Category: Uncategorized

I’m Not the Customer?

Please don’t talk about Facebook images of cats and kids. That’s not what the Facebook “crisis” is about, and it diminishes the political and cultural importance of “the platform” (even though cats and kids are also a part of the plan.)

What an existential dream: to connect everyone in the world, letting them communicate, send pictures, even show live videos to each other. Borders are non-existent, language barriers overcome, even governmental differences in law and freedom leveled. It was what we all hoped that Facebook could be, and we marveled at the brilliance and technology that allowed us to easily participate in this world experiment.

We thought we were the customer. We thought that Facebook was serving us, both individually and as a world culture. And certainly this was what Facebook encouraged us to see, a benevolent technological force serving all.

But of course, that wasn’t true. Mark Zuckerberg developed Facebook, placed it step by step into the nervous system of our culture, and worked to gain a profit. But the profit wasn’t in a fee for membership, that wouldn’t generate enough income and would limit participation. So what was the “product” to be sold, to generate income, ultimately billions of dollars?

What were people willing to give up (knowingly or not) in order to participate in the “great Facebook experiment?” If they weren’t being charged a fee, then were they getting “something for nothing.” Of course, that wasn’t true, there’s always a cost: the information that the participants gave to Facebook. It was personal data, it was movie choices, song choices, color and birthday choices, and the massive amount of commercial data. What advertisement did you click on (ultimately linking your web browsing to Facebook) and what political “trends” did you follow.

What could Facebook sell? They could trade everything they knew about you, and they could trade it to people that want to sell or convince you of something. They developed micro-targeted advertising, telling companies that they could identify their potential customers by using the incredible wealth of personal information they willingly gave to Facebook. Facebook employees were “embedded” in the buyer’s offices, to help them direct their advertising campaigns.

And it wasn’t just car parts, clothes, and music vendors. It was political entities that weren’t trying to make money, but gain a vote. They were selling their ideas and beliefs, working to convince you to believe in them. And, as we now know, it was other nations pushing their propaganda, and working to persuade or inflame you with real or fake events and ideas.

It was all for sale. And the sale price was based on volume: how many “clicks” would your particular “post” gain. And Facebook discovered what probably makes common sense: controversy and divisiveness stirs users up more than joy and unity. Sowing the seeds of “Facebook craziness” gets everyone in the argument. If you’re not sure what that’s about, check out the hundred plus comments on any post about guns these days.

So, make things crazy, let the “bomb throwers” loose, and more people get in, the volume of clicks go up, and Facebook can raise their rates.

And most insidiously, Facebook would let “others” experiment on us. That little fun “quiz” that you took, determining whether you are “emotional or stoic” not only went into the pile of your data, it gave up all of your friends’ data to the buyer as well. Facebook put that data out seemingly without restrictions – passively allowing the creation of “psychographic polling” claiming to be able to identify and motivate targeted voters.

Facebook offered their customers tons of data – about us. Somewhere in the “user agreement” we gave them permission to do it. So we did pay for Facebook use, in a new currency called “data.” And Facebook recognized the dangers and justified it. Two years ago, long before the election of 2016, a man murdered another man on Facebook Live. It was shocking and outrageous. A leaked Facebook internal memo of the time stated:

“Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good.”

Does Facebook believe in connecting people because it fulfills the existential dream, or the prospect of unlimited profit?

Should we abandon Facebook? Should we view Facebook as the real version of the “Skynet” (the malevolent computer system that took over the world in the movie “Terminator”) and step back? Or do we continue along the path, accepting that Zuckerberg is not working just for the “good” of mankind, and knowing that the “buyer must beware.”

Clearly we need to regulate this new, most valuable commodity, data (Zuckerberg would have us regulate advertising, but leave “his” data alone.) In order to gain the transparency that Facebook (and other platforms) have failed to achieve, intentionally or accidentally, we need a non-industry effort to gain control of the use of our data. It will be difficult because so much of what happens is proprietary to the platform, and in what to most of us is a “black box”.

But the existential dream shouldn’t be lost. The good of Facebook, opening the world and communication to all; is worth dealing with the problems. And, frankly, if Facebook was “shut down” someone else would find a way to modify the algorithms and continue the experiment. So let’s find a way to keep the good, moderate the bad, and work our way into a new world.

Hopefully it won’t take a “cyborg” returning from the future to protect us!!

“I’ll be Back!!”

A Well Regulated Militia

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – Second Amendment

I am a retired history teacher. I spent a career talking about the United States Constitution, from its advent to its current interpretation. With all of the controversy about the role of guns in American society, I decided to go back to my “roots” and re-read the decision of the US Supreme Court in 2008, The District of Columbia v Heller.

This was the last case argued over what the twenty-six words in the Second Amendment to the Constitution mean. It also changed over sixty years of Court decisions. It featured the giant of the Federalist Society and the doctrine of Original Interpretation, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in a five to four decision. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Kennedy joined in the majority.

Writing the dissent was Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. It was near the end of Stevens’ long service on the Court; he retired two years later. The dissent is why I went back to the Heller case, as Stevens, now 98 years old, wrote an editorial in the New York Times last week calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. This has raised the stakes of the current gun debate, lending some credence to the NRA’s claim that “…they are trying to take away our guns.”

Scalia was the leading Supreme Court product of the Federalist Society, a conservative movement in US law schools started in the early 1980’s. The Society believes that the only correct interpretation of the Constitution is the original intent of the words of the founding fathers. This group has been the source of Conservative Republican appointments, including Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch. Scalia looked not only to the founding fathers (James Madison actually worded the Amendment) but to the English Common Law that predated our statutory law.

Scalia interpreted the Amendment as forming two distinct parts: the establishment of militias by the states, and the individual right to bear weapons for the purpose of hunting and personal self-defense. This was a novel interpretation of the Amendment; in the past the first section, “a well regulated militia,” was seen as modifying the second clause. Scalia and the other Society Justices saw the second clause as free standing.

This overturned the significant precedence of earlier decisions that saw the government as having a clear ability to regulate weapons, based on the first clause, the “well regulated militia.”  The outcome of the decision placed  limitations on the local and state government’s ability to control weapons, and also put decisions on future actions on a “case by case” basis, without a clear standard that could be applied to every situation. Could, if there was the political will, the national government ban “assault style weapons?” That law, clearly allowed until the Heller case, now would have to be re-argued to the Supreme Court.   What the Court’s decision  would be is unclear.

Justice Steven’s dissent matched the precedence of earlier Court decisions, but it also went back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Stevens explained that the core issue of the Second Amendment was the fear of a national standing army. The American Revolution was fought in part over the constant presence and cost of keeping a British Army in the colonies. The Declaration of Independence spoke of the abuses of those troops, and the Third Amendment spoke directly to the struggles with a standing Army:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. – Third Amendment

Stevens wrote that the fear of a standing army led to the need for local militias, or civilians who were organized into military units to respond quickly. A limited standing army would be unable to protect against attacks in a far-flung frontier; “…well regulated militias…” were needed. And to be ready to respond, those militiamen needed to be able to “…keep and bear arms…”

Fear of a standing army: a statement that goes directly to the fears of many who demand the right to possess semi-automatic weapons with high velocity rounds in high capacity magazines today. It isn’t about hunting, in fact, James Madison had the right to bear arms for hunting and self protection as one of his choices in writing the amendment. He didn’t include it.

Today it is accepted that the “well regulated militia” is the individual state’s national guard. As far back as 1886 in Presser v Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that private militias are not “well regulated militias” as defined by the Amendment. The state National Guard serves the purpose of a quick mobilizing local force while not acting as a national standing army. We do have a standing Army (and Air Force, and Marines, and Navy); but they are prevented from acting in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. This law, written to put an end to the Union occupation of the South after the Civil War, prevents the military from engaging in policing duties in most cases.

Stevens in his dissent, saw the Scalia decision as opening the door to greater gun availability in the United States. His dissent outlined how the US could  gain control of guns, but as a dissent, had no legal authority. So now, ten years later, Stevens sees the only way to overturn Heller is to repeal the amendment itself.

Stevens is retired, replaced by Justice Kagan. Souter retired as well, replaced by Justice Sotomajor. The court still has a five to four conservative majority: the biggest prize of the 2016 election was the appointment of Gorsuch, a conservative, and the potential right to appoint the next justice should a position become available.

What will happen with guns in the United States is about what the Congress and individual state legislatures will do, but it is limited by what the Supreme Court will allow.  It all depends on the meaning of those twenty-six words.

 

 

The Voice of Sinclair

Sinclair Broadcasting owns television stations. Growing up in my family, with Dad running a television station in Dayton, Ohio (WLW-D now WDTN) we learned at a young age that just because a station broadcast NBC, ABC or CBS (the only choices in those days) didn’t mean that the network owned them. The station was a network “affiliate,” a deal was made for the station to run the network’s programming in order to get some advertising time during the network’s time.

But the owner of the station was the company that hired or fired employees, set the rules, and owned the buildings. In my father’s days he worked for three; Crosley, then Avco, and finally Multimedia. Dad was in Dayton for eight years, and the station went through three owners.

Sinclair Broadcasting owns one hundred seventy three stations in the United State today, in eighty markets. In the central Ohio market, they own WSYX (channel six), and they also have a management contract to run WTTE (channel twenty-eight.) They are currently asking the Federal Communication Commission if they can buy another fifty stations, ultimately reaching seventy-five percent of the United States. The FCC, the same group that ended “net neutrality” a couple of months ago so that internet providers could find more ways to profit from internet speed, is controlled by Republicans, so Sinclair’s politically conservative view will get a sympathetic hearing.

