Category: Uncategorized

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.

Intimidation

We’ve all been through it one way or another.  We’ve worked for a boss who violated company policy, and had to decide how important it was to speak out for what’s right.  A lot of the time, we kept quiet:  it wasn’t worth the hassle and harassment, the lost promotions and assignments.  But sometimes things were so bad that we stood up and were counted.

It’s a quick way to find out who your friends are.  Once, my Principal was left managing sixty teachers and over eight hundred kids alone.  It was clear what the “District Office” was trying to do, drive him out of the job and into retirement.  But several teachers stood up and demanded that he get the assistance he needed to effectively run the building.  When we looked behind us, it was with surprise that many of our fellow teachers weren’t there.  They were afraid of retaliation.

 That was in a little school district in Pataskala, Ohio.  What if it was the entire United States?

Gag Order

Roger Stone was just convicted on seven counts of felony perjury; witness tampering, and obstruction on Friday.  Stone always, always has something to say.  He held a press conference on the Courthouse steps after he was arrested, and he constantly spoke about the charges, and his “innocence.”  But when he walked out of the Courthouse a convicted man, he was silent.

It’s not that Stone didn’t want to say anything.  It’s that the judge imposed a “gag order” on both sides in the trial.  This was after Stone posted a meme with the judge’s face on a target, and continued to threaten witnesses against him.  The judge believed that the order was the only way to keep Stone from making it nearly impossible to find a fair jury, and get an honest trial. 

Presidential Tweets

There are no such restrictions on the President of the United States.  Mr. Trump attacked former Ambassador Yovanovitch on Twitter, while she was testifying.  He attacked State Department employee George Kent and Ambassador William Taylor as “never-Trumpers” and “Deep Staters.”  The latest Presidential target:  Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Pence.

Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement (sic) from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack! – (Tweet from Donald Trump 11/17/19.)

Jennifer Williams worked for the Bush Department of Homeland Security, and joined the State Department for thirteen years.  She became an aide to the Vice President in April of 2019.  Her “failure” in the President’s eyes, is that she listened to the July 25^th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.  

 Williams confirmed that the word “Burisma,” the company that put Hunter Biden on their board, was mentioned in the call.  That word is NOT mentioned in the White House released “memorandum” of the phone conversation.  That leads to the obvious question – what else is missing from the so-called transcript?

Punishment by Death

The President is making sure that those who testify in front of the committee are threatened.  Ambassador Yovanovitch went from representing the United States to the nation of Ukraine, to teaching fifteen students at Georgetown University.  Colonel Vindman is being “cycled out” of the National Security Council.  It is clear that testifying to the Committee is bad for your career, and potentially dangerous.

Mr. Trump demanded the “name” of the whistleblower.  He publicly threatened the whistleblower with treason, and the death penalty.  He tweeted about the whistleblower more than one hundred times (Mother Jones).  His supporters threatened to “out” the whistleblower’s name, even though the whistleblower law guarantees anonymity.  One supporter of the President, Fox News Commentator Joe DiGenova, equated the whistleblower with Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth.

“Obama supporters,” “Never Trumpers,” “Deep Staters,” and in the Yovanovitch and Colonel Vindman case, even “spies:” these are the insults thrown at the government employees who are committing the ultimate “sin.”  They are telling the truth to the Intelligence Committee, and the world. 

And the President of the United States is using the full power of his “bully pulpit” to intimidate them and others who might need to tell the truth.  He claims that he is just defending himself, but as the most powerful man in the world and the chief executive of the nation, it’s not an even fight.  It’s witness intimidation and obstruction of justice, and he’s doing it in public, in front of God and Fox New. But who can issue a “gag order” to him?

The Farm

From the air, it looks like a small high school campus.  There are neatly arranged buildings around a grass central courtyard with neat paths crossing in between.  A thin running track encircles the soccer field, with a neat softball field, basketball courts, volleyball courts, and even horseshoe pits around it.  

