Category: Uncategorized

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

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

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

Electoral College

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

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

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

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

Impeachment Process

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

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

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

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

A Senator’s Oath

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

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

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

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

They are faithless Jurors, and faithless Senators.

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

Deny the Facts

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

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

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

Deny the Conspiracy

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

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

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

Brexit

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

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

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

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

Tell the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the List

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

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

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

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

Two-State Solution

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

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

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

Palestine Today

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

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

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

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

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

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

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

Short Term Fix

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

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

Who are Jews

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

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

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

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

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

Today

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

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

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

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

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

Impeaching the President

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

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

Compromise Gone Wrong

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

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

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

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

The Future of the Union

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

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

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

A Simple Crime 

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

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

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

Disgraceful or Impeachable

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

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

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

High Crimes

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

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

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

Impeaching this President

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

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

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

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

Hopefully the election will be fair.

Attempted Coup 

President Trump just failed another test. 

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

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

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

Inspector General Report

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

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

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

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

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

The Backup Plan

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

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

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

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

Failing the Truth

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

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

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

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

Judiciary Hearings

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

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

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

Horowitz Report

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

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

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

Lights, Action, Rudy!!

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

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

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

Charlie Brown Finally Kicks the Football – Not!!

Glass Half Full

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

My Secret List

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

Two and a Half

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

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

The “Twos”

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

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

Politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nation

For many in our nation, it’s hard to get “past” the facts of the President’s actions.  The most recent polling average shows that 48% of Americans want to impeach and remove the President from office.  45% are against that.  After all of the presentations and hearings, all of the speeches and tweets, it all comes back to roughly the same number we’ve been living with since the beginning of the Trump Administration.  Mr. Trump’s recent job approval rating is 53% opposed, 44% in favor (RCP).

In our “post fact” world America has two sets of facts.  There is what I consider the “real world” facts, and there are the “Fox News” facts.  These are two radically different stories telling absolutely opposite tales about the actions and intentions of the current President of the United States.  If you can’t agree on the “facts,” it’s hard to imagine you can agree on anything else.

The Facts

But for the purpose of today and this essay, accept the following set of facts (I know I’m asking a lot, maybe too much for some, but to understand what the House of Representatives is doing, you need to work with “their” facts).  

1. In 2016, Donald Trump accepted and welcomed help from Russian intelligence sources to win the Presidency.  Some of his top campaign workers cooperated with Russian intelligence, or its surrogate, Wikileaks, for election aid.  While the Mueller investigation was unable to reach a “criminal” standard for most of those actions, the Report made it clear that they happened (Mueller Report, Volume 1).

• In 2017-18 Mr. Trump and his associates did everything possible to obstruct the Mueller investigation.  In the Mueller Report, at least ten clear acts of Presidential obstruction of justice were explained (Mueller Report, Volume 2).  A Trump political appointee, Attorney General Bill Barr, decided not to allow those charges to go forward.

• In 2019, Donald Trump conditioned Ukrainian aid on the government of Ukraine opening an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, and the Crowd Strike conspiracy, actions that would aid the Trump 2020 Presidential campaign.  This was not only outlined in the phone call with President Zelenskiy on July 25^th, but was an orchestrated plan using Mr. Giuliani and political appointees of the Trump Administration. (Intelligence Committee Report, Volume 1).

• Since the “whistleblower” report revealed the President’s plan, Mr. Trump has done everything in his power to block any investigation into what occurred.  He has absolutely refused to cooperate with Congressional investigation, ignoring subpoenas and denying witnesses.  His actions have attempted to prevent any Congressional oversight of his actions (Intelligence Committee Report, Volume 2).

Justice

These are the “facts” as the leadership of the House of Representatives seems them.  This is what Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using to determine what the next actions need to be. 

There are three ways to check an “out of control” Presidency.  The first is through regular criminal investigations.  Attorney General Barr is very familiar with this function of the Justice Department. In his first stint as Attorney General under the George HW Bush administration, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh finalized his investigation into the Iran-Contra Affair.  Eleven Reagan Administration officials were indicted, including the National Security Advisor, an Air Force Major General, and the Secretary of Defense.

Attorney General Barr advised President Bush to pardon all of those convicted or waiting to stand trial.  In the current crisis of the Trump Administration, Barr has made it clear that the Justice Department is going to act as the President’s personal attorney, demanding unprecedented powers and protections for the Presidency.  In short, the Justice Department has become an extension of the Trump Presidency, not an unbiased arbitrator of the law.

Congress and Elections

So if the normal course of criminal investigation and prosecution can’t be used to oversee the Presidency, then it falls to the Congress to do the job.  But, if the President refuses to recognize Congressional powers to oversee, subpoena documents, or call witnesses; then Congress will have great difficulty doing that.  President Trump consistently shows that he will not cooperate with Congressional oversight.

The third way to check the President is the most obvious one:  elections.  We are less than a year away from the 2020 Presidential elections, and there is great comfort in saying:  let’s wait until November, wait until “the people” can choose.  

Here’s the problem.  The 2016 Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference in the 2016 election.  We know President Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to involve itself in the 2020 election.  President Trump has brazenly asked for help from Ukraine and China in investigating his political opponent.  And we know that the United States has done little to prevent the kind of election manipulation that took place in 2016.  We can’t trust that the 2020 election won’t be tainted even more.

Impeach Now

Working from the “facts” as the House sees them, there is no choice.  If the Justice Department won’t act, and the Congress is blocked, and the 2020 elections may be tainted: the House of Representatives must impeach the President for his actions.    

Impeachment needs to go forward, even if a Republican Senate is unlikely to convict and remove the President.  Impeachment is the only way to present “the facts” to the American people, even if the Senate “jury” is already tainted to ignore those facts (ask Lindsey Graham, who states that he won’t even look at the evidence).  

Americans need to know what happened.  If the Senate won’t act, then at least the nation will know when they go to the polls in November.  

That’s why Impeachment is crucial.

A Nation at War

Ukraine is at war with Russia.  Ukraine is the 29^th most powerful country in the world, rated just behind Greece and Thailand.  There have 1,205,000 in military service.  Russia is the second most powerful force in the world, with over 3 million in uniform.   That’s more than the “First Place” United States, by the way, with US forces at 2,200,000.

So if Russia really wants to invade and take over Ukraine, they have the military power to do it.  And it’s clear that the Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wants to take over, to “get Ukraine”.  He’s already taken one province, Crimea and invaded two others.  Putin wants today’s Russia to regain the “lost empire” of the Soviet Union.  And it’s not just Ukraine:  Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and Moldova, are other European nations “on the block” for Russian expansion.

So what’s stopping Putin’s dream of Russian empire?

Russian Empire

There is the European Union, and NATO.  But most importantly, the United States of America directly supports Ukraine.  Russia recognizes that a full out invasion of Ukraine would, at the least, trigger crippling economic sanctions, and at the worst, a direct confrontation with the US and European military.  The US “thumb” is on the scale, balancing the Russian might.  America knows that their Ukrainian position “tweaks” Russia.  They also know that a full out military confrontation in Ukraine would put US forces in a difficult and dangerous situation.  

When Russia invaded and claimed Crimea, President Obama placed economic sanctions on them.  When Donald Trump was running for President, he made statements saying he would remove those sanctions, essentially accepting the Russian takeover.  Not surprisingly, many Ukrainian leaders spoke out against Trump during the 2016 campaign.  Hillary Clinton was likely to be even tougher on Russia than Obama was.  Reasonably, Ukrainian leaders were hoping she would win.  

