  So, after sending Vice President Pence to the Senate to reassure them that the “clean CR” was fine, and that they could vote and go home; Trump woke up to “HELL” on his favorite shows.  Rush was screaming from his studio just down the road from Trump’s Mar-A-Lago home, and the “Friends” were scourging Sarah Huckabee Sanders from New York on the morning show.  How could the President let this chance go by to get WALL?

It’s not a sign of Presidential strength, but weakness.  The President of the United States is under investigation, abandoned by “the adults” in the White House, and looking at possible impeachment. He’s only got Don Jr., Jared, Ivanka, Eric and his base, a base represented by Rush and Fox.  Now no matter what he told the Senate, Mitch or Mike; he has to make a stand for WALL.

The government didn’t have to shut down.  There was a deal on the table before Trump made his public spectacle with Leaders Pelosi and Schumer.  $1.6 billion for “border improvements,” the Dems could call it repairs, the President could say he got WALL.  That deal is still on the table, though Dems are now strengthened by the President’s actions.  He’s GOT to WIN, for Rush, Fox and his base.  So he’s got to get something, and the Dems will get more in return.  It’ll happen, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe as a Christmas miracle.  But it will happen, and Dems will get a present they didn’t expect.

Merry Christmas Rush – you’ve delivered again.

Birds of a Feather

President Trump announced Wednesday, via tweet, that the United States was withdrawing troops from Syria. Two thousand American forces are there, fighting the remains of ISIS side by side with our allies from Iraq, the Kurds. There was no warning of his decision; not to the Defense Department and Secretary Mattis or General Dunford; not to the State Department and Secretary Pompeo; not to the Congress; and not to our allies.  Secretary Mattis has resigned as a result.

The President has “declared victory” over ISIS, and is determined to leave.  This is a time honored American tradition, starting with Nixon’s Vietnamization strategy and leading to Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” sign in Iraq.  We don’t “win,” we find an “exit strategy.”  We do seem to have ISIS on the ropes, estimates are that as many as three thousand ISIS fighters are left from the thirty-five thousand that began the year.   Most American strategists see that they are near finished in Syria, though there are ISIS fighters in Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, and scattered areas throughout the world.

The President’s abrupt proclamation leave our allies flat-footed; particularly the Kurdish forces.  The Kurds from Northern Iraq have proven to be most loyal, instrumental in winning the battles against ISIS in Iraq and continuing into Syria.  They also are the strongest force in Iraq standing against Iran.  We have served as “protection” for the Kurds from their enemies, particularly Turkey, who plans to exterminate them.  By abandoning them, we are not only leaving them to the ISIS remains, but also to the assaults of Turkish and Iranian forces.

President Erdogan of Turkey sees the Kurds, not ISIS, as the biggest threat to his regime.  For over a century there has been pressure from the large Kurdish minority in Eastern Turkey for more autonomy or even independence. The Turkish Kurds get support from their kinsmen in Northern Iraq, and Erdogan has continually moved to suppress them. With the US withdrawing, the Kurds are left caught between ISIS, the Assad regime forces in Syria, and the Turks. 

President Putin of Russia has fully backed the Syrian forces led by Assad.  Six years ago Assad was near disaster, caught in a civil war between his forces, reformers originally supported by the US, and ISIS.  He has been willing to use chemical warfare and weapons of mass destruction on his own civilians.  It was only with Russian backing that he was able to regain control of most of the country:  with ISIS dwindling, the US and the Kurds are the only forces that stand in the way of his total control.

Ultimately the United States is the reason for the current situation in the Middle East.  The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the removal of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein destabilized the region and empowered Iran. The US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 set the stage for the creation of ISIS, who conquered much of Syria and Iraq. The US was forced to return there to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces re-conquer Iraq and destroy ISIS.  The forces now in Syria, as well as the five thousand remaining in Iraq, are serving that continuing mission.

There is an ongoing political controversy about whether the US should have invaded Iraq, and the steps we took once we did so.  However, it does seem that this current strategy has been more effective, using a minimum number of US forces to stop ISIS and keep Iraq stable.  With only a small number of ISIS forces left, it would seem reasonable to actually finish the job before we withdraw.

President Trump must be acting on the advice of Turkish President Erdogan; they spoke last week.  Erdogan notified Trump that Turkey plans on waging a campaign against the Kurds.  Trump’s own advisors, including National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary Mattis, have been unanimous for staying in Syria until ISIS is eliminated, and standing by our Kurdish allies.  But the President has accepted the views of Erdogan and Putin over his own advisors.  Now Erdogan is delaying his offensive, happy to wait until the US Forces withdraw.

Just yesterday the President asked for a plan for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Again, on the surface that isn’t a bad thing; we have been fighting in Afghanistan for seventeen years and have little to show for it. But without consultation with NATO allies and provisions for sustaining the Afghan Army training mission, we are simply abandoning this post as well. 

 The US is continuing a policy of withdrawing from world leadership. From pressuring NATO to the Paris Accord, the US under President Trump is becoming self-absorbed.  Certainly the ongoing internal political crisis is making it even easier to put “America First” and ignore the rest of the world’s problems.  So it shouldn’t be a big surprise that we would withdraw from Syria or Afghanistan.

Finding ways to end US combat involvement is a generally good thing.  The issue is:  with the US so close to finishing off ISIS, wouldn’t it make more sense to complete that work and really be able to declare “mission accomplished?”  And wouldn’t it make long-term sense to show some loyalty to those forces that have fought beside us?

 With the current crisis in confidence in our own President, wouldn’t it be better if some of his own advisors agreed with his decision? And, of course, with the real concern that Trump might be in some way compromised by other nations, wouldn’t we all feel better if Trump’s buddies, Erdogan and Putin, didn’t think this was a good idea?

One Angry American

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia is an angry man. Sullivan, the judge presiding over the Michael Flynn case, was supposed to sentence Flynn as part of a plea bargain agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.  It was a “sweetheart deal;” Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents, the rest of his many (many) potential crimes were wiped away, and he was liable to serve up to six month in jail.  The Mueller team recommended zero time based on the amount of cooperation Flynn gave them.

In attempting to further mitigate any possible jail sentence, Flynn’s attorneys posited that the General had been “set up” by the FBI during questioning.  They suggested that Flynn was not warned of his right to an attorney, and that the questioning was what Rudy Giuliani would call a “perjury trap” (note:  the way to avoid any perjury trap; don’t lie.)  they also claimed that two of the three FBI personnel that were involved with the  Flynn questioning, Deputy Assistant Director for Counter-Intelligence Peter Strzok and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, were involved in some other improprieties that raised questions about their actions. 

Part of any plea bargain is the defendant accepting responsibility for the offenses.  Flynn had done so, pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.  But now, his attorneys seemed to be raising questions about the validity of that plea. Judge Sullivan’s primary job in a courtroom is to make sure that justice is served.  If Flynn wasn’t guilty, then Sullivan couldn’t allow him to take the plea.