“Allenwood Low Federal Correction Institution” might look like a school from the air, but it’s part of the Federal Prison system.  In the 1970’s it was called the Allenwood Prison Farm.  It was where non-violent Federal offenders were sent to do their time:  working out, taking classes, finding religion; but placed on the shelf in Northern Pennsylvania.  At a particularly low time in my freshman year of college, I had “Allenwood” signs hanging in my dorm room.  Things got better, and I tore them up.

Allenwood is where the Watergate offenders went, at least most of them.  But there was one Watergate conspirator who did “hard time.”   Gordon Liddy, the architect of the Watergate break-in, refused to talk.  He took pride in the fact that he didn’t cooperate with the investigation.  Unlike most of the conspirators, Liddy served time in a medium correction facility, four and a half years before President Jimmy Carter commuted his sentence.

A Young Trickster

Roger Stone was just twenty when he went to work for the Nixon campaign.  He became part of the Nixon “dirty tricks” group, known as the “rat f**kers.”  They worked the edge of the law, cancelling opponents’ rallies, writing fake racist letters on their stationery, and sending spies into their campaigns.  They slipped over the legal edge from time to time, allegedly putting drugs into their opponents’ drinks.  

When Watergate came to a climax, Liddy went to jail and Nixon resigned.   Young Roger Stone took them as his role models.  He believed Nixon should have “toughed it out,” just like Liddy did, burned the tapes and force impeachment. Stone had Nixon’s face tattooed on his back:  the mark of his eternal loyalty.

Never Grow Up

Stone’s time with the “dirty tricksters” established the pattern of his life.  He became a Republican political “consultant,” with expertise in the “dark art” of winning campaigns at all costs.  He joined with his friend Paul Manafort in establishing a consulting firm that ending up specializing in representing world dictators, as well as domestic clients.

It was Roger Stone who helped lead the “Brook Brothers Riot” that disrupted the 2000 Florida recount in Palm Beach, and assured the election of George W Bush as President.  When Republicans needed something done that was “questionable,” Stone was the guy.  

But he always wanted “his” candidate, who would follow “his” plan to be President of the United States.  He waited for years, for the right time and person.  Donald Trump became Stone’s “vehicle.”  Trump was well known from television, had money to self-finance his campaign, and was eminently flexible when it came to ideology.  He was the “clay” for Stone to mold.

And America moved towards Stone’s kind of campaign as well.  The nation became increasingly polarized.  We can blame the Republicans for the Benghazi hearings and McConnell’s determination to stop Obama.   We can blame Mr. Obama’s refusal to reach across the aisle, or Secretary Clinton’s haughty “basket of deplorables” attitude.  Or we can blame an entire “news” network that eschewed facts to push their chosen political view.   However we got there, we were primed for a Roger Stone type candidacy.

Whatever it Takes

“I have an idea … to save Trump’s ass,” (Stone) told Manafort in an email in August. “I know how to win this but it ain’t pretty,” he told campaign chief Stephen K. Bannon in another exchange (WAPO.)

Stone convinced Trump to run for President.  While he was a prime force in the beginning, he was soon moved to the outskirts of the Trump Campaign.  Even the Trump family found him too extreme.  But he remained involved, and helped to bring in his friend Paul Manafort to Chair the campaign.  

In the spring of 2016, no one, especially the campaign staff, thought Trump had a chance of actually winning the Presidency.  But then they found that the DNC emails were hacked by Russian Intelligence, and that Wikileaks had them.  Stone looked for a way to weaponize the emails against the Clinton campaign.  To do so, he found a way to communicate with Wikileaks.

Donald Trump Jr. communicated with Wikileaks as well.   

Like Stone’s Nixon days, they worked over the edge of the law; accepting campaign aid from a foreign source.  And like the “rat f**kers” of old, they were successful.

Following Liddy

The Mueller investigation was a prime threat to the Trump Presidency.  If Mueller could find the direct link from the campaign to Wikileaks and the Russians, it would raise the specter of impeachment.  Stone was that link, but he lied to Congress, stonewalled the investigation, and, with the help of the new Attorney General William Barr, successfully outlasted Mueller.

