Category: Uncategorized

An American Apprenticeship

I am a licensed teacher in the State of Ohio. To get my license, I had to have a Bachelors Degree, specialized “teacher” training, a six month “apprenticeship” (student teaching) and continuing education. To progress in teaching I earned a Masters Degree. To stay in education, I am required to pass ongoing criminal background checks. There’s even more training required for younger teachers now. All this is required to teach in a public school.  To be a physician, a Bachelors Degree, four years of medical school, two-years “apprenticeship” as an intern, then even more training depending on the specialty.

To be the President of the United States, you must be a “natural born” United States citizen (citizenship since birth), thirty-five years old, and a ten year resident of the United States. That is all. There is no other requirement, other than to win election.

For certain the President is a “generalist”, not a specialist. A President must deal with subjects as diverse as nuclear science, the economics of employment, military strategy, and the oratory necessary to explain whatever is going on in the country.  As broad as the subjects range for the Presidency, shouldn’t there be some basic requirements of knowledge? There isn’t time for much “on the job” training, the President needs to know what’s going on from the beginning.

So what should the preparation be for the President of the United States? First, the President should have knowledge of how the government works beyond a high school civics course level. An in depth understanding of the Constitution is essential, with a comprehension of the tension and balances of the three branches. A familiarity with history and the legislative process would certainly be a must. Historically, twenty-six Presidents have been lawyers, and many have served their “apprenticeship” in the legislature, with thirteen Senators, and another seven Congressmen.

Second, the President must have experience in “running things,” the essence of executive authority. While running a business certainly would count, running complex government organizations (Governor of a state for example) would be more specific to the task. Nineteen Presidents were previously Vice President or members of the cabinet, and fourteen were Governors of their state. Four Presidents had as their main experience being a commanding General:  Washington, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower.

Third, the modern President must be able to communicate ideas to the American people. This is strength of Presidents Trump and was for Obama, as well as Clinton, the Roosevelts, Kennedy, Lincoln and Reagan. As part of this communication, the President must be able to relate to the American people, and show an understanding of their concerns.

Fourth, the modern President must be willing to have their lives scrutinized for every action (and allow it). As our current executive crisis demonstrates, whatever failures or successes the President may have, the world is going to know about them. The days when JFK could have affairs in the White House, or Harding have a paramour back home in Marion, are long over. For a President to be able to focus on what’s in front, they have to be able to put their past behind.

As Democrats make choices for 2020 they need to keep these criteria in mind. A candidate that has the qualifications of “fame and fortune” without the underlying experience, will leave the country in the same disruption of the current regime.

The American political pendulum swings from one extreme to another. This is seen historically as the older and more experienced Eisenhower was followed by the youthful Kennedy, and more recently, Barack Obama was followed by Donald Trump. The next pendulum swing may well be not so much one of politics, but of experience. Regardless of the political agenda of the candidate, it may be a more significant qualification for the candidate to be a known “steady-hand.” It is important for both parties to recognize this reality, and choose accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where’s my Roy Cohn?

In the early pivotal moment of the Trump Presidency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions determined that he had to recuse (remove) himself from any Department of Justice investigations into the Presidential campaign of 2016 and the Russian connections (March 2^nd 2017). This was after Sessions failed to answer questions truthfully about meetings with Russians during 2016 to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The President was very aware that whoever controlled the Department of Justice investigations would determine how deep into “Russiagate” the Department would go. He depended on his good “friend” Sessions to “have his back.” Now, with Sessions out of authority, the acting Deputy Attorney General would be in charge. This was originally Dana Boente, a hold over from the Obama Administration and acting as Deputy while serving as the US Attorney for Eastern Virginia. Soon Rod Rosenstein, US Attorney for Maryland, was appointed and approved to the Deputy position.

On May 9^th, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, in what clearly was an attempt to divert the investigation. On May 17^th Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel with broad authority to investigate Russian connections, and any other matters that might arise in the course of the investigation. Rosenstein essentially gave Mueller a “blank check” to investigate the actions both of the Trump campaign, and the individuals who were involved.

All of this was inevitable once Trump’s pick, Sessions, recused himself. Trump needed “protection” from investigation, a protection that he had grown used to as a young developer on the New York scene; protected by Roy Cohn.

Trump—who would remain loyal to Cohn for many years—would be one of the last and most enduring beneficiaries of Cohn’s power. But as Trump would confide in 1980, he already seemed to be trying to distance himself from Cohn’s inevitable taint: “All I can tell you is he’s been vicious to others in his protection of me,” Trump told me, as if to wave away a stench. “He’s a genius. He’s a lousy lawyer, but he’s a genius.” [1]

Roy Cohn died in 1986. To post World War II America, has name was synonymous with Senator Joe McCarthy and the unending and merciless search for Communist subversion in the early 1950’s. Cohn was the twenty-six year old lawyer beside McCarthy in America’s first televised Congressional Hearings, ripping into the State Department, Hollywood, and the military in search of mythical spies. They turned the United States upside down; little but fear came from their quest. When McCarthy finally imploded on alcohol and the righteous presence of attorney Joseph Welch, Cohn returned to New York to practice law.[2]

As an attorney Cohn continued his practice of ruthless action, representing clients ranging from Mafia Dons to real estate developers. He also continued as a behind the scenes organizer for the Republican party, and it was in 1979 that he put his young client, Donald Trump, together with a fundraiser for the Ronald Reagan Presidential campaign, Roger Stone.

When Trump asked, “where’s my Roy Cohn,” what he was really asking is where was the one person who would do anything, moral or immoral, legal or illegal (Cohn was ultimately disbarred just before his death) to protect him. Like many of his personnel choices (Steve Bannon for example), Trump seems to have mistaken Jeff Sessions for someone else. Now he finds few protecting “his back,” and none with the personal loyalty that he ultimately values above all. He is vulnerable and alone, and he knows it.

 

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-roy-cohn-relationship

 

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5GlFba5Yg

Button Button who’s got the Button

Wednesday, January 3^rd, 2018 – a day in American politics.

We went into the day with the President back in Washington, and the ramifications of what George Popadoupolos, part of the Trump campaign, revealed in a drunken conversation in May of 2016. He let out that  the Russians had possession of the stolen Clinton emails,  It was  months later that  even the DNC knew they were gone. The Australians eventually notified the US intelligence services (including the FBI), creating probable cause for an investigation.   That Popadoupolos would tell an Australian diplomat, but not tell his own bosses at the Trump campaign, is beyond implausible.

On the “Russiagate” front, the Fusion GPS team revealed that the FBI already was investigating the Trump campaign when Christopher Steele (of the infamous Dossier) felt compelled by what he had found  to inform the agency. In addition, they testified to the House and Senate committees that there was a great deal of information about Trump’s dealings with shady and illegal money from Central America to Russia, much of it through Deutsche Bank. The Fusion GPS statement: the committees have only demanded Fusion GPS bank records, not Trump’s.

On the domestic political front, Steve Bannon has co-authored a book with Michael Wolfe, in which Bannon calls Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner “traitors” for having their meeting with the Russians in June, and states with certainty that after that meeting, the Russians would have been taken to see Trump Sr. This puts the entire Trump defense in jeopardy: if President Trump knew about the Russian meeting and didn’t inform the FBI, this becomes more than “collusion” with the Russians (whatever that word really means,) and reaches the level of conspiracy, a legal term with legal consequences. Trump says that when Bannon was fired from the White House, he lost his mind.

Oh, and President Trump took credit for there being no commercial aircraft deaths in the United States this year.

But the day started with the “big” story: the size of President Trump’s button. This weekend, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un made what was a generally conciliatory speech, aimed at opening up negotiations with South Korea. One part of his speech stated that he had a nuclear button on his desk.

Trump’s twitter response:

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

Trump, ignoring the possible negotiations that Kim was offering, instead immediately focused on the “size” of Kim’s button, and made sure to let it be known that HIS button was “…bigger and more powerful than his, and my Button works.”

I wonder if the underlying sexual connotations, obvious to every American sixteen year old boy, translates into Korean. Perhaps the North Koreans are not quite so concerned about the “size of their buttons.” But if they are, and, if Kim is an unbalanced as the Trump Administration is continually stating, then what is President Trump’s intent?

