Month: February 2019

Presidential Wednesday

President Trump (and the United States of America) had a really bad day Wednesday.  The talks with North Korea broke down, with both Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim cancelling meetings and heading out of Hanoi.  They had reached the inevitable sticking point:  nothing Mr. Trump could offer was enough for Mr. Kim to give away his nuclear capacity; it is all North Korea has.  Air Force One revved up two hours early for home.

For any President, and particularly one whose reputation is that of the “great deal maker,” a failed summit is a bad day.  And, regardless of how you feel about Mr. Trump, the world became a lot more dangerous Wednesday.  We can expect North Korea to continue to work on their technical abilities to use nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, something that the world ultimately will find difficult to tolerate.

But Mr. Trump’s failed summit was really the least of his worries on Wednesday.  Back here at home, the day was given over to the House Oversight Committee questioning of former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen. Cohen is a disgraced man; sentenced to three years in federal prison for multiple crimes including income tax evasion and bank fraud.  But his most serious crimes were committed in the name of aiding the Trump Presidential campaign, and his testimony and evidence were an indictment of the President himself in those crimes.

Mr. Cohen made a compelling case that the President conspired with Cohen and members of the Trump Organization in the last days before the election, to buy off the story of porn star Stormy Daniels’ affair with Mr. Trump.  This was an all out effort to keep it out of the press; on top of the Access Hollywood tapes the affair would have cost Trump the Presidency.  

The actual “catch and kill” buying off of Ms. Daniels’ story wasn’t illegal.  What violated the law was the spending of $130,000 for the campaign, without declaring it as a campaign finance donation.   Mr. Cohen spent $130,000 of his own money, raised from a home equity loan; it was never listed as a contribution (and if it had been, it would have been over the allowable limit by $128,000.)  Then, through the artifice of “payment for legal consultation” Mr. Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump Organization in a series of monthly checks.  Cohen testified that the checks were paid monthly in an effort to reduce the amount of tax required on this “income.”

The checks were written and signed by Donald Trump Junior, Alan Weiselberg, Trump Chief Financial Officer, and by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.   Mr. Cohen (and the Federal Prosecutors both in New York and Washington) have copies of the signed checks.  In a simple criminal conspiracy, two or more people have to agree to commit an illegal act, or take legal action for an illegal purpose.  Part of Mr. Cohen’s prison sentence is for violating Federal Campaign Laws.  Trump Junior, Weiselberg and the President and Cohen are all equal participants in the crime – thus unindicted co-conspirators.

Some of the Republican members of the committee did their best to mark Cohen as a criminal (true) and a liar (also true.)  They brought up his previous perjury to Congress, where he stated lies that benefited the President’s story.  They marked him as a tax evader (true) and a disgraced lawyer (true.)  But with all of the insults and Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows’ foaming at the mouth, they failed to do the one thing they had to do to protect Mr. Trump:  they failed to shake Cohen’s factual accounting of the story.  Cohen, disbarred on Tuesday, going to jail in May, came across as a man with nothing to lose by telling the truth:  and he had the checks.

There’s a Saturday Night Live line, lampooning the famous Lester Holt interviewwith the President, where Trump stated that he fired FBI Director James Comey because he wanted to end the “Russia thing.”  Michael Che, the actor playing Holt, turned to the camera and said “…so did I get him, is it all over?”  He then receives a call, and is told that absolutely nothing matters.

Did Michael Cohen “get” the President with his testimony, or does nothing really matter?

Michael Cohen alone will not end the Trump Presidency.  But this was the first time the Trump corruption had a face, and a voice.  Conspiracy to avoid election finance law, in another era might have brought down a Presidency, but it won’t do it today. The United States has somehow grown accustomed to this kind of deceit from the President; we have accepted that he can lie to us about almost anything, including what is true and what is not.  A significant portion of the nation expects him to be with porn stars, and lie about it, and cheat to cover it up.

But what the Cohen testimony does anticipate is what the multiple Federal investigations might reveal. Disgraced perjurer, tax evader and disbarred lawyer; he represent the tip of the iceberg in how the Trump Organization did business, and how they approached every opportunity.  Cohen is going to jail, but he might get some company in the not to distant future.  And maybe then, it really will matter.

Back in Vietnam

Music Selections          Modern – Back in Vietnam – Lenny Kravitz

                                    Generational – We Gotta Get Out of This Place– Animals

                                    Traditional – Fortunate Son– Creedence Clearwater

Donald J. Trump, turned eighteen and draft age, in 1964.  His father had a doctor/friend, and Donald was able to avoid the draft, and the war in Vietnam, with five medical exemptions for bone spurs.

There were a lot of American men who found ways out of Vietnam.  In full disclosure, I was two years too young  (though I still have my “draft card” from the day, and I was still nervous as hell when I had to go and apply for it.)  I never had to make the decision, nor did I ever face the letter with the heading, “greetings from the President of the United States.”  I did watch my older friends struggle, worrying about draft numbers and college deferments.  Some went to Vietnam; many found a way out.

So I can’t really blame Trump for the decisions he and his father made in the 1960’s.  What I can say is that whatever decision you made in that time of crisis, you should own it now.  Bone spurs, becoming a public school teacher, whatever way you found out, don’t hide from the fact.  And for those many who truly believed that fighting in Vietnam was immoral, respect that decision.

But once you took that position, don’t criticize those Americans who went to fight in Vietnam. Criticize the President, the Generals, the Congress, the War; but don’t say a word about those guys in the rice paddies, or helicopters, or walking trails as moving bait for Viet Cong attacks. They didn’t choose Vietnam; they did what they thought our nation expected of them.  

So President Trump will continue his Quixotic effort to speak reason to Kim Jong Un of North Korea, this time in Hanoi.  The last grand meeting in Singapore created a lot of talk, but little action.  Kim did destroy a collapsed underground nuclear testing facility, and he hasn’t sent missiles over Japan recently.  But US intelligence estimates, regardless of the President’s dreams, show that North Korea is continuing to work on developing and improving their nuclear weapons.

It sure seems unlikely that Kim will “give up” his nuclear weapons.  What the US can offer:  a peace treaty for Korea, a removal of some US sanctions, and the possibility of US development of the tourist industry (“don’t they have great beaches”); doesn’t seem enough for Kim to give up the weapons that has become the basis of his national identity. 

The US reaction isn’t Kim’s only worry, he has to be concerned with the economic power of South Korea, the 11^thlargest economy in the world (The Economist.)  North Korea is ranked 118^th.  While North Korea’s 23^rdrated military (without the added nuclear weapons) is behind South Korea’s 12^thranking (depending on US nuclear power), that’s a lot closer than the economic comparison (Business Insider.)  Peace on the peninsula might mean a North Korea subsumed by the South Korean economic juggernaut, winning a peace instead of a war.

Having this summit in Hanoi is symbolic in several ways.  It may well represent the same frustration that the Vietnam War engendered; the idea that the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, could not enforce its will on a dramatically smaller nation.  Like the North Vietnamese outlasting America, Kim may be looking to drag the US along, getting more time for nuclear research while pretending to negotiate.  

For President Trump, Hanoi presents him with another chance to contrast himself to one of the city’s most famous former residents, John McCain.  McCain was imprisoned for five and a half years in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton;” that will be a poor comparison with the image of Trump staying in one of Hanoi’s luxury hotels:  the Intercontinental, the Marriott, the Crowne Plaza, or, ironically, the Hilton.

Don’t count on Trump ignoring the obvious.  He probably will have something negative to say about John McCain once again, the temptation will be too great.  But the real contrast is to John McCain’s determination to use American power to protect the world; to make real changes that made the world safer.  I was not a great supporter of McCain, and I don’t necessarily agree with his willingness to use our military to intervene in every world situation.  But two things were clear:  he had a substantive idea of what was needed, and he had the courage to implement it.  

The President has no plan, simply image.  And, bone spurs or not, he clearly doesn’t have the courage to work for real change.

Silly News

Last week was one of silly news.  Not that the Manafort sentencing memo isn’t important; that guy is going to jail for a long, long time.  Not that the arrest of a Coast Guard Officer with multiple assault weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and a hit list of Democrats and media celebrities isn’t serious, but it was way “below the fold” in media coverage.  And not that the beginnings of the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination aren’t interesting, and a welcome contrast to “all Trump, all the time.”

But the Manafort document didn’t say much new.  And, thank goodness, the Coast Guard Officer was caught before he could shoot up his steroids, and Congress.  And the first primary caucus in Iowa is still eleven months away; the Democrats are running an ultra-marathon, not a sprint to the nomination.

And we are all waiting, waiting, waiting; for the real results of the Mueller investigation.

So we got caught up in a lot of “silly” news last week.  From the Democrats, we learned the Senator Klobuchar gets mad when her staff screws up, and ate a salad with her comb when they didn’t get her silverware.  That this was actually considered “news” might have a lot more to do with the fact that she’s a woman running for office: John McCain’s temper tantrums were considered part of his “charm,” and Bill Clinton’s anger with staff and others was legendary.  

McCain’s image was always “crusty,” but Clinton made his political “hay” as an empathetic candidate and leader.  That matches Klobuchar’s image as the plain-spoken mainstream Minnesotan; but our cultural politics haven’t moved that far yet, and the media isn’t quite prepared for a woman with a temper.  

Back in 1981 I worked for Eve Bolton running for Cincinnati City Council.  I remember having long discussions about how important even a handshake was for a woman candidate:  too soft and the candidate would look weak, too strong and they would look “overbearing,” too little grip (the grab the fingers shake) and it would look “dainty.”  It was a conversation that wouldn’t have occurred to a male candidate, but it was a necessary one for a woman in the political arena.  I guess things haven’t changed that much in the last thirty-eight years.