It’s hard to picture Robert Mueller as a man of retribution.  But the last public case he left to the Courts was the seven-count indictment against Roger Stone.  The message was clear when the FBI Swat Taskforce arrived outside Stone’s home in Ft. Lauderdale.   This wasn’t a “white collar” arrest, the automatic weapons were out in the dark early morning hours, and somehow CNN was just down the street.

Mueller brought five counts of lying in official statements to Congress and Federal investigators, one count of obstruction, and one count of witness tampering.  In the trial, Deputy Trump Campaign Manager Rick Gates and Campaign Chairman Steve Bannon testified against him.  Stone refused to take the stand in his own defense.  The guilty verdict exposed him to a fifty year sentence, but sentencing guidelines put his maximum term somewhere closer to two or three years.

He’s lied so often, there’s no value in his turning “state’s evidence.”  There’s no deal waiting for him to tell the truth.  The only hope Stone has is that his greatest “project,” the President, issues him a pardon.  But Trump’s got enough troubles of his own, and a Stone pardon would make his 2020 re-election even more difficult.

Roger Stone gets to emulate his hero, Gordon Liddy.  His best hope is that he gets to do his time at the “Farm.”

The House Intelligence Committee is holding hearings on impeaching the President of the United States.  It doesn’t get any more serious than that.  And, unlike the Nixon impeachment, this is not a cooperative effort among Democrats and Republicans.  It’s as ugly as it can get, with Democrats laser focused on eliciting witness testimony, and Republicans consistently questioning the validity of the process.

There are at potentially four articles (or charges) of impeachment being considered. 

Article 1 – Bribery

The President attempted to gain help in his personal political campaign by having the government of Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son for corruption.  The investigation didn’t need to be legitimate, or substantive.  All the President wanted was an announcement that Ukraine was doing it.  The Ukrainian government was within days of doing exactly that. They scheduled a CNN interview that was ultimately cancelled when the “whistleblower” report was revealed.

The President used the threat of withholding Congressional funds, mandated for Ukrainian defense, to leverage Ukrainian President Zelenskiy to make the announcement.  He also used the “reward” of a White House, Oval Office meeting with Zelenskiy.  Both of those actions are a “bribe” to Zelenskiy, using official government acts as the “prize”.

Article 2 – Obstruction

The President of the United States obstructed justice.  He prohibited information from the Executive Branch, lawfully subpoenaed by the Congress, from being produced.  He ordered members of the Executive Branch; including the State Department, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Security staff and the White House staff not to testify to Congress.  A few have ignored these orders and answered the subpoenas, but most have not.

He then used that obstruction as a “reason” why the charges are unproved.  His defenders are claiming that there is little “first hand” information, yet most of those directly involved he has prohibited from testifying. 

In addition, the White House acted to hide their actions, covering-up the actual transcripts of identified phone calls by placing them on a high security server not used for that purpose, and releasing misleading and “doctored” versions of the calls.  They then claimed that everything done was “proper,” and that Congress, the media, and the American people needed to, “get over it.”

Article 3 – Intimidation

The President of the United States intimidated witnesses.  Those named to testify have been publicly criticized and even threatened by the President, particularly through social media.  A clear example was his Twitter attack on Maria Yovanovitch WHILE SHE WAS TESTIFYING.  

In addition he has declared in public that the “whistleblower,” who lawfully worked within existing statute was in fact a “traitor” and deserves death.  

Article 4 – Failure to Fulfill Constitutional Duty

The President of the United States has the Constitutional duty to carry out the laws passed by Congress and signed by him.  He failed in that duty, by willfully withholding the defense funds desperately needed by a US ally, Ukraine, for personal gain.

The Whistleblower

Republicans on the Committee, and the President himself, seem desperate to “out” the whistleblower.  Some far-right publications have already offered up a candidate, and if he’s the one, then he has significant attachments to previous Democratic Administrations.  Republicans would like to parade him in front of the world and America, tying him to Biden, Obama, and the “deep state” of former CIA Director John Brennan.