Is he challenging Kim to a “buttoning” contest? Let’s see whose button can – what – push the farthest? And what if Kim, as unbalanced as they claim, takes Trump up on his adolescent game? Are we really chancing a nuclear exchange over a middle school challenge?

Trump clearly believes he can bully Kim into some action, probably trying to force him to negotiate. It seems highly unlikely that Kim will decide to give up his nuclear missiles (a Trump pre-condition) and even more unlikely that “button size” insults will force him to do so.

I used to watch a TV show called “Boston Public.” It was about a high school in Boston, and all of the crazy things that happened there. As a teacher, I’d watch that show and think, “that’s not how schools really are, that’s just drama.” When I became the Dean of Students of a high school (mostly discipline) I discovered a different truth. What happened on Boston Public all really did happen in public school, it just didn’t all happen one day in real life.

There must be a whole lot of Washington veteran politicians who are thinking the same thing. Except, this really is happening, all in one day. Whew!!!!

The Case for Donald Trump

It doesn’t take much to convince “the Resistance” that Donald Trump conspired with the Russian Government to “steal” the Presidency. Charges range from violations of the Federal Campaign Laws to laundering Russian money to breaking the Federal Espionage Act to committing Treason. And yet, the President, his supporters, and the Republicans in Congress continue to act as if all of this is merely a political move, and has nothing to do with legal fact.

The Resistance view is fueled by the same source that drove the election: social media. Read twitter: all of the evidence is already out there, and the removal of Trump is assured. We simply are waiting for the process to catch up with the facts. And while it is sometimes difficult to sort out the “crazies” from the “serious” (on a range from Louise Mensch to Eric Garland to Claude Taylor to Seth Abrahamson to Malcolm Nance) they all speak with a certainty of fact.

But Trump and his lawyers continue to raise multiple points to counter the swell of information.   The President carries on as if nothing is out there, and the Administration continues to disassemble the “Deep State.”

The first, and probably most effective Trump defense, is that the entire “Russiagate” investigation is founded on an illegitimate source, and therefore is entirely invalid: the infamous Steele Dossier. Their argument is that the Dossier is actually the only evidence of campaign “collusion” with the Russian Government, but that it actually shows that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that was colluding!  The logic is that Steele was paid by the Clinton campaign (or firms acting on her behalf) to contact and gain information from Russian intelligence officers, gaining the benefit of information for the campaign. This violates the Federal Campaign Act prohibiting foreign contributions (in kind) to US campaigns.

The argument continues that the Russians passed disinformation about Trump to Steele, with the intent to disrupt the election, and that the Clinton campaign paid for it. When this disinformation reached the FBI, it served as the “probable cause” to begin all of the investigations into Trump, the campaign, and his family. Since that “probable cause” was, in their view, Russian disinformation, then the entire investigation is “tainted” and invalid. This also explains the intense interest of the House Intelligence Committee Republicans in the report, its author Christopher Steele, and GPS Fusion (the company that hired him.)

This weekend’s news (New York Times) that the FBI received the original information about possible Trump campaign infractions from an Australian intelligence source puts a dent in the “fruit of the poisonous tree” Trump defense, but doesn’t end it, yet.  The article states that Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadoupolos informed an Australian diplomat (using the traditional intelligence gathering technique of getting the informant drunk) about the hacked Democratic emails long before it was public knowledge.

The second line of defense is that the investigation is really a conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States, led by the professional elite of the FBI with help from the other intelligence agencies. A quick look at a selected text between FBI agent Peter Storzk to Lisa Page, a Department of Justice attorney, reveals this gem:

 “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 … “

This bit of evidence, combined with the Obama’ era intelligence chiefs reporting Russian interference to Trump (the famous meeting when Comey told Trump about the “golden showers”) leads to the Trump ultimate conspiracy, the “Deep State” takeover. Intelligence agency interference in the election would explain why Comey violated Department of Justice protocols in announcing the results of the Clinton email investigation (the July, “there are no charges here” speech) then continued to violate with the October “surprises.” While to the “Resistance” this all seems to be outlandish conspiracy theory (both the term and the movie) from the Trump side it fits into their preconceived notions of our government.

The outcome will depend on Congress and specifically Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell. If the evidence from the Mueller investigation (or the House or Senate investigations) doesn’t convince them of overarching criminal activity by the Trumps, then it will be easy to rise to the President’s defensive strategy. The evidence would have to be so damning, that it would be in the Republican self-interest to jettison the President (as was the 1974 evidence against Nixon.) It will have to be more than just twitter supposition, and it will require enough to overcome the conspiracy theories of both the left and the right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Branded

In the twisted conversation that is our American political discourse, one critical factor is how issues are labeled, or “branded.” As difficult as it has been to have any kind of common discussion, with alternative facts (branding of a lie) abounding; how we consider an issue depends on how we phrase it.

The upcoming elections of 2018 will be a test of competitive versions of branding. Will the “Tax Cuts and Job Acts of 2017” (the formal title) be labeled as tax reform, tax breaks for the rich, or an economic stimulant? This will, in part, determine the success of one political party or the other. “Billions for the rich, nickels for you” or “a middle class tax cut”: which “brand” will catch on?

Who wins the branding issue often controls discussion of the topic. One of the most inflammatory issues of our time is about the use and availability of abortions. This controversy has been branded as “pro life” versus “pro choice”. The “pro life” side has won the branding contest: can there really be a choice about protecting life? If the labeling was “pro birth” versus “women’s freedom” would the conversation be the same?

One of the goals of Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is the “reform” of entitlement programs. He wants to cut the amount of money spent on programs like Medicare and social security. It’s easy to talk about cutting “entitlements,” it’s like cutting the amount spent on a recurring gift, like a birthday or Christmas. However, if the programs are branded as “earned benefits,” benefits paid for through a lifetime of work, it’s much more difficult to talk about cutting them. They become something earned, not given.

Former Trump aide Steve Bannon has worked to rebrand parts of the American government. Civil servants working in the bureaucracies of intelligence and law enforcement, have become “embedded liberals” in the “deep-state,” something much more nefarious. What is particularly surprising about this re-labeling is that Republicans were  the most supportive of agencies like the FBI, and Democrats were the ones poised to attack. Now Democrats are rising to the FBI’s defense, quite a switch from October of 2016 when the “Comey Letter” re-opened the Clinton email controversy.

Many colleges have established “safe zones” where students can be free from controversial speech which might challenge or upset them. If those same zones have been branded as “restricted speech” instead of “safe,” would they have been accepted by students?

As we move from the relative “quiet” of 2017 (that’s mis-branded) into the rancor of the 2018 election year, how issues are labeled will determine political success. It is important to recognize the “branding” for what it is: an effort to control the discussion to “win” the issue.

And because I can’t help it –

If you were of age to watch television in 1965, this article might have brought a show to mind: “Branded!!!” starring Chuck Connors – remember???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV-7D4io1Rs

 

 

 

 

 

The Democratic New Year’s Resolution

“All Politics is Local”

Thomas “Tip” O’Neill – Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives – 1977-1987 

Many Democrats are waiting for the Mueller Investigation and the Courts to change American politics. While it may well happen in the next year, the outcome is out of the hands of most Democrats. There is, however, an event that is completely in the hands of every Democrat, and every voter: the election of 2018.

And while many of us (Democrats that is) are still trying to recover from the electoral wounds of 2016, the reality of November 2018 represents a huge opportunity. Clearly the Republicans led by Trump are weakened, and despite gerrymandered districts drawn to benefit Republicans, we are on the cusp of a huge “wave election.”[1] Generic polling (Dem v Rep) shows Democrats with a baseline lead in many currently Republican Congressional districts. This includes races against well known Republicans like Darrell Issa and Dana Rohrabacker. Even a challenger to Speaker Paul Ryan is only six points behind in a solidly “red” district.

The “red meat” issue to the Resistance base is President Trump. Their hope is for a Democratic majority in the House to proceed towards Impeachment. But this is not the most significant issue to the “non-Resistance” voter, the voter that Democrats will need to win over. It is not in the Democrats best interest to make the 2018 election about Impeachment. The Democratic “statement” should be: “we should allow the investigations to go forward and the facts to come out. The facts will determine what should happen after that.” As “Tip” O’Neill famously said, “…all politics is local,” and Democrats need to build an agenda that impacts voters locally.