But we did find out that we need Ranch Dressing more than another Democratic candidate.

And last week we had “BREAKING NEWS” from Chicago, with the arrest of Jussie Smollett.  He’s an actor in a series I haven’t seen called Empire,and it seems he staged a racist and homophobic attack on himself by guys with red MAGA hats.  We really aren’t sure what the reason for this attention-getting action was, perhaps to get a better paycheck from the producers, but it turns out he’s a fake, and really kind of sad.  But we got the full play-by-play from the Courthouse.

Of course, the real news in the Smollett story isn’t him, but the impact that his fake attack might have on the next real victims of racism, sexism or homophobia.  It makes the case for “it was all made up” stronger, and makes getting justice even more difficult.  It falsely bolsters the alt-right case against the Kavanaugh accusers, and other uncomfortable cases that have come to light (R. Kelly, Trump, Cosby, Epstein.)

But perhaps the biggest “silly” news didn’t make the mainstream media.  It was an ongoing social media crisis, however, the “anti-vaxx” and “anti-anti vaxx” movements.  Parents demanding the right to not vaccinate their children, and others pointing out the public health risk that creates.  The “best” of those was a post pointing out that “we” (I guess we must be even older than me, at sixty-two) survived without vaccinations, so why should they protect their own kids.

The inventor of the oral polio vaccine, Albert Sabin, lived down the street in Cincinnati when I was growing up.  Polio terrified communities in the 1950’s, no one knew when it would strike and paralyze their children.  We were some of the earliest to use the vaccine, and polio is now a disease that has to be explained.  

We didn’t get polio; and we survived mumps and measles, chicken pox and whooping cough, scarlet fever and “german measles.”  We did, but others didn’t or were so damaged that they don’t get to talk about it.  And that’s why kids should be vaccinated.

It feels like the vaccination “crisis” is being amplified by the same forces of social media that influenced the last election; another way to divide American society.  It’s hard to imagine that parents are willing to risk their children to diseases that have been forgotten; perhaps it becomes all a part of the “fake news” society we now have to live with.

Maybe it wasn’t such silly news after all.

Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous

Cast of Characters

Jeffrey Epstein – Wealthy financier, Registered Sex Offender

Prince Andrew – Second Son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip

Bill Clinton – 42^ndPresident of the United States

Alan Dershowitz – Commentator, OJ Defense Attorney, Retired from Harvard Law School 

Donald Trump – 45^thPresident of the United States

Alex Acosta – current Secretary of Labor, former US Attorney Southern Florida

It was 2008, far before the advent of the #METOO movement.  The “Access Hollywood Tape;” the Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby trials, and the Kavanaugh hearings were more than a decade in the future. 

Jeffrey Epstein was a brilliant financier, with clients like Les Wexner, the founder of the Limited Brand companies here in Columbus.  He was a well-liked person, not just because of his money and altruism, but as a friend to the rich and famous.  Two Presidents, a Prince and an Academy Award winning actor were among those who spent time with him, either at his Palm Beach home, his New York house (said to be the largest private home on Manhattan,) his 100 acre private island in the Virgin Islands or jetting around the globe on his private jet.

In 2005, Epstein had his personal assistant, Sarah Kellen, hire a fourteen-year-old girl to give “massages” at his Palm Beach mansion.   The “massages” were more than massages, and the child got $300 for her efforts.  When it was revealed, Epstein plead guilty to a single count of soliciting a minor for prostitution, and served a 13 month sentence, spending every night in jail, and every day on “work release” to his office.  Epstein is now a registered sex offender.

That much is fact.

The FBI’s investigation turned up much more than just one child.  While some reports are still sealed, at least forty underage girls were recruited and paid by Epstein.  The Assistant US Attorney’s report at the time stated:

“Mr Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money… some of the girls were expected to strip naked and give massages to Epstein while he masturbated, while others had full intercourse with the financier… Some of those victims went to Mr Epstein’s home only once, some went there as many as 100 times or more.”(Guardian)

Epstein was never tried for any charges; and while there was a full Federal investigation, he was never charged with any Federal crimes.  The US Attorney in Miami, Alex Acosta, allowed Epstein to take a plea deal.  The solicitation charge was a state penalty, the sentence served in the local Palm Beach county lockup.  

Epstein served a part-time thirteen-month sentence for one crime, instead of a life sentence for the many offenses he may have committed.  And the deal was sealed, kept quiet, so quiet that even the victims weren’t given any options or notifications.  This week, eleven years later, a Federal District Court ruled that Acosta had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.  The case is back open.

Currently attorneys for the victims are looking at their options. The Federal Court gave the US Attorneys fifteen days to come to some agreement with the victims (though that seems like a short amount of time considering it’s been eleven years.)  There is no Federal statute of limitation on the crime of sex trafficking, and the Justice Department, already under pressure from several US Senators, has re-opened the investigation.

The question is:  why did Acosta, now the Secretary of Labor in the Trump Administration, make the deal in the first place?  Two possible answers are Epstein’s money, and Epstein’s friends.  Two US Presidents, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, flew with Epstein multiple times and visited his homes (Epstein’s Palm Beach house is less than five minutes from Mara Lago.)  OJ Simpson defense attorney and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz also travelled with Epstein, and was accused of having sex with one of the teenage girls. And Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, was also accused of participating in the underage sex.  

Princes and Presidents, celebrity lawyers and the super-rich: all-powerful men who could influence a US Attorney to keep the investigation quiet.  Did Alex Acosta bury the Epstein scandal to protect others, or to gain a “quid pro quo” for himself, now the Trump Administration Secretary of Labor?  

We don’t know the answer yet, but the Miami-Herald, and now the US Department of Justice, are doing the hard investigative work to find out.  For Donald Trump, just another in the list of scandals that threaten his Presidency.

A Legal Back Door

The President of the United States has declared an emergency on the Southern border, and is attempting to transfer funds, already “encumbered” by Congress for other projects, to build a border wall.  His use of “emergency” is based on the National Emergency Act of 1976 (signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 14^th, my twentieth birthday, while I was very busy working to get his opponent Jimmy Carter, elected President.)

The “emergency” declaration gives the President the power to invoke a multitude of emergency powers found in other legislation.  The “emergency” powers continue until:  Congress enacts a joint resolution to end it; or the President issues a proclamation ending it; or it is not renewed at the end of a calendar year by the President.

The term “emergency” was not defined in the Act. It was assumed by everyone that there would either be an agreement that there was an emergency, or that the Congress could exercise their power to end it.  The 1976 Law stated that Congress could end the “emergency” with a majority vote of both the House and the Senate for a joint resolution. 

This gave the power to end the “emergency” to a simple majority of the House and Senate, and was not subject to Presidential signature or veto like normal “laws.”  But in 1983, the US Supreme Court ruled that this law, and other laws that allowed Congress to avoid the veto, was unconstitutional. For Congress to terminate a Presidentially declared emergency, it would require the passage of the joint resolution, and, if the President vetoed it, a two-thirds override of each House to end it.

So what was originally a means of controlling the power of the President by restricting and controlling the ability to declare emergencies, ended up giving the President even greater unchecked authority.  This was exactly the opposite of what the post-Watergate Congress intended, and passed a great deal of “legislative” authority over to the President.

Friday, the Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the resolution to stop the Trump Emergency. It will go to a vote on Tuesday, and likely will pass the House.  It will then be voted on by the Senate, where, despite a Republican majority, it still has a reasonable chance of passage.  Many Republican Senators see the emergency declaration as an overreach in Presidential power, and are philosophically opposed.  How many of those will act on their philosophy, rather than their fear of a Presidential tweet attack, remains to be seen, but it would only take four to do it.

But the Resolution would then go to the President, who obviously would veto it.  And while there are plenty of Democrats and some Republicans against the emergency, it is unlikely that there are 288 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to override the veto.

The battle will then move into the courts, and ultimately to the US Supreme Court.  While the merits of the argument will be based on the definition of “emergency,” there is a judicial back door that Chief Justice Roberts and the conservatives on the Court could use.

John Marshall was the third Chief Justice to serve, but he was the most influential in gaining the power to make the Court a co-equal branch of government.  His most famous case, demonstrating the power of the Court, was Marbury v Madison.  

It was the Presidential election of 1800.  The Federalists, represented by President John Adams, were defeated by the Democratic-Republicans led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson.  At that time in American government, the election was held in November, but the new President didn’t take office until March.  In that long lame-duck period, Adams appointed as many Federalists as he could to judgeships and other offices, trying to “stack” the government.  For those who remember Government class, these were the “midnight judges.”

A few of the appointees failed to have their documents delivered prior to the new Jefferson administration taking over.  Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver a left over to Federalist William Marbury, who was to be a magistrate for the District of Columbia.  Marbury sued directly to the Supreme Court citing authority granted by Congress through the Judicial Act of 1791, demanding the Court require Madison to deliver.

Marshall, himself a late appointee by Adams, agreed that Madison should deliver the document. However, the Constitution created the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch to the Congress and President, as such, the Congress could not determine or expand Court jurisdiction.  If they could give it, they could take it away, making the Court subservient to Congressional legislation.  Marshall and the Court declared that the Judicial Act of 1791 was unconstitutional.

Marshall got the opportunity to chastise Madison, without giving Madison the opportunity to object. At the same time, he founded the principle of judicial review, declaring a Congressional law unconstitutional (and getting a shot at the new Democratic-Republican legislature as well.) Marbury did not get his appointment, but the Supreme Court gained an equal footing among the branches of government.

Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts could take a page from the Marshall playbook.  The Supreme Court has a majority of, ironically, “Federalists,” supposedly dedicated to the original interpretation of the Constitution.  It is an easy argument  for them to make, that the founding fathers would not have wanted Congress to give over these kind of “emergency” powers to the executive, authoritarian type powers that the authors of the Constitution were most concerned about.

Roberts should recognize that not only has the original intent of the 1976 law been lost, but the original intent of the founders in separating legislative power from the executive lost as well.  The National Emergency Act should be declared wholly unconstitutional.  It gives the Republican/Federalist Society majority of the Court the opportunity to take their “shot” at a Democratic House of Representatives, while still controlling the growing power of the Presidency.  It’s a win-win for them, and a legal backdoor out of a Trumpian government of unchecked executive power.  

Ennemi du Peuple

Robespierre is a name that has become synonymous with terror.  He was a leading member of the “Committee on Public Safety” during the French Revolution, the group whose goal was to seek out enemies of the Revolution, and destroy them.  The Reign of Terror was supposed to end opposition with death on the Guillotine; more than 16,000 died.  The greatest crime:  to be declared an “ennemi du people,” an enemy of the people.   The Reign of Terror only ended when the “Committee” came for Robespierre himself.

In the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin used the term to define everyone who opposed his rule:  “…all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court.”  Enemies of the people were sent to the infamous Lefortovo Prison in Moscow, or to the Gulag, or to their deaths.

The term was later enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, but became so enmeshed with Stalin’s terror and purges, that after his death Nikita Khrushchev called for an end to the use of it, stating:

“…the formula ‘enemy of the people’ was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals who disagreed with Stalin.”

Mao Zedong (I know I’m old but it is difficult not to type Mao Tse-Tung) used the phrase to describe:  “…social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all enemies of the people.”

“Enemy of the People” is a term enshrined in revolutionary fervor, and corrupted by a history of sudden imprisonment and arbitrary death.  So it should cause dismay that the President of the United States, representing the nation of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; tweeted the following:

The New York Times reporting is false. They are a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!

(Donald Trump Tweet – 2/20/19)

Americans have been overwhelmed with the coarseness of our recent political discourse.  We have a President who has discussed the relative size of his…hand…in public debate.  We have become inured to “fifth grade” insults and petty complaints.  But, just because the President pretends to have no sense of the history loading his terms, it doesn’t mean we should let him get away with it.  A President using the term “enemy of the people” to describe a newspaper he doesn’t like, raises the specter of censorship and absolutism.  

In our era of hyper politicization, it is easy to stir the base, on both sides.  This week a Coast Guard officer was arrested with multiple semi-automatic weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and a list of Democratic and liberal media targets on his “hit list.”  Donald Trump is not telling this guy to go shoot people, but he is a big cause of an environment that encourages extremism.  If the New York Timesis an enemy of the people, then so are MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and Joe Scarborough, and CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Van Jones; all on the officer’s “hit list.”

Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trump:  like it or not, they all were willing to make the charge “enemy of the people.”  The first four acted on that charge with terror and death.  Ignorance is not an excuse for the President of the United States. He is willing to “ride the tiger,” to reach into the dark recesses of history to attack his perceived enemies. The problem:  as President he’s taking us all on that ride.

• A little “Inside Baseball”

Anyone who reads “Trump World” with any regularity knows that I am a frequent MSNBC viewer.  It’s on now, and most of the time in our house.  From the time our young Yellow Lab Atticus sticks his nose in my face early in the morning: it’s food for him, coffee for me, and Morning Joe in my office.  

This morning I listened to Mika and Joe complaining about the rush of many to condemn the apparent attack on Justin Smollett, the actor who claimed he was racially assaulted in Chicago.  Now it appears Smollett may have orchestrated his own assault, and Mika and Joe scolded liberals for leaping to believe his story.

Mika specifically linked it to those who believed in the Kavanaugh accusers, saying that their protests made it difficult for their friend Claire McCaskill in Missouri to gain re-election to the Senate. But I remember well Mika’s own support for the women accusing Kavanaugh (a support well deserved in my opinion.) It seems that Joe and Mika are rewriting history.

It’s not the first time.  In 2015 and early 2016, Morning Joe gave Donald Trump an open “mike” on the show.  Trump called in often, and talked for extended periods of time. While the show offered others similar time, it was Trump who used their airtime to make his case.  He got millions of dollars of free time. Later, after the election of Trump as President, Joe and Mika scolded America for not taking Trump seriously, glossing over their own role in his rise.

Atticus and I will still watch Morning Joe in the morning – but we don’t want to shoulder the blame for what Joe and Mika do.

May 2017

May, 2017:  it was the critical moment in the fate of the Trump Administration.  Rod Rosenstein took over as Deputy Attorney General at the beginning of the month. He was the acting Attorney General regarding the Russia investigation with Jeff Sessions recused. In his first few days on the job, the President asked him to write a memo regarding FBI Director Jim Comey’s actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.  Rosenstein did so, without a “firing” recommendation, but the President used it as his excuse for firing Comey.   

At least that’s what the President said at first.  But a few days after Comey’s firing, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt, that he did it to stop the Russia investigation.  To the FBI, it appeared that the President was trying to obstruct the investigation by firing those in charge.  Comey had documented conversations with the President who asked him to “go easy” on former National Security Director Mike Flynn, under FBI investigation for lying about talking to the Russians.  

Looking at the evidence, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe faced the possibility that the President of the United States was acting for Russian Intelligence. Still today we don’t know what other information he had, but it was in those May meetings, looking at all the options, that McCabe opened an investigation into the President of the United States himself.

It is the stuff of 1960’s novels:  Seven Days in May, Night at Camp David or The Manchurian Candidate.  But it wasn’t paperback fiction:  there was real evidence that the President might be an asset of Russia.  The leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department were faced with an extraordinary situation, and looked for extraordinary options.  One of those actions could be that the President, “incapacitated” by the investigation, could be “suspended” until the investigation was cleared.  The process of the 25^thAmendment might be used for that.  Another could be that the Deputy Attorney General could wear a microphone to conversations with the President, to gather more conclusive evidence.  Neither of those options “on the table” was ever used, but the mere discussion showed how extreme the situation was.

McCabe, as the acting director of the nation’s counter-intelligence agency, briefed the leaders of Congress, the “gang of eight.”  While today we hear commentators calling the Justice Department actions an attempted “coup;” in May of 2017 Congressional leaders:  Ryan, Pelosi, Nunes, Schiff, McConnell, Schumer, Burr and Warner; all knew. They knew, and not one of them, not even Devin Nunes, “blew the whistle.”   While today Trump apologists say they were muzzled by security protocols, if it really was a “coup” would these leaders have remained silent, especially Nunes who couldn’t keep his mouth shut about anything else?

The pressure from the White House grew.  Trump harassed McCabe in their first meetings, even insulting McCabe’s wife. Rosenstein looked to somehow insulate the investigation, protecting it from executive interference.  He determined to appoint a Special Counsel, and choose a man that everyone, on every side of the issue, had to respect and accept.  Former FBI Director Robert Mueller was brought in, and Rosenstein gave him the latitude to search for the truth.

McCabe was accused of making “less than truthful statements” to FBI investigators, and twenty hours before he could retire, was fired (no paybacks there, of course.)  The FBI agent in charge of counter-intelligence investigations, Peter Strozk, was scourged by Republican Congressional committees, and ultimately fired from the Bureau.  Department of Justice Russia expert Bruce Ohr was demoted, and FBI General Counsel James Baker removed. 

All of the leadership team that sat with Comey and then with McCabe at those May meetings are gone from the Bureau, removed because of their participation in the investigation, damaged by attacks from the President.   They have all been disgraced by the Rudy Giuliani/Jim Jordan propaganda machine, so that, should they ever testify, their “integrity” is in question.  This week, in every interview Andrew McCabe gives he is asked about the Inspector General report that calls him “untruthful.”

It is the responsibility of the FBI to investigate attempts by foreign powers to infiltrate our government.  Starting with the summer of 2016, the leadership of the Bureau had growing evidence that the Trump campaign was penetrated by Russian intelligence.  It was the actions of the newly elected President, first regarding Mike Flynn, and then pressuring the Director to stop the investigation, that placed a target on the Oval Office. 

Andrew McCabe said,  “…if the evidence is there, and we don’t open a counter-intelligence case, even against the President of the United States, we aren’t doing our job.”  

They did their duty, at the cost of their careers.  Rod Rosenstein is leaving the Justice Department next month, and rumor has it that the Mueller investigation will be finishing up soon.  May of 2017 was the critical turning point, a time when dedicated men saved the investigation.  March of 2019 could be when we find out if it was worth the sacrifice.

Democrats:  Brave New World or Do-Over

The Democratic Party preparing for the 2020 Presidential election is far less intellectually divided than the current media projects.  The “divisions” between the candidates are often a matter of degree rather than difference; from Mike Blumenthal to Bernie Sanders they all want to improve healthcare, help the middle class, and deal with climate change.  How much, how far, how radical; those are the differences of degree that divide Democrats.

But there are real choices still to be made.  The “new” Democrats; Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Booker and the rest, want to lead the Party with an agenda for change.  They offer healthcare for all, a deadline to meet for climate change, and real efforts to reduce the income discrepancy between the middle class and the one percent. The “moderate” Democrats, Amy Klobuchar, and potentially Sherrod Brown, Beto O’Rourke or Joe Biden; still talk about those ideas; but offer a more seductive value:  a surer thing.

If the goal of Democrats is to “change the world” then the new world candidates are available.  The risk:  in trying to change the world, do Democrats give away the vast middle of the American electorate and re-elect Donald Trump, or whatever right-wing replacement the Republican Party finds.  Or do Democrats chose the more-centrist candidates, and risk giving away the left wing of the party to a third party, or to the disillusionment that made many desert the voting process entirely, the real issue that haunted the election of 2016.