There is a valid argument that the FCC should prevent any one media source from so dominating the market. In the past, there were rules in place to prevent such massive saturation, and those rules served us well. Today, broadcasters are acting on the rules as they exist, and it’s hard to blame Sinclair for expanding their business.

This past weekend, Sinclair Broadcasting had many of its local “news anchors” read the same script, decrying “fake news” and “bias in the media.” Sinclair owns the stations, Sinclair employ the news anchors; those anchors did as they were told.

The Sinclair Statement

Sinclair is a private corporation, and has every right to have an editorial voice on the stations they own. Even back in the 1960’s, my father the station manager would occasionally read an editorial representing the corporation’s views (and we kids would gladly critique how he did on TV.) When USA Today, a newspaper marketed throughout the country, writes an editorial it goes out to the nation. So do they “national” newspapers like the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame) the New York Times and the Washington Post. It’s on the editorial page.

And Sinclair has a corporate spokesman that they use as part of their newscast. Boris Epshteyn, a former spokesman for the Trump campaign, now does editorial segments that are shown on the Sinclair stations. So what’s the big deal about Sinclair sending a script for their local news anchors to read.

The difference is the blending of factual news and editorial opinion. We have an expectation, especially of local news reporters, that they will give us the facts about the stories they report, without their own opinions. And while that distinction is more difficult to make on the national level, the news reporters of NBC, CBS and ABC (and NPR) are still generally reporting “the facts.” This is not as true of “cable news” of course, where it sometimes is difficult to determine bias, from CNN to MSNBC, and, Fox News.

But we expect the local news to gives us the facts (in fact, the National Association of Broadcasters is running an advertising campaign based on that expectation.) And when our trusted local reporter reads an editorial script provided by the national owner, it blurs the lines. Is this “facts” as in news, or is this “opinion” as in not news (or as the President might decry – fake news?)

We are a nation of “buckets.” Folks listen or read or see the news from the sources that agree with their existing political opinion. It might be why MSNBC is locked onto our televisions (on now as I type.) It’s also why I sometimes find the need to get out of my comfort zone, and watch Fox News for a while (but not for long.) But local television: Colleen and Mike, Stacia and Bob, and Jerry and Yolanda; we depend on them for facts about traffic, city government, fires, and all the events of local importance. When they get stuffed into political buckets, we lose an important source of information.

Sinclair can editorialize, but they should keep the lines clear.

 

Don Dahlman (1980) VP Multimedia Broadcasting

I am a Liberal

I recently got embroiled in a Facebook discussion about guns. One of the participants wasn’t interested in the “pros and cons.” His goal: insult anyone who disagreed with his position. That’s the definition of a “troll,” and even those who disagreed with my positions called him out for it.

He called me a lot of names, but he seemed to think that the ultimate insult was “liberal.” I think I surprised him when I agreed – I am a Liberal.

I am a Liberal. What does that mean?

That it is the role of society to help those who cannot help themselves. We need to raise-up everyone in our society, and those that are more fortunate need to help those that are less fortunate.

Liberals believe that there are basic human rights for EVERY human, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, political philosophy, sexual identity, national status or other ways we can find to divide each other. This includes: safety, nourishment, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and opportunities to fulfill their dreams. Sounds a lot like the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence doesn’t it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are not optional, and they aren’t based on someone “earning” these rights. By virtue of their humanity, everyone should have them. As a Liberal, I believe it is the duty of our society (through our government) to make sure that ALL the members have the opportunity to those rights. For those who are less fortunate, the government should intervene to help them. By the way, isn’t that what government is supposed to do; those who don’t need government help are going to get along anyway. A government that serves those who don’t need help, sounds like the Russian kleptocracy of Vladimir Putin (and a good reason not to find ways to cooperate with Russia.)

Liberalism sounds a lot like the Constitution too, doesn’t it?

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Liberalism is a founding principal of the United States, imbedded in the words and faith of the founding fathers. As a Liberal I believe it is the destiny of the United States to fulfill the dreams of our founders by raising-up all of our society. We are not only the “city on the hill” example of the Bible and Ronald Reagan, but the “golden door” of Emma Lazarus. We are on a mission: to act as an example to the world, to help the world attain these same goals, and to welcome immigrants through the “golden door” and into our democracy.

Liberalism is the opposite of selfishness. And it is also the opposite of Communism, where the ultimate authority is the state. Liberals see the state as guaranteeing people attain their basic human rights, and enabling them to pursue their dreams. The state is not the ultimate authority (the people are) but it is the ultimate tool for individuals to reach their goals.

And finally, it is government’s job to intervene to fix societal problems. School shootings, inner city violence, rural hunger, global warming: all of these problems can and should be addressed by the government.

That’s what Liberalism is about. It shouldn’t be any surprise then, that Liberals “take a side” on the ongoing political issues of today.

We believe there is global warming, that humans are impacting on it, and that humans need to fix it.

We believe that our society of “gun culture” has created a dangerous environment, one that cannot be solved by adding MORE guns. We need to reach solutions that take military style weapons out of the hands of civilians, and we need to address the problems that cause gun use in the inner city.

We believe that education needs to be accessible (not just available) to every child. We believe that education is a path towards “…the pursuit of happiness” of the Declaration. People cannot “pursue happiness” if the cost of education puts them deeply in debt, therefore we need to find a way to pay for it. The returns on that investment would ultimately exceed the costs.

We believe that health care should not be an option, but a right. Our government should guarantee that health care is based on need, not ability to pay.

We believe that regardless of how people got to America, now they are here we have an obligation to their basic rights. This does not mean that we become a nation of open borders, but that we recognize that the United States is complicit in the reasons for illegal immigration and needs to take responsibility for the outcomes.

And finally, we believe that every American should be able to “pursue happiness” in their own way. Our nation should not be in the business of determining gender or identity. That is for individuals to determine.

When I wrote the introduction to “Trump World” over a year ago I said the following:

 In this age of “identification”, you can put my ideology in the Liberal column (I hate the new-speak “Progressive”) and politically in the Democratic party. Now you’ve got me categorized, it might be time to “turn me off”.   That’s what we do in this new political world: “turn off” any ideas that might conflict with our own: ideas that might pierce our little bubble. (Astronomy and the Trump Administration )

 That’s our political world today. But another reason for writing “Trump World” was to try to reach across the ideological barriers, and find common ground. By defining what I believe, I hope that those who see the term “liberal” as an insult can find common cause in liberal values.

 

 

 

The Right to an Attorney

The Supreme Court Case, Miranda v Arizona, guaranteed a defendant the “right” to an attorney. The famous Miranda Warning is on every cop show on TV, so much so that many have it memorized:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court. With these rights in mind, are you still willing to talk with me about the charges against you?”

The American Constitution and legal tradition is one of judicial fairness.   Fairness is maintained by balancing attorneys both for the government (the prosecution) and for the defendant. The phrase: “every defendant is entitled to an adequate defense” is also a part of our legal tradition. Even the most heinous crimes, from the Boston Bomber to the Parkland shooter, are provided with good and often highly expert attorneys to argue their case.

In the rarified world of Presidential “crime” there are only a few attorneys with great experience. David Boies and Ted Olson are two of those high-powered counselors.  They were on the opposing sides of the Bush v Gore case, the only contested Presidential election to go to the Supreme Court. Greg Craig and Robert Bennett were Clinton’s lawyers during his impeachment proceedings. Craig also represented Jonathan Edwards in the former Vice Presidential candidate’s campaign finance trial. These lawyers and a few others are the “A” team of Presidential defense.

None of them are working for President Trump. And that’s too bad.

No really, it’s too bad. Trump doesn’t even have a ‘C’ team. His only lawyer of “stature,” Ty Cobb, is actually representing the office of the President, not Trump himself. His lead lawyer, John Dowd, never had the stature of the traditional Presidential attorneys (hard to attain that while flipping off TV cameras and swearing at reporters.)  And he quit.

Meanwhile, it truly is an ‘A’ team of prosecutors under the Mueller umbrella. The top prosecutors in the nation, with varying areas of expertise, are primed and ready to take on the President. Trump needs to “up his game.”

There are several reasons attorneys choose not to work for Trump. Some are truly conflicted, already representing clients involved in the Russiagate scandal. One of the “big league,” Abbie Lowell, is representing Jared Kushner, and is thus barred from representing Trump. Even the ‘C’ lawyers Trump wanted to hire, Joe DiGenova and his wife, were conflicted by representing Mark Carallo, the former spokesman for Trump’s legal team who may be involved in obstruction of justice.

Some are concerned that representing Trump will damage their firm. Other clients, particularly corporate clients, don’t want their lawyers connected with Trump. And some think that a connection with Trump will damage their reputation.

And finally, Trump has a reputation for not paying for services. This is a case that will require millions of dollars; no firm is looking to do it for nothing.

So Trump’s main lawyer at the moment is Jay Sekulow. Sekulow’s area of expertise is religious and Constitutional law, and while he defended the US Treasury in tax court, he has no criminal law experience. The team has also added Andrew Ekonomou, a former acting US Attorney, has worked on criminal and racketeering cases in Georgia. In 2000 at age fifty, he went back to Emory University to earn a PhD in medieval history.

Trump spent a great deal of time crying “foul” during the 2016 election campaign. He claimed he wasn’t treated fairly by the media, and that the election was rigged. He knows how to be a “victim,” and he has proven to be able to sell that to his base.