So Sullivan swore Flynn in, and placed him under penalty of perjury: if he didn’t tell the truth it could be a five year maximum sentence.  Sullivan asked him if he felt he was “set up” by the FBI.  Flynn said no.  Sullivan asked him if he knew it was against the law to lie to the FBI.  Flynn, at the time National Security Advisor, a three-star general and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he did. Sullivan asked Flynn if he felt the FBI personnel involved were in some way biased against him.  Flynn said no.

Flynn took full responsibility for his lies to the FBI.  He should have; he must have known that the FBI had transcripts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  The phones of Russian officials in the United States are routinely tapped, he would have seen similar transcripts as the DIA director.   From the transcripts of the FBI interview, we know that the agents quoted verbatim from the conversation.  Inexplicably, Flynn continued to lie about it.

Judge Sullivan was assured that Flynn was accepting responsibility for his actions.  But the Judge had been given access to all of the unredacted  information given to him by the Mueller team.  He also was made aware of an indictment filed the day before in Alexandria, Virginia, where Flynn was an unindicted co-conspirator.  If that indictment was charged to Flynn, he would be subject to years in Federal prison.

Flynn was a good general gone bad.  He was fired by President Obama from the Defense Intelligence Agency job, then retired from the military.  He immediately moved to monetize his skills and experiences, and soon made deals with the Turkish government.  Ultimately he was acting as an unregistered agent for Turkey, representing their interest in trying to gain custody of Fethullah Gulen, a US resident who was the longtime antagonist of Turkish President Erdogan.  That representation may have continued while he was serving as National Security Advisor.

He also had contacts with Russia, including making paid speeches in Russia and literally sitting at the right hand of Vladimir Putin.  His Russian connections ultimately led the FBI to him, as one of the four “persons of interest” in the original investigation of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.

Judge Sullivan saw all of this, and much more in the unredacted Special Counsel Report.  He recognized the obvious:  a man who had dedicated himself to service of the United States was now serving other nations while taking one of the highest national security jobs in our government.  Sullivan reached a reasonable conclusion:  Flynn was an agent of foreign powers while acting as the President’s chief advisor.

Sullivan was clearly outraged.  He stated that Flynn “…sold his country out.”  He asked if Flynn could have been charged with treason.  He made it very clear, that regardless of the “deal” made with the Special Counsel, he was seriously considering putting Flynn in prison.  He even intimated that the sentence might be longer than the “sentencing guidelines,” and suggested to Flynn that, “…the more you assist the government, the more you help yourself.”

The Defense accepted a recess, and then asked for a delay in sentencing.  Judge Sullivan pushed the hearing into March.  And, probably, he will then be more convinced of reasons for giving Flynn a deal.  But Sullivan was expressing what many Americans feel:  that this General has disgraced the uniform he served, and abandoned the flag he honored.  Sullivan made it clear that Flynn was getting off far too easy for the crimes he committed.  

We don’t know what Flynn has told the Mueller Team.  Perhaps his testimony is so significant, that it is worth the “cost” of giving him a pass. But Judge Sullivan didn’t think so, and he might not be wrong:  Mueller is going to have to really prove it’s worth it, or Flynn’s going to jail.  It’s where he belongs.

Health Insurance 

I listened to a podcast by Chris Hayes, the MSNBC commentator, called “Why is this Happening?.”  Chris was interviewing Abdul El-Sayed, the former Director of Health for Detroit, and a candidate for Governor in Michigan.  (if you have a 40 minute drive, it’s absolutely worth the time –Why is this Happening?)

There is a lot to talk about, but the interview helped me clarify some of the health care issues. The first was the difference between “single payer” insurance, and “nationalized medicine.”  Single payer means that private providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmacies) are paid be a single “insurance” entity.  It changes the health care cost equation in two ways. 

First, it takes the “insurance entity,” “Medicare for all” for the sake of discussion, and makes it a powerful bargaining tool.  Currently, large insurance companies bargain with providers for reduced costs.  The larger the insurance company, the better the “deal”.  We see this reflected in hospital bills, where we see a “retail” cost, a “charged” cost, as much as forty percent less, and the difference that the patient might have to pay.  Those without insurance pay the “retail cost:” no wonder they go broke in a medical crisis.

A single payer “Medicare for all” plan would make the insurance provider a massively powerful bargainer.  This is already recognized, as the GW Bush administration specifically prevented the current Medicare plan from negotiating for lower drug prices (Kaiser Family Foundation.)  An expansion to “Medicare for all” should include the power to negotiate, while allowing for pharmaceutical companies to continue research. The “cost of the first pill” needs to be recognized, but the cost of stable and unchanged drugs, like insulin, should be controlled (Humalog insulin prices have tripled in the past decade – CBS.)

A single payer program could reduce medical costs.  The United States has some of the best medical care in the world, but it also has the MOST expensive medical costs in the world.  In 2016, the average medical cost per person in the United States was $10348.  The next highest was Switzerland at $7919, while Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden were all in the $5000’s (Kaiser Family Foundation.)  

A single payer system is NOT Nationalized Medicine (like the United Kingdom) or, dare I say it, “socialized Medicine.”  The pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors remain private entities.  A single payer system takes out the cost of insurance company profits (in 2017, the top six insurance companies made $6 Billion, up 29% from the year before, CNBC.)  And while the health insurance companies, Anthem, United Health Care and the like, would be out of business, their employees would not be.  They would still be needed to provide the services for the new “Medicare for All” program, just as CMS runs the current Medicare.

By the way, “Medicare for all” should NOT threaten existing Medicare.  Republican Senator Roy Blount (MO) used the current fear-mongering catchphrase on Meet the Press this week, “Medicare for all will be Medicare for none.”  This makes the invalid assumption that the current Medicare resources would have to deal with the incredibly expanded patient base of “Medicare for all.”  But, of course, that wouldn’t be true, the resources would have to be expanded in conjunction with the patients.  The Republican criticism is just a way to scare those “old folks” (I have two and a half years to go) who use and love Medicare now.

So a single payer system, well organized and staffed (like current Medicare) would reduce medical costs and remove a substantial cost in insurance company profits.  But it wouldn’t be free.  Medicare isn’t free now either.

Everyone with insurance pays something for it.  In our current employer-based insurance environment, a portion of insurance cost is part of your “pay.”  That part is paid directly by the employer, while the remaining costs are paid by the employee.  Under “single payer” the employer no longer has an insurance responsibility. Employers could (whether they would or not) pay their “share” amount directly to the employee in wages, who would then “pay” for single payer through taxes.  Estimates show that while “TAXES WOULD GO UP” (of course) payers would no longer pay the now continually rising cost of medical insurance, for a net decrease in cost to the individual.

Personally we have a great healthcare plan, the advantage of being retired government employees.  We pay almost $5000 a year (for the two of us); it’s a great deal considering what the retail cost of insuring two retirees is.  But we are in a unique position; there are many Americans who pay much more for less quality insurance, and many who cannot afford insurance (and can’t qualify for Medicaid.)  