Democrats need to crack the “Millennial malaise.” Many Millennials have taken the position that all politicians are corrupt, so it’s not worth participating. The changes wrought by the Trump Administration have the potential to shock them into participation. Some issues of specific concern: education and student loans repayment, health insurance and retirement investment. Most Millennials don’t share the prejudices of their parents and don’t want to restrict immigration and roll back LGBTQ rights. Their world includes all of those folks and gets along fine. They feel their government should do the same.

Millennials definitely get “net neutrality.” They see this as THE example of government being bought. The FCC ruling allowing the service providers to monetize differing speeds on the internet directly hits their wallet, and is an issue with a Congressional solution.  Millennials think Congress should act.

Democrats should absolutely use the Trump Tax “Reform” as a wedge issue with all voters. “Billions to Billionaires, nickels to you” is always a strong start. But the next sentence ought to be: “Republicans gave big businesses our money,  money that we could have used to build highways and improve medicare.” It’s not just the tax inequities, it’s that the government is cutting it’s own ability to solve problems.

The Trump Tax “Reform” further accelerates the widening income gap in the United States, but many Americans view million/billionaires as something they aspire to be. Because of that, Democrats can’t make them the villain in the story, what they can do is push the political inequality created by Citizen United: “One person, one vote; not my billions to buy the candidate I want.”

And finally, Democrats should stand for government governing, not “contracting out” its responsibilities. Whether it’s in public education, prisons, spying or wars: it is the job of the government to fulfill the obligations, not hire someone else to do it.

So the list looks like this:

Education and student loans reform

Health insurance

Protection of retirement investments and pensions

Equal rights for everyone, including minorities, women, LGBTQ

Fair treatment for immigrants (legal and illegal)

Congressional Law for Net Neutrality

“Real” Tax Reform that has those that benefit the most (earn the most) pay more

Campaign Finance Reform

Government Institutions doing the work (not sub-contracting to for-profits).

It’s a start. Democrats need to be FOR something, not just against Trump. If the party can find the candidates (and the finances) to articulate that agenda, then January 2019 will have a whole new look. That should be this year’s Democratic New Year’s Resolution.

And to all a Merry Christmas!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html

This one’s in the “political weeds”

Term Limits

So here’s a topic that is non-political – neither the Left nor the Right have set “view” that they need to defend. The idea is we should write in legal limits to the amount of continuous time a legislator (or executive) can spend in office. For example: in Ohio the Governor can only serve for two terms in a row, Ohio Senate members can only serve two terms (eight years) and Ohio House members can only serve four terms (eight years).

In the Jeffersonian sense, term limits make sense. It hopes to require that legislators are not “professional” politicians, they must have some other career in life they leave for a temporary time to serve “the people.” This is the “citizen-statesman” that Jefferson imagined (and saw in himself,) the “yeoman farmer” who put down his plow and picked up a pen.

However, if you look at Jefferson, that really wasn’t him. Even in the years when he was technically not holding office, (a couple of years at the end of the Washington Administration) Jefferson had his hand in the burgeoning politicization of America (the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists). From 1776 through the end of his Presidential term (1808) Jefferson spent much of his time in the service of the United States. He always wanted to get back to Monticello, but couldn’t stay very long.

Term limits hope to overcome the power of incumbency. The theory goes that once a legislator has been in office for so long, the advantages the office provides make it near impossible to be removed. In part, it’s the visibility of the position, but it also is the connections that holding office provides, making fundraising easier. In a campaign for an Ohio House of Representative seat, the costs, including media, can near $100,000. Raising that kind of money requires deep pockets from somewhere.

Do term limits make our legislators more “accountable” to the people? It does force different people to run for any given office every few years. The experience in Ohio however, is that it has not altered the “political” professionals who stay in office.

Term limits in Ohio has created a “musical chairs” effect in state government. Term limited at the end of eight years from the Ohio House, many legislators take a couple of years (to make some money, the revolving door between government and industry) then return to either run for the House again or move onto the Ohio Senate. The same names appear on the ballot, but for differing jobs every few years. There is little opening for the “new.”

There is a more important consideration though. Legislation in any state (or the nation) is complex. Looking at the current Federal tax bill, with five-hundred pages and multiple last minute changes, it is near impossible for most legislators to understand it. This means that the “experts” who “get it” are three small groups of people. The first is the few members of Congress who have been a part of the Ways and Means Committee (the tax law committee) who understand the complexity of the bill. They have a tremendous amount of experience, with some members having served thirty years or more in the taxation committee.

The second is the staff, both majority and minority. As they are the principal writers of the bill, they have a strong understanding, it is what they “do.” They also have extended experience in the Congress and specifically the committee.

The third group is the lobbyists. They are paid representatives of private groups (from industry to consumers) who attempt to influence the legislative process. The power of the lobbyists is crucial, and not only in the campaign finance support they can provide for the members running for re-election. As importantly, the lobbyists have specific knowledge of their particular area of the legislation, they can propose changes that fix a individual problem, and have “all of the answers.”

And this is the biggest concern about term limitations, particularly in the legislature. As we reduce the time that an elected member has to gain expertise in a particular area, we then put the power of knowledge into the hands of private individuals who are representing someone, some industry, or some group. Those private individuals are empowered by their knowledge of the subject, much as an “expert witness” is able to draw conclusions in a trial. Since the members are by definition “rookies” due to term limits, they are unable to effectively work without the lobbyists, and at the mercy of their knowledge to act.

My argument is this: in the final analysis term limits don’t really limit terms, they simply set up a rotation of office among the same people. Since those who are in office don’t get to develop the specific knowledge needed, they grow dependent on unelected advisors to determine legislation. Terms limits, in my view, empower lobbyists and staff to determine policy, without creating many new opportunities for elective office.

This being the United States, there always is the ultimate in term limitation: the vote. As we have seen in the past year, that vote can be both uplifting and upsetting, but a determined citizenry can “vote out the bums!”   Perhaps, to get back to Jefferson for one more moment, this is what he really meant. That the citizenry would be well educated about the issues of the government, and that they would exercise their power to determine who would hold office. Those are the “Yeoman Farmers” he was depending on to continue the American experiment in democracy.

It’s Coming on Christmas

It’s coming on Christmas
They’re cutting down trees
They’re putting up reindeer
And singing songs of joy and peace
Oh I wish I had a river
I could skate away on

River – Joni Mitchell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpFudDAYqxY

It’s a time for sad Christmas songs as we finish “year one” of the Trump era. It’s hard to get in the Christmas spirit while we watch the nation we love lose the values of charity, tolerance, environmental conservation, and intellectual realism. Hell, our government agencies can’t even say these words: transgender, diversity, fetus, entitlement, vulnerable, evidence-based, science-based (I wish George Carlin could riff on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyBH5oNQOS0.) Trump has moved to “thought-control.”

Today, Congress will pass a “tax reform” bill, cutting taxes to the wealthy, and leaving the rest with little relief now, and higher taxes in a few years. We are told that corporations will use their newly gained profits to pay workers, create jobs, and expand markets; but the evidence-based (whoops) result is likely that they will return the profits to share holders and company officers. That’s what happened with the “TARP” money that stemmed the Republican recession of 2008.

The Republican plans depend on the “good conscience” of corporate America. And while I am a child of corporate America, and do believe that many of America’s business leaders act in “good faith,” I also know that the very definition of a successful business executive is one who creates profits. So when we turn over the Internet to the assurances that corporations won’t find a way to monetize their new freedom; it’s like asking dogs not to eat the food on the floor.

And, on this seventh day before Christmas, we hold our breath, waiting on the next shoe to drop on the Mueller investigation and staring into the chasm of Constitutional crisis. We watch as even those Republicans who seemed to take a more objective view like Senator Burr of North Carolina, fall into Trump’s pattern of distraction by investigating Jill Green’s campaign for President.

We watch as renewable energy is ignored and protected lands are opened to desecration by industry. Science-based evidence (whoops again) of climate change is denied. We listen to the President demand that we rearm America, his “peace through strength” doctrine so reminiscent of the Cold War theories of the 1950’s. This time, we may not be so lucky and avoid nuclear devastation.