The difference between the “Trump Team” and the “Mueller Team” is obvious. The fact that “big league” attorneys won’t work for Trump is his fault (and personally satisfying) but it sets up a whole future scenario with Trump as the “victim” of those “smart Mueller guys.”

With the crisis that looms with the end of the Mueller investigation, Trump has already laid out his strategy of undercutting Mueller. “They are all Democrats,” “it’s an illegal investigation,” and “we weren’t experienced in national campaigns” all are excuses for losing to Mueller. They don’t need another: “no one would work for us.”

Trump has the right to an attorney. Like it or not, he needs a good one.

This for My “Gun Toting Friends”

I’ve noticed that Facebook is making me crazy. Many of my friends, often former students, are true believers in the Second Amendment. They have semi-automatic weapons, and they believe they have a right to them. I don’t agree with that, and I’m happy to argue the point with them.

But it’s not about civil discourse anymore. It’s about energizing your side by putting up Facebook posts that attacks the other side. Some are funny, especially the one that posts a picture of a car jack laid on its side, and says, “post this picture of an AR-15 to make you gun control friends crazy.” I bet it works.

But there’s a lot more that just don’t make sense to me. The kids of Parkland High School, radicalized by the experience of having their friends die, have stepped into the spotlight. They are mobilizing students, and adults, across the country; and they are calling for a ban on assault weapons. Their experience gives them the right to have an opinion.

But there are many, many posts that denigrates their right to an opinion, they are “just kids,” and even question their validity (one post claims that one of the kids is a “crisis actor” that goes from national crisis to crisis to push a pro gun control view.) As a social studies teacher, it was always one of my goals to teach my students how to argue for their view. As a teacher, back in the day, I would take whatever side needed help in our classroom discussions. The one rule: you can’t argue the person, just the facts and opinions. When you drop to the “you’re stupid” argument – you’ve lost!

Now as a retired teacher, I have put my political and social views out for public view. I must have been pretty good at hiding my real opinions, because lots of folks are surprised at what I believe. But sometimes I want to go back to that classroom, and remind folks that if you can’t argue facts and opinions, you must not have a very strong argument.

I know that guns are a powerful issue in our country. I know when “my side” says, “we aren’t going to stop hunters,” they miss the point. Many gun advocates hold that having guns is a means of defending their democracy. It ain’t about deer, it’s about our society. That’s a discussion we all need to have. We (my side) can’t just laugh them off as “black helicopter” folks, we must understand that their views are real, and the feeling, legitimate.

But attacking the kids at Parkland, or those that fear government crackdown, or anyone who has the courage to step out and voice their views, is just a form of bullying. We live in the same country, we need to be able to talk through the issue. That’s the first step to reaching some consensus in our world.

It’s About Counting

While all of the other issues fill the news, from Stormy Daniels to Russian expulsions; Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has quietly made a decision to help maintain Republican power. It consists of a simple question on the 2020 Census: are you and members of your household US citizens?

It seems like an obvious question to ask on the census. The Department of Justice requested that the Commerce Department (who actually conducts the census)  add the question in order to gain information, supposedly to enforce the Voting Rights Act, guaranteeing minority voting rights. But the inclusion of this question is likely to have an insidious impact on the census, changing the actual count.

The Constitutional goal of the census (Article 1, Section 2, Part 3) is to get a count of the number of people in a state, for the purpose of dividing Congressional representation. The count is NOT a count of voters or citizens, and in fact, the original Constitution contained the famous 3/5’s clause (3/5’s of all other people – referring to slaves) as part of the count. Clearly slaves weren’t considered citizens or voting for representatives, but they were counted (at least in fraction) for the purpose of Representation.

So the census is supposed to count everyone, including those living in the United States illegally. When the census questionnaire is passed out (or when census takers go door-to-door) households are required to answer it, but are assured that the results will be confidential. So why would a simple question about citizenship raise such concerns?

Citizenship status in the United States is a major question of our time. Heads of households, responsible for answering the census questionnaire, might have in their homes folks who have overstayed their visas and are in the US illegally, or might have DACA eligible folks, or might have perfectly legal Americans in their home who are worried about the actions of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) rounding up “illegals.” By answering the question on the census, they will feel that they are providing information that could target them for “enforcement.”

So they dodge the census, and avoid being counted (this has already been shown in “test census” questionnaires.) This reduces the number counted in that state, and could change the representation to the US House of Representatives.

The Republican Party has intentionally pursued a policy of suppressing Democratic voting since 2008. It has been an extremely effective plan, including demanding photo identification to vote, “purging” voting roles of voters who fail to vote in every election, making voting more difficult in heavily Democratic voting districts, and gerrymandering Districts to maximize Republican representation. While each of these actions are legal, they have had the net effect of “rigging the game” for Republicans.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are good examples of this. Donald Trump got 54% of the popular vote to Hillary Clinton’s 44% in 2016, a clear Republican victory. However, in Ohio State House of Representative, Republicans won 66% of the seats, far exceeding even the popular Trump campaign. In Pennsylvania, Trump eked out a victory 48.1% to 47.5%, but 67% of the State House seats went to Republicans.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are in the process of disentangling the gerrymandered Districts. Pennsylvania’s courts are forcing the issue there, while Ohio is working through the legislative process to make Districts more representative of the views of their citizens. But the national Republican Party is continuing to follow “the plan” by putting a question on the census which by design will reduce the number of minority Americans who will be counted. In other words, reduce the “population” of likely Democratic areas, thus increasing the relative power of Republican districts.

In the final analysis, the Republican strategy is short sighted. While these tactics may maintain their power for a little longer, in the end, America is becoming a more “minority” nation. If Republicans don’t recognize that change, they ultimately will find themselves with the Federalists and Whigs, relegated to the historic trivia bin.

But in the meantime, every resident should be counted. The census should not be a place for partisan targeting, it should be the one place where we can find out accurately what is happening in America. It’s what the founding fathers, with all of their flaws, wanted, and it’s what America needs today. Secretary Ross should drop the question.

 

Don’t Change the Subject

Saturday, March 24^th 2018, we saw what youth can do. Hundreds of thousands marched in Washington, and millions more marched across the country. They marched for change and for making their lives and ours, better. They are high school kids and they marched to claim possession of the power to end an American problem, a problem that older generations failed to solve.

Their speeches were articulate and moving. Even in a little rally at the county courthouse in Newark, Ohio, the high school students made their views clear, and asked for simple common sense.   They also spoke from their heart, from the fear of a generation taught to bar the door, huddle in the corner, and throw rocks and soup cans against a semi-automatic rifle.

They have made it clear: America should not be a land where mass shootings are commonplace. They see a the way to solve the problem, remove the weapons of war that have strangely been accepted into our society by the older generations. Yes, better mental health care; yes, better background checks; but the real solution is in the guns.

Don’t change the subject. Adults who see the power of the movement are drawn to deflect it for their own needs. Well meaning adults, even teachers. who want to see less bullying in schools, who want to see kindness in place of cruelty, are trying to co-opt the energy of the “revolution.” These adults are acting as a buffer for the NRA, distracting from the raw agenda that frightens the lobbyists. Don’t let them change the subject.

Politicians see a mass of energy, votes, and workers. They may share many of the “revolution’s” views, but they see a path to election through the kids. They want that energy behind them, so they race to lead the students. These kids don’t want or need to be lead. They are not interested in the traditions of transactional politics. Agree, don’t agree, to them it’s how do they get America to change. Politicians: don’t change the subject.

There certainly are adults who are “enabling” these students. As one of the student leaders said, “…I’m seventeen, I can’t make a hotel reservation.” Those adults are doing a great job of coaching, letting the students determine the course, and then helping them find the tools to get to their goals. There are parents and teachers and school administrators behind these kids, but they have found the way to let kids lead. They haven’t changed the subject, and they have kept the movement in the students’ hands.

And the students have expanded their movement to include not just victims of mass shootings. One of the most powerful speeches in Washington yesterday was by a young woman from South-Central Los Angeles. She spoke of the loss of her brother to gun violence, she learned to “duck” gunfire before she could read. We heard from black students from Chicago, where gun and police violence are part of their everyday lives. This is more than just the students who survived Parkland, it’s about kids who survive gun violence everyday.

The National Rifle Association will try to make this about “privileged Parkland kids.” They’ll try to pit rural versus urban kids, and they’ll try to convince America that there are only two choices: semi-automatic weapons or taking away the Second Amendment and all guns. These kids recognize that the subject is much more complicated, they aren’t falling for the NRA bait. Don’t let the NRA change the subject.

How can we enable these students without co-opting their movement? They are really asking for one thing:  that our vote becomes our tool for change. We must demand of our candidates that they accept a solution to end gun violence. If they do, then they get our vote, if they don’t, then we vote them out. That’s how we can support this “revolution.” And, we can’t let others change the subject.

 

As Seen on TV!!!

I take a few days off to travel across the country, and look what happens. Sure, there’s the Porn Star, the Playgirl, and the Apprentice contestant; all suing the President for one sex related thing or another. And, of course, there’s the lawsuit filed by several states claiming that the President is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by profiting from the office of the Presidency. And then there was the congradulatory (sic) phone call to Vladimir Putin, praising him for rigging the Russian election and killing off his opponents. Oh, and forgetting to mention that Putin used nerve gas to try to kill a former spy in the United Kingdom. And then there’s the $60 Billion trade war with China, and a 700 point drop in the Dow Jones Average.

It’s hard to imagine a worse week for President Trump.