In essence, do Democrats want a do-over of 2016 with a different candidate leading the ticket, or do they want to press the “progressive” agenda?  

For older more moderate Democrats, alleviating the trauma of the Trump election has become the prime goal. That means not taking chances:  put a “white man” on the ticket, go with Sherrod’s “Medicare to 55” rather than for all, raise the minimum wage but no massive program to change income inequality.  It’s Democrat-middle, not Democrat-left.

The moderate ticket hopes to regain the white, working class vote lost to Trump.  It also hopes to claim the near-extinct moderate Republicans disgusted with Trump, and the white suburban Mom: “he grabbed what!!!” vote.  It worked in the 2018 Congressional election, why not in 2020.  It is the coalition that should have elected Hillary Clinton; and they’re not wrong – she did win the popular vote.  

A Biden/Klobuchar ticket, or a Brown/Harris ticket, or a Biden/O’Rourke ticket would meet the moderate bill (yes I am ignoring Booker, Castro and others, but they could be plugged into any of these combinations.)

For New World Democrats this would be a tough sell.  They see the winning coalition not as a re-boot of the old days, but as an expanded electorate.  The demographics show two things:  American voters should be younger, and they should be much more diverse.   These Democrats believe that the answer is not to get moderate white people to change their vote, but to convince the younger and diverse voters to come to the polls.  They believe Democrats need to offer fresh, aspirational ideas to motivate those voters.  The “Green New Deal,” some form of universal health care, reforming educational financing:  all ideas that encourage a “new Democratic coalition.”

There is always the specter of real division, of a Bernie Sanders, running in the Democratic Party while maintaining his Independent status, breaking away from a centrist Party and running a third party candidacy to the left.  While everyone, even Bernie himself, certainly recognizes that this is the sure way to elect a Republican, it can still happen.  Remember Ralph Nader in 2000, claiming there was no difference between Gore and Bush.  His name on the Green Party ballot made all of the difference in Florida, changing the Presidential outcome.  With the perspective of history, there was a HUGE difference between Bush and Gore.  Two words say it all:  Iraq and Environment.

As an old “liberal,” my heart wants to be inspired, to fall for an aspirational candidate who is offering positive change for all Americans.  As a 2016 traumatized Democrat and current Resistor; I realize the horrible difference those 77,744 votes made (total votes that Trump beat Clinton in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania combined.) It changed the electoral college from Clinton to Trump.  Above all else, Democrats cannot lose the 2020 Presidential election.  Literally, the fate of America and the entire world are at stake.

I don’t have to answer today.  We are a full year away from the first primaries, and twenty-one months from the election.  We don’t know what the results of the Mueller investigation will be, and we haven’t had the chance to see how these candidates will shake out. 

Maybe a middle-right third party, a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket, will change the entire dynamics of the field.  Imagine that:  Bernie Independent on the left, Biden Moderate-Democrat, Kasich Independent on the Right, then Trump Republican:  Whew!!! But there’s no need to DECIDE, not yet. 

Ultimately the Democrats will need to make some choices, at least choices of degree.  Let’s get closer to the show before we decide.

Time for the Green New Deal

I often have conversations with twenty-somethings, trying to convince them they should be involved in politics.  They have an interesting perspective:  rather than a broad and perhaps shallow world understanding from the newspaper and nightly news my “boomer” generation grew up with; they have a “well field” view.  They get most of their information from streaming and the internet, so they have in-depth understandings of very specific subjects, without necessarily having a broad overview.  It’s not wrong, it’s just a different way of seeing the world.

Besides the generalization on my generation,  “…things will be better when the old white dudes finally die off…” there is also the specific accusation:  “what have you done to our world?”  They aren’t wrong there either.  Any “shallow” research into what is happening to our environment shows that we are at the end: the end of the opportunity to “fix” the damage we have caused.  The twenty-somethings can quote specifics:  rising temperatures, changing zones, and catastrophic events.

Fixing the environment has always been something in the future for my “boomers,” some other generation would have to “pay the piper” for the damage done.  Meanwhile, we accepted the benefits of that damage, the wealth created at the cost of dumping our unadulterated wastes into the atmosphere, the ocean, and the soil.  It’s what our fathers did, and what we continued to do. We have benefited, and so have the twenty-somethings that I talk to.  

“Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn.” 

 This is not the scare preview on some black and white 1950’s science fiction movie. This is a CNNheadline from last October.  The future is here.

To the twenty-somethings, denying climate change is simply saying:  “we will continue to take advantage of you, getting whatever we want, and screwing your future in the process.”   To them, climate denial isn’t seen as a legitimate position, but rather a form of armed robbery, using the power of government instead of a gun, and stealing the future.

So when the new young Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced House Resolution 109, “The Green New Deal,” it didn’t surprise the twenty-somethings that it was ridiculed from the start.  Wyoming’s Senator John Barrassotold them from the floor of the Senate, “…There’s another victim of the Green New Deal, it’s ice cream! … American favorites like cheeseburgers and milkshake[s] would become a thing of the past.”

His compatriot in the House, Congresswoman Liz Cheneyhad this to say: 

“I would just say that it’s going to be crucially important for us to recognize and understand when we outlaw plane travel, we outlaw gasoline, we outlaw cars…”

So, according to the representatives from Wyoming (oil and cattle) the Green New Deal will outlaw cattle farming and therefore dairy and meat, and using fossil fuels and therefore planes and automobiles.  Of course, that’s not what the Green New Deal does say, and twenty-somethings see the older generation with the same gun in their hand.

The Green New Deal is a resolution, not a law.  It is a “sense of the Congress” that there is a need to recognize that global warming is occurring, that it is caused by human activity; that we broke it, we bought it, and we need to fix it.   It puts Congress, the nation, and the world on notice that we cannot do this incrementally; that we must make major and dramatic changes to avoid catastrophe.

But the Green New Deal also shows a way to make those changes while increasing employment, and improving healthcare.  It recognizes trade-offs, accepting cattle methane production (that’s really cattle farts) by reducing coal fired power plants.  It calls on the United States to maintain its standard of living, but make the changes necessary to maintain our world as well.

As always, the “devil is in the details.”  The Green New Deal is an aspirational plan, not a specific legislation.  But it puts on record the needs of the twenty-somethings, the future generation. It has to happen, and if it happens now we can avoid the great damage that awaits our world.  The clock is running:  ten years to create the fix.

But if it doesn’t happen now, it will someday.  It is inevitatble:  the current old white dudes will die off, and the twenty-somethings will take over.  

Letter to James Comey:

First I want to say that I read your book, and believe you are an honest and honorable man.  You tried to do what you believed was right in the difficult times of the spring, summer and fall of 2016.  There are those who say you “threw the election,” but I believe that was never your intent.  You did your best to protect the investigation,  the Bureau and the nation.

I do think, though, that there were two judgment calls made in the last months of the 2016 election that ultimately were in error.  The first was the announcement of the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation. The actual investigation was fine, and in fact, necessary.  You had to know whether more evidence was available.  But the announcement created a huge impact on the election, one that I believe you should have been able to predict.  The only reason I can see for you to have done this, is that you knew the information was going to come out of the FBI office in New York anyway, and to protect the Bureau, you let it out officially instead.

But once that happened, it was incumbent upon you to “level the field.”  You knew there was significant evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, you knew that there was an ongoing investigation that, at the time, gave indications of a serious chance of a “Manchurian candidacy.” Sure, if the Clinton investigation re-opening had remained secret, what all of your FBI and DOJ procedures called for, then the Trump investigation should remain silent as well.  But you “outed” Clinton; and you are a fair and honest man.  You should have taken one more step down the perilous slope, and arranged for the Trump investigation to be “outed” as well.  At least then things would be “even;” albeit even uglier.   Then the American people would have had an equal opportunity to decide.

But that didn’t happen. As unbelievable as it seems, Donald Trump was chosen President by the Electoral College; and you, the intelligence community, and the American people were faced with a President potentially under Russian influence.  I believe you then continued to do your best, first to try to persuade the President of his vulnerabilities, and then to investigate into what was occurring.

You, your FBI agents and staff, were faced with impossible and heroic choices.  You saw evidence that the President was compromised, and, despite the dangers involved, went ahead and investigated.  As history has demonstrated, many who have “aimed for the king” get sacrificed.  You and your deputy were fired, and multiple others have been transferred, retired or resigned.  All of you have been disparaged in public, in the media and by the President himself on Twitter.  Your team was sacrificed in the name of protecting the United States.  While all of that will probably be seen as heroic ten years from now, it can’t make it feel much better today.

Your successors discussed the Constitutional means of protecting our nation.  This included enacting the 25^thAmendment, and even gathering evidence towards impeachment.  They did everything they legally could to protect the investigation, with Mr. Rosenstein ultimately appointing an unimpeachable leader to protect it, Robert Mueller.  

Some have called this an attempted “bureaucratic coup d’etat.” But a “coup d’etat” is defined as an illegal action to overthrow the leadership of the state.  You and your team were searching for the LEGAL means of dealing with an unprecedented situation; it is reasonable that every Constitutional tool should have been on the table.

We don’t know what Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe or you knew about Trump, then or now.  We do know that if it comes down to whom to trust to have the best interests of the nation at heart, it sure should be the folks who dedicated their lives to her service.  So, while I wish you would have acted differently back in October of 2016, I believe that you and those leading the FBI were acting with integrity, then and now.

Americans will ultimately see the truth, and act with that same concern for our nation.  I simply hope the damage being done by the President and his allies to our institutions, and to our faith in the nation, will not be beyond repair.