But as far as impeachment is concerned, it doesn’t matter who the “whistleblower” is.  The original report was not a first hand description of much.  Instead it was an investigation of what happened in the White House and National Security Council.  The report was based on second hand accounts of others, about the phone call, withholding money from Ukraine, covering-up the transcripts.

So what the whistleblower did was provide a map for Congressional investigation.  He/she didn’t supply “evidence,” but showed where that evidence was.  Because of this, who he or she is doesn’t matter; they have nothing more to add to the investigation.  As one Democrat put it, he or she “pulled the fire alarm,” now it is time for others to put out the fire.

But what “outing” the whistleblower will do is continue to send a message that the President and Republicans are already screaming:  stand up against this President, and be attacked, threatened, fired and professionally destroyed.  It’s what Mr. Trump did to those who investigated the Russia connections: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr,Brennan and the others. And it’s what he’s threatened to do to Ms. Yovanovitch and the “whistleblower.”

Hearsay

A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Republicans and the President have made their argument against the witnesses based on the legal concept of “hearsay.”  In fact, Congressman Nunes dismissed the entire testimony of Maria Yovanovitch as, “…more appropriate for the Foreign Relations Committee, Sub-Committee on Personnel,” as if her complaint was merely a job issue.

She has no “first hand” knowledge of the actions of the President.  She didn’t talk to him, or get written communication from him.  That doesn’t mean she had nothing to add.  Yovanovitch, and Ambassador Taylor and Assistant Secretary Kent, were  “foundation witnesses,” giving the Committee, and the American people, an understanding of what was going on in Ukraine.  They also highlighted the difference between “normal” in Ukrainian relations, and the aberrations committed by the Trump administration.

She also demonstrated President Trump’s disdain for the professionals who work in the government.  As she said, “… I served at the pleasure of the President, all he had to do is ask me to leave – I didn’t need to be smeared.”  While his actions towards her might not rise to the level of impeachment, they certainly demonstrate his ignorance of what our government does, even in his administration.

Direct Testimony

However, Ambassador Taylor had first hand knowledge that the money was withheld.  So did Mr. Kent.  They had their own “bosses” explanation of why the money was being withheld, first hand from them (not the President.)  And they had first hand knowledge of what the impact of failing to deliver the money would be, how desperate Ukraine was.  This lends and understanding to why President Zelenskiy was willing to announce an investigation of the Biden’s, and why he continues to say there was no pressure from Mr. Trump.

The President has every opportunity to have “first hand” testimony.  Mr. Bolton, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Pompeo and others could testify, if the President allowed them.  But he continues to obstruct the Congress, adding to another Article of Impeachment.

The Lawyers

Dan Goldman is the lead counsel for the Democratic majority on the Intelligence Committee. Along with Chairman Adam Schiff, Goldman has led the first hour of witness questioning.   He has the skills of his former employment, a Federal Prosecutor.  Goldman carefully lets the witnesses tell their stories, guiding them to the points he wants to make.  He is an expert at his craft, and he has a good case with good witnesses.

Stephen Castor is the lead counsel for the Republican minority on the Committee.  He has a long history of serving Republicans in Congress, with investigations including Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the IRS.  And while he’s been a good lawyer (at least from the Republican point of view) he’s not had the interrogating experience of Goldman.  And he doesn’t have as strong a case.

It showed in Friday’s testimony, when Castor kept asking leading and whiny questions of Ms. Yovanovitch.  She answered with confidence, and quickly saw the “traps” Castor was laying.  

It reminded me of the Kavanaugh hearing, when the Republicans brought in a “guest” prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell from Phoenix, to question Ms. Blasey-Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh.  When the questioning was trending against the nominee, the Republicans took a recess.  When they returned, the “guest” was done, and Senator Lindsey Graham led the way with a temper tantrum against the Democrats.

Friday, I kept waiting for Lindsey to storm into the hearing room and “save” Castor.  He needed it.