It’s Christmas of 2017, and the realities of Trump are setting in. But Christmas is a season of hope, and there is still hope for change. Many Americans have taken individual responsibility for their government, they’ve voted, they’ve marched, they’ve cried out against the revisionism of their country. While not all of the battles have been won, there is the glimmer of hope in Alabama and Virginia; in many Courts holding fast to the law, and of course, the silent Mr. Mueller.

It’s “coming on Christmas” and we’ve been here before. In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, Americans could see the long march ahead, but also see the inevitable victory. In 1933 Americans were in the depths of the Great Depression, but had hope with Roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1943 World War II raged, but the battle in the Pacific had turned. And in 1973 Nixon was still President, but the Courts inexorably moved to reveal his guilt.

Americans in each of those times looked ahead to a long time of hardship, but found hope for a nation that would emerge more involved and compassionate. Hope.

 

 

 

A Tale for the Holidays

This is a wholly fictional account of what may have really happened. The characters are real, their actions are pure fantasy – or are they? 

Matt Gaetz is the first term Congressman from Pensacola, Florida, one of the most Republican/Conservative districts in the United States. He holds the seat once occupied by Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” fame, and as Scarborough did, maintains a conservative hardline.

Matt also has a problem, drinking and driving. Seven documented stops for DUI has made him vulnerable to any challenger with similar political views. Matt needs alliances with powerful forces to make sure he has the wherewithal to withstand those challenges.

Enter Roger Stone, infamous political operative who learned his trade from the Nixon campaign. Stone was mentored by Donald Segretti and the “Rat-f**kers;” the dirty tricks squad that managed to remove Democrat Ed Muskie from the 1972 Presidential competition, and break into the Watergate office building to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee.

Stone used his skills to advance political causes all of his life. Forty-five years after Watergate, he found a candidate tailored made for his version of campaigning:  Donald J Trump. And like the “rat-f**kers” of old, Stone wanted to do his work from outside the campaign. Trump “fired” him early in the 2016 election season, but Stone never really left. He continued (as many “Trumpsters” do, Corey Lewendowski being one) to work for Trump from outside the campaign structure. Better Trump didn’t know what goes on, giving him the old Nixon, “plausible deniability.”

And now Trump was in trouble. As the Mueller investigation slowly closed in around the inner-circle of the Presidency, Trump desperately searched for a way out. His lawyers and advisors offered him lousy options.

He could fire Robert Mueller, and risk a Congressional backlash resulting in Congress hiring Mueller themselves, or worse, beginning an impeachment inquiry. Or he could issue Presidential Pardons to everyone involved. While this might emasculate the Federal case against him, it would still leave the state cases, most notably those by New York Attorney General Eric Schniderman, outstanding and immune from Presidential influence.

Even if his Presidency survived, both of these choices would leave Trump unable to pursue his agenda, powerless for his remaining years in office.

Roger Stone no longer “communicated” with the President. But he had a plan to save Trump, a plan requiring a brash young Congressman, properly placed in the House Judiciary Committee; one who could use powerful friends. Stone connected with Gaetz, and the “third alternative” was born.

Stone researched the Mueller “Dream Team” of attorneys, and found that many had made contributions to Democrats, and particularly Hillary Clinton. He discounted those that made Republican contributions, that didn’t further his cause, but he was excited about the fact that one had actually gone to the Clinton “victory party” on election night. While all of these dedicated attorneys were sworn to do their jobs without “fear or favor,” Stone’s plan was to create a public view of the Mueller team as a “Clinton hit squad.”

But he needed a “closer;” information that was convincing enough to create believability in the story. Stone linked up with his contacts at the New York offices of the FBI, the same ones that leaked the information about the Anthony Weiner computer that forced Comey to release the “October Surprise” and cost Clinton the Presidency. Were there any FBI agents involved in the Mueller investigation that had strong views about the Presidential campaign? What was the office gossip?

The NY field office gave him what he needed. Between the texts from Peter Strozk and his extra-marital affair with Lisa Page, a Department of Justice attorney; Stone had enough to bring the whole Mueller operation into question.

But if, after the Franken allegations, this also was discovered as coming from Stone, then that would bias the outcome. One sniff of Stone, and the media, even Fox, would shy away, thinking that the charges were false (which of course, they were.) Stone had to find a way to get these charges into the media without his own fingerprints on them.

Gaetz was the vehicle. As a brash young first-termer with a drinking problem he needed help and friends. Stone could present him with the ultimate friend, Donald J Trump, President of the United States. Stone got together with Gaetz for a number of fundraisers, and presented the mission. Gaetz himself presented the plan to Trump, as they flew on Air Force One to the Pensacola “campaign rally” to support Roy Moore in Alabama. Trump gave his friends at Fox a head’s up about what was to come.

All that was needed was a few of Gaetz’s fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to pick up on the tale and run with it. Fellow “Freedom Caucus” members, looking for a way to silence Adam Schiff and the Democrats investigating Trump, jumped at the chance, using Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appearance as a chance to spread Stone’s “gospel.” Jim Jordan from Ohio especially smelled blood, and drove home his point that the Mueller investigation and any outcome from it was tainted. He called for a different Special Counsel to investigate the investigators.

Meanwhile, the White House lawyers knew the clock was ticking. If they couldn’t get the Mueller investigation wrapped up before the 2018 elections, they might be facing a less than sympathetic Democratic majority in the Congress. They continued to pressure Mueller with “we know the investigation will be over soon” and “Mueller has questioned all of the White House personnel.” The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee also got on board, suggesting that they were wrapping up by the end of the year and scheduling no more hearings or witnesses into January, much to the distress of Schiff and the other Democrats.

The table was set. If Mueller presented anything less than ironclad evidence against Trump or the Trump family, then the last “Rat-f**ker” would have pulled off the ultimate dirty trick. He would have made Robert Mueller, Marine, Purple Heart and Bronze Star Winner, head of the FBI after 9-11, look like a Democratic shill.

It was up to Mueller to find such powerful evidence that it transcended the plot.

And that’s where the story starts…

 

Please note – this is a work of fiction surrounded by facts not the other way around

Thanks Bannon

There is a “new” term favored by the media: tribalism. This is the catchall for what has happened to the United States; for the inability of Americans to speak and hear each other. We can’t accept that others’ views might have merit, and we aren’t willing to bend our own.

Tribalism: we hear it on Fox News (and I suppose others would say I hear it on MSNBC.) There are two completely different worlds of facts: as I focus on the next “move” by Mueller; they focus on the “biased texts” of FBI investigators. But it goes even farther than that.

Steve Bannon has corrupted the Republican Party. He brought his alt-right nationalism to a party bereft of a principled core: they have lost their soul to money, and Bannon’s extremism has filled the void. Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King is the latest example of Bannon’s ideology, tweeting:

Diversity is not our strength. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, “Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one.”

Presidential aide Stephen Miller made the same point in his infamous discussion of the Statue of Liberty with CNN’s Jim Acosta. Miller discounted Emma Lazarus’s Colossus, “…the huddled masses yearning to be free…” saying the United States was only a monumental example, not a promise to the people of the world. In his rant from the press podium came an undercurrent of anti-Semitism (a trend in Bannon’s “tribe” seen again in Kayla Moore’s statement for “… the fake news: one of her lawyer’s is a Jew.”)

The American tradition of the “melting pot;” the idea that we are all immigrants brought together to work together for a common good, is not a part of Bannon’s racist tribe. He believes that we should close our borders and ally ourselves with the other members of the “Northern European Tribes.” That helps explain his affinity for the Russians.

It is this tribalism that has changed the nature of political defeat. In the last year, losing hasn’t just meant the loss of a vote or a seat: it has felt like the loss of the American creed. Last night tribalism took a hit when, by a slim margin, the next Senator from Alabama will be Democrat Doug Jones.

Doug Jones ran against the concept of “the tribe.” He campaigned by being willing to work together with Republicans (as he had to given Alabama’s voting profile.) He will enter the Senate as the first Democrat from Alabama in twenty years. Democrats need to give him the flexibility to represent that state. Alabama has made a small step, and a giant leap, away from extremism. Jones, like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, must represent his constituents, not be forced into some Democratic version of “the tribe.” The Democrats who suffered the calamity of 2016 must be willing to maintain a “big tent” and not force some tribal litmus test.

