Fox News

Fox News will tell you that Democrats have been trying to remove Donald Trump from the Presidency since the day of his inauguration.  They aren’t wrong; there has been a series of actions since January 20, 2017, that have outraged a majority of Americans.  Those actions have been so far outside the “norms” of what we expect from the President of the United States and the “Leader of the Free World,” that some form of removal became common conversation.

Because there’s been so much controversy, so many outrages, and so much insult to our Constitutional form of government:  let’s not forget what we are determining in this coming pivotal year in American history, 2020.

Truth Fails

We should have known from the day after the inauguration, when Press Secretary Sean Spicer came out and demanded that the Trump ceremonies were the largest and best attended in American history, a demonstrable falsehood.  While that lie didn’t matter in the short run, in the full scope of the Trump Presidency it set the stage.  We should have known that the truth was the very first casualty of Donald J. Trump.

Five days later, President Trump began his assault on migrants.  He ordered federal aid stripped from “sanctuary cities,” though the Courts would stop that order.  A few days later he banned refugees from seven Muslim countries.  The Courts banned that order as well, though a modified version eventually went into effect.

All the President’s Men

We soon found Trump’s appointees were flawed.  National Security Advisor General Mike Flynn resigned and ultimately pled guilty to Federal felonies.  Attorney General Sessions misled or lied to the Senate in his confirmation hearing, and recused himself from the Russian investigation.  His Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price, resigned under investigation, as did his Secretary of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency Director. 

Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka, all with white supremacist ties, were made senior advisors to the President.  Bannon and Gorka were later fired, but Miller remains.  Mr. Trump also made his daughter and son-in-law senior advisors as well.

Russia

We found out that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for its connections with Russia.  The President then fired Jim Comey, the FBI Director, and on TV a few days later stated that it was because of “Russia”.  He then met with the Russian Foreign Minister, and said the “pressure was off” because of the firing.  In that same meeting, the President revealed classified information, causing an ally’s agent to be put in danger.

Soon a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, was appointed to continue the Russia investigation.  We would later learn that the President would order his firing, but the White House Counsel and a Trump campaign manager refused to carry out the order.

Strong Men

We found that Mr. Trump had an affinity for dictators.  President Duarte of the Philippines was invited to the White House, and we later learned the President was close to Prince Muhammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, President Erdogan of Turkey, and Premier Kim of North Korea.  But the leader Mr. Trump showed the most respect for was President Putin of Russia.  In contrast, he showed continuing disdain for our allies; Trudeau of Canada, Macron of France, Merkel of Germany and Nieto of Mexico.

Charlottesville

Then there was Charlottesville.  The President failed to condemn racism, then said the famous phrase:  “…there were good people, on both sides.  I know it, and you know it too.”  It was perhaps the last “pivot point” for Republicans, when they could have stepped away from supporting Trump.  But, while many condemned the words, they remained in his support.

And all of that was in the first year.

Security Clearances and Porn Stars

In January of 2018, we found out about the porn star payoff.  

The President continued the wage war against his own intelligence services.  In particular, the President continually attacked the FBI, still involved in the Mueller investigation.  

We found out that the White House waived security clearance procedures for several senior staff members, including the critical Staff Secretary, who resigned under allegations of abusing his wife.  Jared Kushner also avoided questions on his security clearance.

Child Separation

And then there was child separation at the border.  Thousands of migrant children were taken from their parents, put into confinement camps, and “lost” in the system.  Tent camps were set up near the border to handle the separated children, and we found that many were transported in the dead of night all over the country.  We then found that this was an intentional plan to “deter” migration by taking children from their parents.  Senior Advisor Stephen Miller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions were pushing the plan.

5460 children were separated (NBC). Even today, entering 2020, as many as 120 children are still separated from their parents (ACLU).

Mueller

His personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted to paying hush money to a porn star to hide the President’s affair with her before the election.  He also admits to lying to Congress about that, and the Trump Organization’s involvement with building a Trump Tower in Moscow.  Michael Cohen gets sentenced to three years in jail.

President Trump defended Muhammad Bin Salman in the kidnapping, murder and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.  He has continued to ignore his own Intelligence Agencies findings that MBS was the prime instigator of the murder.

All of that happened, and more, up to a year ago today.

And this year, 2019, we had the Mueller Report.  It showed hundreds of contacts between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russian intelligence sources.  While Mueller was unable to prove conspiracy, the Report outlined that the finding was in part caused by the obstruction of the Trump staff.

In addition, the Mueller Report outlined ten counts of President Trump’s obstruction of justice.  Mueller saw himself as hamstrung by Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting President, but he made it clear that these were indictable offenses.

But Mr. Trump’s new Attorney General, Bill Barr, distorted and confused Mueller’s findings.  He determined himself that the obstruction charges were invalid, and told the nation that the President was exonerated.  That’s not what Mueller said.

Today

And finally, we have the current Ukraine crisis. The President used the power of his office to pressure another nation to interfere in the 2020 election by smearing Mr. Trump’s potential opponent, Joe Biden.  And for that, Trump was impeached, and faces trial in the Senate.

What will happen in the Senate is still uncertain, though it seems unlikely that the President will be removed from office.  What is likely is that the campaign of 2020 will be even uglier than 2016 was.  

President Trump has done so much to this country; it’s easy to become numb to his actions.  What would have been outrageous in 2015 has become commonplace.  But, on this last day of 2019, let us remember:  why we fight.

Special Thanks to AOL for providing a comprehensive Trump Time Line

In any legal or contractual action, it is up to the agreeing parties to perform their own “due diligence”.  They have an obligation to investigate the agreement, the other party, and the process of the agreement.  We often hire lawyers to perform this task for us.  By hiring them we make the lawyer liable for any issue that gets missed and later on causes problems.

Buyer Beware

For example, a friend bought a home.  As part of the purchasing process, it is customary for the buyer to arrange and pay for an inspection of the building before closing on the contract.  That is a part of “due diligence”.  My friend waived inspection, and failed to find significant wiring issues left over from a fire that took place years before. 

Months after the sale, the buyer discovered burnt and cracked wiring, an obvious hazard that needed to be replaced.  Since he waived inspection, the cost of re-wiring the house fell to him.  He failed to perform his “due diligence” and now bore the responsibility.   

Political Vetting

In the United States, we have a great obligation to perform “due diligence” when it comes to our Presidential candidates.  We “assume” that the media, and the process itself will “vet” candidates, revealing their weaknesses and failures.  In the past, this worked.  

In 1988 Democratic Presidential candidate Gary Hart, literally taunted journalists to find out about his extra-martial activities.  When they did, it ended his run for the Presidency.

And in 2008 then leading Democrat John Edwards had an affair and a child while his wife was being treated for cancer.  Edwards then paid the other woman off.  That was revealed, ending Edwards political career.

Sometimes the vetting process is a little odd.  In 2004, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was the front-runner and top fundraiser going into the early Democratic primaries.  When he finished a disappointing third in the Iowa caucuses, his concession speech including an odd “scream”.  When the “scream” was broadcast over and over again, it became the dominant issue in Dean’s campaign.  After a disappointing showing in other early primaries, Dean abandoned the race.

Campaign Norms

Traditionally candidates for President reveal their finances, usually making their tax returns for a number of years public.  They also reveal their health conditions, giving access to medical exam results.  And candidates often reveal “problematic” information proactively.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both revealed youthful drug use, and George W Bush discussed his own substance abuse issues as part of his lead up to running for President.  This “tradition” wasn’t written in stone, or law.  It was a political “norm”.

But in our current political era, “norms” don’t count.  

In 2016 we elected a President who scoffed at the “norms”.  He refused to reveal his tax returns, and continues to do so, fighting all the way to the US Supreme Court to maintain his secrets.  He had a “doctor’s note” about his physical health, claiming he would be the “…healthiest individual ever elected to the Presidency”. 

We also now know that Mr. Trump spent significant sums of money to hide stories of his sexual indiscretions, including an affair with a pornographic movie actress only months after his wife gave birth to his son.  He also had his friend David Pecker use his ownership of the National Enquirer to “catch and kill” other embarrassing stories.

Applying the Rules

It seems the current group of Democratic candidates are still following the “old” norms.  We are seeing tax returns, learning details of Bernie’s heart attack, and Hindu group financing of Tulsi Gabbard.  Senator Warren is modifying her “healthcare for all plan”, and Vice President Biden revealed a lifelong stuttering issue.  

But will the rules apply to all?  Mike Bloomberg is bypassing much of the scrutiny by campaigning in the mass elections of Super Tuesday, rather than the microscopic evaluations of Iowa and New Hampshire.  Will his money by him a “pass” from the norms?

And, of course, the House of Representatives and public opinion are now retroactively vetting the President.  But he has been immune to the “norms”, and Republicans have steadfastly refused to hold him accountable.  Will Mr. Trump ever have to follow the rules, written or unwritten?  

Don’t count on it.  We know all that we know about Donald J. Trump.  However, unlike the sale of that house with bad wiring, America gets to have a “do-over” in 2020.  Will we finally exercise our due diligence?

Leave it to Beaver

Like almost every other aspect of American culture, America’s religious participation is changing.  It used to be that religious “diversity” in the United States was Catholic, Protestant, and a few Jews. Back then; most Americans claimed some religious affiliation, with the vast majority Christian.

It was easy in that “Leave it to Beaver” time to believe that the United States was a land of religious freedom.  The teachers in elementary schools said generic Christian prayers at the beginning of the school day and at lunch and told Bible stories in class.  Christmas decorations and Easter bunnies were all part of the bulletin board displays.  And when a few parents who might be Jehovah’s Witnesses or Jewish objected, teachers took pride in the fact they “allowed” those students not to participate.  That was freedom of religion. 

School Prayer

But, of course, it wasn’t.  And when fifty-six years ago the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not advocate for any particular religion in the course of official duties, folks were outraged.  How would our children learn morals if they couldn’t pray before school, or the game?  

I was in third grade when the teacher led prayers stopped.  They no longer had Bible study classes either, though students were still allowed to walk down to the Episcopal Church during school time.  But prayer didn’t stop in schools.  Kids prayed all the time, for better test scores, to not get caught, that the Principal’s arm might be tired before the paddling.  I presume teachers prayed as well, but they didn’t lead students in prayer anymore.  

The Locker Room

That is, except in the “sanctity” of the locker room.  Like Vegas, what went on there stayed there.  The coaches might swear, they might physically confront athletes, and they might pray with the team.  Of course they didn’t pray for victory, at least, not officially. No, only that the team would play to it’s best, and no one would be injured.  

So the Jewish, Atheist, and Muslim kids knelt in the big “huddle” and bowed their heads as the words were intoned “…in Jesus’s name we pray”.  And those kids who didn’t have religious beliefs – well the hope was their exposure to prayer would bring them to an epiphany.  It was about something those kids wanted badly: athletic success, playing time, “put me in Coach”.  Prayer becomes a kind of a “quid pro quo”. By praying, maybe the Coach leading the prayer would gain confidence.  Refuse to pray, and for sure it will be time to sit the bench.  Who wants to anger the one person who controls everything that’s important?

A Different America

America is changing.  Today only 43% of Americans identify as white and Christian, down from 81% forty-three years ago (PRRI). 24% of Americans identify as “unaffiliated”, and 10% believe in a non-Christian faith.  It’s religion, but it’s also race, as America moves to a minority “white” nation.