The cost of medical care is careening out of control.  Our system may work for many of the 90% of Americans that have insurance, but the cost is increasingly steep.  And for the 28 million Americans that don’t have insurance, it doesn’t work at all (US Census.)  We need to look at alternatives without the scare tactics of loaded terms like “socialism” and “losing Medicare benefits.”  We are paying more than the rest of the world for care, and that “more” is simply going to profit of hospital systems, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical firms.  While We are a capitalist country and they have the right to a profit, it should not be at the expense of the health of Americans.

Softening the Ground

A REAL scandal is the one-sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? – Tweet from Donald Trump – 12/16/18

Sunday, the President of the United States stated that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to network television.  He wants to be able to sue them for defamation (and belittling, though that isn’t a legal cause of action.)  And he claims that they are “colluding,” supposedly with his other opponents, though we know he knows “…collusion is not a crime;” at least that’s what he’s said many times.

I get it: the President doesn’t like getting laughed at.  Saturday Night Live, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and most other network comedians are making their living poking fun at him.  It is more than Chevy Chase imitating President Ford falling, or Will Ferrell saying “strategery” as President Bush.  It is relentless, any network, any show; President Trump is the laugh line.

But it comes with the territory, and with the Constitution of the United States.  In 1800, Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the fact the newspapers were making fun of his ongoing affair with slave Sally Hemmings (there was even a song put to the tune of Yankee Doodle about “Monticellian Sally”.)  Abraham Lincoln was lampooned as an ape and a buffoon, and those were the Northern newspapers.  The world laughed at Lyndon Johnson’s surgery scar, Richard Nixon’s jowls, and Jimmy Carter’s sweater.  

But no one since John Adams (the second President) has actually suggested that we should regulate criticism of the President.  Adams, notoriously thin-skinned, got Congress to pass the Sedition Act criminalizing “false” statements critical of the Federal government. The Supreme Court never had the opportunity to rule on the law, it was allowed to expire when Adams and the Federalists lost control of the government in the election of 1800.

Since that time, we have protected the right to criticize the President.  And we all expect that protection will continue.  We shrug off the Trump tweets as “dog whistles” to his base, without meaning or basis in reality.  But, of course, that’s not true.  The President conducts his business through Twitter; we learned of the new Chief of Staff, and the banning of transgendered individuals from the military, and the firing of multiple officials through Twitter.  He conducts foreign policy there (my button is bigger than yours) so how can we assume he isn’t serious here.

The Trump Administration has engaged in an ongoing strategy of  “softening the ground” towards restricting America’s foundations.  The list is inclusive:  the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the press, citizenship, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, voting; all these rights and institutions have been challenged by the President.  Whether he is successful in those efforts or not isn’t necessarily the goal.  The strategy seems to be to raise questions about all of the long history of American progression, and what is today’s reality.  It’s Orwellian; intelligence lies, FBI breaks the law, voters shouldn’t vote; the Ministries of Truth, Love, Peace and Plenty all doing the opposite or their titles. 

You hear it from the President’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, as he tells us the President didn’t do something, but if he did, it wasn’t a crime, and if it was a crime, well he didn’t know it so it wasn’t really a crime.  Following that logic…there is no logic here.  It simply serves to distract and create confusion. 

And we now have proof that the President isn’t alone in his strategy.  While we intuitively knew that the Russians were attacking our electoral system, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report shows millions of Russian social media interventions in favor of Trump.  They didn’t create issues, but they took them, many brought up by Trump, and echoed and amplified them across the internet. And after the election, they turned their sights on the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, undercutting his validity.

It’s a strategy to allow for “reasonable doubt” about whatever conclusions law enforcement reaches about the President’s conduct.  But it’s even more than that.  This constant undermining of American traditions and values enable an overall Administration strategy of changing America from a pluralistic society of many races, ethnicities, and beliefs, to a white dominated society of a mythical past.   This is about the “shock” that some Americans felt about the changes of the last decade; the first black President, a national understanding that everyone deserves health care, and greater efforts toward universal suffrage.  The Trump Administration MUST knock down the science of global warming and the value of American leadership in the world. It’s the only way they can move back to the “simpler time” that guaranteed white control.

It’s their plan of survival.  Whatever the law and courts say in response to the Mueller Investigation, if the President’s men can go to the American people and convince them it doesn’t matter, then he has a chance of survival.  As we now know more than ever, the Russians will probably chime in to help on social media.  

James Comey, former Director of the FBI, spoke after his second round of Republican hearings. Comey is the flawed figure of our era, the man whose judgment is questioned by both Democrats and Republicans. Being questioned by both, perhaps he was right.  But he is a man enraged by the faithlessness of the President, the chief of the executive branch, who is attacking his own agency.  Comey stated:  “It undermines the rule of law…it’s about what it means to be an American.”  

It’s not normal, and it’s not right.  We can’t let our values be undermined by the constant pounding of the lies.  Soon, we will all be called to stand by our values, or stand with the President.  There will be no middle ground. 

Inexorable Pressure

Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller was interviewed on CBS Sunday morning.  Miller, always primed for a fight, was asked about the death of a seven-year old Guatemalan child while in the custody of the Border Patrol. She was with her father and one hundred and sixty one some others; picked up in the New Mexican desert north of the border.  She died of heat exhaustion.

Miller expressed his sorrow at the loss, and described it as a tragedy.  He then placed the responsibility for her death on the “coyotes;” the smugglers on the Mexican side that take willing immigrants out to unprotected areas of the border, then point them towards the North.  Hundreds have died trying to make the journey into the United States,  most of the survivors are picked up and taken into custody by US authorities.  

There was no discussion of the US Border Patrol agents, who failed to immediately recognize the condition of the child.  It was only after an hour bus ride arriving at their headquarters that her situation was realized.  She was flown by helicopter to the hospital, but it was too late.

Miller wasn’t altogether wrong.  The “coyotes” are making their money, literally sending people out into the wilderness to fend for themselves.  But it is the larger picture, the impact of the Administration’s border policy, that is creating the inexorable pressure on the migrants to find a way into the US. They can’t cross legally, the Department of Homeland Security has refused to send additional judges to determine asylum requests, so thousands wait in Mexican border towns to get the opportunity to legally enter the US.  The number accepted to enter and ask for asylum, is less than one hundred per day, so few that migrants are assigned numbers (carefully written in ink on their forearms, an echo of history that should strike close to home for older generations of Miller’s family.)

So as the legal crossings are squeezed to near-closed, migrants are trapped in the border towns, often living in the open air, on hand-outs, and prey to crime.  When the conditions become intolerable there, the migrants have few choices:  find a way to continue their journey, or return to a home they have abandoned.  For only a few hundred dollars, the “coyotes” offer a way onward.