My Republican friends will say that of course Roy Moore would be defeated. His political views, much less his deviant acts, should have assured his defeat. But the Alabama Republicans chose him to run for the Senate, and the Republican Party came back to support him despite his history.  They picked him, over others.

The real danger for the Republicans is that Bannon will continue his corruption of the Republican soul. His “tribe” is not done; Bannon promises primaries across the country to further his capture. And while I suspect he will have some victories, Alabama has shown the way to his defeat.

Democrats have extremists as well. If they cannot accept the good faith differences of those who share similar overall goals, then they will fall into the same trap the Republicans have found. But, if the Republicans allow themselves to be “primaried” into extremist candidates, and if the Democrats can remain the home of Elizabeth Warren AND Joe Manchin (and Doug Jones) then Democrats won’t have to depend on Special Counsel Mueller to change our nation.

 

 

 

Due Process

“…if you admit you did something wrong you get it trouble, but if you deny it, they let you keep you job!” (SNL, 12/8/17)

Al Franken and John Conyers resign. Donald Trump and Roy Moore deny. In this new age of recognizing harassment and assault, we take the side of the accusers on faith. While this is the right thing to do, how do we make sure the process is fair?

Due Process: the right of Americans to have their side of the story heard, enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. From the Supreme Court of the United States to the Principal’ office in any high school, granting due process is a requirement in any government disciplinary or enforcement action.

Today, there is a small movement claiming that Al Franken did not get due process. They call on him to rescind his resignation announcement, and allow the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate, deliberate and reach conclusions. It’s an odd group calling for this ranging from some who clearly support Franken and his work, including the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee,[1] to former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Fox News Commentator Laura Ingraham.[2]

Each side of “Franken supporters” has their own axe to grind. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee wants Franken to use his influence in the Senate to lead the cultural change of the “rules” of sexual harassment. Gingrich and Ingraham most likely want Franken to stay so they can continue to attack him (Gingrich, who had an affair with a staffer while married and Speaker and impeaching Clinton may also be looking for personal redemption.[3])

But all of this gives rise to a greater issue. In this dawning age of changing rules, how should sexual harassers and worse be judged? Franken, who admitted to some of the actions his accusers claimed (but not all) resigned under extreme pressure from his Democratic colleagues. Congressmen John Conyers (D) and Trent Franks (R) resigned as well.

None of these legislators were given a “hearing,” nor were the charges against them investigated by some authoritative body. There was only an informal judgment by their political party, and “punishment” applied as pressure to resign. And, of course, from a purely political standpoint, all of them will be replaced by members of their own party.

Roy Moore and Donald Trump both claim “due process” through the election process. Their argument is that the public “judges” by their vote. They claim that once the scandal is out, and the “jury of the electorate” makes their decision, the problem is resolved.

The Alabama election raises a different political question: should Republicans be willing to give up a precious vote in the Senate for their moral scruples, or is their a “higher” cause of political agenda that makes “the end justify the means?” Or can they take a middle course, allowing Moore to be elected, then removing him so a Republican governor can appoint a replacement.

This is the issue that will face the US Senate should Moore win tomorrow’s Alabama election: the Constitution requires that he gets his seat in the Senate (Powell v McCormack) but then the Senate could judge Moore’s ethical standing to stay. The Republican problem is that if they determine Moore should be removed, then what does that say about President Trump with his list of accusers. If the “due process of the electorate” does not absolve Moore, then it shouldn’t absolve Trump either.

If Franken decides to return to elective politics, does his resignation serve as the penance required from him to return? Would reelection “clense” him? Or are his admitted actions a permanent bar from political office? Our new awareness of sexual harassment gives rise to the need for a new set of “rules.”

Those rules are needed soon. The “rumor mill” has the Washington Post prepared to out 20-30 members of Congress as harassers – what will happen then?[4] We are already in one Constitutional crisis with President Trump and Russia: are we ready to handle two?

 

[1] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-group-al-franken-can-stay-in-the-senate-help-with-culture-shift/article/2640961

[2] http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363707-gingrich-ingraham-dems-speaking-out-against-franken-a-lynch-mob

[3] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/newt-and-callista-an-affair-to-remember-20120126

[4] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/12/08/hoo-boy-wapo-cnn-preparing-to-expose-dozens-of-members-of-congress-on-sexual-harassment-and-misconduct-n2419647

How to Fire a Special Prosecutor

It was the fall of 1973. I was a senior at Wyoming High School in Cincinnati, fascinated with politics and American government. My past summer had been spent engrossed in the Senate Watergate hearings, with Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina orchestrating the investigation of the Nixon administration; a door left open by the Watergate break-in in June of 1972.

During the summer, we heard the testimony of Alexander Butterfield, the deputy assistant to President Nixon, who revealed that all of the conversations in the Oval Office were recorded. Nixon’s goal was to have accurate accounts of his Presidency when he left office, and what better way than to have an actual audio record? What did Nixon know about the Watergate break-in, and when did he know it? The answers were on the tapes.

One of the results of these hearings was the establishment of a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, investigating the President as a part of the Justice Department. The Attorney General, Eliot Richardson, promised that he would only fire the prosecutor for “cause.”

Cox issued subpoenas to get the Oval Office tapes from the White House. Nixon suggested that instead of turning over the tapes he would have a notoriously deaf Senator, John Stennis, listen to them and summarize what he heard (I’m not making this up, it was called the “Stennis Compromise.”) Cox refused.

On Saturday, October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than obey the President. Nixon then ordered the Deputy Attorney General, William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, and when he refused, Ruckelshaus was fired (or resigned – there is some controversy). The next in line at the Department of Justice was the Solicitor General, Robert Bork. If Bork resigned, then there were likely to be wholesale resignations in the Department. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus urged Bork to stay, and Bork proceeded to fire Cox.

As a seventeen year old closely following these events, I was outraged. How could a President under investigation fire the investigator? How is it possible that we might never hear the truth about Watergate? After a summer when it became clear that there was wrongdoing in the White House, were they going to get away with it all?

They didn’t. The outrage I felt was shared by many members of Congress. They forced Nixon to accept the appointment of a new, more independent special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski.   Jaworski took the White House to court for the tapes. The case went to the Supreme Court, who ordered their release. I had completed my senior year and graduated by that time, but before I started my freshman year at Denison University, the House prepared Impeachment charges, and Nixon resigned. My friends and I toasted with champagne.

This week the true Trump loyalists in Congress and the media began the drumbeat to fire Robert Mueller. They are “throwing the kitchen sink” at him: from Mueller exceeding his mandate by investigating Trump finances, to claims that the investigation is based on “poisonous fruit” evidence from the Steele Dossier, to attacking the entire Mueller team as “biased” against Trump (and for Hillary Clinton.)

Listening to the House Judiciary committee question FBI Director Christopher Wray today, it was clear that the “Freedom Caucus” (hard line conservative Republican House members, including Ohio’s Jim Jordan) are trying to build that case. Tonight it was announced that Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, currently recused from the investigation, has been cleared by the Ethics Committee and may return to the Chairmanship. This can only mean that the Republican leadership is joining in to obstruct the Committee’s work.

As Mueller is closing in on the Trump family, it is very likely that the President will attempt to fire him. The “groundwork” is already being laid. It will be just as ugly as it was in ’73. Attorney General Sessions is already recused from the process, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recently stated that Mueller is operating well within the parameters of his office. If Rosenstein resigns or is fired, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, a career Justice employee would be next.

Should she refuse to fire Mueller, next in line is Dana Boente, the US Attorney for Eastern Virginia. Boente has already tendered his resignation from the post, but is staying on until his replacement is confirmed. After Boente there are a series of other US Attorneys. Someone will fire Mueller.

If and when it happens, we will truly find out what our Congressmen and Senators are made of. While you can bet the Democrats will stand up to the President, the question is, will Republicans move to continue the investigation, or will they fall to the pressure of Presidential tweets and Republican donors. Watching them squirm with the Roy Moore issue, I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath.