And those changes are causing a rise in fear for many white Protestants.  They fear that their “rights” will be taken away.  It’s a fear that whites and specifically white males have felt before.  The privileges that they assumed were fundamentally entitled rights back in “Beaver” times are gone, and they’ve become “the victims”.

Public School Coach

As a high school track and cross-country coach, I always led my teams in a “talk” before competition.  It wasn’t religious, and it wasn’t even usually technical.  Our “huddle” was to focus on the “job” of the day, and to encourage support for each other.  In some years, some team members wanted to pray before competition, and did.  Other team members didn’t feel comfortable with that, and they didn’t.  

As the Coach, my goal was for each of my team members to begin competition physically and mentally prepared.  We had our team “ritual” and each athlete had his or her individual ones as well.  If prayer was part of that individual ritual, I made sure there was time for that.  But it wasn’t a Coach-thing.  It was an athlete thing, their choice, and their belief.

En Loco Parentis

But in our rapidly changing society, there are those who feel entitled to push their religious beliefs on others.  They claim it is “tradition” or “their religious freedom”.  As public school teachers, coaches, and administrators, it’s easy for them to forget that they represent “The Government,” not the old no-longer majority religious view.  “The Government,” is restricted by the First Amendment phrase: “…shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” 

When the public school Coach leads a team in prayer, that person represents all of us.  He or she stands “en loco parentis,” in place of the parents.  That position doesn’t allow for a religious obligation, and the Constitution prevents a religion being “established”.  Public education is required to abstain from religious education, because parents really do have the right to choose their children’s religious education.  It’s not up to the Coach, or the teacher, or the government, no matter what they did back in “Beaver” times.  Leading prayer is not an entitlement of a public school adult.  Freedom to choose religion is an entitlement of the children.

Privilege Lost

But to many, if feels like they’ve “lost something”.   They used to be able to impose their religion on everyone, in the “Beaver” times.  Now, they can’t.  So they feel that they’ve lost a “right,” the right to lead others to their religion.  And that’s not true either. Everyone has the right to their religion, and even the right to proselytize their beliefs.  They can stand of the street corner and preach, they can wear religious symbols, they can attend the church, synagogue, mosque or meeting of their choice.  What they can’t do, and what they shouldn’t have been able to do in back then either; is to use the “bully pulpit” provided by government school employment to recruit or indoctrinate young people in “their” religion.

That’s the kids’ choice, and the parents’ choice.  It’s not the government’s. 

Victim-in-Chief

Battered Tweet Syndrome

President Trump plays a variety of roles in American life.  He is the “Bully-in-Chief” especially when it comes to his use of Twitter.  It’s his most effective tool, one that allows him to communicate to his base, unfettered by the restraints of the law, staff, media, or anyone else.  With the “big stick” of his Twitter account, he keeps his political allies in line, and his opponents at bay.  

It seems silly, that “grown ass” men and women are intimidated by a “tweet”.  These are the most powerful folks in our nation, Congressmen, Senators, and Cabinet Secretaries.  But they will say and do almost anything to avoid the “twitter beating” of their leader.  It is fear that the Trump base will receive 240 characters of marching orders, directing them to march right over the target.

Devil on Your Shoulder

And Trump plays the “dark” model for many.  He can say and do almost anything.  His is that secret voice in some people’s minds, the voice that no one lets be heard for fear of offending or looking ignorant.  But the President has no such inhibitions.  He says whatever comes to his tongue, regardless of how inappropriate or hateful it might be.  And many admire that freedom.  It’s part of the “secret” Trump base, the “un-pollable” dark support that the Trump Campaign depends upon.  

Victim

But his greatest super-power, the “card” he plays over and over again, is Trump as Victim-in-Chief.  He is always the victim:  of the media, Democrats, the Courts, and the “Deep State”.  In fact, the Trump machine created the concept of the “Deep State”.  They needed a “dark force” to fight against, someone to blame for all of Trump’s failures.  What better enemy than some amorphous agglomerations of letters: NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSC.  The intelligence agencies are secret and silent, doing their jobs in the shadows.  They are unable to defend themselves in the public square, unwilling to reveal themselves to parry the tweets and accusations.

And so the President can rail against them without response, claiming bias and prejudice against his “outsider” insurgency.  It gives him an excuse for failure.

Defender of the Presidency

And the President as Victim has found an even greater role, that as the poor, abused defender of Article II of the Constitution against the Pelosi-led Congress.  He’s managed to turn a straightforward impeachment process into “the Salem Witch Trials”, with Mr. Trump himself starring as one of the witches.  

In the beginnings of a normal Court proceeding, the suspect has few rights.  The prosecution investigates, presents to a Grand Jury, and returns indictments without the defense given any chance to make a stand.  It is only after the indictment is filed, and the Court begins proceedings, that the Defense is allowed to demand recognition and make their case.  That’s when they get their “day in court”.

Grand Jury

The Impeachment process is similar, the bringing of charges against a President for trial in the Senate.  The trial phase allows for the President to make a case and be represented by counsel and witnesses of his choosing.  But in the Impeachment phase, much like the Grand Jury phase, there is no “right” to representation.

Not that this President didn’t have fierce defenders.  The Republicans in the House stood up against the process and for Mr. Trump over and over again.  From the beginning of the Intelligence Committee investigation, everyone from Minority Leader McCarthy to Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan screamed about the “unfairness of the process”.  But, of course, the process was exactly fair:  the Intelligence Committee did the investigation, serving the role of the “prosecution”, then presented their findings to the Judiciary Committee, who served as a Grand Jury.  

The Judiciary Committee than presented their recommendations to the full House of Representatives.  And the President’s men protested every step of the way, from Jordan’s litany of four points, to Doug Collins “clock and a calendar”.  The President had representation that a defendant in a criminal case could only dream of.  

But the President was portrayed as a poor victim of Democratic abuse.  They claimed he was denied “due process” and lack of representation, when in fact Republicans fiercely represented him. They never made a serious claim against the facts that the Committees put forth, only against the “process”.

Day in Court

The President has every right to his “day in court”.  It’s coming, if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will allow it.  The “due process” and factual presentations can and should be made on the floor of the US Senate, in a trial of Presidential removal.  Now is the appropriate time for a full airing of the case, and for the President to defend himself.

But it’s not likely to happen.  Mr. Trump, and the Republicans in the Senate don’t want due process, fairness, or the truth. They want to be victims, to claim persecution.  That way they don’t have to defend the indefensible:  the President’s actions.  

Christmas

It’s a Christmas tradition in my family.  After all the presents are opened, all of the volumes of food are consumed, and that nap is finally acquired:  it’s time for a movie.  It was a quieter celebration than usual this year, with all of the grandnephews and nieces at other celebrations.  It was an “adult” Christmas, but traditions run strong in our family.  We loaded up the cars, and went to the theatre.

We saw the new Star Wars movie, The Rise of Skywalker.  I remember seeing the first one in 1977.  Back then it was just Star Wars (now they call it The New Hope).  I was twenty-one, and I went to the local theatre in Cincinnati with Jon Phillips, the kid next door.  The most dangerous part of the movie was the ride home, as my 1967 Volkswagen Station Wagon (Type II) dodged and kicked like an X-Wing Fighter.  Star Wars lit our imaginations. 

That was forty-two years ago.  

I’m not a movie reviewer, but The Rise of Skywalker was very entertaining.  From a technical standpoint, it was stunning, as always.  The decision to replace the recently deceased Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) with an electronic version came off without a hitch.  And like all the Star Wars sagas, it’s a story about failure and redemption, good ultimately triumphing over evil, and common people finding their inner heroes.

There’s a reason that the opposition to President Trump is called “the Resistance”.

A Tipping Point

No, I’m not going much farther comparing the Star Wars story to our current political struggles.  But what this latest movie got me thinking about is how pivotal next year is going to be for the United States, and the world.  2020 may be a year full of dread and concern, but what it must be, is a year of hope.

What’s at stake is clear.  The United Nations came out last month with a message, stating that the Paris Accord’s 2040 deadline for controlling climate change might be wrong.  Since 2016, the world has worked with this twenty-four year deadline.  If we could control carbon emissions by that time, we could avoid the most devastating impacts of our pollution on the environment.  

But with the election of President Trump, the driving force behind the Accord has been lost.  There was little progress made in the last three years in the world, led by the United States.  Now the United Nations estimates that instead of twenty years, we have twelve.

In our rabid media culture that message was lost in the “tweets” between President Trump and sixteen-year old activist, Greta Thunberg.  She did her best to raise the issue:  he did his best to insult a kid and change the subject.  But our impact on our climate and world is inexorable.  Our environment will change:  the fires will grow worse, the floods deeper, the storms stronger and more frequent.  And it’s happening all because the United States made the conscious decision to turn away from leadership and action.  2020 is our last best chance.  We face an irrevocably altered earth if we do not.  That’s terrifying, but it’s also reason for hope.  There still is time.

Self-Centered

The leadership of the United States in the world has vanished, and not just regarding climate.  Whether we earned the right or not, the United States has stood as an influence for “good” in the world.  Whether it was controlling the driving ambitions of nations like Russia, or the despotic tendencies of Turkey, or balancing the myriad of interests in the Middle East: the United States was the one world power who could influence action everywhere.

But for the past three years, we are “America First”.  We have left influence on the global stage to others.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and nations like Russia are filling in the space.  In fact, the US policy has become one of antagonism in the Middle East, and Korea, and Central America.  Our current Administration has shrugged off the burden of world leadership, choosing to be a “player” rather than a referee.  

In the past three years America has become less inclusive, compassionate, and caring.  As we have turned away from the world stage, we have become internally selfish.  The main Republican campaign slogan, “how are your stocks doing” is a single marker of that self-centeredness.  We have had four years of internment camps on the border, attacking tweets in the media, and Senate inaction on everything except judicial appointments.  Four years is a trend, eight years will make things a certainty.

The Force

Joe Biden says that the United States can take four years of this without permanent damage but not eight.  But the world may be moving more quickly, and the damage already done.  Like the climate, we are at a tipping point, here in 2020.

In the Star Wars saga, the galaxy is always on the edge of anarchy or destruction.  The “Good Side of the Force” seems to fail, but, often by the narrowest margins, wins out in the end.

It’s almost 2020.  May the Force be with us.

Sleeping Serpent

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons – Article I, Section 2, Constitution of the United States 

Late 19^th century author John J. Chapman described America’s founding curse:

“…there was never a moment in our history when slavery was not a sleeping serpent.” 

Mathematical Racism

Slavery was enshrined in our founding document, the Constitution.  The Convention used a mathematical “sleight of hand,” only two sections after the transcendent language of the Preamble where they described forming “…a more perfect union”.  Through process of elimination, slaves were left as “three fifths of all other persons”.

Why did those “all other persons” count as three fifths?  In 1786, as the Constitution was being written in the hot summer of Philadelphia, the population of the new United States was about 2.8 million.  Of those, 682,000 or about 24% were slaves, with the vast majority of those slaves in the South (Weber).  As the debates raged on, the outlines of a democracy emerged.  Population meant votes, and therefore power.  

There was never a consideration of giving slaves a vote, but the South was unwilling to “give away” such a large population when it came to deciding how many Representatives they would have in the new Congress. The Southern representatives wanted the slaves counted as “whole” for population, but as none for taxes.  The North wanted them either counted as whole for both, or neither. So in the same spirit of compromise that gave us a House by population and a Senate by state, slaves were counted as three fifths of a person.