So sure, it is the “coyotes” fault that this child was in the desert.  And it was, according to the Washington Examiner, the parent’s fault:  “A Guatemalan girl dies of dehydration after her father drags her through the New Mexico desert and the media immediately blame Trump.”   On the surface, that is all true.

The migrants have already made a dangerous choice:  to leave their homes on a trek of thousands of miles, living in the outdoors for month, at the mercy of smugglers who are interested in profit, not care.  This is not the Underground Railroad of America before the Civil War, but these migrants are taking similar risks for similar reasons.  The lives they have in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras is intolerable: just like the slaves who ran North to freedom, they are trying to find a better life for themselves and their children.

We never faulted those slaves who didn’t make it to freedom, who were betrayed for money, or died of exposure.  We understood why they ran away, the atrocity of slavery forcing them to risk their families’ lives.  They were heroic, following the North Star.

It’s not about open borders, allowing anyone to cross without controls.  But there is a recognition of reality required:  that these migrants are fleeing a life so intolerable that they are choosing to take the risks, because those are less certain than the risks they are taking by remaining at home.  They need to be treated as the heroes and victims they are, not as some “criminal horde” trying to invade America.

 If we are looking to place blame, we should start on the conditions in Central America that force them to leave.  We should look at the criminalization of the migration process, where profit margin rules all.  And we should recognize that the United States of America should act as a nation of mercy, not fear.  Our fear has squeezed the border so tight, that we are creating the inexorable pressure that led a father to take his daughter into the desert to die.  We are better than this.  

It’s Not Enough

Michael Cohen, the personal attorney to Donald Trump, has pled guilty to violating Federal Campaign Finance Laws during the 2016 election campaign.  Under US Code Title 52, the possible penalties set forth are:

(1)(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of  this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution,  donation, or expenditure-

(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. (52 USC 30109).

This is by definition a “felony” crime.

Cohen established a “dummy corporation” for the purpose of paying “hush money” to keep women who had extra-marital sexual affairs with Trump quiet during the run-up to the general election in November of 2016.  In paying off the women, he used his own money to make illegal campaign contributions. In the indictment, the US Attorney stated that the evidence showed that he acted with the knowledge of, for, and under the direction of “Individual 1:” Donald J. Trump the current President of the United States.  This makes the President a “co-conspirator” in the commission of a felony, and should put him a risk for indictment on the same charges.

Except, that the Department of Justice has an internal ruling that does not allow the serving President to be indicted.  There are long and complicated Constitutional arguments about whether that is a valid finding; regardless, the rule is binding on all Federal Prosecutors, and is not likely to change under the current DOJ administration. They will not bring such an indictment to court.

The alternative set forth in the Constitution is to remove the President from office through the impeachment process, and after he is out, hold him accountable in the courts for his actions.  This is certainly what the authors of the Constitution intended as the action needed to be taken against a “criminal” President. Many commentators and “resistance” activists are calling on the new House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings when the Democrats take the majority in January. It seems like a clear “reading” of the process.  

But impeachment is a political process in the Congress, not a judicial process in the Courts.  As a political process, the outcome of impeachment is determined by votes, and votes are at least in part determined by the “will of the people” as reflected in the decisions made by Senators.  To put it more succinctly:  Senators are not going to vote to remove a President if there isn’t a reasonable amount of popular support for removal.

This was evident in the Clinton Impeachment in 1998.  Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, both coming from his sexual affair with a White House intern. He was charged with perjury, lying under oath about the affair (“…it depends what the meaning of the word is, is,”) and with obstructing justice by orchestrating a cover-up of his actions. The perjury count was passed by the House of Representatives (a simple majority needed) 228 for and 206 against, while the obstruction charge was 221 for and 212 against.  Two other counts failed to pass.  The votes were near party line in the Republican House, with a few of each party voting across lines.  

The closeness of the votes showed that there was limited support for impeachment nationally.  The action was seen by many as a partisan attack of Republicans against the Democratic President.  And it was also seen as imposing a “national standard of morality” on the private actions of Bill Clinton, a standard that struck many as hypocritical with the immediate two past Republican Speakers (Gingrich and Livingston) both guilty of extra-marital affairs (they were replaced by Dennis Hastert as Speaker, who was later found to have molested boys as a coach before he ran for office.)

Republicans had a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate, but removal required a two-thirds vote (67) of the Senate.  The “trial” lasted a month, and after deliberations both articles failed: perjury 55 not guilty to 45 guilty, and obstruction 50 to 50.  

The opposite was true in the removal/resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974. There was strong Republican support for the President, until the release of White House tapes showing that not only did Nixon know about the cover-up of the Watergate break-in, he actually planned and orchestrated it.  With this undeniable evidence, the Republican Congressional leaders (then in the minority)  went to Nixon and told him he would be impeached and removed, urging  him to resign instead.  While impeachment articles were voted out of the House Judiciary Committee, Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on them.

President Trump may well have orchestrated a felony conspiracy to violate campaign laws and led a cover-up.  But many of his supporters, including members of US House and Senate, feel that this is all part of the “sex stuff” that was known before the election.  Their argument:  the people had the opportunity to vote on the issue, and Trump won the election.  While there are good arguments for impeachment, the “political” part of the process isn’t ready:  Yet.

There is much more to come.  The Mueller investigation has indicted a range of Russians and others for direct involvement in Russia’s attack on the US election.  Should Mueller be able to show the President’s involvement in that, or show that the President is under the influence of Moscow due to his personal finances; that’s a different “political” story.  

Cohen’s and Trump’s actions in the campaign were illegal, but it’s not enough. It’s not enough for impeachment and removal, and will be seen, like the Clinton impeachment, as a partisan “witch hunt.”  The President and his lawyers are already laying the groundwork for that defense.  We:  Democrats, “resistance members,” the American people; need to wait for the “real stuff;” the Mueller evidence about a US President who may have conspired with a foreign nation to win an election, or may be under the financial “thumb” of Russia. That will be enough.

The Invisible Hand

1776 was a momentous year. Thirteen British colonies in North America banded together and determined to break away from King George III, joining in a Declaration of Independence.  As Franklin supposedly said at the time, “…we must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”  

But Jefferson’s Declaration wasn’t the only foundational document of that year.  In Scotland, Adam Smith authored The Wealth of Nation, the basis of modern economic thought.  In his treatise, Smith describes “the invisible hand,” the equilibrium between supply and demand that establishes costs in a market.

Supply and demand concepts didn’t begin with Smith, but his description of those forces clarified it. And while there have been many other theories and philosophies of economics since Smith, his fundamental description of market forces remains true.

In the United States today, we look at the nations to our South as “a danger.”  Some want to militarize our borders, others want to “Wall” ourselves off from the world.  Many Americans feel threatened by all manners of evil from the border: drugs, criminals, sex slaves, terrorists; all have been described as crossing into the United States unfettered by the border guards.