Thank you for your service.

It’s an Emergency

Presidents declaring National Emergencies is nothing new for the United States, and even for President Trump.  His declaration last Friday was the fourth time he has signed a National Emergency proclamation.  

The National Emergency Act of 1976 was written to codify and restrict the emergency powers a President could claim.  This was in response to the Vietnam era, when Presidential power seemed to escalate out of control:  Congress wanted to restrict executive actions, but recognized that there were situations where the President might need to claim powers and move quickly (9-11 being a good example.) 

The normal process of creating law starts with the Congress, developing written legislation and passing it by majority vote.  The legislation is then sent to the President where he can sign it into law, reject it by veto, or do nothing leaving the legislation to become law in ten days.

The National Emergency Act created a “negative authority” for Congress.  The President can declare an Emergency, essentially writing legislation. In response the House and the Senate can pass a resolution against the President’s actions by majority vote.  Like any piece of legislation, the President can veto the resolution, and should the both Houses of Congress vote by two-thirds majority, they can override his veto, and end his emergency.

Twenty-five of the thirty-two Emergencies in effect have been declared as a way of placing economic restrictions on individuals or countries.  One recent example was the Emergency declared by President Obama against certain individuals in Russia in response to the Russian takeover of Crimea from Ukraine (the sanctions that triggered the Russian actions in the 2016 elections.)  This allowed the President to react quickly and specifically to a foreign event, using America’s financial power to respond to international crises.   

One National Emergency was declared to fill a void when the 1979 Export Act expired, and six dealt with war or warlike crises; the Iran hostage crisis, nuclear weapons spreading, and the 9-11 Terrorist attacks.

Leaving us with Friday’s rambling declaration of an emergency on the border, one that the President himself admitted (in the same speech) “he didn’t need to do” and was only necessary because he wanted to “hurry” things along.  Unlike previous acts, this “emergency” was declared as a RESULT of Congressional action – the negotiated agreement to keep the government open, and deal with the border security.

These are both important points to consider as the future of this “Emergency” unfolds.  As Radical Republican Congressman Jim Jordan stated, Congress is likely to pass a resolution against the President’s act, one that Trump surely will veto.  And with the 67 Senate and 288 House votes to gain an override is unlikely, this emergency act is headed to the Courts.

The issues will be: does this meet the 1976 definition of emergency, does this subvert the Congressional power to control spending (the “power of the purse”,) and is this an unconstitutional extension of executive power to subvert the stated “will” of the Congress, the act to keep the government open?  While it was very strange to listen to President Trump “rap” his expectations of judicial action, he wasn’t necessarily wrong.  

It is likely that the Emergency Declaration will be found unconstitutional on the District and Appellate levels, and we end up in the Supreme Court.  The five Federalist Society members of the Court will be faced with a difficult decision.  The Society is dedicated to “originalism,” to the strict intent of the original authors of the Constitution.  It is clear that the Founders would find this extension of Presidential authority to be abhorrent to their carefully balanced division of powers.  However, the Justices will also look at the language of the 1976 Act, and find that the President’s actions may well fit the parameters of the law.  

Will Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch stand with the President that appointed them?  Will Justices Thomas and Alito follow the judicial philosophy of original intent they so believe in, or follow their conservative political views?  And, will Chief Justice Roberts, himself a son of the Federalist Society, continue to serve as the ultimate and remaining check on the President, or succumb to the massive political pressure?

Or will the Court take a different tack; delaying action on the “border emergency” through temporary injunctions, then ruling on technicalities that don’t address the core issues of the case?  

The real point is none of that matters to the President.  The Emergency Declaration was his only way out of the border situation he created.  He couldn’t close the government down again, and he couldn’t (at least he wouldn’t) accept the “loss” of the Congressional compromise.  So he can declare a “win” by declaring the Emergency, knowing that it will be tied up in the Courts for years, and won’t require any real action. 

That’s a win-win for the President, and maybe for the country as well.  The Congressional border compromise will help solve a lot of the real problems at the border, and even begins to deal with the source of the migration, conditions in the Central American countries.  

For the high price of lawyers able to practice in the Federal Courts, we get to put the “wall” problem aside and deal with the real emergency of today:  do we have a President held under the sway of a foreign power?

National Emergencies Currently in Effect

1979 – Carter, Iran Hostage Crisis

1994 – Clinton, Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation

1995 – Clinton, Economic Sanctions against Middle East Terrorists

1995 – Clinton, Transactions on Iranian Oil

1995 – Clinton, Transactions on Colombian Narcotics Trafficking

1996 – Clinton, Movements of Vessels and Planes near Cuba

1997 – Clinton, Sanctions on Sudan Trade

2001 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Albanians regarding Macedonia

2001 – GW Bush, Export Controls replacing 1979 Export Act

2001 – GW Bush, Terrorists and 9/11

2001 – GW Bush, Terrorists and 9/11

2003 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Zimbabwe

2003 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Iraq

2004 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Syria

2006 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Belarus

2006 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Congo

2006 – GW Bush, Sanctions on Lebanon

2008 – GW Bush, Sanction on North Korea (nuclear weapons)

2010 – Obama, Sanctions on Somalia

2011 – Obama, Sanctions on Libya

2011 – Obama, Sanction on Trans-National Criminals

2012 – Obama, Sanctions on Yemen

2014 – Obama, Sanctions on Russians regarding Ukraine

2014 – Obama, Sanctions on South Sudan

2014 – Obama, Sanctions on Central African Republic

2015 – Obama, Sanctions on Venezuela

2015 – Obama, Sanctions on Chinese (Cyber Attacks)

2015 – Obama, Sanctions on Burundi

2017 – Trump, Sanctions on Myanmar regarding Rohingya Muslims

2018 – Trump, Sanctions on Russia – Election interference

2018 – Trump, Sanctions on Nicaragua

2019 – Trump, Security on the Southern Border

ABC News 

Whoppers

I grew up in a world where facts mattered.  It was the basis of the Vietnam War protests:  the “facts” that the US Government lied about to us.  Folks risked their freedom and their lives to get the facts out, folks like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press.  The Papers were the factual history, written for the Secretary of Defense, and demonstrated the pattern of lies and misinformation about the conflict given to the American people by the military and the President over three administrations.

Facts mattered.  So it is with dismay that I watch our current President tell lie after lie.  I don’t believe people are stupid:  so how can they accept the demonstrable lies they are given?  Cognitive dissonance, willful self-deception, auto-suggestion, confabulation, self-indoctrination, double-think, delusional, the big lie: all try to describe what is going on in our political world today.  Most of these terms contain two elements, the internal realization that there is a lie, and the determination to make that lie truth anyway.

Let’s look at this week in American politics.  We have been told that the “wall” is already being built, when it demonstrably is not. The cry has been made that there is a “crisis on the border,” when statistically fewer illegal crossings are occurring now than in the past several years.  And the biggest lie of all:  we have been told that a fence is a wall, or that a barrier is a wall, even though we ALL know what a wall looks like.  The scariest part of that is that now the media (and not just FOX; CNN and MSNBC as well) have reporters standing beside demonstrable fences that you can see through; gesturing to it and calling it a “wall.”  

And outside of the “non-crisis” on the border that is throwing our government into a desperate mess, we have been told that the Democrats want to pass a “Green New Deal” that will, and I quote Republican speeches given on the floor of the US Senate: ban cattle farming, end products from ice cream to milk to cheeseburgers; stop air travel, and take away our cars.  None of those “facts” are real; the Green New Deal looks at various ways we create pollution, including cattle farts and air travel, and tries to balance the pollution we have to make, with pollution we can choose to limit; such as the coal fired power plants President Trump ordered the Tennessee Valley Authority to keep open (the TVA refused.)

Perhaps the biggest “lie” of the week though was reserved for the alterations in abortion laws that New York made and Virginia is contemplating.  Those laws codified what the US Supreme Court has already accepted, that abortions before twenty weeks of gestation are “on demand,” and that those after can be made for the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus with the recommendation of health professionals.  Several states are looking at putting those factors into law, in anticipation of the Federalist majority of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade and returning abortion controls to the states. 

But instead of noting the current state of law, opponents to those laws are screaming that babies could be murdered after birth, as if this is new “pro-murder” legislation.  It’s nothing particularly new for the “pro-birth” movement, but if you view Facebook with the right set of “friends” you can see the panic, claiming that live babies will be ripped from the womb.

And we haven’t even mentioned the ongoing self-delusion of some about vaccinating children, or climate change.   

As I was growing up, the ultimate authority for any language question for my University of London (UK) educated mother was the Oxford Dictionary.  If it was there – it was right – even when I failed spelling tests with “theatre” and “favour.”  And it’s there:

“Post-Truth” Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. 

We live in a “post-truth” era, at least for the moment.  Politicians, and friends, can tell “whoppers” and demand they be accepted as fact. Maybe that’s a good thing, if the “Green New Deal” passes, we won’t be able to eat “whoppers” so at least we can still tell them.

Criticism or Anti-Semitism

“It’s all about the Benjamin’s Baby!! 

Tweet from Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in response to Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s criticism of her stand about Palestinians and Israel

Ilhan Omar, newly elected Representative to Congress from Minnesota, is a Muslim woman originally born in Somalia.  She has been highly critical of Israel’s policy on Palestinians.  Her tweet above, implying that Israel’s Republican backers in the US are getting paid off, raised a firestorm.  Both Democrats and Republicans condemned her for using anti-Semitic imagery:  Jews and money.

In full disclosure, my father was Jewish and my mother Catholic.  I was raised in the Episcopal Church (as close as Mom could get to Catholicism) but also surrounded with Jewish family and friends.  I was also raised to support Israel and Zionism, taking my view in part from Leon Uris’s book Exodus.  I saw the founding of Israel as a heroic struggle of a people to regain their ancestral homeland, and of literally making gardens out of desert.