That’s not “election interference” as many Republicans are now claiming.  Ukrainian leaders voicing their opinion of what’s best for their own country, even if they do it in editorials in American newspapers, isn’t attacking our election process.  That’s what the Russians were doing, from manipulating social media to hacking political emails, to direct attacks on US voting systems.  What the Ukrainian leaders did was the same kind of thing that Donald Trump does for Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom and Ben Netanyahu in Israel.

For Ukraine, regardless of whether Trump or Clinton is President, every ounce of US backing is important.  Since the Russian invasion, the Ukrainian Presidents, Poroschenko and Zelenskiy, have done everything they could to guarantee US aid, particularly military aid, to their nation.  US support for Ukrainians is not a luxury. It is a survival issue.

Fall of Communism

Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.  Much like Russia, when the Communist regime collapsed there, a huge amount of publicly owned industry went onto the open market.  Then the “supply and demand” of capitalism played out.  The supply of industry and property on the market was high:  that made those values lower.  Communism’s collapse created a fire sale on much of Ukraine’s means of production, and speculators made and lost huge fortunes.

It was an environment ripe for corruption, for buying officials to get an inside line on the sales.  It happened in both Russia and Ukraine, and created a new class of the wealthy called “oligarchs”.  Many of them got their millions illegally, and those that didn’t were forced to pay for illegal action to protect them.  Organized crime and organized government often became one and the same.

Corruption, Corruption, Corruption

So corruption was a huge issue in Ukraine.  Before the Russian invasion, in 2014 the people of Ukraine rose up against the Russian backed President, Victor Yanukovych, who rose from serving prison time to become a billionaire during his political career.  He’s the one that Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort worked for.  Once Yanukovych fled to Moscow, the people ransacked his multi-million dollar home.  They found a journal, listing illegal payments, including $12 million “under the table” to Manafort.

Even with Yanukovych gone, the United States and the European Union still had great concerns about Ukrainian corruption.  Vice President Biden led in putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to move against that corruption, even demanding the removal of the State Prosecutor, who wasn’t investigating the Russian backed leaders in exile.  Biden, following US and EU direction, threatened to withhold aid to do it.  The Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin was fired and a new prosecutor, willing to prosecute, was brought in.

Over a Barrel

Ukraine is over a barrel, the barrel of a Russian tank.  When President Trump asked the new President, Zelenskiy, “to do us a favor, though…” on the infamous July 25^th phone call, Zelenskiy didn’t have much of a choice.  When he discovered the US military aid and US recognition of his new administration in a White House meeting were being withheld, he had to find a way to grant the favor that Trump wanted. He scheduled a CNN interview, to announce investigations into the Joe and Hunter Biden and Counter Strike, as Mr. Trump asked. Only when the US Congress became aware of the funds block and pressured Trump to release it, did the Ukrainian leader cancel with CNN.

So when President Zelenskiy is asked today whether he was “pressured” by Mr. Trump, of course he says no.  The aid of the United States is critical and the Trump Administration still controls it.  Zelenskiy is like the kid in the principal’s office, hit by a bully.  When the principal asks, “who did this to you,” the kid answers “I don’t know”.  

The bully is still out there, and the kid doesn’t want to get hit again.

(note – this essay was written prior to the Intelligence Committee Report publication on 12/3/19)

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1

It’s written directly into the Constitution:  preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  It was so important to the authors, that they wrote it into the oath, part of the first section about the President of the United States. 

Constitutional Process 

But the first step in “…preserve, protect and defend…” must be to actually respect the Constitution, an action the Trump Presidency has yet to do.  The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment.  There have been three Presidents in American History who have faced impeachment: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998.  All three used every legal and political means to avoid being impeached.  

But all three respected the process, the system set up by the Constitution.  They respected the legal right of the House of Representatives to raise the question of impeachment, and, in two cases, stood trial in the Senate for Articles of Impeachment brought by the House (Nixon resigned before he was impeached).

But Mr. Trump, characteristically, has treated the House and its Constitutional authority with contempt.  The President’s attorney, Pat Cipollone, stated the following in his response to the House Judiciary Committee’s invitation to participate in their inquiry.

“…Regarding the purported impeachment inquiry…this baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness” (WAPO).

The White House argument, echoed by the Republican House members, has been to demand that the process be altered.  They demand that the committees hold a separate “trial” of the President at each stage of the investigative process, with the President’s attorneys able to call witnesses and interrogate.  Their claim is that the process is un-American, and unfair to the President.

Who Investigates?

The difference between the Nixon/Clinton impeachments and the current Trump situation is the absence of action by the Department of Justice.  In the case of President Nixon, Special Prosecutors Cox and Jaworski did full investigations of the Watergate break-in and the White House cover-up.  In the case of Bill Clinton, Independent Counsel Starr did a four-year lead up to Congressional impeachment. 

Both during the Cox/Jaworski investigation and the Starr inquiry, the President’s counsel didn’t get an opportunity to question witnesses.  While Nixon was required to turn over evidence (the tapes) and Clinton was deposed (“the meaning of the word ‘is’”) they could not cross-examine during the investigative phase.

The same was true during the Mueller investigation.  And that effort did NOT result in impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

Two Functions -Two Committees

But the current Ukrainian crisis is different.  The President’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, refused to allow the Justice Department to investigate. He left the House of Representatives to perform two functions:  investigate, then determine whether the results of that investigation rise to the level of impeachment.

In order to do both, the House used the relevant committee, the Intelligence Committee, to perform the investigatory function.  They heard witnesses specific to the charges that the President demanded a “quid pro quo” from the Ukrainian government. He wanted  help for the 2020 Trump Campaign in exchange for military aid for Ukraine. 

Republican members of the Committee engaged in three forms of obstruction.  In the beginning, they attacked the procedural basis for the investigation.  When that failed, they tried to cloud the investigation with irrelevant issues. Republicans tried to bring up the actions of Hunter or Joe Biden, and the “Crowd-Strike” conspiracy theory.  The President might raise these later in the “trial” phase of the impeachment as “alternate theories”. But during the investigation they were presented as distractions to finding the facts of what the President did.

The third Republican strategy was to discredit the “fact” witnesses against the President.  From the honored former Ambassador to Ukraine, Maria Yovanovitch, to Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the House Republicans spent a great deal of time trying to prove that somehow they shouldn’t be heard.  This is all part of a larger “theme” of Republican obstruction:  that the “Deep State” of career government workers somehow is trying to destroy the Trump Presidency. 

Investigation to Determination

While the Intelligence Committee continues their investigation, they have gotten enough information to forward to the Judiciary Committee.  Their function is to take the facts given, and apply them to the Constitutional definition of impeachable offenses.  The Constitution states:

 “…the President…shall be removed from office on impeachment for; and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The task of the Judiciary Committee is to determine what this means, and whether the facts presented by the Judiciary Committee are significant enough to impeach. 

This is similar to the judicial process of Grand Jury Indictment.  A Grand Jury hears evidence presented by the prosecution.  After all of the prosecutor’s evidence is heard, the Jury determines whether there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.  If they reach that conclusion, then indictments are issued, and a trial begins.  The “defense” doesn’t have an opportunity to intervene until the actual charges are made.

Once the Judiciary Committee concludes its hearings, it will make a recommendation to the full House of Representatives.  If they recommend impeachment, the House will vote on the charges to be sent to the Senate for trial.  A majority of the House could bring charges against the President.

The Defense’s Turn

President Trump and his lawyers are anxious to defend themselves against the “purported impeachment inquiry” but they aren’t that excited to involve themselves with the House of Representatives.  That’s fine for them.  They’ll get their opportunity to defend in a Senate trial, where the “jury” of Senators, at least fifty-three of them, is likely to be more sympathetic to their case. 