It makes some simple sense: put up a wall, and keep what we don’t want on the outside of it.  Many make the analogy of locking your house at night, preventing break-ins.  And yet that doesn’t seem to work, there are break-ins all the time.  The next step, get a security system, alarms that will call police.  But, while that has some deterrent effect, in the end houses with alarms get broken into as well.  

So some Americans then arm themselves with weapons, threatening to shoot any intruder.  The problem:  they spend the nights on guard, in fear of attack.  And sometimes they do shoot the intruders, only to find their child was sneaking back into the house.  So while weapons might stop intrusion, it raises the risk of accident, and makes a questionable moral statement:  I can take your life for trying to take my property.

Before we spend billions of dollars to build a wall, we should ask ourselves two questions:  why are people coming across our border, and are they of value to us?  

Honest migrants want to come to America for safety and protection.  They are the reason for the UN Treaty on Migration:  folks in fear of their lives, asking for asylum and protection in a larger, safer nation.  We should all agree that this is clearly the moral thing to do, to offer that protection and safety to those who cannot protect themselves.

Honest migrants come to America for jobs and a better way of life.  And America needs those migrants to work; they do jobs that most American citizens don’t want.  Whether it’s chicken factories in Arkansas, or truck farming in California, or housekeeping at the Trump National Golf Course in New Jersey; Americans need migrant workers.  We, the United States, have created a demand for their supply.  The “invisible hand” of economics is filling that demand, regardless of border guards or concertina wire.

If we want fewer migrants, legal or illegal, then we need to change THEIR supply.  We could do that be altering their lives at home, by changing the socio-economic forces in their own countries.  We are already seeing in Mexico, as conditions improve and fewer Mexicans leave for the US.  Spending money to make Central America a better place to live, rather than on a wall, would be a better long term investment.

Sadly, the United States has an almost insatiable demand for drugs.  In 2010, the Rand Corporation estimated that Americans spent $100 billion on four drugs:  heroin, meth-amphetamine, marijuana and cocaine.   With the increased use of heroin and the advent of Fentanyl we can only assume that that cost has gone up, probably by several orders of magnitude.

With that kind of demand, and the subsequent profit available, it’s hard to imagine a simple wall would stop anything.  Drugs come through customs, they come by air, they come through tunnels, they come by boat, the come in the digestive tracts of human drug-mules.  Since Richard Nixon declared “a war on drugs” in 1971, the United States has done everything it can to interdict drugs, and punish drug sellers and users.  We have locked the doors, put an alarm system in, and guarded the border.  The problem has continued to grow.

We have even tried to destroy the supply, using chemical agents on South American coca crops.  We have had little impact on drug supplies, but what we have done is encouraged a wide range of “creative” ways to get drugs in. And when we do manage stop some, we find “home brew” drugs being manufactured: go almost anywhere in rural Ohio and ask about crystal-meth.  The bottom line:  a wall won’t stop drugs.

So how can we use “the invisible hand” to change our border?  First, we can recognize that the United States NEEDS a significant amount of the labor provided by migrants.  We can alter our policies to allow for legal immigration for them, and then we can assure that employers both pay a living wage, and are punished for using illegal immigrants.  We can then try to change the environment in those countries in Central America where people live in poverty and fear.  By improving their lives there, we keep them from coming here.

And while we can’t stop policing drugs at the border, we should start looking at the reasons for drug use. Drug-use prevention, rehabilitation and de-criminalization may (there are no guarantees) impact on reducing demand, thus reducing the pressure to supply.  This is not a panacea;  but our current strategy hasn’t worked for almost fifty years, and “doubling down” with walls, concertina barbed wire and guns at the border is expensive, and will have  little impact.

To solve our problems at the border, we need to look at ourselves, not those outside.  The “invisible hand” tells the tale:  it is our demand, not their supply, that creates the problem.

Make A Deal

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best” – Otto Von Bismarck

There’s a deal to be made, a Christmas political “miracle.”  There’s an agreement that can be reached between the President and the Congressional Democrats, a deal made necessary because there can’t be an “inside trade” within the Republicans. So Trump should bargain, but instead he demeaned “Chuck and Nancy” (imagine if they called him Donny.)

Yesterday we had the spectacle of the President and Vice President (if you could wake him up) putting on a demonstration, rather than a negotiation.  The in-coming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, were brought in for a public “humiliation.” They were ambushed; anticipating an actual meeting where they could make a “deal,” they were instead brought in for public abuse by the President.

They gave as good as they got, maybe better.  President Trump promised that a government shutdown would be “on him,” taking responsibility for the possibility of failing to pay millions of employees and closing government services at Christmas.  In our recent political history, no one has “won” a shutdown.  But a government shutdown at Christmas wasn’t his goal for that meeting. 

President Trump is not foolish.  Looming over his immediate future are indictments from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, perhaps including his own family members.  He knows that the specter of impeachment is also on the horizon (and promises a revolt of it occurs.)  His current goal is not to solve government problems, but to solidify his base, to keep the 30-40% of Americans who see him as doing a “good job” in his corner.

And he hit all the right buttons in yesterday’s “meeting.” According to him,  he is for protecting America, the Democrats aren’t.  He is for keeping drugs, terrorists and criminals out of the United States, the Democrats must want them in.  And he is able to argue with the Jewish minority leader from New York City and the woman House leader from San Francisco.  Don’t think he misses the optics of that; there are a significant number of his supporters that buy all of those stereotypes of hate.

Nancy Pelosi shrugged off Michele Obama’s “they go low, we go high” advice. Pelosi compared Trump’s failed wall to his “manhood” (as Colbert said, he can’t erect either one.) She can dish it out if she needs to.

It’s all about $3.4 billion, the difference between the $1.6 billion in the current legislation on the table and the $5 billion Trump want’s for his wall.  And while $3.4 billion is significant, there are quite a few things the Democrats would take for that amount. 

But Republicans still have majorities in both the House and the Senate, Paul Ryan is still Speaker, so why not just make a deal among the Republicans and tell the Democrats to “kiss off?” Because there isn’t a majority of Republicans who are willing to spend the $3.4 billion either. They are “all of a sudden” shocked with the incredibly huge deficit, almost a trillion this year.  The fact that they created this debt with their own tax cut last year, and that the promised 5% economic growth to cover the lost revenue didn’t happen, well, that doesn’t seem to matter.  Now they just have to cut, cut, cut spending.

So President Trump was right, he needs Democrats to join with him to solve the problem.  The Republican “Freedom Caucus” in the House will dramatically oppose the spending, and Senators Paul and Cruz will grandstand in the Senate.  It will take the Democrats to get the work done.

No one really knows how the game is played
The art of the trade
How the sausage gets made
We just assume that it happens
But no one else is in
The room where it happens

(lyrics from “In the Room Where it Happens – Hamilton)

So, IF the President can get over his need to excite his base, and IF he isn’t so committed to changing the subject from the Mueller Investigation that he WANTS to shut down the government, there is a deal to be made.  