Weighted Votes

That mathematical equation also gave the South enhanced power in the newly created Electoral College.  States would receive votes for the President based on the number of Representatives in the House plus their two guaranteed Senators.  The states of the South, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, were almost 40% slave.  That 40% of non-voters empowered the other 60%, giving more weight to their “free person” votes.

The Civil War, and the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution removed the stain of slavery from the Constitution.  But the arguments that supported the three-fifths personhood, that same idea that factors other than the vote of the people should determine how the country is governed, still echo in debate. 

Land is Not Power 

We hear them in discussions about the Electoral College.  Last week in the impeachment debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, a Congressman displayed a map of the 2016 election results by County.  It was the “great red map” of America, and the Congressman dramatically accused the House of trying to overturn its overwhelming result.  

• 

It looks impressive, the huge expanse of Red with only dots of blue scattered through.  Mr. Trump overwhelming won the “land mass” of America.  But even with the Founders, even with the slave owners, land didn’t mean power.  Population meant power, even if “other persons” were counted but not empowered to vote.  And so the sleight of hand of the Founders continues, as states of geographic size gain power through the Electoral College.  

When the United States is viewed by voting, by the actual choices people make when they go to the polls, it no longer is the great “red” expanse.  

• 

This is what our nation looked like in 2016 looking at the essential factor of power established in the Constitution, the individual vote.  When others argue that the Electoral College was created to offset the “power” of the individual vote, they echo the same arguments made in 1786 in support of slavery.  They argue that some other factor should empower our nation, giving authority to a minority in order to prevent a majority from governing.

Democracy

It is anti-democratic.  The argument is clothed in “republicanism” (the governing philosophy, not the Party) but in reality harkens back to the original sin of America’s founding.  As the Founding Fathers compromised with slavery, so the present argument compromises the power of the vote to empower a diminishing racial group.  We are compromising the core foundation of our nation, the value of an individual’s vote.  Like the “sleeping serpent” under the table in Philadelphia, the obvious racism and bias will come back to bite our country.

Billionaire for President

Tom Steyer, one of the billionaires running for President, just went off the air again.  His pitch:  “I’m going to make the Washington Establishment uncomfortable with two words:  ‘term limits’”.  He then goes onto extoll the virtues of limiting Congressional terms, saying that will help end the “corruption” of our government.

Of course Tom Steyer is in favor of term limits.  That concept fits with the entire basis of his campaign. He believes that someone whose life experience isn’t based in government and the machinations of Washington politics is the one who can fix the problems of our nation. Limiting terms match that view, and from his standpoint, there is only one Democratic Presidential candidate that fits the bill:  Tom Steyer.  That his approach sounds vaguely like the present President’s 2016 campaign theme should be disconcerting.

Yeoman Farmers

The concept of term limits goes all the way back to our Founding Fathers.  Thomas Jefferson wrote of the virtues of the “yeoman farmer”; who would put down his plow and rake, and ride into the center of government to repair our national problems.  After the crisis was over, the “yeoman farmer” would then ride off into the sunset, back to repairing fences and sowing seeds in the soil.  

That concept was also self-serving, as Jefferson, Washington, Madison and the rest left their plantations to ride off to the “big cities” of Philadelphia and New York to found our nation.  And while Jefferson and Washington were always worried about how their plantations were doing, the reality was that they spent most of their professional lives far away from the fields, barns, and slaves.  Jefferson was a professional diplomat, Washington a professional soldier, and both were professional politicians.

Jefferson in particular participated in the kind of job rotation that current “term limited” politician’s use today.  He started as a representative to the Virginia House of Delegates, and then was chosen as a Delegate to the Continental Congress.  He came back to serve four years as Governor of Virginia, then went back to the Continental Congress as a Delegate and Minister after the Revolution. 

Jefferson then went to France as US Minister for four years.  He came back to become the first Secretary of State under the new Constitution, and then Vice President.  Finally, he was elected President of the United States, served two terms in the office, then went back to his home in Monticello.  So from taking his first office in 1769, Jefferson was steadily employed in the government until 1809, forty years of service.  Not much time for planting and the myth of the “yeoman farmer”.

Inexperience Counts

As Jefferson’s career proved, experience counts in politics and government.   Apply the “term limit” concept to other professions and the problems become clear.  Say we “term limit” surgeons.  After they go through four years of college, four years of medical school, two years of internship and another two or more years of residency:  should we limit surgical careers to – say – fifteen years?  That way we will solve the problem of “old surgeons”.

Of course that really doesn’t make much sense.  We know that skills are learned and practiced, techniques developed, and experience counts when someone is cutting into the pericardium, or the frontal lobe.  There is no great “virtue” in inexperience when it comes to saving lives.  Do surgeons ultimately age out?  Of course, but arbitrary limits aren’t an effective solution.

Whose Empowered

If we limit the experience of those in government, then those around them who “know” will become empowered.   Those folks are already there:  we call them lobbyists.   They get a bad name for a good reason.  Lobbyists represent private interests getting influence in public government, often by giving or withholding campaign financial contributions.  

But lobbyists often bring more than just money to the table.  They also bring specific knowledge of “their” issue, knowledge that only years of experience can acquire.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that groups that want influence get the most knowledgeable people available to work for them.  Knowledge is power when it comes to writing legislation.  The less knowledge legislators have, the less ability they will have to see through the lobbyists’ self-interest.

Richard Neal, Congressman from Springfield, Massachusetts is a great example.  Neal has been in the Congress since 1989, fully thirty years.  Without a lot of fanfare he has become one of the most powerful Congressman as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the House Committee that deals with taxes.  He’s been a member of Ways and Means since 1993.

His experience matters in the complex arena of tax policy and regulations.  Term limiting would remove his kind of experience from the field, leaving the only knowledge in the hands of those who most have “an angle,” the lobbyists.

Effective Term Limits

Does it mean that all “the old men” in Washington are wise and have the best interest of the nation are heart?  Of course not, we know that there is corruption in Washington, corruption based in an electoral process that depends on millions of dollars in donations.  But term limitations won’t solve that problem.  Campaign finance reform, and Constitutional legislation to alter the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United would have a much greater impact on corruption.

If we get the money under control, that would remove the significant advantage of incumbency.  Get the money under control, and we can have effective term limits.   

They are called elections.

I heard a phrase the other day in the analysis of the Democratic Debate.  A commentator was speaking about the appeal of Amy Klobuchar, saying that she and Pete Buttigieg appealed to “the center” of the Democratic Party.  The two were called “Pragmatic Moderate Midwestern Democrats;” drawing more political lines in the sand.  It definitely isn’t a good bumper sticker slogan.  

Trump Country

I live in Pataskala, Ohio, twenty miles east of downtown Columbus.  The town is located in Licking County, with the county seat in Newark, fifteen miles to the east.  Columbus is in Franklin County, where in 2016, Hillary Clinton got 60.6% of the vote.  Here in Licking, Donald Trump got 62%.

So where I live, what in my college sociology class was called the “exurbs,” is still pretty much “Trump Country”.  Our blue flag with the words “Literally Anyone Else for 2020” emblazoned on it, is waving in a very lonely cold breeze in front of our house. 

I guess that makes me a Midwestern Democratic.  I also considered myself a “liberal” in the old school sense.  Liberals were my role models in the Democratic Party, folks like Hubert Humphrey and Bobby Kennedy from when I was first got involved in politics.  And today I still look at new-speak “Progressives” as liberal; Senator Sherrod Brown comes quickly to mind.

So as I look at the Presidential Campaign for 2020, I’m trying to figure out where my “liberalism” fits into the current crop of candidates.  I’ve never been at the Social-Democrat extreme of the Party with Bernie Sanders, nor was I comfortable with Bill Clinton’s Republican-Lite.  

Health Care

Lets look at health care.  In my heart, it makes sense to me that America should move to a single-payer health system, controlled by the government.  Medicare, with all of its flaws, serves 44 million Americans today.  Most are pretty happy with their benefits, so much so that when the Paul Ryan Republicans tried to “privatize” that care, it turned out to be a political non-starter.

So it doesn’t seem a huge leap to me to simply “grow” the program into Medicare “for everyone”.  So that’s “liberal”, right?

But there’s a real electoral problem with that, and it’s about what used to be the Democratic base.  Labor Unions were Democratic, and they used to represent over a third of America workers.  Today, it’s closer to ten percent.  But those workers have given up wages and hours to get good benefits, particularly good health insurance.  They aren’t willing to give up that insurance easily.

And that’s where the “pragmatic” part comes in.  If “Medicare for all” means losing the election, then the “ideal” needs to be moderated to fit what the electorate will accept.  I don’t view that as a “sellout;” but more a recognition that change requires leadership willing to convince, cajole, and coordinate, rather than march alone in the front. 

Climate Change

Healthcare is easier to reconcile with today’s electoral reality.  Climate change is different.  The immediacy of this crisis, and the “clock and the calendar” (thanks Doug Collins) of a global tipping point makes it impossible to find a “moderate” stand.  Change is going to come, we either have to take control of that change, or we, and more importantly our progeny, will face the consequences.

Again though, that requires leadership, not just prophecy.  It requires education, even educating those folks who don’t want to hear that coal and gas are causing the problem.  And that’s what a leader needs to do.  I guess that’s pragmatic too.

Southern Border

And then there’s the issue of illegal immigration and immigrants.  There can be no waffling on what’s going on at our Southern border.  We are putting people into nothing less than concentration camps, we are still separating children from their parents, and we are creating a crisis of poverty and violence on the Mexican side.  All of that needs to stop and it needs to stop now.  The atrocities (yes, that’s the correct word too) have to be redressed.

But that doesn’t solve the long-term problem of what to do with folks coming to the border.  And Democrats aren’t answering that question.  The answer will take a serious financial commitment to Central America, and changes in American attitudes.  We need to view those immigrants as refugees, not invaders.  Again, that’s the job of a leader.

That’s hardly even being discussed in the Debates these days.  Like everything else in our world, it’s being overwhelmed by Impeachment and Elections.  

Label

I have never seen myself as “moderate”.  Bill Clinton, in my view, was a moderate, and I didn’t agree with a lot of what he did.   But in today’s spectrum, it seems there isn’t much to the “right” of Biden, Klobuchar or Buttigieg.  Maybe Mike Bloomberg but we haven’t really gotten much more than “I can beat Trump” from his millions.  

So on the current chart maybe my Liberalism is moderate.  And I definitely am pragmatic, if pragmatic means defeating Trump in 2020.   Maybe the commentator was talking about me – a “Pragmatic Moderate Midwestern Democrat”. 

Better get a bigger bumper.

Rachel

I watched the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC last night.  I watch her a lot, she has great insights into what’s going on politically, and she has access to the most significant guests.  Last night it was Chuck Schumer, the man in the center of the current political storm.  

Rachel is a storyteller.  Listening to her takes some getting used to; she might take ten or fifteen minutes to get to the meat of her story.  There’s always lots of background and history; and often a “wow, how did that little thing become this big thing” moment.  So I watch Rachel.   I watch so much, that one of my “ground rules” for writing these essays is to not let Rachel drive this narrative. She’s so good; I’m not interesting in competing.  Also, many of “Trump World’s” followers watch Rachel as well.  No one needs reruns.