But a Republican Senate will still be restricted in their actions.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, will preside over the trial.  His goal surely will be a fair proceeding, one that will lead to a clear verdict. While a majority of the Senate could overrule the Justice’s decisions, if they do that, it will increase a perception that the President is getting favorable treatment, regardless of his guilt or innocence.  

It’s a Constitutional process, one that even Bill Clinton, accused of perjury and sexual impropriety, treated with respect.  President Trump has so far attacked the process. His actions further weaken the Constitutional bonds that hold our nation together. 

 Guilty or innocent (or somewhere in between) he needs to respect the process, and the Constitution.

Make Votes Count

Why should young people register to vote in 2020?  In much of the country, their vote won’t make a difference in who wins the Presidential election.  The Electoral College muffles the voice of Americans, with only a few “swing” states in play.  It is only in those “purple” states that individual voting really makes a difference in choosing the President.  And that’s something we need to change.

Democracy

The United States of America is a Representative Democracy, a nation where the people elect representatives to the government.  Those representatives then create, debate, and pass the laws that govern the people.  Just as “the people” indirectly legislate by electing the legislators, “the people” indirectly elect the executive to administer the nation.  The President is chosen by an arcane process where the direct vote influences, but doesn’t necessarily control, the final outcome.

In any “real” democracy, the “health” of the process is determined by the percent of the eligible population that participates.  Governments that are not democratic but want to “fake” that they are, always arrange for huge election turnouts, invariably giving vast majorities to the leader or party in power. They then claim a mandate to govern. 

“Real” democracies have “real” competition for elective office.  The more voters that turnout to vote in those elections, the healthier those democracies are.

On the list of world democracies, the United States ranks 26^th out of 34 in voter turnout.  The top five:  Belgium*, Sweden, Denmark, Australia* and South Korea all are over 78% of their eligible citizens voting (* mandatory voting).  The US is at 56% turnout (2016).  This means that nearly half of the voting age population in the US DOES NOT VOTE.  It also means that it’s always a minority of Americans that elects the legislature, and the executive (Pew). 

Make Registering Easy

There are technical laws that could increase voter registration in the United States.  Automatic voter registration rather than a separate process would work. Registration through driver’s licenses, or from tax or school records, is possible.  In addition, Belgium and Australia and other nations, have compulsory voting laws.  Australia’s fine for failing to vote is $20. 

In the US we could also remove jury selection from the voting roles.  Currently in many states juries are called exclusively from registered voter lists.  In Ohio, for example, if a citizen doesn’t register to vote, they won’t get called for jury duty.  There are plenty of other lists that could be used for jury selection:  income tax filers, state ID holders, even welfare lists.  Exclusively using voting lists for jury polls not only creates a disincentive to registering (if the potential voter doesn’t want to be on a jury), but could also skew the juries, particularly in those states that are engaged in voter suppression activities (Hannaford-Agor).

A Breakfast Conversation

But the most effective way to increase voter turnout in the United States is to convince potential voters that their vote makes a difference.  Which brings us to the Electoral College.

The most significant election, and the one with the largest turnout, is the Presidential election every four years.  In 2008, the highest voter turnout in recent times, 62.3% turned out to vote.  This was Obama versus McCain election, and resulted in the election of the first African-American President.  To paraphrase Joe Biden, it was “a big ****** deal.”  But it still meant that 38% of eligible voters didn’t vote.

There is an apocryphal story about a conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington at lunch.  Jefferson complained about the bicameral legislature, saying the Senate was unnecessary. 

Washington then supposedly asked Jefferson, “why did you now just pour your coffee into your saucer, before drinking?”  

“To cool it,” Jefferson answered, “my throat is not made of brass.” 

“Even so, Washington responded, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it” (Monticello).

Electoral College

The Electoral College was put in the US Constitution because of the Constitutional Convention’s concern for giving too much power to a possibly ill-informed electorate.  The people directly elected the House of Representatives. The Senate was chosen by the State Legislatures, and as Washington supposedly illustrated, was designed to “cool” the House’s passions.  In the same way, the Electoral College was selected by the states, with state legislatures given the authority to choose electors to select the President.  That body actually votes for President; to “cool the passions” of direct democracy.

Today in all but two states, the Presidential candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of the electoral votes.  The effect of that is that in a large majority of states the electoral outcome is foreseeable before any voter comes to the polls.

Note: in Maine and Nebraska each Congressional District chooses electors separately, with two more votes decided statewide.

In 2016 in California, Hillary Clinton won 61% of the popular vote.  All of the state’s 55 electoral votes went to her.  A Republican voting in California knew that essentially, their vote for President didn’t count. In Wyoming, 70% of the vote went to Donald Trump.  A Democrat knew that their vote wouldn’t influence the state’s 3 electoral votes.

Change the Process

Unless a voter is located in a “swing” state, there is little incentive to go vote in the most significant elections, Presidential.  For young voters in particular, the arcane “winner take all” Electoral College process discourages them from participating.

The obvious answer is to remove the Electoral College, and elect the President directly.  This would require a Constitutional Amendment:  two-thirds of the House and Senate, and three-fourth of the states all in agreement to pass.  There are far too many politicians and states that gain advantage from the current process for that to happen. 

But, since legislatures determine the elector selection process (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2) there are a number of ways the system can be altered under the current law.  One proposal is the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”.  State legislatures would agree to appoint electors based on who won the national popular vote, rendering the Electoral College a “rubber stamp” to the popular outcome.

State legislatures could also appoint electors based on the percentage of votes each candidate earned in the state. In 2016, under that process, California’s 34 electoral votes would go for Clinton, 19 for Trump, and 2 for Gary Johnson.  Wyoming would have 2 for Trump, and 1 for Clinton.  The danger of this process:  any third party votes might deny a narrow popular vote winner an Electoral College majority, placing the tiebreaker election int0 the House of Representatives.

It’s Purple Here

Here in Ohio, every vote makes a difference.  While almost all of the state offices are held by Republicans (hang in there Sherrod Brown!!) even in 2016 Trump only got 52% of the popular vote.  In 2012 and 2008, Ohio voted for Barack Obama. 

But that’s not true in most states.  And that reality,  “my vote for President really doesn’t matter” is a disincentive to new voters.  Of course their vote does matter for every other elective office on the ballot.  But the Presidential election drives voter turnout, and the United States should recognize that we are driving down the turnout, by law. 

It’s time to change.

Cathedrals to Creation

It’s in Northern Kentucky, just south of Cincinnati.  For only $75 you can get a “combo” ticket – one adult, good for the Creation Museum and a tour of a life sized replica of Noah’s Ark.  You can even catch a glimpse of the boat from I-75 as you speed toward Lexington.

The Creation Museum calls out to you:  “Prepare to Believe!!”  It is the most visible national sign of “creation science,” the re-branding of the Biblical book of Genesis as a “scientific” view.  The Museum even accounts for fossils, found in the silt and sand. They say they were buried during the Deluge.  Before the Flood, according to “creation science,” man and dinosaur coexisted on earth.

There’s nothing wrong with the Creation Museum, or the life sized Ark.  They are built with the same intent as Medieval Cathedrals, as monuments to religious devotion and belief.  To the believers, they are places to remind them of the wonders of their faith.  To the non-believers, those same places remind them of the religious dedication of their fellow men.