In college in the 1970’s I continued to study the Middle East, and developed a more nuanced view of history.  The emergence of world terrorism, from the Munich Olympic massacre to airplane hijackings and bombing attacks; made me look more closely at the fate of the Palestinians.  They were the political pawns in Israel’s founding; used by both sides as “the cause” for attacks and wars.  Of any ethnic group in the Middle East, they had the least control over their own destiny. Their terrorist acts were (and are) morally abhorrent, but, were also a foreseeable outcome of their political helplessness.  

The United States has been a strong backer of Israel throughout my lifetime, and continues to be. Israel however, has altered its view of Palestinians.  The “two-state solution” with a Palestinian and Israeli nation co-existing, was the foundation of US policy in the Middle East since President Jimmy Carter got Israel’s Begin to shake hands with Egypt’s Sadat at Camp David.

But, the current leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems more interested in containing and controlling Palestinians rather than establishing a dual state.  The Palestinians also have become even more radicalized, and Israeli responses to Palestinian actions have often been brutal and inhumane.

Here in the United States, our politics have allowed criticism of Israel to be considered anti-Semitic.  Omar blamed the money pro-Israeli sources are donating to American politicians for causing their attacks on her.  There is the anti-Semitic image of “Jews and money,” one that Congresswoman Omar accidently or intentionally invoked in her tweet.  But there is also the reality that Israel is using their US supporters to finance those politicians that give them support.

Netanyahu is well aware of the machinations of American politics.  Born in Israel, he went to high school in Philadelphia, and returned after Israeli military service to get his college education at MIT.  He was later the Israeli ambassador to the US, and friends with Mitt Romney and President Trump’s father.

One of Prime Minister’s Netanyahu’s sponsors in the United States is Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who is also a prime supporter of President Trump.  Adelson put over $100 million into the GOP 2018 election campaign. The pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American-Israel Policy Committee (AIPAC) can’t donate directly to politicians, but spent $3.5 million lobbying for current Israeli policy.  Pro-Israeli donations to politicians go to both sides of the aisle, with Democrats getting more than half.  

So while I recognize the ethnic insensitivity in Omar’s tweets, I can also recognize that the lobbying forces backing Israel are unrelenting, leaving little room for discussion about the policies of their government.  Criticism is met with “anti-Semitic” force. 

Israel is the only democracy existing in the Middle East, and the United States and Israel are powerful friends.  But friendship doesn’t mean unflinching support of every action.  Friends sometimes have to tell friends hard news, something that President Obama was willing to do with Israel.  Not every criticism of Israeli policy can be tossed as anti-Semitic, and not everything Israel does under the umbrella of “survival” is right.

We have become a political world of absolutes and tweets.  There is little space for a nuanced view of the world; if someone criticizes Israel, or supports Palestinians, then they are immediately attacked.  Congresswoman Omar should “know better” than the imagery she created in her tweet, but Americans should be able to question the policies of the Netanyahu’s administration without being trolled as anti-Semitic.  

Homeward Through the Haze*

*Thanks to David Crosby for the title – here’s the song

The President of the United States, echoed by his supporters and many of my more conservative friends, consistently claims “no collusion with Rush-sha” and “no evidence of collusion.” It is the current main attack on the Mueller investigation; that with all thirty-four of their indictments, they haven’t established “collusion,” or in a more legally correct way, they haven’t demonstrated the legal elements  of conspiracy. Even with four members of the Trump campaign convicted for offenses, the outline of conspiracy is still shrouded in the haze of the ongoing investigation.

Conspiracy is the legal “crime” underlying the laymen’s term of collusion. Conspiracy consists of:

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.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy’s “target offense.”

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own.  In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy’s goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.  (Cornell Law Library)

What is now emerging from the public reporting and the indictments are three areas where the Mueller team may have found the elements of an illegal conspiracy.  To look at those, we first have to understand the possible “goals” of the illegal agreement. 

From the Trump side there are three possible goals.  The first, as we now know, was the desire of the Trump Organization to build Trump Tower Moscow.  It was “played off” by the Trump’s as a deal that never was more than a dream, but we know now from Michael Cohen’s testimony that they were continuing to pursue the Moscow deal up until the November general election of 2016.  The deal even went so far as an offer to Vladimir Putin for a penthouse suite.

The second area of Russian cooperation was in securing Trump financing over the past several years.  We know that the Trump Organization was unable to get loans from US banks after the failure of the New Jersey Casinos in the 1990’s.  Yet Trump was able to get financing from European banks, particularly Germany’s Deutsche Bank, even after he sued that bank for billions to avoid making a $40 million dollar payment that was due.  We also know that Deutsche Bank has acted as a “money launderer” for the Russian oligarchs surrounding Vladimir Putin.

And the third Trump goal was to win the Presidency, with Russian help.  The use of emails stolen by Russian Intelligence from the Democratic National Committee; “laundered” through the Wikileaks website, clearly benefited the Trump candidacy.  The essential “middleman” between Wikileaks acting as a Russian agent and the campaign is potentially Roger Stone.  In addition, Russian social media strategy was carefully targeted, and we recently found out that some of that targeting information came from the campaign itself through Paul Manafort.  There are also Russian contacts to Cambridge Analytica, the Mercer funded political analytics firm hired by the Trump Campaign, with future Trump Campaign Chairman Steve Bannon as Vice President.

Bannon, Manafort, Stone, Mercer:  all had powerful connections to the Trump Campaign (Mercer and his daughter essentially provided the leadership of the campaign, Bannon and Conway, for the general election.)  And, all seem to have some connection to Russia.

And what would the “quid pro quo” be for the Russians, what would they get in return for all of this aid to the Trump Organization and campaign?  We know that Manafort was in contact with “associate” Konstantin Kiliminick (also indicted by Mueller.)  Kiliminick claimed to be a part of Russian military intelligence (GRU) and worked with Manafort in support of the Russian backed President of Ukraine.  They continued to communicate throughout the Trump Campaign, on into the beginning of the Trump Presidency, and even after Manafort was under indictment.  

Part of their discussions involved a Russian backed peace deal with the Ukraine, one that would advantage the Russians.  US influence directed by the Trump Presidency would be extremely helpful to the Russians, as the US in the past was a strong advocate for the anti-Russian Ukrainian government.

The second benefit, and an ultimate goal of Russian policy towards the United States, was the lifting of sanctions placed on Russian individuals and banks.  Sanctions prevented Russian oligarchs from investing in US companies, and made it difficult for them to move their money out of a more volatile Russia into safer US banks.  It also prevented Russian banks from investing in US companies, reducing their influence in American affairs.  Recently the US Treasury Department reduced sanctions on one Russian oligarch close to Trump campaign members, Oleg Deripaska.

And the third, and perhaps most concerning benefit is the impact of US policy on world alliances.  President Trump supported Brexit, encouraging the dis-union of Europe.  He has consistently threatened the stability of NATO, and even suggested we might withdraw from the organization.  And he is pursuing a tariff policy that is hostile to “friends,” shaking long-time traditional alliances.  A disunited world places Russia at a greater advantage. Though small economically (11^thworldwide by GDP,) modern Russia still has the second most powerful military force.  A divided west makes Russia relatively more powerful.

It’s still hazy.  The information isn’t yet in the clear legal form of court, and it may not ever get to that stage.  The Congress may be forced to deal with a lot of connections, but no “smoking gun.” But we now have a better idea what the Trump organization and the Russians had to gain in cooperation, and we can see the outlines of conspiracy.  And it answers a nagging question we’ve had since the beginning of the Trump Administration: Flynn, Kushner, Papadoupolos, Cohen, Stone, Manafort, Don Jr, and Donald Trump the President; why did they all lie to the American people and perhaps to Congress and the Special Counsel?  

The investigation is coming home, homeward through the haze.

Equity and Absolution

Senator Elizabeth Warren announced that she was running for President on Saturday.  Warren has been a “star” of the Democratic left, and has championed consumer rights throughout her career, including acting as the “founding mother” of the Federal Consumer Protection Bureau.  

President Trump, with his eagle eye for exposing his opponents’ vulnerabilities, has honed in on Warren’s heritage.  Warren, born and raised in Oklahoma, was told by her parents that she was of Native-American ancestry.   While Trump wasn’t the first to question her background, he raised the issue to a national level, using the slanderous nickname of “Pocahontas” to hold her up to ridicule. After her announcement this weekend, Trump tweeted the following:

Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz – Donald Trump, Tweet, 2/9/19

This is the “reality TV” Presidency, so it really is no surprise that the President sounds more like someone trying to stay “on the island” than the leader of the free world.  Unfortunately, what should have been a jarring and inappropriate statement by Trump, is now commonplace and accepted.  His use of  “TRAIL” is an obvious reference to the Trail of Tears, a Presidential order resulting in the death of more than 15,000 Native Americans. For Trump to use that horrific Presidential action as a “dig” at Warren, not only demonstrates how far he will go, but how far the American people have fallen.

It seems we have given Trump absolution for anything he might do or say, whether it’s fourth grade style insults, or serious sexual assaults.  His election is seen, at least by those that supported him, as “cleansing” him of previous “sin” and giving him license to commit more. 

To Democrats now come the hard choices of equity and absolution.  If the President, and the newest member of the United States Supreme Court, are given absolution for their actions by their arrival in office, what should Democrats do with their leaders who commit “sins?”  The Party previously set the standard with Senator Al Franken, forcing him to resign his post because of a Roger Stone backed story of sexual harassment.  With that as the marker, we enter the “new era” of political correctness.