So what’s left? In 2018 there is an election. Democrats gaining control of the House and the Senate would completely change the dynamics. It only takes a majority in the House of Representatives to impeach the President.   And while it’s unlikely that Democrats will ever have a 2/3 majority needed to remove the President, a Democratic majority might make it easier for a few Republicans to be “profiles in courage.” Or perhaps at that point, President Trump will again mirror President Nixon’s actions and resign.

 

 

 

 

Al Franken Did the Right Thing

Al Franken announced his resignation from the Senate today. He did so, because seven women have claimed that in some way, Franken acted sexually inappropriately towards them in the past. While those actions should be unacceptable, in this age of Trump and Moore, politicians have followed the path of denial and blame to stay in political life. Franken did not, instead doing the right thing and resigning.

There are concerns about whether Franken was targeted by the alt-right. The fact the original charge against him, brought by radio commentator Leann Tweeden,  first came  to media attention by alt-right tweeter Mike Cernovich, and  was fore-shadowed by Trump’s advisor Roger Stone saying, “…it’s Al Franken’s time in the barrel…” raises questions about the legitimacy of the charges. Franken himself describes his memory of the “rehearsed kiss” as completely different, and the photographer claims the damming photo was staged.

It doesn’t matter. It is all about political math. Before Franken, Democrats could use the GOP support for Roy Moore, an accused pedophile, and the acknowledged statements by the President (“…I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet…”) to make Republicans the party without principles. They would do anything for a vote or a political win.

Franken cancelled out the equation. Regardless of the severity of the offense, an inappropriate kiss versus a thirty-four year old man “dating” a fourteen year old; Franken (and Congressman John Conyers of Michigan) leveled the playing field. Every party seemed to have its perverts, and as Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York said yesterday:

“I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping, you’re having the wrong conversation. We need to draw a line in the sand, and say that none of it is ok…”

 Franken before all of the charges would have agreed. His speech on the floor of the Senate today made it clear that he still does. Conyers and Franken have announced their resignations from the Congress. Moore proclaims has innocence against growing evidence against him. Trump is still President.

The Democratic Party is setting the table for the elections of 2018. Should Roy Moore win the Alabama Senate seat, now with the support of President Trump, the Republican National Committee, and multiple Republican politicians; the party that claims to be for Christian and Family Values will be the party without morals. For this, if for nothing else, Franken had to go.

He did the right thing. But now the American people need to put their own morality to the test. The first quiz will be this Tuesday in Alabama. With the little I know about Alabama politics, I am still hopeful that Alabamians will do the right thing and send Roy Moore home. But if they don’t, the Democrats have already cleared the decks, and Senator Moore will be a “target of opportunity” that will hang around each Republican candidate’s neck in 2018.

 

 

Mr Mueller Please Hurry!!

In the past few days, the Republicans forwarded a process of cutting taxes for corporations and the very wealthy, and ultimately raising taxes on the poor and middle class. They have fallen in line with support for accused child molester, Roy Moore, as Senator for Alabama. General Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation. And the President has accused the FBI of being “in tatters” for an agent who happened to text support for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

But while we were distracted, there was the drip, drip, drip of changes in America: changes that makes America a colder, harder, dirtier and less tolerant place. It starts with the statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Kansas, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked raising the tax on estates to over those $11 million, Grassley stated:

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

This seems to represent the view of the “old men” of the GOP: if you don’t have money it’s your own fault, and the government has no obligation to help you.

This view is made more clear by the lack of Congressional action on the “Childhood Health Insurance Program (CHIP), with nine million children losing their health insurance. In the same way, the Senate version of the “tax cut” bill would ultimately cut thirteen million people from health insurance.

And while we were distracted, President Trump went to Utah to try to dismantle two National Monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. This is not only pristine canyon land, but also sacred land to the Navajo and other tribes in the area. Instead, much of this would be open to “economic development,” including mining for some of the largest coal reserves in the nation. (To be fair, the courts will tie this action up for a while.) Oh, and the “border wall” is planned to go through Big Bend National Park in Texas, another natural wonder which would be marred forever. 

Eric Prince, brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and founder of the controversial mercernary firm Blackwater, has proposed that the US government hire private “intelligence networks” run by contractors. This “pay for spies” idea has gained the support of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mike Pompeo.[1] It would allow President Trump to “bypass” the “Deep State” intelligence agencies that he has railed against since before the election, to have his own private spy agency.

Prince, by the way, is the author of the “privatization plan” for Afghanistan, where he asked for a $40 Billion payment to takeover the Afghanistan war with private forces.  Fortunately the Joint Chiefs of Staff threw out the idea.

President Trump has made it clear that the US will recognize the capital of Israel as Jerusalem, rather than Tel Aviv. This move is sure to inflame the Muslim world, particularly the Palestinians, who believe their capital should be located in Jerusalem (rather than Ramallah.) The President won his “travel ban” (read “Muslim ban”) in the Supreme Court yesterday, allowing him to block travel from some Muslim countries. And the “Dreamers” are still waiting to see what the Congress will do, with the President making it clear he is willing to began the process of driving them back into the shadows of illegality again.

Trump began the dismantling of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, placing his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, in charge. Mulvaney has vowed to take the department apart, and has been one of the strongest opponents of the Bureau from its inception.  The Bureau has saved consumers billions of dollars since is advent in 2010.  The Federal Communications Commission is poised to change the nature of the national internet experience, ending “net neutrality” and allowing “per service” charge for internet services.

As more evidence shows that the President is in the grip of the Russians, the possibility of a Constitutional crisis grows. But every day that Trump is in office, the country grows more at risk. So much is being changed that Americans are forced to choose when to make a stand, to perform triage on all of the issues that matter. Mr. Mueller, please, HURRY!!

 

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/trump-private-spies-deep-state-735091

Fake News

In our current political climate it is difficult to determine what is fact and what is fiction. In the past when a President, Press Secretary, or Senior Counselor spoke, we generally understood that what they were saying was the truth as they knew it. The general honesty of those holding high office was expected. There is the story of President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis,determing whether to inform his press secretary Pierre Salinger about the seriousness of the situation. His decision: don’t tell Pierre because it would force him to lie to the press. His honesty was more important than his knowing what was going on.

Fiction is distraction: “red herrings” or “straw men.” Bring up a past action by Hillary Clinton like Uranium One or who investigated her emails to keep America’s focus from the pinpoint targeting of the Mueller investigations. Use Fox News to keep the “Trumpsters” from falling into the trap of the truth. And if all else fails, tweet, tweet, tweet.

Alan Dershowitz, retired Harvard professor of law, has made himself a “planet” in the alternative universe that is the Trump/Fox world. Dershowitz brings a unique set of credentials to the cause. He made his bones representing the highest profile clients. Patty Hearst, Mike Tyson, Claus Van Bulow, and most notably, OJ Simpson are on his list.

Dershowitz has liberal credentials and is an avowed Clinton supporter, but he has always been a hawk when it comes to Israel. He was vocal in his criticism of the Obama administration for taking an “even hand” in the Middle East, and supports the Kushner/Trump policy of siding completely with Israel. He even threatened to leave the Democratic party if Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, were chosen as Chairman.

Dershowitz is presenting an “alternate” view of the current Presidential crisis. His argument: that whatever actions were taken by the Trump campaign to contact, coordinate or conspire (collude) with the Russian government to change the election doesn’t matter, as there is no law against it. He further argues that, no matter how reprehensible those actions may be, the Mueller investigation itself is the danger to our political system. The investigation represents, in his view, an effort to de-legitimatize the outcome of the election, and by doing so, threatens the whole American political process.

Dershowitz states that the statutes the could be used: charges of taking campaign aid from a foreign government, coordinating the use of stolen emails, and making “quid pro quo” deals with Russia, do not apply to what was done by the Trump campaign. In fact, he even suggests that the charges of obstruction of justice against Trump and those around him may be moot, as the underlying offenses aren’t really against the law.

He is a distraction: a “liberal” who has taken the Trump side. Lawyer after lawyer, from fellow Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe to multiple federal prosecutors debunk his arguments. He has taken this contrarian view, perhaps to further his own political goals for Israel:  a “wolf” in liberal “sheep’s clothing.”