Science based on Faith

We learned the definition in school:  science is the study of the world based on developing a hypothesis, or theory, then using provable facts to support, modify, or dismiss it.  Religion is a belief system based on faith.  These are not opposites; they can both exist in the same space.  What cannot happen: provable facts cannot be confused with faith-based beliefs.  

So the facts of science, stacked into provable concepts, always subject to verification by new facts, are tangible.  You can look at evidence, physically touch the fossils, and understand the concepts of Carbon Dating and time.  Millions of years cannot be condensed into the Biblical generations adding up to 6000.

When I first started teaching school in the late 1970’s, public education in Ohio had reached a balance between facts and faith.  In science class, evolution was taught, and the facts were laid out.  Students were required to know and understand those facts, but they were not required to “believe” them if their faith taught them differently.  They could have “faith” in what they wanted, but had to know the facts to pass the tests.

There was a distinction between Biblical creation and evolution.  Good teachers made it clear that many of the scientists who worked in evolution, including Charles Darwin, believed they were describing “the plan” used by the Deity.  But “the facts” of evolution were delineated from the “faith,” whatever that was, of the scientists.

 Battle in the Schools

But there was a backlash that took hold later in the 1980’s.  It started with “creation science,” a skillfully manipulated “term of art” that cloaked faith in the language of science.  Since it sounded like science, the proponents demanded that it be given the same standing in science class.  In 1987 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was in fact faith, not science. Teaching “creation science” in public schools, the Court ruled, was the government taking “a side” in religion, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution (Edwards v Aguillard 438 US 578, 1987). 

Then it was rebranded, this time as the “scientific theory of intelligent design.”  Intelligent design hypothesizes that the complexity of life on earth are too great to have been “random chance” over millions of years, and therefore required some unseen force directing its design – in other words, a Deity.  The proponents did an even better job of cloaking their religious views in scientific terms, and demanded that “intelligent design” get equal time with evolution in science class.

Courts v Politics

Federal District Judges have ruled that intelligent design does not meet the non-religious criteria set in Edwards to be taught in public schools (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, M.D. Pa. 2005).  But the pressure on teachers, administrators, and local school boards from religious groups has been intense. Many science teachers in public schools today avoid teaching about evolution.  Instead, they teach “the facts” of science, but leave the terms, evolution in particular, out.

While the battle may have been won in the Courts, it still plays out in Board of Education meetings every year.  And while the Courts may be on “secular” teacher’s side, that doesn’t help much when three out of five school board members were elected to back “intelligent design”.

It Started Here

Our political discourse today is rampant with differing “sets of facts”.  We look at, for example, the testimony in the House Intelligence Committee hearings, and hear absolutely opposite things.  For one side, there is clear evidence that the President of the United States attempted to bribe another nation for help with his campaign.  For the other side, it’s clear that the President did nothing wrong (or at least that’s what they say).  

Even in the Vietnam War crisis of the 1960’s, it seemed that there was a single set of facts that could be discussed.  And when the most trusted source of those facts, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, questioned the war, it impacted the view of the entire nation.  Today there is no person with that kind of influence.  We don’t just disagree, we don’t believe in the same set evidence and facts.

When did that happen?  Is our national factual dispute just the creation of Roger Ailes and Fox News?  Here’s a “fact” to think about:  the “facts” first disputed were in the classrooms of public schools.  Students were allowed to conflate facts and faith, and encouraged to “create” their own facts.  If that worked for evolution, why not for other uncomfortable “facts” in society:  for poverty, immigration, and climate change.  

Teachers aren’t the only ones teaching students.  Perhaps our national “accommodations” for creationism in the past forty years created a national willingness to accept only the facts that fit our existing views.  

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said:

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”

That’s not what we’re teaching.

Math Block

I was a “math block” kid.  I’m not sure why, but I just didn’t get math easily.  Maybe it was my seventh grade math teacher, who threw me up against a locker for reading a history book in her class.  I can still feel the dial of the combination lock digging into the middle of my back.  She was a mean old woman, in an era when teachers could do pretty much anything they wanted.  And she thought she would teach me a lesson, not paying attention in her math class. She made me hand write the Constitution of the United States and turn it into her.  

It was one of the best assignments I ever did, but old Mrs. Hibberd would have been better making me do one hundred math problems.  I needed that work more than indulging the subject I already loved.

No Chance

My eighth grade teacher, Coach Weikert, did his best to revive my math skills, and since he was my track coach, I responded.  But freshman year Algebra put me back into denial, and a sophomore Geometry teacher who licked chalk from the chalk tray (really) put the nail in the coffin.

By Algebra II, I was doomed.  Then our teacher left in October, and we had a series of eight substitutes for the remainder of the year.  I think everyone in the class got a B- or better; what else could the school do.  But my math years were done.

Thank goodness my university considered the new “computer” class as a math class, programming the “mainframe” monster in the basement with punch cards in “Basic”.  I enjoyed it, learned a lot about logic, and didn’t have to explore mathematics again for twenty years.

Statistics class required for my Masters degree almost tripped me up.  But I took it in the summer, all by itself, and spent hours and hours struggling to grasp the concepts.  I managed to survive, getting an “Education Major A” despite failing a quiz on standard deviation by subtracting 15 from 25 and getting 5 (25-15=5).

Arithmetic Dreams

So I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that last night I had a dream about NOT succeeding at math.   In the dream I wanted to explore higher mathematics.  To do so, I was presented with the backside of a shield of metal, full of bumps caused by dents on the other side.  My assignment was to analyze just the bumps and valleys, interpret what caused the marks, and find patterns to predict what would happen next.  That was “higher” math I was told, and if I didn’t get that instinctively, then I didn’t belong.

I don’t know if that’s really what higher math is about, but the concept does apply to something I know a lot more about, history.

Our National Shield

Our present time is the back of that shield, with bumps and ridges.  We look at it, having a pretty good idea of what caused the marks.  The bump of the Trump election, the ridge of the border wall crisis, the dip caused by our national division.  And we hold it up against older, rusty shields from the past:  the dusty shield from the Nixon era, the heavy worn and dented piece from the American Civil War.  How does our new metal shield compare?  Does the damage done by our current political crisis match up to the huge near-break of the Civil War?  Does the height of the Nixon impeachment bump match the current Trump one?  

Perhaps somewhere in the turkey-coma caused dream (it was Thanksgiving night) there was a message:  that those shields didn’t really represent higher math, but national unity.  Can our current crisis break the shield in two? Will the fever-dreams of the alt-right, of toting AR-15’s into a civil war to defend Trump, actually break holes in our national metal?  

Out on the Internet, it says it takes steel ½” thick or more to stop the AR rounds; is our national unity now thinner than that?  

Reading the Bumps

So we look at our current struggle, trying to read the “braille” patterns to predict what comes next.  Here’s what I see.  Our steel shield of national unity is thick in the middle.   While it will be dinged and damaged, especially on the edges, the center remains strong.  And that is the prediction, the sum of the pattern.  

I remember sitting in seventh grade math class when they announced over the PA system that Richard Nixon was the new President of the United States.  I remember being silent as most of my classmates at Van Buren Junior High in Kettering, Ohio, wildly cheered the news.  My thought:  how could our country make this mistake, and how would we survive?  And it happened again in my junior year, though at Wyoming High School there was a lot less cheering.  But our nation did survive Nixon:  and we became stronger for it.

Stronger than We Think

We have survived the first three years of the Trump Administration.  I dream that “this long national nightmare” will be over in 2020, and I’ll work to make that happen.  But our nation is strong, strong enough even to withstand Donald Trump.

President Obama is fond of quoting Martin Luther King Jr.  One of his favorites: 

“…The arc of moral history is long, but it bends toward justice.”