A Long, Long Time Ago

But Rachel made a strong point last night, on the way to her big story on the President’s Impeachment.  As she often does, she got me thinking.

I was naïve.  It was a long, long time ago in our current post speed of light political era.  It was last September, three months ago.  It seems an ancient story now.

I was naïve, as the outlines of the President’s actions in Ukraine became apparent in those first few weeks.  We first heard hints of the story:  hints of the Whistleblower’s Report, of our President asking for “a favor” from the President of Ukraine.  As the story emerged, we heard that that there was a mob-like “offer you can’t refuse” request made on a phone call in July. 

The arguments then were about what was actually on the table.  Even the President’s supporters, Fox News commentators, Senator Lindsey Graham and others, noted that if there was an actual “quid pro quo; give me this and I’ll give you that,” the President was in “real trouble”.

The Transcript

So when the President himself released the “redacted transcript” of his July 25^th call, it sure seemed like a confession to a crime.  And when we found out that the call was not just a “stand alone” action, but part of an overall plot that started with Rudy Giuliani back in March or even before, it made the criminality even clearer.  

The President of the United States committed extortion, a form of bribery.  He asked the President of another nation, Ukraine, to start an investigation into Trump’s anticipated political opponent in 2020, Joe Biden.  He offered a “bribe:” a White House meeting, and, as we later learned, hundreds of million of dollars of military aid.  It was aid and recognition that Ukraine desperately needed as the beleaguered country faced negotiations with Russia.

Repeating The Past

The announcement of an “investigation” alone would achieve what Trump needed to do.  In 2016, the Trump campaign could count on the fact that Hillary Clinton had a higher negative image than even Trump did.  It was an election of who was disliked more, of which voters were willing to “hold their nose” as they cast their ballot.   

Trump acts on “his gut,” and that gut was telling him that Joe Biden was the Democrat who would emerge as the nominee.  Biden had a much lower negative image than the President did.  Trump needed to “bring Biden down,” to make him more Hillary-like.  Then the Trump Campaign could replicate the “magic” of 2016, winning the Electoral College even if the popular vote went to his opponent.

So if the shining “new guy” in Ukraine, the anti-corruption candidate and a former TV star, just like Trump, newly elected President Zelenskiy, would open an investigation into Biden and his son, it would solve the “negatives” problem.  The Trump Campaign could spend millions of dollars on media, flashing black and white images of Biden, his son, and stacks of money.  They just needed the go-ahead, the announced investigation.

The Facts

Those are the facts that emerged as the leaves changed color in October.  And then the President went outside with the helicopters and reporters, and just said it.  Ukraine, he said, should investigate Biden.  So should China.  He wasn’t joking, “tweaking” the media as his allies claim.  He was committing crimes in broad daylight, and daring Congress to do something about it.  This even after we knew that “… Russia if you’re listening, find Hillary’s emails” triggered Russian attacks on the Clinton computers.

Then Trump “doubled down” again, sending his Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, to the press podium in the White House, to ADMIT TO THE CRIME, and tell the press, and the world, to “…get over it”.

Naivety

I was naïve, back then in the fall.  I thought that Americans, looking plain truth in the face, would realize that Trump had to go.  I thought that Congressmen, and Senators, would solve the equation given to them by the House Intelligence Committee: two plus two equals four.  

But they didn’t.  They found every excuse, obstruction, and obfuscation to hide behind.  They willingly defended Donald Trump over the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Then even compared the suffering of Trump to that of Jesus Christ.  

They say that Trump is “King” of the Republican Party.   I scoffed at that, but I was mistaken.  I just listened to Congressman Van Drew of New Jersey switch parties from Democrat to Republican.  He sat at the “right hand” of Trump, and literally pledged his “undying loyalty”.  He just needed to take a knee, and kiss the ring, and the image would have been complete.

I was naïve.  I thought better of our elected leaders.  I thought they would choose the Constitution over their political loyalty.  

I was wrong.

History will Hear

Listening to the speeches on the Floor of the House of Representatives on this day, the third Impeachment in American History, I believe that both sides are speaking for more than just their Congressional allies.  Sure, some, almost all, are speaking for their thirty-second campaign ad next year.  And at least half of the speakers are addressing one particular audience, the disgruntled man listening in the Oval Office.

But some, on both sides, are speaking to history.  Some Republicans truly believe, not in the President, but in the process of the House.  They see the Democratic willingness to sacrifice witnesses for speed as a gross abuse of due process.  I think they make a valid point; it might have been better to go through the entire court process, subpoenas, appeals, and judicial decisions.  Perhaps then the critical witnesses, Mulvaney and Bolton, might have been forced to answer to the Congress.  I will be shocked and surprised if the Senate trial requires their presence. 

A Clock and a Calendar

But Democrats also have a point, despite Congressman Doug Collins throwing his slogan, “a clock and a calendar” around like some debilitating curse.  The clock does not stop at Christmas; the calendar is not the Democratic primaries.  The countdown is to the 2020 election.  If Donald Trump continues to try to “rig” elections, then it is incumbent on the Congress to stop him as soon as possible.

Of course there have been a fair share of political nonsense.  One Congressman called the Democrats “swamp creatures”, another “socialists and communists”.  And speaking of “swamp creatures”, there’s been more than anyone’s fair share of crocodile tears shed.  And the consistent refrain:  “DEMOCRATS are overturning the ‘will of the people’, 63 million people.”  As a DEMOCRAT whose candidate got 65 million votes, I find that argument pretty flawed.

But there has been some oratory as well.  

Advanced American History – 2055

We should juxtapose Adam Schiff’s introductory speech in favor of impeachment on the floor of the House, with the President’s letter of yesterday.  I think that is the essence of the issue:  Schiff combined history, the Constitution, and facts to make his case.  The President, well, claimed that he was doing a good job and is a victim (for a full analysis see yesterday’s essay on the Letter).

Schiff continues to be the Republican bête noire, as if he wasn’t worthy of appearing in the House.  “He’s getting America drunk on his favorite cocktail:  cherry picking witnesses and a total ‘Schiff Show’”, said one Republican. But the Congressman from California continues to be “Teflon”, criticism bouncing off his shoulders, and responding to each attack with reasoned answers.  Most Republicans have avoided crossing verbal swords with him.

Then there were the crazies:  the gentleman with the great red map, saying that the blue zones on the coasts were driving “his President” from office.  It kind of felt, well, racist. And Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas, warning all of us of the Ukrainian attacks on the US elections in 2016.  When he was called on that Russian-backed myth, you could hear him bellowing in the background.  You wonder whether the young pages dragged him off the floor.

Partisanship and DEMONCRATS

But the Republican Congressman from North Dakota nailed it.  A partisan-divide plagues our nation.  I don’t expect his solutions for that would please the Democrats, but he has identified the problem accurately.  But we have come far down this path, for a decade or more, to “fix” this on Thursday morning in the House chamber as the gentleman from North Dakota hopes.

Another thing I’ve noticed:  so many old white men in the Republican caucus, so many who will not live to see 2040 and what their actions have wrought.  And they throw the word “DEMOCRAT” like it is some kind of curse, like my Facebook friend who’s addicted to the word “DEMONCRAT”.  While the old guys throw around words like “shameful” and “sham”, I come back to my younger friends favorite phrase:  things will be better when the “old white guys” are gone.  

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise got to make a closing argument.  In the middle, he spoke of the 63 million Trump voters that Democrats hate.  He got a bunch of cheers from the other “old white guys”, and they had to be gaveled down.  I guess polarization goes both ways.  

Wrapping it Up

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer then came to the floor.  He too is an old white guy, but a Democratic old white guy.  He brings up the votes, but states that Trump was elected legitimately.  All of the policies differences aren’t reasons to impeach said the Congessman from Maryland.  It is Mr. Trump’s conduct that has forced the House to vote for impeachment – against its wishes.  Leader Hoyer made a compelling case for searching one’s conscience.  

Then Congressman Collins took his turn, bringing the same tired arguments we’ve heard from him for weeks:  clock and calendars, drive-by hacks, chaos and mob rule.  We, the minority are “the brave” he claims, we have stood up to the “Demoncrats”.  How quickly he forgets the halcyon days of Darrell Issa, Devin Nunes, and Trey Gowdy; of emails and text messages and Fast and Furious.  Collins gave his pep talk, then handed off to Leader McCarthy.

Collins is the fire and brimstone preacher, damning Democrats to Hell.  McCarthy – well oratory isn’t his best thing.  He states we are “all American”, choosing whether impeachment is damaging our nation, or will we only use it when it fits “our” definition.  Whatever that definition is, it obviously doesn’t fit Kevin McCarthy’s needs now.  

He quotes Jonathan Turley a lot.  That probably boosts the good professor’s ego quite a bit, that seems to be his thing anyway.

But who will get the “last word”?  My bet is on Nancy Pelosi.

Nope – it’s the “Demoncrat” himself – Adam Schiff: Hot Damn!!!

The Republican defense, the sound and the fury signify nothing.  In the end, it’s all about “why should we care?”  Schiff calls them out saying we used to stand up for our allies, we used to stand against Putin and Russia. We used to.  

 And in closing, Mr. Schiff said: “No one is above the law.  What is at risk here, is the very idea of America.  That we are a nation of laws not of men, we are a nation that believes in the rule of law”.

History

Donald John Trump is the third President in history to be impeached.  Now the political games begin at the highest level.  Speaker Pelosi dangled the possibility of holding the impeachment articles, not sending them to the Senate until the Senate Majority Leader guarantees a trial.  

Leader McConnell throws back that he will not agree to any terms.  So what will happen?

In all likelihood, the Senate will hold a short trial, followed by an “acquittal” of the President.  In all likelihood, President Trump will continue to invite foreign interference in our elections.  

So while Mr. McConnell claims the Senate has the ultimate say, in reality the people will have the say – in November of 2020.  We can only hope that our judgment will be so one-sided, that it will overwhelm the undue influence of Russia (if your listening), Ukraine (do us a favor) or China. 

Impeachment

Today is the “that day” in history.  The day we will remember in twenty years.  Where were you? What did you think?  What side were you on?  I remember watching Nixon resign.  I remember explaining Clinton’s case in my classroom.  Here we are again.

It’s been weeks.  Weeks of listening to the Intelligence Committee hearings, the Judiciary Committee hearings, and yesterday, the Rules Committee hearings.  Days to see what the President’s defense against the facts might be.  I’ve spent hours of frustration, listening to Jim Jordan’s demonstrably false “Litany of the Four Things” over and over again.  I heard it from Republican Congressman Doug Collins once again in the Rules Committee, spoken with heartfelt repetition, as if saying it over and over and over would somehow make it true.  It’s not.

The President’s Letter

But today, I have the President’s defense, written in hyperbole on White House stationary.  It’s addressed to “the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives,” but it has been delivered to the masses.  Not trying to be “snarky,” but it’s difficult to believe that the President wrote this himself.  He doesn’t seem to be the kind that could concentrate long enough to author six pages of single spaced type.

Nonetheless, we now have his personal defense, and what we can expect him to stand on these terms in the Senate trial for his job.

Trump and the Constitution

It’s starts with Mr. Trump’s interpretation of the US Constitution.  He claims that “bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors” as defined by the Founding Fathers must include legal felonies.  That seems pretty self-serving, as he has made it clear that the President is beyond the legal system.  His lawyers argued in Court that he could literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and there would be nothing the law could do.