The last time the President, Senator Schumer and Congressman Pelosi met on in the White House, they reached a deal.  The issue was DACA, the Dreamers, over 800,000 Americans who were raised here, but because of their parents’ actions, are not citizens.  They reached a deal giving those Dreamers a status, and a chance to be Americans.  And then White House Advisor Stephen Miller and Chief of Staff Kelly made the President “take it back.”

It’s been over a year since that meeting; a year where nothing has been done to advance the Dreamers’ cause.  Put it on the table, let the leaders of the Congress and the President engage in the “…art of the trade” and make some sausage.  If it costs an extra $3.4 billion for a Wall we don’t need – and keeps the government from closing down, it’s worth the cost.  

No one else needs to be “…in the room where it happens.” No one needs to take “the blame;” there would be credit enough for all.   President Trump put his name to a book, “The Art of the Deal.”  Show some “art” Mr. President:  make a deal.

I Know it When I See It

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, a son of Cincinnati, struggled to reach some legal definition of obscenity.  In the 1960’s, as the boundaries of the First Amendment freedom of expression clause were tested, the Court pondered the question:  when is a pornographic film free speech, and when it is beyond the standards; obscene and legally banned.

Eventually the Court would come to a “community standards” decision, allowing individual communities to make their own call about decency.  Oddly enough, Cincinnati would become a “hotbed” of legal action over obscenity, with the Hamilton County Prosecutor testing exactly how much he could ban in the early 1970’s.  He went from films to magazines (Hustler) to art exhibitions (Maplethorpe) and made himself the “king of censorship.”

But before that decision, Miller v Californiain 1973, the nine justices of the Supreme Court had to decide film by film.  About once a month it was “movie day” in the theatre in the basement of the Supreme Court building.  There, some of the justices, and many of the clerks (it was a mostly male club then) would watch movies.  Justices Black and Douglas took the position that there was no boundary and that all movies were protected under free speech.  They didn’t attend.  The rest ate popcorn and watched porn.

While the clerks developed “standards:” guessing that if a certain action appeared then Justice so-and-so would call it obscene, ultimately it was a completely subjective decision.  And out of that process came what was known as the “Potter Stewart standard.”  In the case (this time Cleveland Heights)  Nico Jacobellis v Ohio, 1964; Justice Stewart concurred with the decision finding the film shown (Les Amants) not to be obscene.  In his opinion, Justice Stewart put forward his honest if subjective standard for obscenity:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

“I know it when I see it:” a legal standard written in a Supreme Court decision.  Today the obscenity level of porn films is less of an issue, probably due to the internet where there are no barriers at all.  But that phrase can well be applied to the seminal issue of our time, the looming impeachment of Donald J Trump.

The standard for impeachment is clearly written in the Constitution, “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  (US Constitution, Article 2, §4.)

Treason is  defined in the Constitution:  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (US Constitution, Article 3, §3.)  Bribery is not defined Constitutionally, but has an accepted definition of taking money to influence a decision.  

But “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not so easily defined.  In our current use of the term misdemeanor, should the President be removed for “jay-walking” or having a joint?  That doesn’t fit with the seriousness the authors of the Constitution placed on the impeachment process.  And “high crimes”  today is being equated with the criminal term “felonies.”  But was that the actual intent of the Constitution?

The basis for impeachment and removal of the President, as for much of the legal system of the United States, was English Common Law.  In Common Law, there were two types of crimes:  those against the king (the state) and those against commoners.  For example, “petit treason” would be to go against your brother, “high treason” would be go against the king (the state.)   A “high” crime wasn’t necessarily so much a legal “felony” as a crime against the country.

And it is possible for a President to commit a “high crime” without committing a felony.  Neal Katyah, former Acting Solicitor General under the Obama Administration, made an interesting point.  If the President decided that he was going to take a six-month vacation in Spain, abandoning his post as President, it would not be a “felony” offense.  But clearly his dereliction of duty would be impeachable.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 made a similar point, speaking of the Senate’s duty to try impeachments:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

As we await the next “shoe to drop” from the Mueller investigation, we should not get locked into the narrative that the President can only be held liable for “felonies committed.” Impeachment is “grander” than that, it is about conduct of the Presidency as well as legal or illegal actions.

What is the definition of an impeachable offense?  It may not be so legally clear, but we’ll know it when we see it.

This is Not Trump’s Fault

“Yellow vests” are rampaging through Paris.  “Brexit” is teetering on the brink of collapse.  Trump is on the verge of impeachment.  The leaders of Russia and Saudi Arabia, both murderers, are greeting each other like boys who won the big game.  Authoritarian leaders are in control in Turkey, and Hungary and the Philippines; nations we thought were well in the “democratic” camp.

What is going on in the world?  Why has a world that seemed to be moving towards a more stable society (or if you are an alt-right conspiracy theorist – a NEW WORLD ORDER) now seem to be falling apart;  why the unrest, why the uncertainty?  Didn’t we win the Cold War, the War to stabilize the world against Communist aggression?  Why didn’t that fix things?

So something you don’t hear everyday here in Trump World:  this isn’t Donald Trump’s fault.  The forces driving the unrest in the world, including here in the United States, were happening long before his ride down the golden escalator in Trump Tower.  I will say though, that he isn’t helping to solve the crisis.

It was on Christmas Day seventeen years ago that the red hammer and sickle flag of the Soviet Union was lowered for the last time.  With the end of the Cold War, a world carefully balanced ended as well. We were we no longer poised on the point of nuclear holocaust, but the “controls” that the Soviets placed on their “satellite” states were gone.

The lesson should already have been learned after the death of Marshal Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia. Once Tito, in power since the end of World War II, no longer had his iron fist in control of the nation, it quickly broke up into combative ethnic regions.  One nation, held together by a shared history of resistance to Nazism and the fierce personality of Tito, became a struggling amalgam:  Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Serbia.  Ethnic violence between Christians and Muslims became ethnic cleansing; European cities like Sarajevo, site of the 1984 Winter Olympics, became battlegrounds with mass graves.

And the United States had to learn that lesson again, soon after the Persian Gulf War.  President George W Bush determined to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, taking the “cork out of the bottle” of ethnic hatred. Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurds fought for power, ISIS grew from the conflict, and the United States still remains bogged down in the region, unable to find a stable government to leave behind.

The battles in the Balkans and in the Middle East created waves of refugees that moved into the rest of Europe.  Many were Muslim, and most “looked different” than the Germans, or French, or British where they landed.  They needed jobs and housing and education; and “ethnic minorities” became an issue in places where it had never occurred before:  the small “crossroads and pub” hamlets of the United Kingdom and France and Germany.

Nationalism is the belief that a national group is “better” than the rest of the world.  It has a positive side, patriotism, evoking national pride and encouraging work and sacrifice.  But its ugly side: superiority that becomes a reason to hate and repress, grew powerful in the economic tensions of the 1930’s.   As a “ national force” it was discredited and disgraced at the end of World War II:  the catastrophic destruction of the war, and the racist annihilation of the Holocaust, made it clear what Nationalism could do.  National identities were subsumed into the idea of trans-national governments, whether it was the European Union, the Soviet Union, or even the United Nations. 