It’s not an excuse.  It doesn’t mean don’t try, that history is on our side.  It means keep the faith.  Or, as Barack Obama said:

“…Hope is the belief that destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by the men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.”

Dream of what can be: then work to make that dream happen.  

That is the definition of hope.

Here in the United States, Thanksgiving is the simplest of holidays.  There’s no incredible decorations or gifts like Christmas, nor solemn ceremonies like Memorial Day.  It’s a simple holiday: give thanks, then enjoy the company of family and friends, and eat, eat, and eat again.  What could be better?

Giving Thanks for Survival

The national day of Thanksgiving is as old as our nation itself.  We learned at the earliest school age about the Massachusetts Pilgrims suffering, and the Native Americans who helped them to overcome the harsh environment.  After it seemed assured that the settlement would survive, they declared a time of celebration and prayer at the end of the fall harvest.  

But there was a fall harvest tradition even before the Plymouth celebration, with settlers in Virginia celebrating a day of Thanksgiving as well, two years before the Plymouth celebration. Of course it’s America:  there’s a controversy about everything; even who had the first Thanksgiving.

Politics of Giving Thanks

The prayerful celebration became a tradition in both the North and South in colonial America.  But it was in 1789, after the establishment of the Constitutional government, that President George Washington declared an official day:

“…to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…”

Twelve years later President Jefferson refused to proclaim such a day.  He believed that the “Executive” of the United States was prevented from declaring a “religious” holiday because of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Baptists in Georgia were concerned that their state failed to mention religious protection in its constitution.  In a draft letter Jefferson explained his view.

 “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even occasional performances of devotion prescribed indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church…”

Jefferson’s political opponents, the Federalists, used this view to claim that he was an atheist.  Political strife is as much a part of Thanksgiving as turkey.  Jefferson’s successor, James Madison, didn’t need the controversy, and reinstated the holiday.

National Suffering

But Thanksgiving was made an official national holiday when Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it in 1863.  It was after a terrible year of war:  battles at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Vicksburg, and Gettysburg took tens of thousands on both sides.  For the Union, it was a year that began in terrible defeat, but also the year the tide turned with huge victories in the summer.  The end of the war was on the horizon, though not as close as it seemed at the time.

But it was also a time of incredible prosperity, with the Northern farms and factories producing more goods than ever before.  For those in the United States not physically touched by the war, it was certainly a year to be thankful for.  

National Unity

Lincoln knew that while the war might seem to be won, it would require more years of struggle.  National unity was critical to enduring, and endurance was the ultimate Union strategy.  If they could simple endure, the economic might of the North would surely prevail over the South.  He made this point most eloquently in his short speech at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, delivered a week before Thanksgiving.  He wanted these words shared at the Thanksgiving table.  

“…It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Tradition

So the Thanksgiving Day tradition became established in American life.  There’s been more political upheaval.  Franklin Roosevelt changed the date from the fourth Thursday to the third, hoping to boost Christmas sales during the Great Depression.  Congress tolerated most of the New Deal changes, but changing Thanksgiving was too much.  Two years later Congress put it back, writing into law:  the Fourth Thursday of November.

Political controversy and Thanksgiving isn’t over.  President Obama in his 2015 proclamation spoke of being thankful for American diversity:

“…In the same spirit of togetherness and thanksgiving that inspired the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag, we pay tribute to people of every background and belief who contribute in their own unique ways to our country’s story.  Each of us brings our own traditions, cultures, and recipes to this quintessential American holiday…”

President Trump emphasized national unity and devotion.  

“As we gather today with those we hold dear, let us give thanks to Almighty God for the many blessings we enjoy.  United together as one people, in gratitude for the freedoms and prosperity that thrive across our land, we acknowledge God as the source of all good gifts.  We ask Him for protection and wisdom and for opportunities this Thanksgiving to share with others some measure of what we have so providentially received.”

And of course, this year there will be plenty of political debate over turkey, stuffing and cranberries.  I hope that Americans can find a “spirit of togetherness” despite our partisan differences, for the hours around the table.  At least, don’t throw the drum stick.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

And on a personal note, welcome to the family and the world Charlie Slutzker, our newest grand nephew, born just last night!!  Congratulations Leah and Adam!!!

All IN

Mike Bloomberg is “all-in:” running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  He committed $31 million of his own money to a media blitz beginning this week to start his campaign.  His strategy:  skip the “retail politics” states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and go for the “media” states on Super Tuesday and beyond.  It’s a reasonable strategy for a man who is not likely to be popular with committed Dems.

Mike Bloomberg has a “diverse” (from a Democratic position checkered may be a better word) political past.  A “life-long Democrat,” he switched to the Republican Party in order to run for Mayor of New York in 2001.  After he left the Mayor’s office, he shifted to become an “Independent” until last year.  Then he determined to become a Democrat again, not surprisingly, to take advantage of the opportunity to run for President.

Bloomberg is an “old-school” Republican’s dream.  A self-made confirmed multi-billionaire (as opposed to a self-appointed questionable one like the President) his is a true “up by his own bootstraps” story.  And he did it on Wall Street.  

Bloomberg has “good” moderate Democrat views and has put his money where his views are.  He founded “Everytown for Gun Safety” which collaborated with the “March for Our Lives” student led group after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shootings.  His philanthropy also has gone to support climate change groups, anti-tobacco causes, and initiatives for innovations by city governments.  

Money, a great personal story, and moderate Democratic views:  what’s the problem Dems?  

The Power of Primary

It is the nature of the primary process in America today, that the most motivated in either political party are the ones that show up to vote.  On the Republican side that means that Trump supporters dominate.  On the Democratic side it’s a bit more complicated.  There is the Sanders/Warren Social Democrats, but there are also powerful minorities that have a big say in the Democratic nominee.

Black and Hispanic voters make up a large part of the Democratic electorate.  In fact, it was the foreseeable fall off in black voter turnout from Obama to Clinton that made one of the differences in the 2016 election (among a whole host of other factors).  For a Democratic Presidential candidate, minority voters are critical.

Bloomberg was the REPUBLICAN mayor of New York City.  His policies included  “stop and frisk;” when NYC Police would stop “suspicious” suspects, question and frisk them.  The vast majority of those stopped were minority, young and male.  That action put a lot of those boys and men into the Court system for minor offenses.  In 2002, there were almost 100,000 stop and frisk stops.  By 2011, when Bloomberg was completing his third term, there were over 685,000 stops. On average through those years, 90% of those stopped were innocent of wrongdoing (ACLU).

Stop and Frisk may be the threshold issue that many minority Democratic voters struggle to get past.  Bloomberg’s stand on Medicare for All (he’s opposed) and taxing the wealthy (he’s in favor of some increase, but not a wealth tax) won’t resonate with motivated Social Democrats.

And his seventy-seven year old age is a definite turn-off to millennial voters – he’s another “old white guy”.

Dems for Bloomberg

So who likes him?  For those Democrats so afraid of being outspent by Trump and the Republicans, Mike Bloomberg is the cure.  And for those moderate Dems who are afraid of Sanders/Warren and unconvinced by the other candidates, Bloomberg may well seem like the “shining knight” they’ve been waiting for.  

But there are three groups who absolutely love Mike Bloomberg.  The first:  actual moderate Republicans who cannot face voting for Trump again. Some of them may be willing to “cross over” and vote in the Democratic primary.  Bloomberg, a lot like Bill Clinton in his day, is a moderate Democrat, even to the right of Joe Biden.  In the present Democratic Primary field heavily slanted to the “left” he is probably the most  “right” (not including Gabbard or Delaney).  