I have a great essay on the need to regulate internet companies – and you’ll see it eventually.  But today I woke up (very late) to listen to Ambassador Yovanovitch’s testimony.  What she is saying raises a more important issue.

The Fall of Communism

The “command economy” theory of Soviet Communism meant that the national government controlled industry, production, pricing and employment.  There was total government monopoly and ownership of all production.  Each step of the process was governed: from growing trees, to harvesting lumber, to pulp, to toilet paper, to wholesale, to retail sales in the government store.  The “Soviet” controlled it all.  

In the Soviet Union, the lack of controls outside of the government created an environment of corruption.  The Party members got the benefits, the money, and the goods.  Power in the Party meant a better life, better services.  Those outside the Party were left out of all of those “perks”.  Life was hard.

When the Soviet Union fell, the government “gave up” all of that control.  It was a fire sale, as if General Motors, Exxon Mobil, Apple and all of the other major US corporations were put up for sale at once.  The amount of wealth available was staggering, and at discounted rates.  Not surprisingly, the scramble to gain wealth drew people willing to do anything for money.  Billions of dollars were made and lost, and a new ruling class of corrupt billionaires called oligarchs gained control.

They needed the security structure of the nation to support their corrupt controls.  Who better to lead that structure, than a dedicated member of the Soviet secret police, the KGB?  Out of the chaos of the fall, Vladimir Putin emerged as the enforcer/strong man who could keep others in line.  Those who opposed to “his” oligarchs were in jail or exiled, or worse yet, dead.  Those that “went along,” got richer.

Ukraine

When the Ukrainian state of the Soviet Union found itself independent, the same scramble for wealth occurred.  Ukraine developed into a similar corrupt oligarchical society, with the richest aligning themselves with the Russians.  In 2014, the people of Ukraine rebelled against the Russian backed government, forcing then-President Yanukovych to flee to Moscow.  A new government took charge, and was immediately challenged by Russia.

The Russians seized the province of Crimea, and attacked the eastern provinces of Ukraine as well.  The tried to hide their soldiers in “generic” uniforms without insignia, pretending that it wasn’t their forces or their weapons.  But only those who were already corrupted by Moscow denied the identity of the Russian Army.

Flies to Honey

When corruption is endemic, as it was in both Russia and Ukraine, it is “honey” to the “flies” of corrupt actors throughout the world.  Paul Manafort was one such “fly,” coming to take advantage of the flow of money out of Ukraine.  He made millions of dollars trying to re-invent the image of Yanukovych, and allied himself with the Russian oligarch Dmitry Firtash.  Manafort tried to hide his millions from US taxation, and is now serving time in Federal Prison.

Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City, dipped into the corruption of Ukraine as well.  He was looking for “dirt” to use against President Trump’s opponents, but he was also looking for a big financial payoff.  Giuliani wanted the cooperation of the Ukrainian government, and thought he had it with the Prosecutor General, Lutsenko.  But Lutsenko was part of the corruption.  The official representative of the United States, Ambassador Yovanovitch, pressed for a change in the Prosecutor General’s office.  The new Ukrainian President, Zelenskiy, removed Lutsenko.

Lutsenko lost the “benefits” of his office, and was angry.  He turned to the “unofficial” representative of the President Trump and offered exactly what Giuliani wanted:  the appearance of “dirt” against Joe Biden.  Giuliani also found another corrupt removed Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.  They swore affidavits to back the story Giuliani wanted to hear, that somehow the US Democratic Party hacked itself to “fix” the 2016 election, and that Joe Biden protected his son.

The Courage of One

Ambassador Yovanovitch stood against corruption.  She led the American effort to clean up Ukraine, in cooperation with the new Ukrainian administration.  But her efforts ran afoul of American corruption, as Rudy Giuliani pressed to have his disgraced “witnesses” taken seriously.  He wanted President Zelensky to open investigations.  That would be enough to give President Trump the “talking points” he needed for the 2020 campaign.