But here we are. Thursday was another crazy day in Trump World. John Dowd, the President’s lead attorney for the Russiagate investigation, resigned. His replacement, already hired in the reverse world of Trump, is Fox Television personality and analyst Joe DiGenova. DiGenova, whose recent law practice consists of going on Fox and claiming that the FBI was plotting against Trump, meets the requirements for the President’s new strategy towards the Mueller investigation.

It seems that Dowd, and his compatriot Ty Cobb, were presenting a defense based on “facts” they believed showed that Trump was innocent of any charges of conspiracy (collusion) with the Russians. Their “innocence strategy” included being cooperative with the investigators, and waiting for Mueller to prove the President’s position.

It doesn’t seem to be happening; Mueller continues to rack up more facts that raise questions about Trump’s involvement, and his vulnerability to influence and blackmail. An “innocence defense” won’t work if the client isn’t innocent. DiGenova represents Trump’s change in strategy: now it won’t be about the “facts,” but about the biased investigators who are trying to “overthrow” the elected government. DiGenova’s employment means that things will get very ugly; it’s Trump’s move to go “to war” against the Mueller team.

It’s likely that Trump will soon move against Mueller, following the “Saturday Night Massacre” example of the Watergate years.

Hard to imagine, but that wasn’t the worst reality TV of the day. Over the past fourteen months, one of the quiet saving graces of the Trump administration was the presence of the “adults” in the room. Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Mattis, Chief of Staff Kelly, and National Security Advisor McMasters were considered the calming forces in the turmoil of Trump World. By Thursday, Tillerson and McMasters were gone (fired, by tweet or phone call.) Replacing Tillerson at State: Mike Pompeo from the CIA, a “hard liner” on issues like Iran and North Korea.

And, as seen on TV, the replacement for McMasters is a real bomb thrower. John Bolton, most recently a Fox Commentator (“we should pre-emptively bomb North Korea”) and chairman of a conservative political action committee (over $1 million from the Mercer’s of Trump-Bannon and Cambridge Analytica fame) is to take the National Security role. McMasters has been the calming voice in the White House, Bolton hasn’t ever found a war he didn’t like. When Trump starts thinking about using his “bigger button,” Bolton is likely to push it for him.

It’s Friday morning. Is Kelly next on the Trump “hit list?” Will Mattis stay? When (not if) will Mueller be fired? And what will Stormy Daniels say or show on “60 Minutes” Sunday evening? It would be a great TV drama, if it wasn’t real.

How long will this go on? The question is really one for Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell. Now that they have passed their omnibus budget (which Trump this morning threatened to veto) will they finally begin to pressure Trump to end the drama? Don’t bet on that outcome, they are in for the entire season of Trump World.

 

It’s been 37 days since the school shootings at Parkland High School.  Tomorrow (Saturday 3/24) students and their supporters across the country will march for change.  Their power and dedication is amazing:  and the children shall lead!!!

 

 

 

 

Stone’s Dream

Roger Stone was twenty-one when he was called in front of the Watergate prosecutors in 1973. He had been a “dirty trickster” in the Richard Nixon re-election campaign for the past two years. Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (ironically known as CREEP) had a secretly funded wing, led by lawyer Donald Segretti, to sabotage opposition campaigns.

Nasty letters, cancelled rallies, misdirected motorcades: dirty tricks to disrupt and distract. And sometimes, more serious attacks: the “Canuck Letter” written by the Nixon team took out the strongest Democrat, Maine Senator Ed Muskie. Nixon ended up running against a far weaker Senator George McGovern from South Dakota. It was one of the largest electoral landslides.

Stone, the youngest to testify in Watergate, to this day believes that the Nixon campaign didn’t do anything wrong. He has lived his life by the model of those Nixon tricksters, on the fringe of New York Republican politics, priding himself in his scams and false dealings. He became a protégé of Roy Cohn, the infamous lawyer from the McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s.

Stone has Richard Nixon’s face tattooed on his back. He’ll take his shirt off and show you. His dream is to re-write history.

Cohn introduced Stone to another client, Donald Trump.

Stone has been the informal political advisor to Trump for the past two decades. He claims that the Presidential run was his idea, and was an early member of the Trump campaign. He left the campaign early as well, but continued to work for Trump “from the outside.” In Roger Stone’s case, that’s probably on or over the edge of legality. Stone clearly was in contact with Julian Assange of Wikileaks about the leaked Democratic emails during the summer and fall of 2016.

The Watergate break-ins, the proximate cause of the Watergate scandal, took place in June of 1972. It was a petty bugging operation of the Democratic National Headquarters, and while the break-in itself was “small time,” it led to two major issues that brought down the Nixon Presidency. The first was the illegal use of campaign money, millions of dollars in cash in a closet, to fund the illegal operations. Those operations weren’t just campaign related, as Nixon also used his “Plumbers” to break into the offices of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist trying to find incriminating information on him (Ellsberg was the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers recently highlighted in the film “The Post”.)

The second issue became the case against the President himself. He directly participated in a major effort to obstruct justice by covering up the campaign and White House staff’s involvement in illegal activities. He tried to use the FBI and CIA to block investigations, he bribed people, and did everything he could to discredit the forces against him.

And, if Roger Stone is in part orchestrating the Trump response to Russiagate, he is following the Nixon playbook. Watergate failed to reach the level of court or Congressional investigation until the summer of 1973. Until then, the “crisis” was sustained by the press, notably Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post, but, then as now, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were involved, as well as other papers. CBS news, and particularly Daniel Schorr, were also part of continuing the story.

Nixon did his best to attack and discredit the press, using both his press secretary Ron Ziegler, and other administration officials. Vice President Spiro Agnew described the press this way:

“A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Stone has Trump on the same game plan, but this time with a powerful tool to bypass the media. Twitter has allowed Trump to speak unfiltered to the masses. The reporters aren’t “effete snobs,” they are now just all “fake news.” It’s actually been an effective strategy, especially with Fox News following the President’s lead. Ultimately though, like Watergate, the investigation has moved to the professionals. In Watergate it was Archibald Cox and his team, today it’s Robert Mueller.

Nixon fired Archibald Cox in the famous Saturday Night Massacre of October 1973. Stone believes that Nixon should have followed up the firing with a bonfire, burning the incriminating audio tapes on the White House lawn in order to “preserve executive privilege” over the information. Instead Congress appointed a new prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who continued the Court process to force the release of those tapes. When, in July of 1974 Nixon was forced to turn them over (Nixon v United States, US Supreme Court) the evidence clearly showed Nixon’s guilt and he was doomed.

Stone won’t let Trump make the same mistake. When the “hammer drops” on Mueller, Stone will make sure the investigation doesn’t continue. That means (or meant) Andrew McCabe out at FBI, and Chris Wray on notice that the Russia investigation is a career ender. It means Devin Nunes’ efforts to discredit any evidence showing Trump conspiracy with the Russians will actually have an impact; as cover for the “good” Republicans to use when they refuse to appoint another Special Counsel. Stone’s goal: no Leon Jaworski and no Supreme Court this time.

Stone is quietly communicating with the “Trump stalwarts” in the Congress, most notably Congressman Matt Goetz from Florida. As Trump loses more and more of his inner advisors, Stone remains at the other end of the phone late at night, helping the President maintain office.

Stone’s dream: this time they’ll get it right, and show the world how “hard ball” is played. This time, Nixon (whoops – Trump) won’t be forced from office. This time, and for all time, the men who dedicated themselves to Nixon/Trump will prevail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts of a Guilty Man

A may seem simplistic, but an innocent man tends to act innocent, and a guilty one guilty. Innocent folks are open, they are willing to cooperate, they are willing to discuss. If you need an example James Comey would certainly be one: he is open, he is willing to discuss, there is no subterfuge, even about the questionable decisions he made about the Clinton email investigation.

Oddly enough, another innocent (seeming) man is Sam Nunberg. As “manic” as his reactions to the Mueller subpoena seemed to be, he came across as an innocent guy, who wanted to defend his friend Roger Stone, and who was overwhelmed with the task of searching through three years of emails. His “manic” behavior, going from one interview to the next, made us question his mental health, but not his guilt. This contrasts to Carter Page, who also did a whole series of bizarre interviews. Page left us with the feeling that he was either nuts, or playing the “nut” role. I’m betting on the latter.

So let’s take the Trump side for a moment, and look at the defense strategy he has taken.

The first move was to immediately deny any and all charges of “collusion” (whatever that term means, the legal charge would be conspiracy.) He’s done that since January of 2017, when the Steele dossier was first revealed. Every step in the investigation since then has been followed with the claim of “…no collusion here…”

The next move was to discredit the investigators. When the Russia investigation began, it was led by the media. “FAKE NEWS” was the cry, and every detail was challenged. Michael Cohen (Trump’s private lawyer) immediately initiated a lawsuit against the first publisher of the Steele Dossier, Buzzfeed. Attacks against journalists began (and continue) from Jim Acosta at “Fake News CNN” to Michael Schmidt at the “failing New York Times,” to “sleepy eyed Chuck Todd that son of a bitch” at MSNBC.

Fake News, Fake News, Fake News, Fake News: over and over again, denying the truthfulness and the accuracy of the American media. And while many Americans have been able to get past the background noise, to those looking for a Trump defense, this was the first and foremost.