The second group is some of the “moderate” media.  Certain news commentators are jumping on the Bloomberg wagon; abandoning other moderates like Joe Biden.  One of those, Tim O’Brien, author of a Trump biography (Trump sued him and lost) and formerly of the New York Times, has actually joined the Bloomberg Campaign.  And, as one MSNBC commentator headquartered in NYC stated, “…he’s our Mayor.” 

And finally there are those Dems who look at the current candidates and say:  they might lose to Trump.   They say: we’ve had a year of examination.  Sanders/Warren are too socialist.  Biden, missed his chance and is too old.  And besides, he is Trump’s primary target.  Yang and Styer, look like they’re running for fun.  Klobuchar, Booker, and Buttigieg:  are just not “heavyweights”.  

But Bloomberg is the “Democrat’s Trump”.  He’s got all of Trump’s attributes, without being Trump.  And he has got enough money to buy the election.

Temptation

For some Democrats, it’s tempting.  Bloomberg is a “safe” bet, perhaps even safer than Biden.  For those who’ve spent each day for the past three years, waking up still in the nightmare of November 9, 2016 – and there are many – it might be enough.

Thank goodness for the primary system.  Thank goodness that Bloomberg will have to go through the “fire” of campaigning, and not just buying ads on the media.  We will see what Democrats think throughout the country, not just “old white men,” but young and women and black and Hispanic and gay.  The Democratic Party is diverse, and driven, and smart.  Bloomberg won’t buy them off as “ Our Trump the Good”.

At least I hope not. 

The Bush Years

It was during the early George W Bush years and the United States was waging war in Iraq and here at home as well, looking for terrorists in every Mall and airport.  I was opposed:  to the war, to the excesses of the Patriot Act, to Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, and to Vice President Dick Cheney and his war profiteering Halliburton Corporation. My escape from reality in that time:  The West Wing, a television series about a different Presidency and White House.  

I wasn’t the only one.  As we listen to the politics and discussions today, Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing scripts still resonate.  “Let Trump be Trump,” (it was let Bartlet be Bartlet) and “decisions are made by people that show up” are just two West Wing quotes I’ve heard in the “real world” in just the past few days.  And of course one of Sorkin’s most famous lines from A Few Good Men, heard over and over again as we determine what happened in Ukraine:  “who called the Code Red.”

The West Wing got me through the long years of Bush, and even over the shock of Kerry’s defeat in 2004. And it ended right when it should have.  In the show, America elected a Hispanic Congressman to the Presidency. He then appointed his Republican opponent the Secretary of State. That’s where the series ended, and reality returned in 2006.  Then Barack Obama ran for the real Presidency.

A New Escape

So it’s probably no surprise that in the Trump Administration I’ve turned back to television for escape.  Of course things are different today.  I’ve retired from teaching and coaching, and MSNBC automatically comes on all six televisions in our six-room house.  But on Sunday nights I found another “alternate” political world, Madame Secretary.  

It’s different than The West Wing.  First of all, they are Republicans, unlike the Democrats of the “Bartlet Administration”.  But the plots are intriguing and current, and the writing is crisp.  And, much like West Wing, the show usually ends on an uplifting note.  At eleven on a Sunday night, I can go to bed with hope, even if it’s hope from a TV show.  

This year, Madame Secretary has become the first woman to serve as President of the United States.  She leads a nation divided, with the Republican Party split in two factions each side running their own candidate for President.  Her Vice President is from the conservative Republican faction, her husband is senior counselor, and her family is close and involved.  “President McCord” tries to balance politics, world crisis, and family in the White House.

The Real World

Last week’s reality was hours and hours of impeachment hearings, in the real world.  I’ve listened to Congressmen and Senators make up “facts” to pursue their own agenda.  So when I turned on Madame Secretary last night, I was hoping for something positive, some uplifting ending that would take me into this week.

Yes, it is Thanksgiving week, and hopefully our focus will slide to how much food our dining room table can hold at one time.  But politics will always be in the background, and not just on the six TV’s.  America is in crisis, we can’t ignore or avoid that fact, even if Mr. Trump declares a day of Thanksgiving for Thursday.  I hope he doesn’t find a way to make even that about himself.  

And here we are on the Monday before Thanksgiving.  The President has fired the Secretary of the Navy.  Republicans are raising the Russian “false flag” of Ukrainian election interference.  Mike Blumenthal is trying to literally buy the Democratic Presidential nomination.  And the impeachment of the President drones on.

On Madame Secretary, the Congress is impeaching President Elizabeth McCord.

That’s not the uplifting beginning I was looking for.  

Reasonable Minds

I watched every minute of the Intelligence Committee open hearings.  While I can’t say I read every word of the thousands of pages of transcripts from the closed hearings, I did read a lot of them.  At the end of the day (that was Thursday) the evidence was overwhelming, clear and convincing:  the President of the United States tried to use US aid money and a White House meeting to force a Ukrainian investigation of Joe Biden and the 2016 Election.  

The Republican side of the Committee refused to participate in honest fact finding.  They spent most of their time in obfuscation, throwing out de-bunked conspiracy theories, and attacking honorable witnesses like Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, Foreign Service Officer David Holmes, and former NSC executive Fiona Hill.  And they spent hours and hours trying to convince Americans to “not believe your lying eyes.”  

They were successful.  They maintained that segment of American society dedicated to supporting the President.  That was their goal:  hold onto the base.  The last Real Clear Politics average showed the nation almost evenly divided, with 48% in favor of impeachment/removal, and 46% against.  This mirrors the Presidential approval poll, that shows 53% of Americans disapprove of Trump, and 44% approve (RCP).

The “reasonable minds” test failed.  A reasonable mind would recognize that the President is guilty.  A reasonable mind would move to the next question:  is what the President did worthy of removal from office.  But we are not in an era of “reasonable minds”.  Ask Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, who spent most of the hearings straddling the fence. Even he was finally forced to “stand with the President” in the last couple days.

Post-Truth

In 2004 author Ralph Keyes coined the term “post-truth era.”  The impeachment inquiry is just the latest example of a segment of Americans simply ignoring facts; somehow thinking that it’s “OK” to choose their reality, as if ordering a Big Mac rather than McNuggets.  

Perhaps some day we will be in a “post Fox News” era.  Rupert Murdock found that there were huge profits in taking “tabloid journalism” and cloaking it in respectability.  He wasn’t the first to do it:   “Yellow Journalism” led the United States into the Spanish American War in the 1890’s.  But Fox’s “Fair and Balanced News” projected what a segment of Americans wanted to hear.  It was their Big Mac.  Facts had little to do with it.  Fox sowed the seeds for a Trump-like TV candidate to grow and flourish.

“Fake News” has been the battle cry of the Trump Campaign since the tragic moment he came down the golden escalator.  But like much of what the President does and says, it is just another example of “projection”.  Mr. Trump takes his own illegal or unacceptable actions, and “projects” them onto others.  The most recent example:  Trump tried to bribe and extort Ukraine for help in the 2020 election:  he claims that what Biden did was the same thing.  

Super Powers

The true Trump “super power” is his ability to convince others that his projections are real.  It helps him that others in authority “double down” on those projections.  Attorney General Bill Barr is on his quixotic international quest to disprove Russian interference in the 2016 election, while this week his Inspector General again reaffirms that truth.  And Senator Lindsey Graham is now using his Senate Committee to look for “Counter Strike” and investigate his close friend, Biden. They both have lent their “good name” (what little they have left) to legitimize these fables. 