He claims that the House is in fact invalid, violating their oaths office, and breaking allegiance to the Constitution.  That’s kind of scary:  the next step from there is to ignore their legal actions – a lawlessness that could further divide our government and nation. Oh wait:  he already is doing that, refusing to honor any requests for information or testimony.  But there’s a darker side, foreshadowing future action, that is more concerning.

The Jordan Litany

And then he joins in recitation of the Jordan Litany.  First he claims that his phone conversation with the Ukrainian President was “innocent” (no longer “perfect”).  He stands on the word “us” versus “me”, stating that he spoke for “us” the United States, not “us” the “royal we” of the Trump Presidency.  

He then recites the second stanza of the Jordan Litany:  Zelenskiy says “…I did nothing wrong and there was NO pressure”.  He further outlines that Zelinskiy’s staff and Foreign Minister all claim there was “NO pressure”.  But of course, Ukraine and Zelenskiy are still dependent on US aid, still controlled by the President.  So, like any hostages, the Ukrainians will say whatever they need to say to protect their further financing.

And Trump explains that Sondland said, “…No Quid Pro Quo”.  That the Trump quote came after he was caught with his “hand in the cookie jar” is ignored.  Where was no “no quid quo pro” in the July 25^th phone call as he claims, or the Sondland, Volker and Giuliani meetings in July and August?  It was all “quid pro quo” then:  give us investigations and get your money.

Article II 

The President then abandons the other two stanzas of the Litany:  that the money was delivered and there was no investigation.  He moves onto Article II of impeachment, Obstruction of Congress.  He wraps himself in Presidential prerogative, claiming that he is simply doing what every other President has done by denying Congress any information.  Of course that’s not true:  even Nixon gave Congress information and allowed his staff to testify (though the tapes were pried lose by the Supreme Court).

The Resistance

Then he made his main complaint –Democrats have been trying to impeach hime since he won the election.  This may be the only point he’s got right.  There’s no question, “the Resistance” began before the inauguration, not so much in “impeachment” mode, but in “protection mode” for our democracy.  Mr. Trump, of course, sees “resistance” as anti-democratic.  I bet he didn’t feel that way when the Senate resisted everything that President Obama wanted to do:  ask Merrick Garland.

He then calls the firing of Jim Comey “…one of our country’s best decisions” and attacks Congressmen Talib and Green for looking for reasons to impeach him.  He claims that Democrats were simply looking for a reason, and when the Mueller Investigation (he calls it the “Russia Hoax”) didn’t “get him” then Ukraine was just the next thing.

Again, he’s not wrong.  Those of us who carefully read the Mueller Report know how close Mueller was to charging the Trump Campaign, only prevented by the stonewalling of the President and his men.  And the “obstruction section,” Volume Two, was clearly indictable – if Mueller believed he could indict.

A Victim as President

Then, changing the subject once again, he makes his attack on the messenger, Adam Schiff.  He calls Schiff “…a shameless liar” and a main source of Trump’s troubles.  I can only hope that the Senate calls Schiff as a witness (though he will likely be a Impeachment Manager from the House).  Schiff would nail the facts.

Mr. Trump then goes off on how well he’s done.  How could you remove such a successful President, he demands.  He lists all of his “achievements”, then claims that he is “the victim” of unfair and unwarranted investigation.

He tells Democrats:

“You are the ones interfering in America’s elections.  You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy.  You are the ones Obstructing Justice.  You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, and partisan gain.”

And he whines that the Democrats never apologized for the “Russian Witch Hunt”.  Even today, he stands with the Bill Barr definition of the Mueller Report as vindication.  It wasn’t.

Carter Page

Oh, and the President then jumps to the defense of another victim, poor Carter Page.  The FBI was against him, so the FBI must have been against Mr. Trump as well.  And he claims the House denied him “due process”, as if criminal rights defined in the Constitution apply to the impeachment process.  

The President claims; “…more due process was afforded those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”  He seems pretty hung up on witches.

Instead, the House did its job, hearing evidence to find cause that Donald John Trump committed impeachable offenses.  The President will get the chance to have his say in the Senate.  We will see if McConnell will allow a fair hearing, or even witness testimony. More likely he will simply create a Republican rubber-stamp.

Mr. Trump ends his defense by stating he is writing “for the purpose of history” in a “permanent and indelible record”.  So his defense will be.  He wants Americans one hundred years from now to look back and understand.  His letter will make sure they get the point.

I suspect it will go down in history, somewhere. Right along side the night that Nixon wandered the White House having long talks with the portraits.  Nixon resigned soon after that, but I expect Trump will have to be dragged out of the White House.

Mitch McConnell made an announcement this week. The Senate’s trial of President Trump will last no more than two weeks, and include no witnesses. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer countered with a different proposal.  The Democrats want to call four witnesses, and Republicans should call some too.

Who does Schumer want to appear before the Senate?  Four witnesses who did not speak to the House Intelligence Committee, because the President silenced them.  They all have direct knowledge, first-hand knowledge, of what the President actually intended in Ukraine.  

Democratic Proposal

The first, White House “Acting” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, has already made clear public statements about what the President did.  In a White House a press conference, he declared that the President asked for a “quid pro quo”. He said that they demand those in foreign policy all the time, and we should “get over it”.  Mulvaney was central to the scheme to pressure Ukraine. He, along with Rudy Giuliani, were the key communicators for the President. He has a lot to add to the narrative of the Ukraine saga.

The second, Mulvaney’s advisor Robert Blair, was also privy to the “behind the scenes” activity.  Michael Duffy, a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget, is third. He was part the actual “hold” was placed on Ukrainian aid.

But the fourth witness Schumer demands is the most important.  The Minority Leader is calling for former National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify to the Senate.  This is the same John Bolton who called the Giuliani strategy a “drug deal”, and ordered his aide to immediately report to the National Security Council attorneys when the “deal” came up in a meeting.

Bolton

John Bolton, is the icon of Republican “neo-cons”. He was brought into the White House to bring national security policy “under control”.  He is third to hold the title as the President’s chief advisor after General Flynn and General McMasters. Bolton is the Advisor who did everything he could to keep the President from making the phone call to the Ukrainian President. He resigned or was fired just as the Ukraine scandal was about to break. 

John Bolton, probably more than anyone else, knows what the President did, and what he intended.  

Why won’t Leader McConnell allow these witnesses to come before the Senate?  There’s an obvious answer:  what they say damages the President’s case.  But McConnell has a problem as well.  While he doesn’t want testimony, he also doesn’t want the Senate Republicans to be even more vulnerable to the charge of cover-up then they already are.  The political equation is simple:  are witnesses or charges of cover-up, a bigger electoral liability in the fall?  McConnell isn’t particularly worried about “justice”, the Constitution, or even the President.  He’s worried about maintaining a Republican majority in the US Senate in 2021.

McConnell has one other worry though:  Bolton is writing a book.

The Book

McConnell’s nightmare scenario is that after a perfunctory Senate hearing, followed by a predetermined party-line vote to absolve the President, the book comes out. What if Bolton says that the President committed all of those Constitutional crimes ?  McConnell’s afraid to campaign in the fall with the specter of a Senate cover-up, and Democrats beating Republicans over the head with Bolton’s tome of Trumpian guilt.  

On a more personal note, he’s afraid to go back to Kentucky with his 34% approval rating against 52% disapproval.  The Bolton book might be one more nail in his personal Senatorial coffin (Morning Consult).

Why isn’t Bolton speaking out?  Every mention of his book, including in this essay, is exactly what he wants to promote sales.  Bolton can write the book, make his profits, and still claim that he didn’t try to “oust” a Republican President.  Bolton isn’t running for office or worried about the Trumpian base of supporters.  His concern is the “big money” Republican donors, those who have supported his political PAC’s in the past. 

Bolton doesn’t want to seem like a “traitor” to them.  So, in this Constitutional crisis, Bolton is remaining silent.  He’s has the first-hand “answer” to all of the charges asked in Article I of the Impeachment of Donald Trump.  

And he will tell the story in his book – you just have to buy it.  

Impeachment

The Government of the United States is enthralled with impeachment.  The Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary: all are wrapped up in their Constitutional concerns.  The House is about to impeach a President for only the third time in the history of the Republic.  The Senate is determining how much of a trial, or a show, they will allow.  

The Courts are ruling in subpoenas, and beginning to struggle with the extreme view of Presidential authority that the President’s lawyers and the Attorney General demand.  The reality of Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s push to fill the Federal benches may soon become apparent, as case after case works it way through the system.

And it’s not just the White House consumed with events.  The Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, the State Department, and more are dealing with the events surrounding this threat to remove the President.

So who’s minding the store?

Congress

In the House of Representative, ground zero of the impeachment crisis, stuff is getting done.  While we weren’t looking, at least not very carefully, the House reached a deal with the President over the new North American Free Trade Pact, USMCA.  The deal included strengthening labor enforcement rules and dropping some perks for drug companies.  The bill will go to the floor for final vote this week (LA Times). 

The House also passed a bill to giving the government the ability to negotiate lower drug prices.  This was a much more partisan issue, with Republicans almost fully against the legislation.  While this may never get through the Senate, it does establish the Democratic position on prescription drug costs (CNBC).

And, the House also reached an agreement on the Defense Budget, creating a new branch of the US Armed Forces, the Space Force.  The was part of an overall budget agreement, and for the first time in years, it looks like an actual Federal budget may clear the Congress, instead of short term continuing resolutions, with the threat of government shutdown always looming over the negotiations (WAPO).

The Senate, where over four hundred House-passed bills have stacked up waiting for Mitch McConnell’s approval, actually passed a few bills as well.  They passed a bill to permanently help fund historically black colleges and universities (HBCU).  It moved through by unanimous consent (CNN).  So did a bill to recognize Turkey’s genocide of the Armenian people a century ago.  This not only acknowledges history, but also serves as a shot at our less than faithful NATO ally, Turkey (Axios).

Crisis

Impeaching the President doesn’t stop America from ongoing crises.  While we were watching the hearings, there was a mass shooting at a US Navy base in Pensacola.  A Saudi officer taking classes took up a weapon and starting shooting.  What looks like an obvious terrorist attack has been quietly submerged in the impeachment waters.  It seems that no one wants to call out our “friend,” Saudi Arabia.

And the border wall “crisis” continues, as the Defense Department begins an investigation into the $400 million contract awarded to North Dakota based Fisher Sand and Gravel Company.  The President of the privately owned firm made several appearances on Fox News, and worked with former Presidential Advisor Steve Bannon to raise visibility in the bidding process.  The Company is also building several miles of privately funded “wall” on the border (WAPO).

In the state of Wisconsin, a judge has orders of 200,000 names be removed from the voting roles.  In Ohio the state legislature is considering a bill to require physicians to re-implant embryos that were growing outside of the uterus, called ectopic pregnancies.  Physicians say that this is physiologically impossible (Business Insider).

Campaigns

The Democratic campaigns for the Presidential nomination continue.  The last debate of the year is scheduled for December 19^th.  Seven candidates have qualified, and no candidate of color made it on the stage.  Nine of the candidates asked the Democratic National Committee to change the rules, allowing Cory Booker and Julian Castro to participate, but the DNC has declined.  