As the investigation moved to its legal phase, the attacks changed to include the investigators themselves. They claim that the FBI (the same agency that impacted the outcome of the 2016 election by revealing further Hillary Clinton email investigations) was corrupted against Trump. There were texts between a lead FBI agent and his “paramour” (gotta love that word – it characterizes the illicit nature of both participants) showing they hated Trump (and Clinton and Bernie Sanders – but we never get much on that.) They fire the leader of the agency, Comey, then attack his replacement, McCabe.

They bring in Rod Rosenstein, then immediately begin to attack him (“a Democrat from Baltimore” – not true by the way.) Soon it’s a picture of an entire Department of Justice gone rogue, from Rosenstein through the FBI.

There is no real evidence that any of this is true, it’s all two plus two equal five stuff. But it doesn’t matter. Damage the investigators, and call into question the outcome of the investigation, even before the outcome has come out! These are the actions of someone who presumes guilt, not innocence.

And what about Robert Mueller himself? Other than the repetitious claim that his team is “Democrats” there has been little else said about the investigators. The FBI has borne the brunt of the charges; the lawyers and investigators working out of the Mueller offices have been immune so far. They are the final target – when Trump goes directly after Mueller, either through word or deed (attempting to fire him) we will know that the end is near.

When you step back from the details of the fray, insults, interviews, indictments and investigations; what you see is a long term pattern: actions of guilt. I don’t claim to know what Trump is guilty of, more likely financial failures than direct campaign violations (though everything is possible) but he sure is acting like a guilty man.

 

Crocodile Tears

Let’s get one thing straight. The Russians hacked the 2016 election. They may have altered actual votes. They definitely altered social media and magnified our differences (and continue to do so.) We have not “paid them back” for their actions.

But, the proximate cause of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss was the actions of the FBI. The polling results are clear. Before the famous “Comey Letter” of October 28^th, Clinton was surviving the storms of Wikileaks’ released emails. Trump was struggling with the impact of the “Access Hollywood” tape. Comey’s letter, reopening the investigation into the Clinton emails, flipped the polling. She never recovered.

It’s odd that President Trump has taken such hatred towards Comey, McCabe, Storzk and the rest of the FBI. I understand his resentment of Mueller; but those other guys are the REASON he got elected. Pay-backs are a bitch, I guess.

So “Dems,” let’s not cry “crocodile tears” for the “gallant heroes” of the FBI. James Comey, as much of a Boy Scout as he appears, is the reason we are living with Trump in the first place. Had he left his black and white Boy Scout world, he could have found a gray answer that didn’t require him to alter the US democratic process. If he had followed the black and white rules of his own Department of Justice, he would have kept his letter “shut.” He felt that there was a greater moral calling, and he changed history.

And Andrew McCabe today reigns as the role model for the modern FBI agent. Intelligent, ambitious, willing to deal with the nuances of intelligence work, McCabe made the decision to allow the “Weiner Computer” crisis to sit on his desk for three weeks. It was only at the last minute that he determined that something had to be done (the Comey letter.) This was perhaps to head off the internal politics of leaks from the New York FBI office, whose members were using Rudy Guiliani to get their information to Fox News.

Absolutely, Attorney General Jeff Sessions knifed McCabe in the back last night. Whether the internal investigation showed wrong-doing or not, clearly the “due process” that should be afforded to all employees was not followed. What should have been weeks if not months of deliberations, hearings, and discussions; got done in four hours.

Sessions likely did so in an effort to keep his own job. Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t really need an excuse to fire Sessions, but one would be nice. Sessions followed the clear dictates of his President (“…who will bring me the head of that wretched priest…”) making sure that McCabe can’t get full benefit of the twenty some years with the Bureau.

It’s petty. It’s vindictive. It’s everything we think about the Trump Administration, from firing by tweet to close advisors who become “volunteers who hardly helped.” And it probably damages the Bureau, putting agents on notice that theirs is a most political world. Mueller better back up his files.

But let’s not cry crocodile tears for McCabe, Comey and the rest. Whatever their intentions in October of 2016, when they revealed the Clinton investigation but hid the Trump investigation, they made their “big boy” decisions. They altered the course of American history. They stuck us with this President.

 

Musical Chairs

The game has begun. It started a few weeks ago, when the fallout from the lack of security clearances at the White House finally caught up with the Trump Administration. Robert Porter, the Staff Secretary, heard the music stop, and found that he had no place to sit without a security clearance. Allegations of abuse against two wives, already known to the White House Counsel (and presumably the Chief of Staff John Kelly as well) leaked out to the public. Mr. Porter needed to exit the game.

Next came White House Communication Director Hope Hicks. After her meeting with the Mueller Investigation, and then a House Committee hearing where she admitted to telling “white lies” for the President, it was time for her to lose a place.

Then the President’s body man, John McEntee was up. It seems he has a gambling problem.

But the bigger chairs were opening up too. Gary Cohn, Chief Economics Advisor ignored on tariff policy, it was time for him to go. And now Rex Tillerson, long abused Secretary of State, has been unceremoniously shown the door (through a tweet.) CIA Director Mike Pompeo was tapped to fill his place.

Last night, conservative columnist Bill Kristol posted the following:

This is RUMINT, but pretty credible RUMINT: Trump preparing to fire Sessions, name Pruitt Acting AG (which he can be since he already holds a Senate confirmed position), and Pruitt fires Mueller. And McMaster likely to be replaced by Bolton. Shulkin also on way out, FWIW.

RUMINT = Rumored Intelligence

FWIW – for what it’s worth.

Under the “Vacancy Reform Act of 1998” the President of the United States has multiple choices to fill a vacant position. One choice is to follow the Constitutional pattern: nominate someone for the job, then wait for Senate hearings and a confirmation vote. This fills the position “permanently.” In the meantime, the normal line of succession within the agency would be followed. For example: Trump fires Sessions, nominates someone else for the job, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein acts as Attorney General until the appointment is confirmed.

The second method is for the President to appoint an “acting” person to the position, then nominate someone else for the “permanent appointment.” The “acting” person must have already passed Senate muster for another job, may only serve 210 days, and cannot be the nominee for the position. In this scenario: Trump fires Sessions, orders Tom Pruitt from EPA to run both the EPA and be Acting Attorney General, then at the President’s leisure, nominates someone to the Attorney General job.

This has already been done with the Consumer and Finance Protection Bureau. Richard Cordray, now a candidate for Governor of Ohio, resigned as Director. Mick Mulvaney, Director of Office of Management and Budget, was further detailed as acting Director of CCFB (ostensibly to dismantle the agency, though Mulvaney denies it.)

The Mueller investigation seems to be tightening around the President and his family. With increasing evidence that the President was directly effected by US sanctions against Russia in 2014 and tried to bargain them away during the election, and damning information on the conflicts of interest Jared Kushner has between his actions as a Senior Counsel to the President and begging for investments in his New York real estate disasters; it actually seems inevitable that Trump would look for a way to lash back at the Mueller team. Here’s how it may go.

Step One

The Department of Justice has just wrapped up its investigation of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. A recommendation has been made that McCabe, who has less than a week until he can officially retire, be fired from he Bureau (thus preventing him from collecting his pension.) The final say on what happens to McCabe is in the hands of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Whatever Sessions does: fire McCabe or allow McCabe to keep his pension; could be the final grounds for dismissal that Trump is looking for.

Step Two

Trump fires Sessions (probably by an early morning tweet) and appoints Pruitt (former Attorney General of Oklahoma) to the job of Acting Attorney General. This puts the Mueller Investigation in a difficult position. Muller currently acts under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, after Sessions recused himself from all Russia related matters. Pruitt is not recused, and could take charge of the Mueller team. In that capacity, he could limit the scope of investigation and indictments, or fire Mueller himself.

Step Three

Even if Mueller is not fired, it is unlikely that he can bring indictments against a serving President. (Current Justice Department policy opposes this, if Mueller were to bring such an indictment, it would be possible grounds for dismissal.) Mueller can make recommendations and reports (including recommendations for impeachment to a Congressional committee) as well as bring charges, but the recommendations and reports are made to the (Acting) Attorney General, who then determines what happens to them (go public, for example) from there. Since Pruitt would be in charge, Mueller would have to submit to him, and Pruitt could withhold the entire report.

Step Four

All is not lost. If Mueller is fired, the investigations will revert back to the FBI, where Director Chris Wray would be in charge (the same place where this all started with Director Comey.) While the Attorney General would still have overall supervision of the FBI case, charges can still be brought. In addition, a Congressional Committee could subpoena a Mueller or FBI report, forcing it into the public. That of course, would require the Congressional Committee to be willing to do so, in short, be controlled by Democrats. This makes the outcome of the November elections even more important. There is also the unlikely possibility that the current Republican leaders of the House would see a Mueller firing as a “bridge too far” and act (but don’t hold your breath for that.)

And what about National Security Advisor HR McMasters (has too many details for the President), Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke (first class trips and expensive doors), the aforementioned Tom Pruitt (first class trips), HUD Secretary Ben Carson (expensive furniture and family on the payroll), and VA Secretary David Shulkin (took wife to European vacation on taxpayer money), and of course, the man who actually tries to ORGANIZE the President, Chief of Staff John Kelly?  And of course the clock must be ticking for  Jared and Ivanka Trump (too many to number.) Don’t be surprised by any or all of their departures, the music is about to end. The better question is, who will be “the replacements” to sign up for this game of “find  your chair, lose your reputation?”

 

 

 

 

 

In the Tempest

Last night, I had a great idea a for today’s essay. The President of the United States made a porn film with Stormy Daniels back in 2006. It’s the only logical conclusion. And while the logical process of this was well thought out, it doesn’t matter. Today’s events have overtaken that story.