Advertisers will tell you that it takes five repetitions to sell a concept.  Even as I write this essay, the President is on “Fox and Friends” repeating more false charges:  from President Obama spying on him to Ukrainian election interference to a “new” Apple Mac computer factory in Texas (that opened six years ago).  The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee ignored witnesses to chant their “fake news” litanies.  It’s all to hold onto the minds of the base. And it works.

On Fifth Avenue

I can’t see any “fact” that will change the true “Trumper” mind.  It is easy to wish for a “silver bullet,” maybe John Bolton’s testimony in a Senate Trial, which might alter the equation.  But should John Bolton testify, the Trump/Fox machine will simply send him “under the bus”.  Even if it convinces Republican Senators, it won’t change the political equation they face: stand with the President, or end their political careers.  It seems no one in this post-truth era is a Profile in Courage.

Donald J. Trump, forty-fifth President of the United States, will be the third President to face an impeachment trial in the Senate.  My cloudy “crystal ball” shows him surviving a Senate trial.  And then the election of 2020 will really be on.

Democrats will need to find their own “super power”.  It should be easy:  the majority of Americans will vote for the Democrat, just like in 2016.  Get out the vote, continue the Democratization of the suburbs, and it should result in a win.  But that’s what we thought last time too.  

Democrats do have a weapon to capture the middle, those suburbs and “soccer moms”.  They have the facts:  a President committing bribery. And they have the law: bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.  Now Democrats need to beat on the table loud enough to make sure Americans know it.

Congressman Jim Jordan, the wrestling hero of St Paris, Ohio, has a favorite phrase.  He’s used it every afternoon this week, as he made the same speech three days in a row.  It’s always somewhere after a litany that includes Christopher Steele (of the dossier,) Jim Comey, the Mueller investigation, and the fact the President Trump’s gambit in Ukraine failed.  Jordan says, “Guess What?”  

He does it like it’s a big surprise coming up.  “Guess What?” – Ukraine got the aid.  “Guess What?” – President Zelenskiy got the meeting.  “Guess What?” – President Trump didn’t do anything wrong.

Guess what, Congressman Jordan:  the President’s scheme failed.  And guess what, Mr. Jordan:  a failed crime is a crime nonetheless. 

Dr. Fiona Hill, former high-ranking member of the National Security Council testified today.  She made it clear that the NSC was blind-sided by the President’s alternate foreign policy.  In a meeting with Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, Dr. Hill was angry with Sondland for running a separate operation without telling her.  

But she apologized in the hearing today for her anger.  After hearing the testimony, Dr. Hill realized that Sondland was working at the behest of the President.  What she thought was a rogue, Rudy Giuliani inspired operation to get dirt on Joe Biden from the Ukrainians was in fact led by the President.  She left the NSC soon after (see flowchart below.)

Guess what, Jim:  the President was holding back aid from Ukraine to get that dirt.  And Jim, that’s against the law.

The Final Witnesses

While Dr. Fiona Hill named all of the players, Foreign Service Officer David Holmes directly linked President Trump to the plot.  He overheard Gordon Sondland talking on the phone, and heard the President responding to him.  Mr. Trump was checking to see if Sondland got what Trump wanted from Zelenskiy. By the way, Republican Congressman Conaway had the temerity to scold Holmes for “revealing” that “secret” conversation, held on the open terrace of a restaurant in Kyiv.  He implied Holmes did it to get attention. I guess obstructing justice by withholding evidence isn’t a problem for Conaway.

The Intelligence Committee ended their public hearings on Thursday.  Hill and Holmes where the final fact witnesses, tying up the loose facts left over from the week’s testimony.

And “Guess What” Mr. Jordan:  the President is guilty as charged.

What happens next? The Intelligence Committee will write a report, and forward that to the Judiciary Committee. Then the Judiciary Committee, led by Jerry Nadler, will draft and vote on Articles of Impeachment. There may be more hearings, or it may all be internal Committee debate. If they vote out Impeachment Articles, it will go to the entire House of Representatives for a vote.

Need a scorecard  – here is my attempt to chart the US players:

I am retired, and I am focused on what is happening in America.  That means that I have the luxury of getting my information “raw,” straight from the Impeachment hearings, or straight from the debate stage.  I don’t need the filters of news commentators, whether I like them or not.  I can get it all, in real time.

In the Loop

That made Wednesday a really long day.  The Impeachment Hearings began at nine, with Ambassador Gordon Sondland telling a compelling story of the “alternate” track of American diplomacy.  As Sondland said, it doesn’t seem like an “alternate” when the President’s Chief of Staff, the Secretaries of State and Energy, the Ambassador to the European Union and the Special Envoy to Ukraine were “in the loop”.  

And it doesn’t seem like an “alternate” either when the President of the United States himself said to Sondland and Volker, “talk to Rudy”.  Sondland (and all of the others) either took their cues from the President’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, or at least acquiesced in his actions.  

Gangsta Talk

No, the President never said to Sondland, “…you tell the Ukrainians that if they want their meetings and their money, they need to tell the world they’re investigating Biden and Crowd Strike”.  Donald Trump doesn’t work that way.  He never has. His last “personal attorney” Michael Cohen explained that to us in his testimony to the House Oversight Committee.  He told us about Mr. Trump’s “code”.  Mr. Cohen said that the President would never say, “give me that tie”.  He would say, “I really like that tie, it would look good on me”.  If you were around Mr. Trump, you knew what to do.

Sondland isn’t an experienced ambassador.  And he isn’t experienced with testifying to House committees either.  As Congressman Maloney dramatically pointed out, it took Sondland three times to get his testimony “right”.  It was still replete with hundreds of “I don’t recall” statements, ones that still might come back to haunt him with the danger of perjury charges.  But he is now on the record, putting his entire “alternate track” under the gun (and under the bus).

Repeating Something Doesn’t Make It True

Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Volker, Sondland, and of course Giuliani:  all knew that the President was asking for “a favor” in exchange of $400 million in US aid and a White House meeting.  And the later testimony of Defense Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Laura Cooper debunked the argument that “the Ukrainians didn’t know”.  Republican Congressmen, particularly Jim Jordan of Ohio, have been chanting this litany over and over; that there couldn’t be a “quid pro quo” since the Ukrainians didn’t know the money was held. 

But this money was a matter of survival to the Ukrainians.  They were following it closely, and after the Presidential phone call of July 25^th, were immediately in contact with Cooper’s office, asking what the status of the money was, and as time went on, why it was being held up.  

They heard the President of the United States ask for a “favor,” and they knew what he wanted.  The “quid” was there, and they prepared the “quo” with a scheduled CNN interview.  The Whistleblower’s Report and the House Committees disrupted the “deal,” and Trump tried to call it off, telling Sondland, “there is no quid pro quo”. He was right, the deal was over:  he got caught.

The “bones” of the deal are now obvious.  Jim Jordan and the gang will continue to rant and rave, but it seems to me the facts of the crime are there.  The only questions left are:  does this attempted bribery rise to the level of impeachment and removal, and do House and Senate Republicans have the political courage to act.  

If the impeachment power means anything, it must mean this.  So it comes down to Republican political courage.  Don’t hold your breath.

Debates

So those were the “yesterday” hours.  Then there were the “tomorrow” hours, the Democratic Debate.  Two hours that weren’t dominated with the gangster actions of Donald Trump, but with ideas and hopes for the future.  Everyone on that stage would be better than Trump, though Tulsi Gabbard should be disqualified for duplicating Trump’s foreign policy.  