All of which has come to a head in Virginia.  The Governor and the next two officials in line for his office, have all been accused of offenses.  Governor Mark Northam admits to having worn “black face” in a “dance contest” when he was a medical student at twenty-five.  And while he is “sorry,” he really doesn’t seem to get it, publicly discussing the difficulty of getting shoe polish off his face, and seeming to be willing to reenact his dance moves of 1984.

The Lieutenant Governor, Justin Fairfax, has two women claiming he sexually assaulted them, one as late as 2004.  One of these accusations came forward two years ago, the other just this week.  And finally, the State Attorney General, Mark Herring, next in line for the Governorship, has also admitted to wearing black face in his youth, when he was a college freshman at nineteen.

The publication of these scandals originates from “alt-right” sources, like the Franken story, raising questions as to their veracity.  For that reason alone, the “steamroller” of resignation should be slowed until there is confirmation of truth.  But should all three situations be determined valid, Democrats have a problem.

According to the “Franken Rule” all three should resign.  According to “equity” with the Republicans, perhaps they should all stay.  And according to common fairness, all three should be judged on their own merits, and not be thrown into the same “pot.”

And then there are the politics of the politics.  If Northam resigns, and Fairfax refuses to, Democrats are faced with an accused sex assaulter as Governor of Virginia, something that the #METOO core of the Democratic Party cannot condone.  If Northam AND Fairfax resign, then Democrats have to deal with the youthful mistake of the Attorney General, perhaps a transgression more likely to be forgiven.  But if all three resign, a Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates would take over, changing the balance of elected Virginia government.  

Northam has nothing to lose by staying, and an entire career to lose by resigning.  The political realities for Fairfax and Herring are the same, leaving office means ending their careers.  So all three are likely to stay, for at least as long as they can, and not take the “high road” of resignation that Al Franken chose. Republicans will then hang their transgressions on the entire national Democratic Party, regardless of the fact that Republicans have done the same or worse.   

It isn’t fair, but for the Democratic Party to demonstrate a difference from the “reality TV” world of Trump, they have to continue to defend the line that began with Franken’s resignation.  Democrats cannot accept “equity” with the actions of Trump and Kavanaugh and maintain the standard that their minority and #METOO base demands. Virginia politicians need to work out a process to keep a Democrat in the governorship, but in the end, to define Democratic political difference, there can be no absolution for the sins in Virginia.

Friday with Matt

I spent Friday with Matt Whitaker and the House Committee for the Judiciary; at least they had part of my attention.  We are going on vacation, trying to dodge some of Ohio’s wonderful winter weather, and we literally broke the piggy banks.  So while I listened to Mr. Nadler of New York, the Democratic Chairman, Mr. Collins of Georgia, the Ranking Minority Member and the Acting Attorney General; Jenn and I managed to count and roll about $686 worth of change:  hotel in Pensacola covered!

So what did Mr. Whitaker have to say to the Committee, in this first Congressional Democratic crack at the Trump Administration?   

He began by saying that he would not discuss conversations he had with either President Trump or the Senior White House staff.  He made that clear, but then proceeded to tell what he hadn’t discussed with either of them:  the Mueller investigation.  He made it clear that he wouldn’t talk about what he knew about the Mueller investigation, despite the fact he had already publicly discussed how soon it would end in his famous, “melt down” press conference.  But then, he also made it clear that he had not interfered with the Special Counsel, nor had he been asked to approve or disapprove his actions.

After six hours of testimony, we got that:  Whitaker let Mr. Mueller do what he had to do, and hadn’t interfered.  We also got that he thought Mueller was a trustworthy and forthright man, who wasn’t running a “witch-hunt,” though he was unwilling to tell that to the President saying to Eric Swalwell of California, “I am not a puppet to repeat what you say.”  

What we didn’t get was a person prepared to run the Justice Department, even though he has a scant few days left in the job.  He was unprepared to answer questions on the child separation policy, what he insisted on calling “zero tolerance;” a policy he was a critical part of creating as Jeff Session’s chief of staff.  He seemed unable to recall the tax status or other critical details of the Foundation for Accountability and Trust, an organization he served as Executive Director and sole paid employee, for two years.  And he was unwilling to acknowledge that his own Federal Bureau of Investigation’s statistics on crime in El Paso, Texas were correct, and that the President was wrong.  

Whitaker was prepared for a fight.  For the first session of the hearing, he was flippant, arrogant, and disrespectful to Chairman Nadler and Democratic members of the Committee.  “I know that question is important to you” and “thank you for that question” led off almost every answer, with long soliloquies ending with the phrase, “…as a sit hear today,” and of course “…I see your five minutes have expired” directed to the Chairman.   But oddly, he didn’t seem able to answer the “softball” questions of Republican members as well, including Freedom Caucus leader Jim Jordan.  Whitaker’s “handlers” must have had some words during the first break, as the Acting General came back with shorter and much less hostile answers (though his prodigious consumption of water was impressive, as was his hot-mike comment, “…only five minutes for lunch?”)

So after the much-anticipated showdown between the Congressional Democrats and the “pretender” Attorney General, the outcomes were clear.  Whitaker, absent having committed perjury, has left the Mueller investigation to proceed apace.  The greatest fear, that Whitaker, who spoke on CNN of “starving the Special Counsel” by cutting funding, chose not to follow through on his threats.  

And we learned one more thing:  the United States, Trumpest or Resistor, will be a lot better off when Bill Barr is confirmed by the US Senate and takes charge at Justice.  He is “an adult” in the room, and a man of legal capacity. Neither a caretaker, nor a “mole” for the President, he is a man of his own standing.  While Democrats won’t agree with much of what Attorney General Barr believes, I believe he will protect the integrity of the Justice Department, and the nation.  And besides, he’s one of Robert Mueller’s best friends, something the Trump Administration must have missed in their vetting process.

The Victim: Donald Trump

The President of the United States delivered his “State of the Union” address on Tuesday.  It was the longest in American history, full of introductions of special guests; from Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, to a nine-year-old cancer survivor.  It seemed like a pretty normal State of the Union, even ending in the traditional “…God Bless America.”  There was talk of all of the accomplishments of the past and hopes for future legislation. There were even the expected shots at Democrats over the Wall and abortion; and after the speech, reams of fact-checking corrections.

But, awkwardly placed in the speech (and with incorrect grammar) there was the “kicker” clause:

“… An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing (sic)that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

“Peace and legislation, or war and investigation,” this is the choice the President presented. Or to put it more bluntly:  “leave me alone, Democrats in the House, and we can legislate together.  Investigate me, and it means war.”

Trump is facing investigations from multiple House committees: Judiciary (Nadler), Oversight (Cummings), Intelligence (Schiff), and Financial Services (Trump’s favorite, Maxine Waters.)  They aren’t waiting for the Mueller investigation to conclude, the Southern District of New York’s work, or the varying state and civil cases advancing. They are going to investigate the President – so he’s “off the hook”  on the need to legislate, according to him.

It’s too bad.  There’s lots to get done, including avoiding a government shutdown next week.  If Trump’s legacy is going to be anything more than appointing judges, separating children, and making the rich richer; he needs to get some things done in law. But that’s probably not in the cards.

So the investigations continue.  Today Acting Attorney General Matthew Whittaker is supposed to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee.  The Committee and Whittaker have been involved in an odd dance over his appearance; with Whittaker saying he won’t testify if subpoenaed, and the committee saying that won’t subpoena him if he testifies.  I guess we will all hold our breath to see if he shows up, or answers questions if he does:  the Committee has given him a cheat sheet to study up on.  Hopefully he’s found a way to manage the stress; his last appearance almost drowned the podium in sweat.

On Thursday, the President tweeted:

So now Congressman Adam Schiff announces, after having found zero Russian Collusion, that he is going to be looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there is no reason to be doing so. Never happened before! Unlimited Presidential Harassment….

The Intelligence Committee reached the “no collusion” conclusion under the leadership of Republican Chairman Devin Nunes last year.  With Democrats now in control and perjury charges made against several witnesses, Schiff is going back into the investigation.  

And the President, arguably the most powerful man in the world, is now a poor, sad, helpless victim.  He is being Harassed, and will soon be making the case that he is unable to do his job because the investigations.  It is the new tactic in the ongoing battle:  the investigations are impairing the President.  And if investigations do that, what would any further action in the Courts or, heaven forbid, the “I” word (impeachment) do?  

Donald Trump has often used language to underline his personal strength. When he talks about the wall;  “strong, beautiful, long,” it’s almost in pornographic terms.  He constantly speaks of the power of his supporters, the “good old” Americans with the MAGA hats on.  He wields his twitter account like a sledgehammer, bashing anyone who opposes him.

But now Trump is a victim.  No matter your side on the ultimate questions of Trump, it’s a sad image of the United States Presidency, one that will not only impact the current domestic crisis, but America’s standing in the world.  No one respects the victim:  ask Vladimir Putin.

Two Years Later

It’s been more than two years since Donald J Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States.  Two years of America being on a constant knife-edge, worrying about what the next daily crisis would bring.  Two years where our sensibilities have been dulled:  to lying, to cruelty, and to institutional racism. Two years of adrenalin and fear, of less sleep and more “shock and awe” at the lengths the Administration would go to change America into their “America” (hard not to spell it without a ‘k’.)

I can relate to those folks who say they haven’t slept right since election night, 2016:  me neither. 

Two years ago at the urging of my niece Leslie, I began to do my part to resist the Trump Administration. I didn’t want the actions of the President to be normalized.  I hoped that by writing, I could explain them in the context of what should be “normal” in a real world without Trump.  In addition, as a history teacher I wanted to bring historical context to current issues, and, as the power of the new “Federalism” grew, I hoped to serve as a guide to what those Court appointees might decide.  And finally, I tried to advocate for positive change, and “resist” the negative changes going on all around us.