There will be more distractions like Dershowitz. Trump may soon create one himself by agreeing to Israel’s demand that Jerusalem be recognized as their capital. The fact that this will disrupt and possibly destabilize the Middle East is small price for him to pay for the change of topic from his judicial woes.  And that won’t be “fake news.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clear and Present Danger

This morning General Michael Flynn will appear in Federal District Court to plead guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI. This is a felony count, carrying a possible prison sentence of five years. General Flynn was exposed to many more charges, including acting as a foreign agent and conspiracy to  kidnap. He clearly has made a deal.

Michael Flynn was the man beside Donald Trump from early in the campaign. He travelled with Trump, he spent evenings and days with Trump, he advised Trump, and he spoke for Trump (remember – “…that’s right, lock her up!”) Unlike Paul Manafort, who spent a brief few months in the campaign, Flynn was there near the beginning, through the campaign, the transition, and moved into the White House. Whatever Trump knew about contact, conspiracy and cooperation with Russia; Flynn probably knows.

Trump has risked a lot for Trump.  He asked multiple leaders of the US intelligence family to “go easy” of Flynn, including then FBI Director James Comey.  The basis of possible obstruction of justice charges against the President revolve around Mike Flynn.

This is already a “bad week” for the President. He blew up negotiations on the debt ceiling with the Democratic Congressional Leadership by a tweet, his precious tax cut (targeted towards corporations and the one percent) is on the rocks in the Senate, and he re-tweeted racist and neo-fascists videos, getting chewed out by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has made it clear that he is going to fire his Secretary of State. And of course, North Korea launched a more powerful Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

News sources have also reported that the Trump Administration is considering “out-sourcing” US intelligence operations to private contractors, including possible renditions of foreign nationals.[1]

And there has been a growing drumbeat in the media questioning Trump’s mental state. His tweets, his public comments, and even the background statements from the White House (Trump lawyers are telling him the investigation is going to end by Christmas to keep him happy;) all have raised question about the condition of his mind.

And now, Flynn has cut a deal. We don’t know what he will say, but Donald Trump does.

What is the clear and present danger? As the pressure of the Mueller investigation has grown greater, Trumps’ actions have become more erratic. In a world seemingly poised on the brink of a nuclear war in North Korea, where the US is considering using private contractors to do our spying, and where the President sees no problem in putting his stamp of approval on racist (and unverified) videos; we don’t know what he will do next.  He is the master of distraction:  to what lengths could he go to distract his base from this?

For those of us who have been holding our breath for the Mueller Investigation to reach the top, this is the beginning of the end (though the end is still a long, long way away.)  But THE PRESIDENT still controls the levers of American might. While it may be we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, it doesn’t mean the tunnel won’t collapse before we get there.  Hang on.

[1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/trump-administration-mulls-private-rendition?utm_term=.wvNyrPZaL7#.spElvKX6wa

Won’t Get Fooled Again   (Thanks Pete Townsend) 

The Congress is dead set on passing a tax cut. As it’s a Republican tax cut, there should be no surprise that the bulk of the “cut” will be for corporations (especially big ones) and the very wealthy. This falls right in line with the core Republican belief that: “if those that have money have more money, they will spend it and the economy will ‘do better.’”

There is a great deal of argument about whether that belief is valid. Whether corporations will pass on the money saved by the tax cut to employees or consumers, or whether it will be absorbed by shareholders and top executives, is certainly open to question. The efficacy of “trickle down” economics is questionable; after the last “tax reform” passed by Reagan Republicans in 1986, the GDP growth rate fell for years.[1]

What we know for sure is that this is NOT a tax cut for everyone else. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the lowest income levels will see dramatic tax increases in the next few years. This does not include the “sunset” provisions of the current tax proposals. The corporate tax cuts proposed are permanent, the individual cuts will expire by 2027, raising taxes even more. [2]

In fairness, Republicans believe that the corporate tax cuts will increase economic growth to such an extent that it will overcome the tax increases that lower incomes will suffer. The concept: “a rising economy lifts all incomes.” They also believe that growth will increase the government revenue to overcome the $1.4 trillion their plan currently adds to the US debt. And for Republicans, there is a “win-win” proposition to these changes. If the economy does respond and grow, fine. But if it doesn’t, the increased US debt will hamstring any future Congress from spending on programs beyond current entitlements. If Democrats regain control, they still won’t be able to legislate outside of the constraints of the debt.

The current particulars of the legislation are even more egregious. The Senate version will end the individual mandate to buy health insurance with an estimated 13 million people losing their coverage. It will impact “blue” state citizens more than “red,” by taking away much of the state and local tax deductions. And it will cripple graduate students, requiring them to take as income their stipends for school.

So let us be very clear. When the President claims that this is a “major-major tax cut” he isn’t talking to those who most need it.[3] This is NOT a tax cut to folks who earn less than $40000, and it won’t be a tax cut for those who earn less than $75000 after a few years. Don’t be fooled by the title: this is a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, and it is clear that that this “cut” will bleed those who can least afford it.

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/26/senate-gop-tax-bill-hurts-the-poor-more-than-originally-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.d709068823f4

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/us/politics/middle-class-tax-cut-republican-bill.html

Bête Noire and Other Things

In every political movement there is a need to have a focal point, a single term that draws all of the goals of the movement together. In the Donald Trump campaign it was the old Reagan slogan of “Make America Great Again,” with all of its implications of how America under prior Presidents had somehow lost its greatness, a greatness vaguely remembered back “in the good old days.” I wrote about that trend in one of my first essays, “Trump World and the Beaver.”

But aspirational goals need to have a counter-point, a “bête noire” (black beast) of evil that is the ultimate result of failure. The Trump campaign chose carefully: while it could have been President Obama, those racial overtones might have been too much even for Trump’s organization. Instead, it was “Crooked Hillary” and “Lock her Up” that became the battle cry of Trump rallies and advertisements.

Like it or not, attacking Hillary resonated with a lot of Americans. Add that to the amplification provided by the Russians, and the inherent misogyny against a woman candidate, and it worked.  But campaigning is different than governing, or at least, it used to be. So why does the Trump machine continue its attack on Clinton, constantly referencing her in the same bitter terms they used during the campaign?

The Trump Presidency is a personal one: it’s all about what the President does. This week’s example, the tweet storm over LeVar Ball’s comments (basketball player father, not LeVar Burton of Roots, Star Trek and Reading Rainbow fame.)  Trump demanded fealty for his personal intervention to free the UCLA basketball team shoplifters, when father Ball refused, Trump attacked.

This personal, quasi-authoritarian Presidency means that all of the success, and more notably, all of the failures are Trump’s alone. In order to distract and excuse from these failures, Trump requires a “bête noire.” Hillary continues to fit the bill, and is rising to take the bait, as her visibility increases with her current book tour. It’s not that she’s wrong to tour, or that she shouldn’t be saying what she sees as the truth; it’s that it does play into Trump’s need for someone to attack.

This is similar to Turkish President Recip Erdogan’s use of Fethullah Gulen. Erdogan is in the process of ending democracy in Turkey, he needs an outside attacker to make his “emergency procedures” seem necessary. Gulen, safely ensconced in rural Pennsylvania, is perfect. Erdogan blames every attempt to maintain democracy in Turkey as subversion by “Gulenists,” and has even gone so far as to try to subvert the US government to get Gulen out. In reality, Gulen in the US is probably better for Erdogan than getting to actually put him on trial in Turkey. He can blame him from the outside, instead of actually having control.

Look for Trump to go even farther in attacking Clinton in the next several weeks, as the walls continue to crack in the Russiagate investigations. Last night it was announced that General Flynn’s lawyers will no longer cooperate with Trump’s attorneys. This can only mean that they are seeking to cooperate with the Mueller team, in order to gain some leniency for Flynn or his son. Flynn is the most likely candidate to deliver information on the family circle of the Trump campaign, Jared, Don Jr, or the Donald himself. There will be more to come.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legitimacy

In a series of interviews selling her new book, What Happened, Hillary Clinton has questioned the “legitimacy” of the Presidential election of 2016.[1]

In an interview of former DNC Chair Donna Brazile on his show “Hardball,” Chris Matthews hammered Brazile on the issue of the “legitimacy” of the 2016 election. Brazile didn’t back down, arguing that the events that occurred during the campaign raised enough questions to doubt whether the outcome was “legitimate.”[2]

The US Constitution sets up the fundamental means of electing the President through the 2^nd Article and 12^th Amendments. Ultimately the outcome is based on the winning candidate getting a majority of the electors.   And, while the rules governing the selection of electors vary somewhat by state, ultimately the electors are chosen as a result of the popular vote outcome.