And all of that may not matter.  The debate is scheduled for Loyola Marymont University in Los Angeles, but the food workers at the University are in a contract dispute, and plan to set up a picket line at the debates.  No Democratic candidate is going to cross a picket line to appear on national television, so the entire debate is in doubt (Fox).

While we weren’t looking, Senator Kamala Harris left the campaign trail, out of money, and Mike Bloomberg entered the campaign, spending $4.2 million a day.  He isn’t going to be in the debates, but he’s betting that neither debates nor the early primary states will make a difference.  He hopes to make his electoral debut in the Super Tuesday March primaries.

Life Goes On

Impeachment is happening, this Wednesday.  Then, perhaps the United States will stop fighting for a moment, and head home for Christmas.  Perhaps that will allow some healing before the existential struggle of the election of 2020.  Or maybe not:  American holidays haven’t really been the same since the election of 2016.  This year the President will probably come up, between the ham and turkey and the green bean casserole.  It won’t necessarily make for a Merry Christmas.

“I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of —- — ——, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.” (Senate Rules)

“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,” Graham said, adding, “What I see coming, happening today is just a partisan nonsense.” Senator Lindsey Graham on (CNN)

“Exactly how we go forward I’m going to coordinate with the president’s lawyers, so there won’t be any difference between us on how to do this.” Senator Mitch McConnell to Fox host Sean Hannity (WAPO)

Electoral College

The United States choses it’s President by a convoluted voting process of electing a “one time use” legislature to vote for President and Vice President.  It’s called the Electoral College, and each state gets a number of electors equal to the total number of members of Congress in that state.  Candidates to be electors are chosen by the Presidential candidates (or their political party).  

In all but two states, the winner of the popular vote for President receives all of that state’s electoral votes.  All of the electoral candidates for that winner become the state’s Electors. (In Maine and Nebraska the electors are divided by Congressional District, with the winner of the popular vote in that District taking one electoral vote, and the overall state winner taking the remaining two electoral votes).

On the “…first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” the Electors for each state meet in their state capital.  There, they cast one vote for President, and one vote for Vice President.  It is normally a “pro forma” action, with almost all Electors doing exactly what they are expected to do:  vote for the candidate they represent.  

But there have been historically, those Electors who despite their pledge, vote for a different candidate for President.  They are called “faithless” Electors, standing for one candidate and voting for another.  A few states have penalties for doing so, but in most cases, they are just “faithless” and their vote is recorded.  No one has ever been penalized or prosecuted for being a “faithless” Elector.

Impeachment Process

The process of impeachment and trial is written carefully into the United States Constitution.  It was a subject of intense debate during the Constitutional Convention, because it was of critical importance to the Revolutionary Founders.  They fought a war against a King, but then found an executive-less government failed to govern.  So they were between the two, not wanting another King, but recognizing that the Articles of Confederation government by Committee didn’t work.

So they created a stronger Executive, a President, with significant powers.  They made “their deal with the devil,” trying to create an Executive who could get things done, while balancing the powers his powers with Congress and the Judiciary.  It was a core issue.

So it should be with great seriousness that we approach the impeachment and trial for removal of the President of the United States.  It’s only the third time in our history we’ve reached this point.  Each time it happened, we were filled with partisan rhetoric, claims of innocence and a monopoly on “rightness”.  And in this media and “post-truth” era, the voices we hear are even more inflammatory.

The House will continue debate on the Articles of Impeachment this week.  There will be more screams of outrage from the minority side, and more outlining of facts in evidence by the majority.  In the end, the House of Representatives will vote out the two Articles for trial in the Senate.

A Senator’s Oath

Regardless of how Senator’s feel about the process used by the House, the Trial of Removal, specified in the Constitution, will be in their court.  The authors of the Constitution calls upon Senators to take a specific oath as jurors in a Senate trial, an oath demanding that they do “…impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws…”

Bill Toomey, Senator from Pennsylvania, calls for a “fair trial” (NBC Meet the Press).  And there will be plenty of time to argue the Constitutional issues and the facts, and whether what Donald Trump did rises to the level of “high crime and misdemeanors.”  Toomey, recognizing his role as juror, refuses to reach those conclusions before the trial, evidence, and arguments are presented.

Lindsey Graham has taken an opposite position.  He, in all his Constitutional wisdom, has declared this Constitutional process illegitimate, “partisan nonsense” and has predetermined his vote and the outcome.  Even worse, Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the Senate, has pledged absolute cooperation with the President, a “juror” committing to the defendant before the trial has ever begun.

Republicans and Democratic Senators alike will make their decision about removal.  The Constitution calls upon them to look at the facts and the history, and determine their vote.  But like those Electors who get chosen for a candidate, then change their vote, some Senators have judged this case before it even has started.  They will take an oath with their fingers crossed.

They are faithless Jurors, and faithless Senators.

There’s a great television ad on right now.  It’s about the idyllic town of “Denial, Ohio”.   People live in nice suburban homes, eat in cute diner-style restaurants, and have kids that are “above average”.  And those kids would never, ever, use opiates.  Parents don’t need to worry, or talk to them about it.  They live in “Denial”.

Deny the Facts

In this week of overwhelming breaking news, maybe the one thing that is coming clear is that we all live in “Denial”.  After another day of listening to the Impeachment hearings (we’ve seen them so much they’ve become either old friends, or old enemies) one side or the other is in total denial.  The facts of the Democratic side seem undisputed.  The determination of the Republicans seems unrelenting.  They are two groups, talking past each other.  No one is hearing.  

It seems so simple.  The President set up a “side” group to push Ukraine to stir up investigations of Biden and Crowd Strike.  They had to disrupt the “regular order” to get it done, and fired the Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.  Giuliani, and the “three Amigos” of Perry, Sondland and Volker, made sure the message got through to Ukraine.  Mulvaney made sure the money was stopped.  And the President himself drove the point home, asking “…do us a favor, though…” in the July 25^th phone call.  

Ukrainians knew the day of the phone call that the money was on hold.  Vice President Pence and the “three amigos” hammered the point home.  The Ukrainian’s scheduled an interview with Fareed Zakarias of CNN to announce the investigations.  But the whistleblower’s report surfaced, and the President was caught.  Like any kid caught doing something wrong, he tried to cover it up, telling Sondland for the record there was no “quid pro quo”.  But like most guilty kids, it didn’t work, and the whole scheme fell apart.

Deny the Conspiracy

Republicans on the committee refuse to accept ANY of those facts.  Each point is in dispute, and the minority is willing to throw almost anyone under the bus to protect the President.  Ask Gordon Sondland, or Alexander Vinland, or Maria Yovanovitch or Fiona Hill. They have all had their reputations trashed by the Republicans.

And in all of this, the President has gotten one of his wishes.  Joe Biden’s problems with his son, Hunter, are front and center for the entire nation to see.  Making that happen was so important to the minority, that a Congressman, vulnerable with personal substance abuse issues of his own, put himself on the line.  He called out Hunter Biden for drug abuse.  Democrats reasonably noted “…the pot was calling the kettle black.”

This morning they will continue the fight, but ultimately the Committee will approve the two Articles of Impeachment.  The full House will debate and vote on it next week.

Brexit

But Democrats may be in “Denial” as well.  There was other news yesterday, buried under the rhetoric of the Committee debate.  In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party under Prime Minister Boris Johnson won an overwhelming electoral victory.  “Brexit,” the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, is now a “done deal,” one way or another.   

The ramifications for the UK are historic.  Scotland may determine to break away from the nation, going independently on its own to stay in the EU.  Northern Ireland will be forced to find a way to “harden” its border with the rest of Ireland, and concerns of a return of the “troubles” are rising.  

All of this is change, and it’s scary.  But it’s the UK’s problem.  Here’s what Americans might take from this.  In June of 2016, the UK voted 52% to 48% to leave the European Union.  It was a shocking outcome, and we later found that the forces of social media manipulation by the Russians and private companies like Cambridge Analytica, were deeply involved.  

Now, after over three years of failed negotiations, the voters of the UK have made a clear statement:  “Get Brexit Done,” the campaign slogan of the Conservative Party.  The Labor Party, led by the polarizing figure of Jeremy Corbyn, was dramatically rejected.

Tell the Future

The 2016 Brexit vote foreshadowed the 2016 Trump Presidential victory.  There are lots of differences between the two countries and the two elections.  But there was a shared overall theme in both:  moving forward into a multi-cultural world, or stepping back towards an insular, more homogenous, past.  Both the UK and the US narrowly determined to step back .

In December 2019, the voters of the United Kingdom “doubled down” on that choice.  Despite all of the failures of the Trump Administration, is the United States preparing to do the same in 2020?  Are the Democrats, like the Labor Party, fooling themselves?

There are alternate theories.  Analysts point to Corbyn as being too polarizing, too “left” for the UK electorate.  They warn that the Democratic Party has candidates just like that, far to the left of American voters. Some warn that nominating those candidates could produce the same rejection.  It’s hard to “test” the veracity of that hypothesis, but one thing is sure.  

We need to make sure we’re not just living in “Denial”.

Anti-Semitism –  “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” applying a double standard to Israel by requiring of it “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and comparing “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” – (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance)

“There’s been a lot of unclarity surrounding the application of Title VI to Jewishness, basically, because of a question of about whether Jewishness is primarily a religion — in which case Title VI would not apply to anti-Semitic discrimination — or whether it’s a race or national origin.  This EO will clarify that Title VI applies to anti-Semitism.” – Senior Administration Official (WAPO)

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by schools that receive federal money. The law does not cover religious discrimination, so defining Jews as a national group is necessary if the agency is to have jurisdiction over incidents in which anti-Semitism is alleged. (WAPO)

Welcome to the List

Yesterday, in the fog of Impeachment and the Horowitz report, President Trump signed an executive order redefining Judaism.  Before the President signed the order, the government of the United States regarded Judaism as a religion, like Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists and Muslims.  After he signed the order, everything changed.  Jews are now an ethnic group.  Put them on the list:  White, African-American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and now, Jew.

If that doesn’t trigger some warning siren in your brain, you weren’t listening in school.  A couple of days ago I was substitute teaching in a middle school English class.   We were reading from the play “Anne Frank,” the story of a teenage Jewish girl and her family hiding from the Nazis in Holland during World War II.  They are ultimately taken and sent to concentration camps.  Only Mr. Frank, Anne’s father, survived.

One of the questions the middle schoolers asked was, how did the Nazis know who was Jewish?  Their answer: well, they were wearing a yellow Star of David.  When I asked how the Nazis knew who should be wearing the Star, the class was stymied.  After some discussion, we found the answer – it was on their birth certificates, filed at City Hall.  The conquering Nazis just had to look in the files, and sort the Jews out.

Why does the Trump Administration feel the need to redefine Judaism?

Two-State Solution

Since the 1970’s the United States and the United Nations have supported the “two-state solution” for the Middle East.  Israel was founded under United Nations mandate in 1948 as a Jewish homeland.  The Jews did not settle on vacant land, and many of the Palestinians who lived there left when Israel was created.  Some were driven out, but many left at the order of surrounding Arab leaders.  

Either way, they became political pawns, kept in camps on the border as wars raged in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.  The Arab leaders wanted the refugees there as evidence of the cause.  The Israelis used the land left by the Palestinians to build their new country.  And the camps became nurseries for violent extremists, willing to do anything to get their land back.  Today, seventy-one years later, they are still there.