The arguments about health care are about process, not outcome.  They all want every American to be covered:  it just how we get there.  And Democrats (really, Democrats) were talking about fiscal responsibility, about how they plan to pay for what they want to do.  That’s shocking:  in just a decade, the party of “tax and spend” is now the party of controlling the debt.  

On the scorecard:  Booker, Klobuchar and Harris had great nights.  Booker’s closing argument citing John Lewis stirred the soul.  Mayor Pete seemed to hold back, a man who for the first time has something to lose, and Warren and Sanders could be plugged in from any of the other debates – little has changed.  

And Joe Biden is Joe Biden:  take the older version or not.  

Oh, and Andrew Yang, someone please win the election and make Andrew Yang the “future Czar” for the administration.  His ideas are compelling, as are many of the others.  Whoever wins the nomination; let’s use the rest of this “bench” to get things done.

Fiona Hill is taking her seat in front of the committee.  Adam Schiff is telling us the story of today.  The hearings are about to begin.  History is in the room.

Wisconsin Politics

Ron Johnson, Republican Senator from Wisconsin, has an electoral problem.  He was first elected to the Senate in the 2010, defeating liberal Democrat Russ Feingold.  That was the “Tea Party” year, when Republicans made strong gains after Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act, and took control of the House.  Johnson won by 4%.  He was reelected in 2016, as part of the surprising Trump victory in Wisconsin.  Feingold was his opponent again; this time it was a 3 % margin.

In 2018 Democrats took every statewide seat in Wisconsin from the Governor on down.   While Republican gerrymandering guaranteed control of the State legislature, Democrats actually received 9% more of the overall vote.  The writing is on the wall.  If these trends continue, Johnson will be in trouble in 2022.

Johnson, like several other Republican Senators, hitched has wagon to President Trump.  He is one of Trump’s fiercest defenders, willing to go onto the Sunday news shows and defend the President with red face and demanding tones (Business Insider).  He dodges commentator’s questions and weaves a web of conspiracies against the President.

Supporting Ukraine

Johnson is also deeply involved in the US support of Ukraine resistance to Russia.  He has been a leader in the Senate (along with Rob Portman, Dick Durbin and Chris Murphy) in maintaining Ukrainian defense spending.  So Johnson was more than concerned when he discovered that the Trump Administration was withholding defense funds from Ukraine.  As he said, “I winced.” “I was surprised by the president’s reaction and realized we had a sales job to do.”

But as the impeachment inquiry continues, Johnson found he was on the “wrong side.”  His earlier statements were used as evidence that the defense funds were being held back.  So Johnson wrote a letter, to prove his fealty to Trump, and get off “the hook” about Ukraine.

The Letter

In the letter, Senator Johnson takes a partisan stand before he even writes the first sentence.  The letter is not addressed to the full Intelligence Committee, but to the Republican leadership of Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan. 

The first section repeats a litany of alt-right conspiracies against President Trump.  Hillary Clinton, Fusion GPS, the Steele Dossier, private email servers and Strzok/Page are just highlights of a four paragraph rant against Democrats.

He then proceeds to attack Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman of the US Army, assigned to the National Security Council.   Vindman, in a meeting in Ukraine with Johnson and other US leaders, expressed the view of the National Security Council and the State Department about US foreign policy.

The Meeting 

In the meeting, Johnson pressed the Ukrainians to fulfill their election mandate of fighting “corruption”.  Vindman, according to the letter, stated the official position of the NSC was, “…that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia.”  

Johnson was upset. Corruption in Ukraine was a deep and long standing issue.  But “corruption” also was a “code word” for President Trump’s fixation on the “Crowd Strike Theory” that the 2016 election wasn’t hacked by the Russians, but Ukrainians instead.  This conspiracy, pressed by Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, has been de-bunked not only by the entire US Intelligence Community, but also by the Mueller investigation.

In addition, “corruption” came to mean President Trump’s attempt, through Giuliani and other US diplomats, to force Ukrainians to open an investigation into the actions of Hunter Biden and his father, Joe Biden.  The shorthand for that gambit was the name of the company Hunter Biden worked for, Burisma.

Vindman went on to warn the Ukrainians not to get involved in US domestic politics.  Johnson saw this as directly opposed to the actions of the President, who was deeply interested in “corruption,” and the domestic political value of investigating Crowd Strike and Burisma.

The Deep State

Senator Johnson saw this as a clear example of the institutional forces of the government, what Trump Advisor Steve Bannon called the “Deep State,” conflicting with the views and desires of the President.  In the letter, Johnson states the following:

“…I believe that a significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate, and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ‘turf’.  They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his politics, and, if possible, remove him from office.  It is entirely possible that Vindman fits that profile.”  

So Johnson set the stage for the attacks on Lieutenant Colonel Vindman in yesterday’s hearings.  

The Lieutenant Colonel

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman is an American story.  His father emigrated from the Ukraine in the Soviet Union after his wife died.   Vindman and his twin brother were three when they arrived in New York along with their older brother.  They were raised there, and became citizens with their father.   

All three brothers served in the US Armed Forces, but Alex made a career in the Army.  He served in combat in Iraq, earning the Combat Infantry Badge and the Purple Heart.  He earned a Masters degree in Eurasian Studies from Harvard, and serves in the National Security Council as Director of European Affairs.  His expertise is in Ukraine, and he speaks Ukrainian and Russian, as well as English.

Vindman listened into the phone call on July 25^th between Presidents Trump and Zelenskiy.  When he heard Mr. Trump ask Zelenskiy to investigate Crowd Strike and Burisma as “a favor though” within a conversation about defense aid to Ukraine, he saw it as “inappropriate and improper.”  He went to National Security Council lawyers about the matter.

He also did his job by informing others in the government of how the conversation went.  He informed George Kent in the State Department, and an undisclosed person in the Intelligence Community.  While we don’t know for sure, it is likely that the undisclosed person became the author of the Whistleblower’s Report that began our current impeachment crisis.

Desecrating the Uniform

Senator Johnson’s letter set the Republican strategy against Alexander Vindman.  He was attacked from the very first interrogation, when Republican Counsel Steve Castor questioned Vindman’s loyalty to the United States.  Castor related that a member of the Ukrainian government offered Vindman a job as Defense Minister in the Ukrainian government.  Vindman laughed at the story, relating that it was actually offered three times.  But he made it clear that he turned down the offer, and reported it to his “chain of command”.

What did that “light hearted” questioning achieve?  It gave ammunition to the alt-right claim that Vindman is somehow a “foreign” plant in the highest places in our government, a man who at best has “dual” loyalties.  

Other Republican Congressmen questioned Vindman’s job description and painted him as overstating his authority.  Congressman Stewart of Utah even went so far as to question Vindman’s wearing of the Full Dress Blue uniform of the US Army at the hearing.

No Sense of Decency

The old legal adage goes:  

“When you have the law, pound the law.  When you have the facts, pound the facts, when you have neither the law or facts, pound the table.” 

Republican Congressmen have neither the facts nor the law.  The President of the United States offered US aid in return for a “favor” from the Ukrainians.  Lt. Colonel Vindman was a direct “fact” witness to that action.   The only alternative the Republicans have is to “pound the table”.  Unfortunately, Alex Vindman’s reputation and career must be destroyed to make their point.

In the McCarthy Hearings in the 1950’s, when Americans were swept away over the fear of Soviet spying, innocent lives were ruined.  The turning point in the era began when Senator McCarthy attacked by claiming that a young lawyer in the defense firm was a “Communist”.  Attorney Joseph Welch defended his employee, saying on live television to the Senator:  

Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild … Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

As Nunes, Jordan, Stefanik and the rest prove:  there is no sense of decency left here.