There is no question that the “electoral process” as set forth in the Constitution was followed, and therefore there is no legal issue regarding the selection of Donald Trump as President of the United States. From that standpoint, there is no question of his legitimacy.

The questions about the integrity of our electoral process are a step back from that. Fundamentally there are three factors that need to be examined to determine whether the election of 2016 was in fact  legitimate.

1. Was the technical voting process infiltrated by Russian intelligence in order to change the vote count by either altering actual votes or vote counts, or by altering registration data so that properly registered voters were unable to cast votes.
2. Was the Russian infiltration of internet media such that it caused the voting to reflect a “Russian” reality which did not reflect the real will of the United States. As part of this, was the a conspiracy between the Trump campaign (or parts of the campaign) with Russian intelligence to target specific areas and voting groups.
3. Was there a conspiracy among the Russians, representatives of the Trump campaign, and parts of US law enforcement (particularly the New York office of the FBI) to manipulate the Clinton email scandal in order to alter the results of the election.

None of these questions are “decided,” even though a fundamental talking point of Republicans is that “…the Russian meddling that took place did not effect the outcome of the election.”[3]

There is growing evidence that the actual voting process may have been compromised. Mike Farb at “unhackthevote.com” has gathered mountains of statistical evidence which gives credence to claims that Russian Intelligence may well been able to penetrate key state and county voting systems. [4]

There is also been a “legal” process used by the Republican party to suppress voter participation. The Republicans, through voter identification programs, legal and illegal voting roll purges, and even voter intimidation at the polls; has worked to keep minority and lower income voters from participating in the process. [5]

There is already a great deal of evidence of Russian involvement in internet media. Facebook, Twitter, Google and other internet media sources were literally swamped with Russian advertising, trolling, and bots. These attacks were carefully directed towards critical voting groups and geographical areas to maximize their impact on the electorate. This highly sophisticated targeting required an advanced understanding of American political behavior: an understanding that might have come from the Trump campaign itself, particularly through their linkage with Cambridge Analytica.[6]

And finally there is the possibility of a US conspiracy to manipulate the Clinton emails, involving parts of the FBI, to serve as a distraction to the Trump campaign flaws. This was obvious with Wikileaks “dropping” the stolen Podesta emails within hours of the release of the Access Hollywood, or when FBI Director Comey seemed to be compelled by his own agents, to reveal the possibility of new Clinton emails on the Anthony Weiner laptop.[7]

What is a “legitimate election?” The United States has had questionable elections for many years. In the  Presidential election of 2000 for example,   the final count, done after the election result was already legally determined, did not necessarily support the legally determined winner. The legitimacy of the Bush Presidency was determined by the US Supreme Court, rather than the voting results of Florida.

If it is determined that through some combination of actions, Russian Intelligence determined the winner of the 2016 election, must we consider Trump to be a “legitimately” elected President? And IF we reach the conclusion that the Trump Presidency is, in fact, illegitimate, what then? In other areas of our society, from sports (think of the NCAA taking away national championships) to contract law, if we determine that the game or negotiation was tainted, we nullify the results. Presidential elections aren’t quite so easy.

There is no provision in the United States Constitution for a “do-over.” There is a way to remove the President. Certainly if we find that the Trump Campaign did conspire (collude isn’t a legal term) with a foreign power to win the election, if will fit the “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The key element will be Trump’s individual responsibility. Any impeachment would have to implicate him as individually responsible rather than as an unwitting recipient of the benefit of others illegal acts.

Unless the concept of nonfeasance is applied. Nonfeasance is the failure to act when action is required. Even if Trump himself is not implicated, if he allowed his campaign to be run in such a manner, he allowed for the illegal acts by NOT taking charge and so still is responsible.

And if Trump is guilty of nonfeasance, then Vice President Pence would be as well (he  supervised the transition which put Michael Flynn in as National Security Advisor.) Would this require the impeachment and removal of both, leaving the Speaker of the House as President?

Or do we elect a Democratic majority to the House and Senate, and depend on “grid-lock” to keep our nation together through a one term Trumpacy. If so, there will be a tremendous amount of damage to undo, legitimately.

 

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

[2] http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/donna-brazile-2016-was-not-a-legitimate-election-1101291587735

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/cia-director-wrongly-says-u-s-found-russia-didn-t-n812411

[4] https://www.unhackthevote.com/our-research/

[5] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/voter-suppression-may-have-won-wisconsin-for-trump.html

[6] http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/trump-campaign-wikileaks-cambridge-analytica/index.html

[7] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-domestic-conspiracy-that-gave-trump-the-election_us_587ed24fe4b0b110fe11dbf9

It’s Not for Me to Say

It’s not for me to say. It’s not for men to decide what consequences are justified in responding to sexually inappropriate behavior of the powerful towards the powerless. Men should not co-opt the response from women (or from other men); that’s just another way of making the victim even less powerful: the whole problem in the first place.

It’s not for me to say. And it isn’t necessarily for Democrats to say either. Many are compromised already. Anyone who found a way to support Bill Clinton after Monica Lewinsky was revealed has “sold their own soul.” Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York is right: Clinton should have resigned. That’s called taking personal responsibility for his actions – as opposed to: “…it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is…”

The Clinton impeachment: impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice, NOT for his actions with Monica Lewinsky. The House leadership was itself compromised: Republican Newt Gingrich, just removed as Speaker of the House while having an affair with a staffer, and Bob Livingston, his replacement, resigning from the Speakership and Congress after revealing he too was having an affair. They couldn’t charge Clinton with the “sex” part of his actions, they would have had to take too much responsibility themselves.

But it shouldn’t have been Hillary paying the price. Her decision to “stand by” her husband was hers alone – none of us have the right to tell her what she should have done. Bill Clinton’s actions and his failure to ever take responsibility for them, have altered our political history. Reasonably its impact cost Al Gore the Presidency, and probably Hillary as well. They are two of only five Presidential candidates that won the popular vote but lost the election.

Think of the changes a Gore Presidency might have made: no Iraq war, more climate agreements, perhaps no economic collapse of 2008 – the world would definitely be a different place. And a Clinton win last year – well – we can see what differences that would have made.

It’s not for me to parse the differences between Al Franken imposing a kiss, Larry Craig reaching under a bathroom stall in Minneapolis, or Clinton’s actions in the hallway with Lewinsky. But here’s what I can say: the victims should not pay the consequences. Monica Lewinsky was unwillingly dragged into the Clinton mess, her “friend” Linda Tripp revealing her to the Starr investigators. Her life, twenty years later, is still controlled by those moments. And how many other victims were further victimized by being willing to tell their story – from Anita Hill (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) to the sixteen women who spoke out about President Trump’s actions.

In the same way the Congress should not be able to “pay off” women (and presumably men) who have been harassed by Members. $15 million has been paid out in the past ten years in sexual harassment settlements, with non-disclosure agreements guaranteeing the silence of the victims and the anonymity of the perpetrators. That’s our money, protecting Congressional misbehavior. We all should have a say about that.

Last year we entered an era that said: no matter what transgressions “our” candidate may have committed, as long was we agree with them politically, it doesn’t matter. While Donald Trump was obviously a beneficiary of that view, many from the other side would say that WE accepted Hillary Clinton’s “corruptions” in this devil’s bargain (I obviously don’t agree with that.)  Let’s hope that our nation can step back from that view.

And then there is clearly criminal behavior. Judge Roy Moore, currently playing the victim of the “Bezos-Amazon-Washington-Post,” is accused of committing sex crimes with minors. The statute of limitations has run out on these actions: it will be the voters of Alabama who will act as the jury. It IS for them to say, and I expect they will do what’s right, deny the devil’s bargain, and make sure Moore’s political career ends now.

In the final analysis, in this moment when our society is recognizing our responsibility to the victims, it should not be up to the “old white men” of the government to determine what size changes should be made. Sexual harassment is all about the powerful and the powerless: it should be the powerless who get to exercise the determination of what should happen next. IT IS FOR THEM TO SAY.