But Nationalism didn’t die, it was right under the surface.  In those nations where it was suppressed by force, like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union (now fifteen separate “republics”) the removal of authoritarian regimes quickly allowed ugly nationalism to blossom.  In more democratic nations it still existed, but in tension with the egalitarian ideals of “…liberty, equality and brotherhood.”

Discontent usually starts with economics.  In the “western world,” there has been an increasing trend of income inequality.  In the 1980’s the average income of the top 10% was 7x that of the lowest 10%, today it is 9 ½ x more.  Today in Europe, the top 10% of wealthiest households have 50% of the wealth, the lowest 40% have 3% (Understanding the Socio-Economic Divide in Europe– 2017).

As economic inequality increased in Europe, those in the lower economic range were left discontented and competing for lower paying jobs.  Their increasing competition was with the migrants and refugees coming from dislocated regions in and around Europe.  One way to “win” that competition was to block migration, a move that has nationalistic as well as economic foundations.

Add to this the forces encouraging nationalistic actions:  a nation that had a stake in the failure of democracies and world unions: Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin has his own economic issues and inequalities, but his nationalistic aspirations were to re-build the Russian Empire.  In order for him to do that, he had to reduce the power of the competing forces that blocked his expansion:  the European Union, NATO, and the United States.  

He found a new weapon: the internet.  Russia became the master at reaching and enflaming nationalist groups within a nation.  The US saw this happen in the 2016 election (and still today) but it also happened in the United Kingdom during the Brexit vote, and in the last French election (Marie LePen.)   It continues with the “Yellow Vests” today;  faked videos of French police shooting down protestors with sniper rifles go online and are amplified by nationalists throughout the world.

The underlying factors for unrest are already here:  economic inequity and dislocation.  The resulting despondency is looking for a rationale:  nationalism and the internet are providing the answer.  Governments are unable or unwilling to respond to the underlying economic causes of the crisis, so the nationalistic themes, repeated over and over on social media, take hold.   It wasn’t the right answer in 1930’s, but history is often forgotten. So it may not be repeated exactly, but unfortunately it may rhyme.

Individual 1

Michael Cohen, former lawyer to Donald Trump, pleaded guilty to eight federal felony counts in the Southern District of New York.  Six of those counts dealt with Cohen’s own actions dealing with business and taxes. Two of the counts were for breaking Federal Campaign Finance laws; he made illegal contributions and hid them for the purpose of evading the law.  Cohen also pled guilty to a felony count of lying to Congress regarding Trump Organization contacts with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.

In his guilty pleas regarding the campaign finance law violations, Cohen stated that he made those payments for the Trump Campaign, and in fact at the direction and with coordination of “individual 1.”  Individual 1 was the candidate, now President, Donald J. Trump.

The legal definition of a conspiracy is:

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. (Legal Information Institute, Cornell University)

Cohen pled guilty to two counts of Campaign Finance Law violations, at the direction and coordination of “individual 1.”  By definition, Cohen was in a criminal conspiracy with “individual 1,” and if Cohen was charged with the crime, so too should be “individual 1.”  As he was not charged, he becomes an unindicted co-conspirator.

The term “unindicted co-conspirator” is one with loaded meaning.  On March 1, 1974, when Richard Nixon was in the depths of the Watergate crisis, seven members of his staff, including the Attorney General, the White House Chief of Staff, the Assistant for Domestic Affairs, and a Special Counsel to the White House; were indicted by the Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.  The charges were obstructing justice, making false statements, lying to federal investigators and prosecutors, and lying to Congress.  

As a separate part of the court filing, a sealed report was delivered to the judge, outlining the actions of an eighth unindicted co-conspirator; Richard Nixon, the President of the United States.  That filing was ultimately transmitted to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, and became the basis for the impeachment of the President.

Jaworski determined that he could not indict a serving President of the United States, but that is by no means “black letter law.”  The US Constitution does make it clear that members of the House and Senate: 

“…shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same…” US Constitution, Article 1, §6, Paragraph 1

It however, it grants no such immunity to the President of the United States. In Article 1, §3 the powers to impeach and remove from office are granted to Congress, and in that section it states that once removed, the subject of removal can be indicted, tried and punished by the courts.  Article 2 states that the President can be impeached and removed for committing “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (Article 2, §4.)

The Department of Justice and many legal scholars take this Constitutional wording to mean that the President cannot be indicted until AFTER impeachment and removal from office.  Jaworski in 1974, and Robert Mueller today,  are bound by this Justice Department ruling.  However, that has never been directly adjudicated in court; so it still remains an open question.

The authors of the Constitution were weighing two conflicting concerns as they established the powers of the branches of government.  One of the main reasons for the Constitutional Convention was the weakness of the then-existing government, the Articles of Confederation Congress.  The Constitutional authors created a more powerful executive branch, and then tried to balance those executive powers with checks and restrictions from the other branches.

The Legislative branch was given the ultimate power to remove the executive for crimes:  impeachment and conviction.  The Judicial branch was given a very limited role in that process, simply presiding over the conviction phase.  The judiciary would get their chance at a criminal President, but only after removal from office.

And yet, the Constitution saw all citizens as equal in the eyes of the law, and carefully controlled those parts of the Presidency that resembled the monarchy they so recently revolted against.  The powers of the President were limited.  In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the argument that the President could be controlled. 

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. (Federalist Papers, #69)

So while there’s no “black letter law” answer as to whether “individual 1” can be indicted and tried for Federal crimes, it seems that the intent of the Constitution was for the Congress to exercise their power to remove him from office first, then subject him to trial.  And since the impeachment and removal process is political rather than judicial, the strict legal rules of court procedures need not apply.  How the Congress proceeds with the “trial” of impeachment is up to them.  It takes a majority of the House of Representatives to bring the charges (impeach) and two-thirds (67) of the Senate to convict (remove.)

In our current era of political division, the difference between “red” or “blue” power seems to rest on a knife-edge of votes (see North Carolina’s 9^th, where 900 or so votes divide the candidates, and a scandal may change the outcome.)  A two-thirds majority of the Senate for anything seems wildly beyond expectation.  Senators would need to be sure that they are doing the will of the vast majority of the people, and it would take an ironclad case to convince the American people that the President should be removed.  The Nixon tapes were enough to tilt the vote against him (though twenty some percent still supported him) and forced Nixon to resign in the face of the inevitable.  

It took more than being an “unindicted co-conspirator” then, and it will again today.  The nation will wait to see the “overt act” that shows a high crime and misdemeanor; one that  most (not just our Resistance minority) will view as beyond reason.  Then, and only then, will  “individual 1” face justice.