The two-state solution would allow those Palestinians to have their own nation of Palestine.  Israel and Palestine could co-exist as countries side by side.   The problem was that in 1967 and 1973 Israel occupied many of the border areas were the refugee camps were. What would be the nation of Palestine was located in the occupied lands.

Palestine Today

Israel used the occupied lands to improve their border defenses.  The Palestinians used rocks and bomb attacks to fight against the occupation.  Ultimately a Palestinian state was outlined, divided in the middle by Israel, with an occupied capital in Ramallah on the West Bank, and it’s largest city cordoned off on the other side of Israel in Gaza.

Israeli governments in the past have tried to negotiate with the Palestinians.  The current government, led by the Likud Party and Prime Minister Netanyahu, has aggravated the situation by building settlements in the occupied land, walling off the border, and often using deadly force against Palestinian protests.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

The United States has always been supportive of Israel.  The Trump Administration has been especially so, taking actions in lockstep with the Likud Party agenda in Israel.  The US embassy moved from the de facto capital, Tel Aviv, to the highly disputed capital in Jerusalem.  The US has failed to take any actions to stop Israeli settlement in the occupied lands, and has not protested Israeli use of deadly force.

The Administration’s actions have generated protests here in the United States, especially on college campuses. The “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement calls for US businesses and colleges to stop investing in Israeli companies in order to pressure Israel to change its actions towards Palestinians.  BDS is modeled after the financial pressures that were placed on South Africa to end their policy of apartheid.

Various state legislatures have taken legal steps to prevent BDS from succeeding on campuses, including threatening state funding if a university determines to divest from Israeli investments.  The Federal government under President Trump would like to do the same.  The quickest way to achieve that is to withhold Federal Education funding if a university supports BDS.  But to apply the law, the Civil Rights Act, the universities must be found as discriminatory.  Under the Act, discrimination must be based on racial or ethnic grounds, not religious. 

So to apply the Civil Rights Act, Jews have to be redefined as an ethnic group rather than a religion.  It’s a “quick fix,” one that can be used to stop BDS on college campuses, and quiet Palestinian protests by placing them in the category of those who are “anti-Semitic”. 

Short Term Fix

There’s a lot of support for the President’s actions among Jewish groups.  It is another proof of the Administration’s generous support for current Israeli policy.  And it empowers Jewish groups on campuses, giving them additional rights in Court.  Particularly those Jewish groups in the United States aligned with Likud in Israel have pressed for this move, and includes President Trump’s huge financial backer, Sheldon Adelson.

But there are Jewish and other groups who have concerns with this redefinition of Judaism, and there are Jewish groups that do not agree with the current Israeli policies.  And that’s the problem:  this short-term fix supports a political position in Israel, not the Jewish religion.  It falls into the President’s misconception that all Jews support everything that’s going on in Israel.  In fact, as the current impasse in the current Israeli government shows, not even all Israelis support Likud, or Netanyahu.  

Who are Jews

So who are Jews?  Are they a religious group, with a long history?  Are they an ethnic group, with shared genetic traits developed through centuries of isolation?  And if they are an ethnic group, how can there be Ethiopian Jews, Asiatic Jews, and blond haired, blue eyed converted Jews like the President’s daughter here in the United States?  Can you join an ethnic group, as you can join a religion?

It is complicated.  As the son of a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, I can attest to that.  In Orthodox Judaism, religion is from the mother.  To them, I’m not a Jew, though I could convert (if Ivanka can do it, I could).  But in our society the son of a Jewish man is considered Jewish, even though I was raised in the Episcopal Church and currently attend “Our Lady of Perpetual Sleep” on Sunday mornings.  

Ancestry.com calls me 66% European Jewish, 18% Irish/Scottish, and 16% English.  That does not define my religion; but it makes me “Heinz 57” like a lot of other Americans.  

But now, for American and Israeli political purposes, am I to check off a box on some government form, þ-Jew?  Is that based on my 66%, or my religious beliefs?   Or is it just so Netanyahu and Adelson and Trump can push their agenda against Palestine?

It’s a short-term win for them.  But it’s a long-term danger for America, with echoes of centuries of ugly history.

Today

There is so much to talk about today.  The President gave a speech last night in Hershey, Pennsylvania, that four years ago would have caused a national crisis. Almost everything he said was a lie. Among those falsehoods, he managed to call the FBI “scum”, and convicted felons “great people”. He is a President unmoored from reality, and willing to say literally anything to further his own ambitions.  

And his Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, also attacked his own FBI and Justice Department.  Instead of standing for his employees, he said that the Inspector General’s Report, after two years, got everything wrong.

The Washington Post is reenacting their great story of the early 1970’s, the Pentagon Papers that revealed the decades of lies surrounding the Vietnam War.  This modern version deals with our historically longest war in Afghanistan, now eighteen years old.  Like the Pentagon of the 1960’s, the Post discovered that what we are told about US goals and achievements in Afghanistan have been intentionally falsified to fool the American people.  And it’s been going on for decades. 

And quietly, the President is planning to announce that Jews in America are now not just a religion, but legally a race.  This is a fundamental change in American thinking and policy to achieve short-term political gains.  It raises serious questions about an action that further divides Americans into factions.

All of these warrant examination.  And they all happened yesterday.

Impeaching the President

But, fifty years from now, December 11^th, 2019 will be known as the day that the House of Representatives presented Articles of Impeachment of the President of the United States.  So while all of the other crises today are dramatic and important, this is the one that “…history will have its eyes on.”  

The Constitution was ratified in 1788, and our current form of government began in 1789.  In the two hundred and thirty years since, Congress and the President have only reached this impasse four times.  It is worth examining the conditions of those historic actions, to get a better understanding of today’s extraordinary situation.

Compromise Gone Wrong

Andrew Johnson was the President who wasn’t supposed to be.  In the summer of 1864, as the Union Armies poured blood onto the fields of Virginia, Abraham Lincoln’s reelection was by no means a sure thing.   General George McClellan, the “Hero of Antietam,” was the Democratic candidate.  He was willing to end the war without victory, and so end the massive casualty lists printed in the daily papers.  

Lincoln needed to assure a broad coalition to regain the White House and finish the cause that those who sacrificed had “…thus far so nobly advanced”.  So he dropped his first Vice President, Republican Hannibal Hamlin of Maine.  Lincoln, a Republican as well, ran under the “National Union” Party, and chose as his second running mate a “War Democrat,” the Military Governor of Tennessee Andrew Johnson.

Johnson’s sole job was to balance the ticket.  By the fall the situation on the battlefield changed as well, as General Sherman captured Atlanta in September.  Lincoln was reelected in November, and in the spring of 1865, the Radical Republican Congress and the President were planning for the Reconstruction of the Union.

John Wilkes Booth changed those plans, with a bullet to Lincoln’s head.  Andrew Johnson, the War Democrat, the former slave owner, was now the President of the United States. 

The Future of the Union

Johnson’s version of reconstructing the Union was to return the South to pre-war status, less the slaves.  Johnson supported the discriminatory laws that kept the former slaves in a second-class status, and vetoed twenty-nine bills passed by Congress.  The Congress overrode over half of his vetoes, and ultimately the ideological divide over the future of the country led the Congress to try to restrict Johnson’s power. They passed the Tenure of Office Act, again over his veto, and required Presidential appointments that needed Senate approval, to need Senate approval to be removed as well. 

Johnson ignored the law, and fired his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.  This became the core charge in Johnson’s impeachment, though there were a total of eleven articles.  

So, like Johnson or not, the historic basis for his impeachment was a difference in policy beliefs between him and the Congress.   Johnson held onto his Presidency by one vote in the Senate.  That vote was cast by Kansas Senator Edmund G. Ross and immortalized by John F. Kennedy in his book, Profiles in Courage.  While Ross showed a willingness to risk his political future, the practical effect of his vote was to put civil rights for black citizens on hold for a century.  

A Simple Crime 

It would be one hundred and four years for impeachment to be considered again.   Impeachment articles for Nixon were written for using the powers of his office to attack his political enemies, and to orchestrate a cover-up of the crimes.  Despite Nixon’s public assertions that “I am not a crook,” in reality, he was exactly that, violating Federal criminal laws.  His own Justice Department rebelled when Nixon tried to fire the investigators examining his actions, and the Special Prosecutor’s investigation was key to discovering the President’s culpability.

When the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over audiotapes of White House meetings and his criminal conduct was apparent, Congressional leaders from his own Republican Party warned him he would be removed from office.  Nixon, aware not only of the historic significance of being removed, but also his personal financial implications, resigned from office.

So with Johnson we had an impeachment based on political differences.  With Nixon, we had an impeachment based on clear criminal conduct. 

Disgraceful or Impeachable

I’m a Democrat, and I was a Democrat in 1998 as well.  Bill Clinton disgraced the Presidency.  He took advantage of a twenty-one year old intern and had a sexual affair literally in the halls of the White House.  As a teacher at the time, I found myself having delicate conversations with my high school seniors about oral sex, DNA samples on blue dresses, and where cigars might go.  In our current “Me-Too” era, Clinton’s actions would have resulted in his immediate resignation.  That should have happened in 1998 too.

But it didn’t.  Clinton determined to stay in the White House, and tried to “weasel” his way out of the scandal by making a case that “oral gratification” wasn’t actually sex.  That didn’t go over well in my classroom, and nor with the Federal Courts, who found his testimony perjurous.  

So Clinton committed perjury.  He ultimately was disbarred in Arkansas for it.  And Clinton abused an intern, even though she was “of legal age”.  The question that confronted the Congress was did those acts reach the standard for removal from office.

High Crimes

The Founding Fathers used a term of art, “high crimes and misdemeanors”.  “High Crimes” were crimes against the state, the government, as opposed to “low” crimes that were crimes against individuals.  Abuse of power might not even be a crime in a legal sense, but it could be a “high crime” if done by a President.  Killing a King would be a “high crime,” killing the man next door, not so much. 

So were Clinton’s sexual exploits, and his lying about it, a “high crime” or a “low crime”?  That was the question examined by the House of Representatives in 1998.  The problem that many of those gentlemen ran into was their own sexual dalliances.  Speaker Gingrich was in the process of divorcing his wife and marrying a staff member, Speaker Livingston was forced to confess to an affair, and ultimately Speaker Hastert led the House.  It wasn’t until much later we found out about his prior perversions with the high school wrestlers he coached.

Clinton was impeached along party lines, and the Articles sent to the Senate.  After a long Senate trial, has was acquitted.  This too is a “term of art;” acquitted.  Clinton was not exonerated, nor was he innocent.  But the Senate determined that his actions did not rise to the “high crime” level of impeachable offenses.

Impeaching this President

So here we are today.  The House of Representatives is considering two Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump.  The House is saying that the President committed two “high crimes”.  The first:  using the power of his office to gain foreign intervention to advance his own personal political campaign. The second: using those same powers to obstruct the investigation into his actions.

What the Senate, and ultimately the nation, will have to decide is what kind of impeachment is this.  Is this an impeachment of policy difference, as many Republicans claim, like the Johnson impeachment?  Or is this a criminal impeachment, one where reasonable Congressional leadership would go to Mr. Trump, as they did to Mr. Nixon, and ask him to resign?  Or are these actually “low crimes,” not deserving of removal from office, as the 1999 Senate decided about Clinton?