It was supposed to be a once a week thing, and originally it was going to be more of a podcast than an essay (yes you’re right, I really don’t like the word blog – I think of that as a diary or stream of consciousness kind of thing.)  However, like all things dealing with broadcast, I found podcasting takes a lot of production time to do correctly. What I wanted to do was get my ideas out, so it was the traditional essay format that won out. It ain’t the Federalist Papers but I am trying!

 As events occurred, and I grew more accustomed to writing.  It moved to every other day, and now, almost every weekday.  In the past two years there are over four hundred essays in “Trump World,” more than 300,000 words (or a 600 page book – though that’s not coming!!!)  Originally it was just for “friends,” both through email and later on Facebook.  But then things got more involved, and now besides the original dozen or so friends who still get the “New Post on Trump World” emails, there’s 450 subscribers (including several with “@rt” emails – that’s Russia Television) and all the folks who read on Facebook.  In the past several months essays have been read over one thousand times each month, by folks in over forty countries.

So I know that people are reading.  I also know that there are a whole lot of folks that disagree with what I’m saying. Most read it and move on, a few make comments and want to discuss.  And an even smaller few have been enraged by what I had to say.  A couple have become so hostile that I have had to “cut them off” from access to my writing.  I’ve been called “disgusting” and a “traitor” – but I’ve also been called a “liberal” and a “Democrat” – labels I’m quite happy to accept.

So two years in, on the day after Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address, what is the state of the Resistance?  In the “win” column; the Affordable Care Act is shaken but not broken, the House of Representatives is under Democratic control, we aren’t in any new wars (nor out of any old wars), and the Mueller investigation and the “Sovereign District of New York” are still investigating away.  In the “loss” column; Trump is still the President of the United States, the tax giveaway has depleted Federal funding and exploded the deficit, the Courts are filled with members of the Federalist Society, and the ideas that we took for granted, like the US being the leader of the free world and protector of the defenseless, are no longer guaranteed.

I still have hope that President Trump will be shown to have done so much wrong in the election of 2016 that he will be removed from office, but if not, we can endure.  Our nation is even more durable than we thought: we have survived the first two years, we can survive two more if necessary.  Either way, the “Resistance” must make sure that the outcome of the 2020 election puts America back on the right course, to really Make America OK Again (or MAOKA – hashtag that!!)  We cannot allow the internecine fighting of 2016 that so damaged Hillary Clinton’s election to occur again.  We must be on guard for the “fifth column” of Russian social media or electoral intervention, and we need to recognize that others, including those in the US, will have learned from the Russians of 2016 and will try to do the same things.  The enemy may be within this time, rather than without.

And I’ll keep writing, both to express and to persuade.   Maybe I can find some more conservative friends who are willing to recognize that while they don’t agree with much of what I espouse, they are willing to do anything to avoid the past four years.  If not, we all need to show up and make a difference, every time the polls are open.  That’s not just resistance, that’s taking command of the future.  

Crimes Against Humanity

I grew up in the sixties. During that time, some Americans had the “John Wayne” view:  we were the “good guys” in the “white hats” riding in to save the world, or at least the settlers in the wagon train.  We, the United States, “did good.”  And at the same time, the “not good” parts of America’s actions were being thrust onto our TV screens and into our faces:  the need for civil rights marches, the summer riots in the cities, the protests against the War, and the nightly visions of death and destruction in Vietnam. 

This has been the historic place of the United States, a nation founded on principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that from the moment of its inception failed to live up to that standard.  The inherent conflict of the founding fathers, fighting for their independence from Great Britain while holding other humans in bondage, has haunted our heritage. 

They knew that what they said and did was important.  Washington and Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison, Paine and Henry; they wrote and spoke not just for the present, but for the future.  They knew:  the awkward wording of “more perfect union” in the Constitution was not a grammatical flaw, but a recognition of the hope that future generations would redress the wrongs they committed.

The horrors of World War II, beyond even the extremes of modern warfare, led us to find a way to describe actions so far out of bounds that they are never acceptable.  First defined as War Crimes, the end of the war saw the attempt to hold individuals responsible for their horrific acts. Unlike historic “retribution” at the end of war, lining defeated enemies in front of a firing squad; this was an attempt to seek justice for those consumed as part of the horrific ideology of Nazism.  

Out of those trials came a concept that was even greater than warfare:  crimes against humanity.  The idea is that nation/states can commit actions against civilians in war or in peace that are outside of the boundaries of human decency, and that they could be held accountable for those actions in the eyes of the world.  If a crime is committed, then a place of justice must be found that can hear evidence and reach conclusions about that crime.  The world has created the World Court in the Hague, including the International Criminal Court (adjudicating individuals) and the International Court of Justice (adjudicating countries.)

It is a crime against humanity if a country commits:

 “…as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:… (items ‘a’ through ‘h’)

i.    Enforced disappearance of persons…; (item ‘j’)

• Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

(1998 Rome Accord.)

The government of the United States, with planning and intent, took away the children of migrants crossing the Southern Border and separated them from their parents.  They placed those children in often far-away facilities, without safeguards or intentions of re-uniting them to those parents, and for the express purpose of creating in migrant populations a fear of losing their children if they crossed the border.

The government of the United States not only did this during the “known” time of April 2018 to July of 2018, but was actually separating children much earlier.  The United States government, in responding in US Federal Courts, has now admitted that thousands of children were transferred to facilities and are unaccounted for (Reuters.)  

The United States government, in the name of its citizens, has stolen children from their parents. Many, perhaps thousands of those children are unaccounted for today, and surely some of those children have been “disappeared” into the US foster and adoption system, and will never be returned to their parents.  

This was a planned policy, emanating from the highest levels of the White House and the Justice Department, implemented by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services.  This was not a “rogue” action of a few on the border; it was a concerted action of the United States government, a policy whose outcome, “disappeared children,” was not only foreseeable, but the expressed intent of the government.

This is not how the “good guys in the white hats” behave.  This is not how we expect our government to act.  This is not what our founding fathers intended for their “more perfect union.”  In fact, it is difficult to see why the US government should not be held accountable for these actions; these crimes against children, and migrants; and against humanity.

Sins of the Past

Ralph Northam was elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2017.  He was part of a Democratic revival in the state; the party did well in legislative elections and won all of the statewide offices. The two major factors in the return of the Democrats to power were the changing nature of the Northern Virginia suburbs and, the increase in African-American votes. Both led to Democratic victories.

Northam has a legislative history of progressive action, including furthering civil rights, and taking a clear stand on the racist attacks at Charlottesville.  Born and raised in Virginia, he was educated at the Virginia Military Institute (1981) and Eastern Virginia Medical School (1984), then served in the Army Medical Corps for eight years, rising to the rank of Major. He left the military to become a pediatric neurologist in Norfolk before running for state senate in 2008, becoming Lieutenant Governor in 2013, and winning the Governor’s race in 2017.

So it was with a great deal of shock that Virginia and the rest of the nation learned that Northam was pictured in black-face next to a person dressed in KKK hoods and robes in his Medical School yearbook.  Even more surprising was the racist college nickname given to Northam at VMI, “Coonman.” 

The yearbook picture was discovered by a “media organization” called “Big League Politics,” founded by two alumni from the far-right Breitbart site.  While their “axe to grind” with Northam is clear; it was an example of the kind of information that any good political opposition research would unearth; it is remarkable that the picture had not been revealed before.

Almost unanimously, Democrats in Virginia and across the nation called for Northam to resign from the Governorship.  While he remains in office, it is difficult to see a path forward that would allow him to govern effectively.  

There are two issues here. The first is a process one:  why would and how could Northam run for office with this in his background, without in some way dealing with it.  This skeleton in his closet has been there to be discovered the whole time; any reasonable politician would realize that the longer it stayed there, the more powerful the impact of its revelation would be.  

And second, where is the “heart” of Ralph Northam?  Is he a racist at heart, even though a progressive in action, or is there some other explanation of his actions in the 1980’s that could excuse him today?

Many folks have things they did earlier in their lives that they aren’t proud of.  Ralph Northam acted as a racist, at least in college and medical school.  His political actions have shown that he doesn’t act like one now, but that racist past should have been brought out and dealt with politically.  And while some will argue that historic figures like Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black were actual members of the Ku Klux Klan; that was in the 1920’s (Black) and the 1940’s (Byrd) not the 1980’s. 

Others would argue that, like newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, these actions were done when he was young.  Kavanaugh was accused of sex crimes in high school and college but Northam was twenty-five years old, in medical school, when the black-face picture was taken. At what point is “adulthood” bestowed?

Then Northam, after apologizing for the picture, came back the next day to claim it really wasn’t him, then confessed to having appeared in black-face in at least one other event. He even went on to describe the difficulties in applying shoe polish as black-face, and seemed to be considering doing a Michael Jackson “moonwalk” in the press conference.

While his legislative actions show a progressive view of race, his words, even in the press conference, show that he still doesn’t understand the gravity of his actions as a younger man, and the impact they are having today.  It seems that he still regards them as somehow being “cute” or “funny.”

The process that the politician Northam is using is “awful.”  He allowed this albatross to hang around his neck, far into his political career, then when it was revealed, he apologized for it, then denied it, then made apparent light of his actions.  While these may be the words of a desperate man, trying to control damage, what it revealed is a man who continues to misunderstand the gravity of his actions.

And that is the real point: he still doesn’t get it, not in 1984, and not now in 2019 either.  And for this reason, his current actions:  Ralph Northam should resign.  He should let those who DO get it, get on with the work of governing and uniting Virginia.