Land the Plane

This week, we watched the State Funeral of American President George Bush.  There were twenty-one gun salutes, jet aircraft flyovers, military bands playing “Hail to the Chief,” “Ruffles and Flourishes” and “For Those in Peril on the Sea.”  Just as the banner of King Richard was flown behind him in battle, the Presidential Flag marched behind the funeral party, carried by a sailor in honor of the President’s service.  The stalwart enlisted men, two from each branch, shouldered the burden of the flag draped casket.

A young Naval officer escorted the body on every step of the long journey to College Station.  And Major General Michael Howard was at the elbow of George W Bush, making sure the former President and new eldest member of the family was informed and escorted to the right place.  It seemed flawless.  It seemed controlled.  It seemed right.

But today we tumble back into the maelstrom of our current politics.  We are waiting for Robert Mueller to drip more information onto the flames of the Russiagate Crisis.  We watch President Trump’s tweets with dismay; he seems to grow more desperate each moment.  What has he seen, that we may or may not know?

Throughout the past two years, Americans on all sides of the political world have taken some solace in the strength of some of the President’s aides.  We leaned on General James Mattis at the Defense Department, trusting on his reputation and his frank comments about today.  He is one of the few within the Administration who openly recognized our nation’s condition;  “…hold the line until our country gets back to respecting each other,” is what he told our troops overseas.

We depended on General John Kelly, despite some of his impolitic statements, to temper the actions of the White House.  We knew that a man who is not only a warrior, but has felt the agony of the ultimate sacrifice, losing his own son in war; would be more than just careful with the lives of other soldiers.  

And, as odd as it seems to say now, we depended on Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Even though he had a history that makes anyone moderate or more cringe, we found that he had respect for the traditions of the office, recognizing his own conflicts of interest and recusing himself as appropriate. 

We had confidence in Nikki Haley at the United Nations.  The former Governor of South Carolina, showed the courage and wisdom to navigate the crisis of the Charleston Shootings by removing the Confederate Battle Flag from the statehouse grounds, and demonstrated strength and independence in representing our nation to the world.

Like the military at the Presidential funeral, we had confidence in their abilities, in their respect for the history and traditions of the United States, and in their strength in times of crisis.  But Nikki Haley is gone; to be replaced by an elevated Fox News host.  It’s kind of like the announcer in the booth coming down to play wide receiver on the field.

Jeff Sessions was fired; replaced by another commentator from the stands, Matt Whittaker, a man clearly unqualified.  President Trump is now reaching all the way back to the Presidency of George HW Bush to find another replacement in William Barr; it must have occurred to Trump as he stared off during the ceremonies.  Perhaps he hopes that the comfort of the funeral will be embodied in this appointment.  We will see, Mr. Barr has also been “trying out” on the Fox network.

And we hear that the Generals in command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are to be shuffled.  While this is normal, there is nothing normal about the current state of American affairs.  The quiet triumvirate of General friends, Mattis, Kelly, and Chairman Dunford; gave us the same sense of security and strength we felt at the Bush funeral.  Now Dunford will retire.

Kelly is rumored to be leaving; to be replaced by a thirty-six year old career political operative, Nick Ayers.  While he may bring some of the political acumen needed in a White House under investigative siege, he has none of the strength or gravitas of Kelly.  It hard to imagine him standing up to the President. 

The United States has a proud tradition of civilian control of the military.  But for the last two years, it has been members of the military or the “old” establishment that have given us some hope for stability in the White House.  Like the Presidential Funeral, we depended on them to “steady the ship,” or to use a more appropriate George Bush analogy, “land the plane.”  

They are leaving.  And they are leaving at a time when the current President is under attack from every side.  I believe in American Exceptionalism, and I believe that Americans will step up to the task when called upon to do so.  I hope those called in the next few days are up for it; we have entered a dangerous phase of our history.  I hope they can “land the plane.”

The Catafalque

I had the honor of working for a US Congressman in 1977.  I was twenty, a young “politician” with “all the answers.”  I interned in Tom Luken’s (D-Cincinnati) office, and had a pass that gave me free rein in the US Capitol.  While most know the four main floors of the building, there are several floors below, each with passageways and chambers.  There’s a barbershop, and stores, and in one anxiety filled moment, the power plant with armed guards.  That was the time to push the “up” button on the elevator!

In my wanderings I found the “Washington Crypt.”  It was designed for the internment of George and Martha Washington, a fitting national site for their graves.  However, their heirs determined that Mt. Vernon would be there final resting place (still there today) so the crypt is empty.  Stored in the room was a catafalque, the base caskets are placed upon when they are displayed “in state” in the Capitol rotunda.  The catafalque was first used to support the casket of Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and in 1977, you could walk in and touch it.

In these days of high security, you probably can’t get to the Crypt anymore and certainly not touch things.  The Lincoln Catafalque has been moved to the new Visitors Center. But it still is used; for over one hundred and fifty years it has supported our honored dead.  In August it supported John McCain, and this week, it held the casket of President George HW Bush.

It is easy to feel like our Democracy is at risk.  We are in a constant state of crisis; either the “Resistance” is a threat to the Presidency, or the President is a threat to democracy.  It feels like we are facing an extra-Constitutional chasm, a crisis not foreseen by the founding fathers, and one that our “…one nation, indivisible…” might not survive.

But yesterday we had the opportunity to remember our America again.  The death and celebration of the life of President George HW Bush gave us an opportunity to all be “Americans:” to see the people and the institutions that continue to function even as we struggle with events of the day.

Our structure survives. We can see it:  in the young soldiers who so proudly escorted the casket, in the old friends who cried in the Cathedral, and in the crowds that waited for hours to pay their respects.  We see it in Bob Dole saying goodbye to his friend and rival, and in the pew of Presidents sitting awkwardly together.

The celebration of George HW Bush’s life pushes us to take the long view, because of the scope of his long life.  Born “with a silver spoon,” Bush was the product of upper class society with education at Andover Academy and Yale.  But he also was the product of his sense of duty, leaving high school to join the Navy, and risking his life daily at that young age to fight in World War II.

President Bush forces us to take a wider view, raised in Northeast, he moved to make his own way in the oilfields of Texas.  The son of a US Senator, he didn’t run for public office until he had become accomplished in business, waiting until he was forty to step into the political limelight.

And President Bush makes us look at the wide scope of our recent history.  He was a warrior in World War II, but became a Cold War leader as CIA Director, UN Ambassador and Ambassador to China.  As President he helped orchestrate the peaceful end to the Cold War, and began to deal with the complications of our current world.

And, of course, the ceremonies make us look at the contrast with our current politics.  When former Senator Alan Simpson talked of political courage, of Bush sharing his political popularity and then taking a political “gut punch” of increased taxes to support a bipartisan economic package; his example is a rebuke to our current politics of “bullying by tweet.”

Our structure remains. Our institutions, the military, the government, even the church; continue to function regardless of the seeming chaos at the surface.   The establishment of America, like the Lincoln Catafalque, is still there, supporting our nation, even in our time of peril.  The near future will be rough, we will face fear and crisis, but in the long view, that view from a lifetime of public service, our America will survive.