The Senate will probably decide this January.  As I listen to Senator Lindsey Graham rail on about the 2016 election (the Senate grilling of Mr. Horowitz has just begun), it’s clear that the bipartisanship of the Nixon impeachment won’t be possible.  It is likely that the Senate will vote along Party lines, and Trump will stay in office. 

But the evidence of Trump’s actions is being presented not just to the Senate, but also to the American people.  So while the President may still remain in office this January, it will be the people that have the final say in November of 2020.  

Hopefully the election will be fair.

Attempted Coup 

President Trump just failed another test. 

Yesterday, I watched him explain how the Justice Department’s Inspector General Report showed how unfairly he was treated in the Russia investigation.  With high school students sitting around him in the White House, the President claimed that the IG report showed that the FBI had “concocted evidence and lied to the courts.”  He further claimed that “…it was an attempted overthrow, and a lot of people were in on it, and got caught.” He then whined that no US President should ever have to go through this again.  

The President then asked his new “communications staff” member, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, what she thought.  “The American people should be terrified that this could happen to you,” was her statement.

This is all very serious.  All these FBI officials caught, a biased “witch hunt” performed, an attempted coup of the President:  somebody ought to be going to jail.

Inspector General Report

The problem is, it’s all a lie.  The Inspector General’s report did come out.  It stated that the investigation of the Trump Campaign was properly “predicated”.  That means it was started for good reason.  The Report goes onto say that the FBI officials who ran the investigation, including FBI Director James Comey, FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe, Counter Espionage Section Chief Peter Strzok, and even Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr, did NOT show political bias.

The Inspector General did find concerns with the Carter Page FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants, including finding that a lower level attorney falsified an email used as evidence. He also noted that there was what he called “issues with the reliability” in the Steele Dossier, used as a supporting document for the FISA warrant.

There was no coup, no attempted overthrow.  There weren’t “…a lot of people” who got caught.  Americans don’t need to be worried “…that this could happen to you,” that is unless, you are dealing with Russian intelligence, like Page, Manafort, Flynn and   Papadopoulos. 

The Inspector General found concerns with the FISA Program, concerns that he will continue to investigate.  Chris Wray, the current FBI Director, thanked the IG for his information, and promised to work to correct the issues he raised.

For my “Trumpian” friends who counted on Horowitz revealing the “great plot” to overthrow Trump, the “insurance plan” of Peter Strzok, sorry. They were doing their job, investigating a campaign flirting with Russia while our elections were being attacked.

The Backup Plan

As James Comey predicted a couple of months ago, the IG Report clears the old FBI leadership of wrongdoing.  But that isn’t stopping the President, or his “mouthpiece” Ms. Bondi, or Attorney General Bill Barr from claiming that Inspector General Horowitz’s Report is wrong.  In fact, US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Barr with investigating these same issues, even broke investigatory silence to state that he doesn’t agree with Horowitz’s conclusions.  

Why should they?  Horowitz has done two investigations in this area, one looking at the Clinton email investigation and now this.  he found mistakes were made in both, but still agreed that the investigations were legitimate and their conclusions reasonable.  

Attorney General Bill Barr needed a backup plan.  What if Horowitz does it again and misses out on the “witch hunt”?  So he brought in another “responsible and respected” member of the Justice Department “family,” US Attorney for Connecticut John Durham, to find the “true” facts.  This is the same John Durham who investigated the CIA torture program after 9-11, waterboarding and all, and found that no crimes were committed.

All the “old timers” from the Department talk about Durham as a “straight shooter” and an “honest investigator”.  These are the same “old timers” who talked lovingly about Bill Barr as an “institutionalist” who would bring respect back to the Department.  We’ve seen how that turned out.  The Justice Department today is the Washington office of Mr. Trump’s personal attorney:  Bill Barr.  The scales are weighted, and lady Justice’s blindfold is completely off.  Don’t hold your breath that Durham will be fair and balanced either.

Failing the Truth

Mr. Trump has failed another “truth” test.  That’s not much of a surprise; he fails that exam all the time.  But Mr. Horowitz has failed a different kind of test, a loyalty test.  The President and his cronies needed “evidence” to attack his rivals.  Horowitz was supposed to find that. He didn’t.  

And maybe that’s the unifying theme of the Trump Administration.  Find your enemies; then find a way to smear them.  That way, whatever your enemies say, it can be played back on Fox News to the “true believers” willing to accept any “news” that fits with their beliefs.  Barr and Durham are searching for some way to attack the FBI and the Obama Justice Department.  Rudy Giuliani is in Ukraine trying to find a way to smear Joe Biden before the 2020 elections.

And you can count on the President to say whatever he has to say to make the mud stick.  If there is a way to be “the best” at failing the truth test, then the President must be an honor student.  It’s the one place he excels.

It’s Monday.  Like drinking water from the proverbial fire hose, there’s a ton of information coming at you today.  Why – because it’s Monday in the Trump Administration.

Judiciary Hearings

So what’s happening today?  First, the House Judiciary Committee is meeting from 9am to 11am (please note:  time is kind of a nebulous thing to the Committee, it might start by 9:30, and it might end – well, at 1 or so).  The legal staff of the intelligence committee is presenting the evidence for impeachment to the Judiciary Committee members for their consideration in impeachment resolutions.  Also, the legal staff of the Judiciary Committee itself will be presenting evidence as well.

We can expect a summary of the hearings held by Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee, presented by Intelligence Committee counsel Dan Goldman.  Goldman will hold his own in questioning from the two staff attorneys of the Intelligence Committee, then sit patiently while the Committee Members have their say.  Another day of Republican Doug Collin’s eye rolls and yelling, and more of young Matt Gaetz’s disdain for the process and decorum.  

At the end of the testimony, we might have a better feel for what the impeachment resolutions will look like.  The one thing to focus on:  if the testimony goes back to the Mueller Report, we can expect that Mueller findings may become part of the impeachment.  Certainly the second volume of Mueller’s findings, describing obstruction of justice, may well get rolled into the current charges.

Horowitz Report

On a different note, today we expect to see the Inspector General’s Report from the Justice Department about the origins of the Russia investigation into the Trump campaign.  Many of the findings were leaked early from the Justice Department, to lessen the impact of what the Report states.  Overall, in hundreds of pages, the report supposedly finds that the investigation opened under Director Comey was legal and proper.  

The leaks state that Inspector General Horowitz found (for at least the second time) that despite all of the right-wing cries of bias from Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Ohr and the rest, the investigation was, to use the Justice Department term of art, “properly predicated.”  There were mistakes made, and we will hear a lot about a junior attorney in Justice who added information to an email, but overall the vast conspiracy that Fox News and the rest has searched for, didn’t happen.

Attorney General Barr supposedly will contest the conclusions, denying his own IG’s findings.  That will allow Barr to continue the crisis, and make his worldwide search for evidence seem reasonable.  In the political world of Trump, if you don’t have the facts, keep stirring up “the mud”.

Lights, Action, Rudy!!

And speaking of mud, Rudy Giuliani has decided to go into the film making business.  He’s over in Ukraine, continuing his attempt to prove that it was Ukraine that attacked our election in 2016, and not Russia.  Rudy’s lined up “fact witnesses” to demonstrate his evidence.  The real “facts” of those witnesses:  they either have an “ax to grind” against Joe Biden, particularly Viktor Shokin the fired Ukrainian State Prosecutor, or they are fully funded assets of Russia.  But Giuliani is going to use the “documentary” to keep the Ukraine story going.  Supposedly he’s going to come back and present his findings to Attorney General Barr and Congress (I suspect to a sympathetic Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Lindsey Graham).  

For Giuliani’s sake, I hope the FBI doesn’t arrest him as he comes off the plane.  The SDNY (Southern District of New York) Federal Prosecutor seems to be breathing down Rudy’s neck, and charges can’t be too far behind.

So there’s a lot going on today.  Chairman Nadler started right on schedule.  Keep in mind, through all of the bluster and obfuscation, that history has it’s eye on this.

Charlie Brown Finally Kicks the Football – Not!!

Glass Half Full

I am a “glass half full” kind of guy.  I find that I carry what might be an unreasonable hope that “my fellow Americans” will act in a way that’s honorable and right for our nation, despite the pressure of politics.  And I find myself thinking that way today, even if my more skeptical side cries out:  “…she’s going to pull the ball again, and you’re going to kill yourself.”

My Secret List

Buried deep in my computer files is a “secret” list.  Each United States Senator is rated on a ‘five to one’ scale.  A ‘five’ will assuredly vote to impeach and remove the President, a ‘one’ is a true Trumper, dedicated to the proposition that no matter what President Trump does, it’s worth keeping him in office.  I last looked at the list two months ago.  Here was my optimistic view: forty-six fives and fours, definite votes for removal. A sign of the times, there were only three Senators that I would place “on the fence,” in the middle and unsure.

Two and a Half

Then there are the “two and a halfs.”  Those are the Republican Senators who I think are disturbed by the actions of the President.  They are faced with a tough challenge:  if they vote their conscience, they risk their political careers.  The problem is that no matter how they vote, the Democrats in their states may say “thanks,” but are still going to vote against them.  And while independents and “reasonable” Republicans might praise them for taking a principled stand, the big chunk of Republicans are “Kool-Aid drinking” Trumpers.  They will never forgive and never forget a vote to remove him from office.

So there are ten of those “two and a halfers.”  Adding all of those, and there are fifty-nine votes for removal, eight short of the needed sixty-seven.  Thirty-one Senators are “true Trumpers,” either true believers or politically sold out to the President.  Among those are two that might reasonably have been on a different part of the list:  Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John Kennedy of Louisiana.  At some point in the last couple years they seemed to have the possibility of independence, but that door slammed shut in the past couple months.

The “Twos”

That gets us to the “twos,” the “probably not’s”.  Some, like Mike Lee of Utah, don’t face much of an electoral threat.  Utah voters, even the Republicans, don’t like Trump.  Lee could survive a vote to remove.  And Lee prides himself as an “intellectual” Senator, one who supposedly operates from a deep understanding of American history and law.  So you would hope the facts would change his mind.  He’s given no sign of that transformation.

And some are leaving the Senate:  Isakson of Georgia, Grassley of Iowa, and Roberts of Kansas.  They, particularly Grassley and Roberts, are traditional Republicans, with nothing to lose if they vote their conscience rather than a loyalty to Trump.  They are not running for office again, so they will need to make a choice.  Will they be seen as “Profiles in Courage” or will they go quietly into political history?

Politicians

I started my working career not as a teacher, but as a politician.  I worked my first campaigns when I was fourteen, by seventeen I was helping make decisions on campaign strategy.  At twenty I was a Field Coordinator on the 1976 Carter Campaign, and then worked in Washington for a Congressman.  

The people I worked with were working for more than just a paycheck, especially on the Carter Campaign, where the paychecks were incredibly small.  They were working to literally “change the world”.   So was I.

I finished my college education with a stint as a student teacher, and that set up a conflict in my life.  I loved politics, and I loved teaching, and ultimately had to choose.

But I didn’t forget all of those folks I grew up with, working on campaigns and governing.  They weren’t there to profit, to become “powerful.”  They were trying to make things better for everyone, even the Republicans I fought with on the “trail”.  So I don’t think that all of the Senators are simply “corrupt” or laser focused on a goal of winning the next election.  They are aware of their role in history. 

I hope that they find that the weight of history is more pressing than their electoral success.  If not, Lucy will pull the football again, and we will land on our back.

The glass will still be half full. There’s always November.