Rex Tillerson was fired as Secretary of State. In fact, he was literally kicked to the curb, receiving word from the President through media. Tillerson, a true example of success in American business (rather than flash in American business – Trump) did the President’s bidding in dismantling the State Department: none of those “old” experts around to impede decisions with facts or history.

Tillerson was likely fired for two reasons: he stood by the United Kingdom when Russia attempted to execute a former spy with nerve gas in Salisbury, and he has made it clear that Iran was following the letter of the Accord. And of course, he was fired in the typical Trump fashion, with no courtesy or courage: informed through a tweet.

As the Mueller Investigation draws nearer to its conclusion, and the “sinking ship” of the White House grows in focus; Trump is making sure that those surrounding him have the primary value of personal loyalty. Mike Pompeo (former Director of CIA and former US Congressman) fits that bill better than an independent Tillerson.

It is clear that loyalty to Trump is coming to equal denial of Russian involvement in anything. This is playing to the script of “long ago” aide Steve Bannon. Bannon last week spoke to the French National Front party, the party of French nationalism (that can be read racism) and anti-European Union (NYT – Let Them Call You Racist.)

“Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists,” he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor.”

The Fascist tone was clear. That this matches the fascist tone of Putin’s Russia is clear as well. Bannon believes that there needs to be a “Northern European” (white) alliance of nationalists, to wage war (real or trade) against the true enemy: Islam. (see one of my first essays: The Bully and Bannon .)

We (the United States) have insulted our allies by withdrawing from the Paris Accord, demanding re-negotiation of NAFTA and CAFTA, and demanding tariffs on trade with allies like Canada, the European Union, and South Korea. We have failed to institute Congressionally passed sanctions against Russia for attacks on the US electoral process, as well as leaving the United Kingdom “hanging” when Russia tried to assassinate someone on their soil. It is plain whose “side” we are on.

The question is: why?

Why have we chosen Russia as the nation to treat with kid gloves? Why are we supporting a nation that clearly does not share our values in freedom and democracy?  In fact, why are we acting like them, with the President going out of his way to undercut the credibility of the press (“don’t boo Dictator Kim of North Korea, but Chuck Todd of NBC is a son of a bitch.)  Why is the European Union now our adversary?

Is this because the Administration has taken the Bannon philosophy to heart? While Bannon himself is gone, his ideology is still a powerful force in the White House. Or is it some more nefarious reason; a reason that only Robert Mueller may be able to ferret out?

We are in a tempest – one that is perilous to our nation. Today’s election in Pennsylvania may shed some light on the way out of the storm, but the next shoe to drop by Mueller may do even more.

 

It’s been 27 days since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and while the Florida legislature, as dominated by the NRA as they are, was able to reach some changes to protect schools, as far as the US government is concerned – it’s all talk.  Now woefully unqualified Secretary of Education DeVos is in charge of the “commission” to find solutions – there’s no reason to hold your breath.  WE need to demand action, not talk.

While You Were Sleeping

While you were sleeping, President Trump’s administration changed our world. While we were distracted by the Stormy Daniels’ revelations, or the confusing tariff discussion, we missed some things.

We missed that Don McGahn, White House counsel, was told by President Trump to deny that Trump ordered him to fire Robert Mueller. McGahn refused to lie for the President, and  Trump threatened to fire him.[1]  This  should meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice.

We missed the Interior Department changing the import rules for ivory, so that “big game hunters” (like Don Jr. and Eric Trump) can import elephant ivory into the US.  Interior Secretary Zinke states that the import fees will go to help prevent poaching – I’m not sure the elephants will care whether it was the President’s sons or poachers that kill.[2]

We missed that the Environmental Protection Agency relaxed rules for mine runoff so that there is greater flexibility for coal mines to allow mining wastes into watercourses. This will increase the amount of acidity in streams draining from those mining areas, and removes Obama era regulations aimed at protecting them.[3]

We missed that Jeff Sessions has raised the twin headed demon of nullification and secession in regards to California. Quite a stretch for Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, son of Alabama, to insult the battle cry of South Carolina and the Confederacy, and wrap himself in the bloody UNION flag of Gettysburg (I’m not being hyperbolic, that’s what HE said.)

Sessions’ complaint: California passed a law protecting state employees from state sanctions if they fail to cooperate with Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) attempts to round out illegal immigrants. Sessions’ denonced this as the state standing against Federal Government enforcement, and reverses the arguments used by Southern states against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

Sessions is demanding that California state authorities help ICE enforce immigration laws, and outlaw “sanctuary cities” like San Francisco and Oakland.[4]

And we missed that George Nader, an American citizen who was acting as an agent for the United Arab Emirates, is cooperating with the Mueller investigation. Nader has significant information regarding attempts by the Trump transition team to establish undercover contacts with the Russian government, including sending Eric Prince, the founder of the mercenary firm Blackwater (now evolved into Reflex Responses) and major Trump financial supporter, to talk to close advisors to Vladimir Putin in the Seychelles.

Nader and the UAE also have information about Jared Kushner’s ongoing search to re-finance his building at 666 Fifth Avenue in New York. We also missed that Kushner continued to use his White House position to attempt to get money to cover the mortgage of over a billion dollars, due next year.[5]

What did we listen to? We listened to Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen try to muzzle a porn star. And, we listened to the President of the United States continue to trigger a trade war with many of our allies, and China.

The tariff talk split traditional support and opposition to Trump: with “rust-belt” Democrats discovering Trump on their side, and “Wall Street” Republicans, including Speaker Ryan, finding themselves opposed to the President. One unintended consequence may be to undercut Republicans running for office, specifically in the Pennsylvania special Congressional election on Tuesday, with Trump seeming to weigh-in on the Democrat side of the tariff issue.

Trump is probably secretly pleased about the porn star story – it’s another one of his “hand size” things. I’m sure he thinks that it will  help him with “the base.” And it’s clear that the tariffs and potential trade war is also a great distraction from what’s happening in the Mueller investigation.

But underneath the “fog” of Mueller, the government is slowly growing harder and crueler. In an interview last week, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois) said that we (Democrats) will have a lot of damage to undo. That damage is happening, even as we sleep.

 

[1] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377311-trump-considered-firing-wh-counsel-if-he-didnt-deny-threatening-to

[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elephant-trophy-import-ban-lifted/

[3] https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/

[4] http://time.com/5190064/jeff-sessions-speech-today-sacramento/

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/us/politics/george-nader-mueller-investigation-united-arab-emirates.html

Why is Trump Fueling Inflation?

The Mueller noose is tightening around the Trump Presidency, but the outcome of the Russia investigation is far from certain, and meanwhile, Donald J Trump is still the President of the United States. As President, he has taken a series of economic actions that will have one impact: creating inflation.

Inflation is when the price of goods goes up faster than commensurate increases in income. Inflation hurts those living on fixed incomes (that used to be a pretty undefined term for me until I retired from teaching) and those living on the lowest incomes (as wages don’t keep up with costs.) Inflation is something those of us who lived in the 1960’s and 70’s, when gas went from twenty-five cents a gallon to $1.50, remember well – but recently it hasn’t been a serious concern.

It’s coming back, and President Trump’s caused it.

He most recent action is to impose a twenty-five percent tariff on imported steel, and a ten percent tariff on imported aluminum. This “protective tariff” is designed to raise the cost of imports to make American-made steel and aluminum more competitive. And while there are several concerns with this, particularly US capacity to make those products, the real issue is that it will raise prices for everyone. The breadth of the products effected is astounding: as MSNBC commentator Stephanie Ruhl stated: “Even Hershey’s kisses are made with ‘love,’ but they’re wrapped in aluminum foil.”

This isn’t a Republican versus Democrat fight. Many Democrats, including Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, have long demanded protection for heavy industries like steel. And Republicans have long been the party of free-trade, allowing world market forces to establish prices. Regardless of which side you’re on, one of the likely outcomes of the Trump tariffs is to start an “old fashioned” trade war, with effected countries responding to the US moves by raising taxes on uniquely American products. Already Kentucky Bourbon (made in the home state of Majority Leader McConnell,) and Harley Davidson motorcycles (made in Wisconsin, home of Speaker Paul Ryan) as well as American food exports have been targeted.

While free-trade versus protectionism is a good academic argument; the reality is if the tariffs are implemented, the costs will be pushed onto consumers. Prices will go up.

And that’s not the only force driving inflation.

The “vaunted” Republican tax cut is certain to have the same impact. It has “created” money, by adding $1.6 trillion into the economy without finding a way to collect it back in taxes.   And while Republicans claim that the impact on the economy will create a “boost” raising incomes to meet the additional tax burdens (people making more money and therefore paying more taxes,) there is no evidence to show that will occur. The economy has had a steady growth rate of around three percent for several years, that won’t be enough to overcome the deficit they created.

But what the tax cut does do is shove more money in the economy. And while I’m as happy to see my “paycheck” increase as the next guy (by having less with-held for taxes) and I’m certainly able to spend the extra, the real effect is to create inflationary forces in the economy. In simple terms: more people spend more money for the same goods, reasonable sellers will raise prices to meet the increased demand.

Something to be wary of: while the new with-holding tables, slammed into action on a month’s notice, do decrease with-holding so we all “get more money” before the November election, some may be surprised to find that their 2018 taxes didn’t decrease as much as expected, and that they owe money come next year. That’s my situation, so check before you spend it all up front!!

The next inflationary step is current Congressional action to remove the restrictions of the Dodd-Frank legislation. This law was passed after the Great Recession of 2008, when the uncontrolled actions of large banks and investment firms created a “bubble” of high earnings. When the bubble burst, the entire economy began to crash. Only huge government bailouts saved us from a full-on Depression of the 1930’s mold.

Dodd-Frank put tight restrictions on bank lending and investment, and demanded that those institutions had enough actual cash around to cover variations in the market. Now, Congress is working to remove those restrictions.

While the immediate result will be an increase in the amount of money available for borrowing, probably creating a new housing boom, inevitably (or at least history has shown) the ability to profit will create abuses that will threaten economic stability. What will happen for sure: more money in the economy, and therefore an increase in prices. And it’s not just for homeowners selling, increases in home values means more availability of second mortgage (home equity) loans.

As homeowners borrow closer to the maximum value of their homes, they become more vulnerable to shifts in market prices. 2008 was the year of the “upside down” and “underwater” mortgage; Dodd-Frank put controls on some of the processes that created that crisis. An example even today: a commercial on television urges veterans to borrow from a company that can lend them “100% of their home’s value.” That’s great, as long as the value of their home goes up. What if it goes down?

And the final inflationary pressure by President Trump is to restrict the labor market. He calls it immigration reform, but his goal is to reduce the number of people in the United States willing to work for lower wages. By doing so, his advisors believe that those jobs will become more competitive, requiring higher wages to fill, and more “Americans” will be employed.

This is in an era of four percent unemployment (what many economists call a full-employment figure.) But Trump has tapped into a deep-set view of many Americans that they are working harder for less. He’s not wrong that people feel that way, but it’s not the immigrant from (Honduras, El Salvador, Somalia, Haiti, or wherever) that’s causing it.

American immigration history shows that the newest immigrants work the “worst” jobs, providing for their families, and that the second generation moves “up” into better employment (an example: Washington Post – Cactus, Texas .) Should jobs that are often done by immigrants: migrant farm labor, roofing and dry-walling in house construction, the factory meat processing noted in the article, go unfilled by immigrants; it would require a substantial pay increase to make it an “American” job. We can argue the right or wrong of low pay and new immigrants (legal or illegal) but today’s reality is that the American economy depends on them. Should President Trump get his way, it would have a huge inflationary impact by driving the costs of those products and services up.

Prices will go up, and while wages will too, they certainly won’t keep up with the costs. Those whose incomes are restricted (pensions, social security, welfare) will feel the immediate impact, but the end result will be the “quality of living” will get worse for many Americans. Those at the high end of the economy, with incomes based on investments, will do well. Those are the real constituents President Trump serves.

 

Empty Chairs

Donald Trump’s election was a “shock and awe” moment for many Americans. There was little the majority that voted for Hillary Clinton could look to as a positive: they saw a President whose life view was reality television, with little background in governing (see a previous essay: An American Apprenticeship.)

The hope: that Trump would bring in a “team” to run the country that could make up for his lack of experience. Here is the current cabinet of the United States.

1. Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson (CEO – Exxon/Mobil)
2. Secretary of Treasury – Steve Mnuchin (CEO – OneWest Bank)#1
3. Secretary of Defense – Jim Mattis (Marine 4 Star General)
4. Attorney General – Jeff Sessions (Senator from Alabama)#2
5. Secretary of Interior – Ruan Zinke (House of Representatives from Montana)#3
6. Secretary of Agriculture – Sonny Perdue (Governor, Georgia)
7. Secretary of Commerce – Wilbur Ross (Vice Chairman, Bank of Cyprus)#4
8. Secretary of Labor – Alex Acosta (US Attorney, Florida)
9. Secretary of Health and Human Services – Alex Azar* (Deputy Secretary)#5
10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Ben Carson (Neurosurgeon)#6
11. Secretary of Transportation – Elain Chao (Secretary of Labor, GW Bush Admin)
12. Secretary of Energy – Rick Perry (Governor of Texas)
13. Secretary of Education – Betsy DeVos (Republican Fund Raiser)#7
14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – David Shulkin (Deputy Secretary)#8
15. Secretary of Homeland Security – Kirstjen Nielsen (Deputy Chief of Staff WH)

#1 – Mnuchin led Wells Fargo Bank that engaged in million of dollars worth of fraudulent credit accounts, as well as contributing to the 2008 housing crisis through improper lending practices

#2 – Sessions lied to the US Senate in his confirmation hearings regarding his contact with Russian agents during the Trump campaign

#3 – Zinke has spent millions of dollars in taxpayer money for private luxury travel

#4 – Ross was Vice Chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, a bank infamous for laundering Russian money

#5 – Azar replaced originally appointed Tom Price of Georgia, who quit due to luxury travel and spending using taxpayer dollars

#6 – Carson is currently under fire for letting HUD contracts to his children as well as luxury spending of taxpayer dollars for his office refurbishing

#7 – DeVos is best known as the key fundraiser for Republicans in Michigan, but also has been deeply invested in for profit charter school corporations

#8 – Shulkin is under fire for using public funds to pay for a European vacation for himself and his wife

And there’s more. Elaine Chao is married to Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, creating a “bedroom” conflict of interest. While Rex Tillerson had a brilliant career at Exxon, a worldwide company, he has no experience in governmental diplomacy. And Rick Perry, well, he is now in charge of the US nuclear program, an area he didn’t even know was part of the Department a few months before he was appointed. He replaced Ernest Moniz, a Stanford PhD in nuclear physics.

There were a few more comforting placements: General Mattis at the Defense Department, General Kelly at Homeland Security, and General McMasters as National Security Advisor. He also placed Gary Kohn, chairman of Goldman-Sachs as his National Economic Advisor. While you can argue about their views, they all seemed to be competent picks for their positions.

But it was more difficult to fill in the staff positions at the White House and departments. Trump chose to emulate President Andrew Jackson, the populist Democrat elected in 1828. Jackson ran against the “establishment” National Republican party, the party of John Quincy Adams. When he won the Presidency, he introduced the concept of the “spoils system:” to the victor goes all the spoils.   Jackson believed that ANY American could fill the roles of government, so  the applicant’s loyalty to the President himself became the most important part of the selection process.

This became the critical criteria in selection for the Trump administration: a golf caddy became the President’s social media advisor, a young model turned PR executive his communication director, and even worse, a son-in-law his chief foreign policy advisor and his daughter filled a high White House role as well (though we still aren’t quite clear what she does.) Last week it was floated that the President’s personal pilot (remember the giant Trump Jet on the campaign) could be the next Chairman of the Federal Aviation Administration.

And now there is the evacuation. Forty-eight positions in the administration have been vacated since the Trump inauguration in January of 2017 (Rachel Maddow List .) National Security Advisor McMasters, Senior Advisors Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kohn, and even Chief of Staff Kelly (“God punished me with this job”) are all rumored to departing soon.

Who will turn off the lights when no one is left in the White House? More importantly, who will man the Situation Room when an international crisis begins – maybe one started by a President who decided to begin a trade war (in order to change the subject from his flip-flopping on gun control.) And what about the attention demanded by Russian President Putin, creating cartoons about non-existent weaponry attacking Trump’s club at Mara Lago?

Who’s on watch when everyone’s gone or distracted, or talking to their personal attorney about exposure to the Mueller investigation? It’s not just about scandal, it is not just about crime, it is about the fate of the nation. Who will be sitting in the empty chairs, and who will be left to make decisions?

 

It has been 19 days since the school shooting at Parkland High School. While debate goes on, there still has been no significant legislation to protect kids in schools. We can debate gun control, but mental health and background checks should be a “no-brainer.” It’s not though, because of the millions of dollars of the NRA, and even more, the propaganda campaign they have effectively waged to a significant portion of America. Don’t let this one go by – America owes it to the kids at Parkland (and Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech, and all the others) and more importantly, to the next school in the crossfire.

 

 

 

 

 

Atlantis:  America Can Do This

As a retired couple, my wife and I have taken the opportunity to travel. We have our little camper, and right now it’s parked in the town of Sebastian, Florida. It’s hot, it’s near the ocean, and it’s a great place to be in the winter.

Yesterday we had the opportunity to visit the Kennedy Space Center, about an hour up the road. The visitor center is both a monument to the history of the space program, and also a preview of what comes next, the expedition to Mars.

But the most striking exhibit is the building dedicated to the Space Shuttle Project. It was 1970, and the Apollo project was still going to the moon. But Americans were already planning for the next phase: “Apollo is a camping trip, now we’ve got to learn how to live and work in space.”

It took almost ten years to build a vehicle that could launch as a rocket, stay in space as a vehicle, then fly home as a plane. The engineers, thousands of them, had to create all new ways of doing things; from lightweight materials that could withstand space, adhesives that would hold heat resistant tiles, an engine that could take -472 degree fuel and burn it at +6000 degrees.   They were doing something no one had ever done: “gone where no one has gone before.” They built a fleet of ships that for the next twenty-six years would shuttle humans, satellites, space stations, and telescopes into space, then return to earth.

It was a combined effort of government and private industry. Sure, folks made money in the project, but the supreme effort of extending the knowledge and abilities of mankind raised the level of our humanity.

They had dramatic failures; Challenger and Columbia. But they also had enormous successes, launch after launch, one hundred thirty-five times. They didn’t have the glory of the Apollo “moon-shot,” like the drama of the Lewis and Clark expedition across the continent. Instead they had the grit of the wagon trains taking settlers across the plains and mountains: individual acts of determination that changed our history and advanced our future.

We ultimately wore them out. The last flight was in 2011. The remaining shuttles: Enterprise, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour, are now museum exhibits.

In our time, with a tremendous political crisis consuming all of our focus and attention; it’s important to remember we, Americans, can do great things. Elon Musk is an immigrant from South Africa who became an American citizen. He made his billions in computer programming developing Pay Pal and has taken part of that fortune and invested it in the next phase of space exploration.

The Space X project has already marveled the world, launching the most powerful rocket since Apollo’s Saturn 5, with its boosters return simultaneously and safely to earth. He is leading the way to our nearest neighbor planet, Mars, perhaps within this next decade. And he’s trying to do it at a tenth of the estimated cost.

Musk is an immigrant American, leading OUR American dream forward. Whether you are of “the Resistance” or “a Trumpster,” it is a place where we can all dream and work together. And while we all recognize the problems of America whether it’s guns, or education, or healthcare, or jobs: we should also recognize that Americans need to be able to dream great things as well as do regular things.

Yesterday we went to the Kennedy Space Center and saw our past and our future. Today we will sit (in a outdoor café) and watch a weather satellite launched into space. It’s my first time to see a launch, and as a kid who grew up with a crew cut like John Glenn’s (I didn’t know he was really bald) and put boxes together to make space vehicles, I’m pretty excited.

As an American, I hope we can find the new dream as compelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Russian Fairy Tale

NOTE: There are emerging facts that point in the direction that this story is headed, but to be clear – this is yet a fantasy, not fact. 

 

Yesterday it was revealed that seven states were officially “hacked” by the Russian government during the 2016 election. Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida and Texas were all compromised according to the US Intelligence community. Also according to the intelligence community, they were never told.

Months ago it was announced that possibly thirty-eight, and later more definitely twenty-one states were attacked by Russian hackers. Some were told, some not.

Like the Equifax hack with 143 million effected, the Office of Personnel Management hack of 14 million government employees and families, and the one of the biggest hacks, the Adult Friend Finder hack of 412 million: we really have no idea what happened to the information that was hacked. We take precautions, credit checks and identity protection. With Adult Friend Finder, those involved hope their significant other doesn’t find out. But unless our identity is actually stolen, or our credit falls apart without our knowledge, or those “cute” pictures come out, we just don’t know what happens to the data.

So the drip-drip-drip of information about the real Russian assault on the American electoral system continues. Maybe thirty-eight, probably twenty-one, for sure seven: the real answer is we don’t know what the extent of the Russian manipulation was. And like those other hacks, we don’t know what the Russians did, how far they got, and what they were able to change.

In addition, many non-federal government agencies, including voting agencies, are using Kaspersky computer protection software. Kaspersky: software produced by a Russian company under influence of the Russian government. Those “protected” computers might not need to be “hacked;” the key to the backdoor would already be in the Russian government’s hand.

It is disingenuous for Republican political operatives to say that the Russian social media attack didn’t effect the outcome of the election, it is even more disingenuous to say that attacks on the American voting system “…DID NOT ALTER A SINGLE VOTE.” We don’t know that, and neither do they.

Let’s suppose there was definitive proof that the Russians had manipulated American vote counting. (There is evidence for this, see the statistical studies done by Mike Farb www.unhackthevote.com .) What if the United States intelligence agencies were able to pinpoint successful attacks on just three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania; the three states where a small change would have altered the outcome of the electoral vote, changing the Presidency.

Would they tell us? Would we ever know?

I don’t think so, and to quote one of Marco Rubio’s favorite phrases, “let me tell you why.”

First:

The bedrock of the American system is the invulnerability of our vote. One citizen, one vote: it is the basis of our democracy. If it was shown that the system was altered, that we couldn’t be sure of any electoral outcome, then the whole system of American government would be at risk.

If the Russian goal is to disrupt our government, damage our reputation, and tarnish the American image as a “shining democracy,” what better way to do it? If the American intelligence community was faced with the choice of admitting that kind of Russian success, or quietly fixing the problem without revealing it to the American people, would it be unreasonable to think those dedicated professionals would take the second course?

Second:

The destabilization of announcing that the 2016 elections were broken would be profound. A majority of Americans would call for some kind of fix: impeachment, an extra-constitutional “do-over” or some other repair. But a significant minority of Americans would see this as “fake news” and an attack on the “legitimate” outcome of the 2016 election. The results of that conflict are difficult to foresee, but could include violence leading to permanent damage or destruction of our form of government. This definitely sounds like the “black helicopter” scenario that requires so many to keep their assault rifles.

It would be the ultimate achievement of Vladimir Putin, bring down the US government (as he would say – why not, they are trying to bring me down.)

Would America’s intelligence leaders take the chance? Or would they say, no matter how destabilizing Trump is now, we can survive the knowns of that rather than the unknowns of an America that doesn’t believe in its elections.

Third:

Many would say that in this era of twenty-four hour news and the omnipresent internet, there’s no way this kind of thing could be kept secret. It would leak out. They would be right, but without some kind of government legitimacy, without some formal acknowledgement that it really happened, it would be another “crackpot” theory. Reading all of this now, isn’t that what a lot of you are thinking anyway?

And the advantage of our electoral system: fifty-two agencies controlling states, dozens or more agencies in each state controlling counties; if there is no “trusted source” saying it happened, how would you know? So a vote or two was changed in Bucks County, Pennsylvania; does that mean the whole system was under attack? Licking County, Ohio says their voting system is untouched; but their entire system was ransomed just a few months ago.

How, without government acknowledgement, could anyone “prove” that enough of those little agencies were hacked to alter the election?

Yes this is a fairy tale. Like any good tale it has enough basis in fact to be scary. There is a sad hero (Mike Rogers at the NSA would be my nominee) and a villain (who better than Putin) and a difficult moral choice (truth or the “good” of the nation.)

At least, let’s hope it’s a tale…

 

 

 

 

What Does Manafort Know?

The Mueller Investigation into the Russia and the Trump Campaign is picking up public momentum. In the past couple of weeks, Mueller has filed multiple indictments, not only building “the case,” but also building pressure on key witness, Paul Manafort.

Last week, Mueller indicted thirteen Russians for a “conspiracy against the United States” in manipulating social media to create factionalism, and to generate support for the Trump campaign. While it is unlikely that any of the thirteen will ever stand trial in the US (they would have to be foolish enough to go to a place that shares extradition agreements with the US), the indictments did establish an underlying principle. They answered the question: were laws broken in the 2016 election, and can they be enforced. Mueller’s indictments explained the theory: the Russians were in a conspiracy against the United States to impact and disrupt a critical American Constitutional action: the election of the President. That conspiracy is the legal violation.

Last week, Mueller also issued additional indictments against Manafort and his junior partner, Rick Gates. These, added to the original ones filed earlier this year, stacked the possible prison time that Manafort or Gates could serve at more than twenty years. Gates then proceeded to ask for an interview with the Mueller team to talk about a plea deal. He lied in that interview, and found himself in even deeper trouble.

Gates cut a deal this week, agreeing to fully cooperate with the investigation in return for a guilty plea for lying to Federal agents and conspiracy. Manafort was hit with further indictments, and the beginning of a process that could result in his losing his right to bail, forcing him to await trial in jail. Today it is reported that the Mueller team is dismissing several of the other charges against Gates, signaling that they are getting that full cooperation.

This puts the pressure on Manafort. Gates knows pretty much everything that Manafort knows about their business and he  was even more involved in the Trump campaign (working there both before and after Manafort’s short tenure.) The noose is around Manafort’s neck; he faces what could effectively be a life sentence if convicted.

So what does Manafort know? He certainly knows the details of the June meeting with Russian representatives with Kushner and Trump Jr. He was present in the meeting, and would absolutely know what knowledge Trump Sr. had about the meeting. This could be the definition of his conspiracy with the Russians.

Manafort himself may have been an agent of the Russian government, placed into the Trump campaign. Manafort was indebted to Russian oligarch Oleg Derispaska, a close friend of Putin, owing him $17 million. Manafort through early 2016 was desperately trying to find cash to clear the debt, but was unable to do so. He then joined the Trump campaign free of charge and arranged for a more Russian-favorable plank on Ukraine to be in the Republican campaign platform.

Even with his brief time in the Trump campaign, Manafort could offer up information about the involvement of key campaign leaders and organizations in the development of the social media strategy, including Cambridge Analytica and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. This may include cooperation with Russian Military Intelligence (GRU) and Wikileaks as they worked to impact the 2016 election. Donald Trump Sr. is known as a micro-manager in business. If he was micro-managing this portion of the campaign, Manafort would know that as well.

Manafort may be facing the ultimate choice: stay silent and risk US prison, or agree to cooperate and face Russian retaliation. And while his lawyer continues to “fish” for a Presidential pardon, even that might not be enough to avoid prison. Several states, including New York, are looking at state charges of money laundering, tax evasion, and other financial charges not impacted by the Federal Pardon power. And the current Ukrainian government has lots of questions about $12 million that Manafort may have received from ousted Russian backed strong man Victor Vanukovych.

It’s a rock or a hard place for the sixty-eight year old. The Mueller team continues to squeeze, and might only take information of the highest level to give Manafort any break at all. What Manafort knows is the key: both to his own future in or out of prison and to the fate of the Trump Administration.

 

It’s been 13 days since the Parkland High School shootings.  There’s been lots of discussions and noise, but so far little actual progress in keeping kids in school safe.  This issue cannot, and should not, be allowed to go away.