To get his story out, Giuliani had to get Yovanovitch out of the way.  The President wanted Giuliani’s dirt to “get out,” and without warning, the White House had Yovanovitch recalled.  Ironically, she left a ceremony honoring “Ukrainian Women Against Corruption,” and caught the next plane home.

An Honest Witness

The President of the United States attacked “Masha” Yovanovitch while she was testifying.  He tweeted that somehow a young “Masha” was responsible for US failures in Somalia, and now Ukraine.  There is a reason why the President himself feels the need to attack.

Ambassador Yovanovitch stood as an honest woman against the tide of both Ukrainian and US corruption.  She clearly expressed US goals across the world:  to encourage honesty, and democracy, and good government throughout the world.  Those goals aren’t US goals just because they’re “good,” but because they are “good” for the United States.  America holds ourselves out as an example to the world of what a free society can be, and what achievements it can do.  

If the Ambassador stands as the representative of “good” in America, where does that put Mr. Trump?  Perhaps he stands right beside his friend and political advisor, Roger Stone.  Stone was just found guilty on all counts of lying to Congress and obstructing justice.  Stone was the conduit from Wikileaks to the Trump Campaign, cooperating together on the use of the stolen DNC emails.  Emails that Russian intelligence stole.  Emails that the Trump campaign welcomed.   

Trump pressured the Ukrainian President to back Giuliani’s false allegations.  He withheld US funds to get what he wanted.

The heart of corruption is in the White House.

New Members

Yesterday was the first day of impeachment hearings.  Now, I will no longer be in a small, select group of “geeks” who read transcripts and download opening statements.  This was the day when the rest of the nation will see what I see.  They will know that the President of the United States uses the powers of his office and our tax money to further his own personal goals. 

 I know that there will still be many: 

“…Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” (Matthew 13:13).

They will not believe what is clearly in front of them. Like Senator Lindsey Graham:  “…their eyes they have closed” (Matthew 13:14).  They are blinded by their commitment to Donald Trump and will not know the truth.

But maybe a lot of undecided Americans will finally see it.  And maybe, even those folks who ignored all the previous Trumpian nonsense will be drawn to listen. Now it’s in their face, on every channel:  ABC, CNN, CBS, C-SPAN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS.   It’s live on radio, and streaming on the web.  Like Lindsey Graham, they would have to choose to be ignorant.

Ukraine is Important

Vladimir Putin is leading Russia to a “return to empire.”   Putin’s goal is to bring Russia back to the “heydays” of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain.  His first step is to regain the “lost” Soviet states: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova; and by far the largest and most important, Ukraine.  

Ukraine contained the Soviet Union’s access to the Black Sea.  Sevastopol, on the Crimean Peninsula, is a main naval base, home of the Soviet-now-Russian, Black Sea Fleet.  When the Soviet Union broke apart, Russia maintained a “lease” on the base.  In 2014, Putin sent Russian troops to seize the entire region from Ukraine.  He still maintains Russian troops there today, and continues to attack the Ukrainian Eastern border. 

The United States supports democracy in the former Soviet states, and has countered the Russian forces on their borders.  Today, US forces are stationed in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.  But Ukraine is the “point of the spear” against Russian aggression, and critical geography for Russian expansion.  14,000 Ukrainians have died defending their nation in the past five years.

US support is critical to Ukraine’s survival as a nation. 

Protection 

The testimony yesterday, and more importantly, the White House issued summary of President Trump’s conversation with President Zelenskiy on July 25^th is clear.  President Trump pressured Zelenskiy to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, and the “CrowdStrike” 2016 election conspiracy.  If the conversation didn’t deliver the message, it was later made clear by US diplomats. The Ukrainian government knew that both a White House meeting and Ukrainian military aid were dependent on those investigations.  

Reluctantly, President Zelenskiy scheduled an interview with CNN, and prepared to announce investigations of CrowdStrike and the Biden’s.  Then the “Whistleblower” report became public, and, surprise, the Ukrainian military aid was delivered.  

Republicans made a huge point of saying that President Zelenskiy said there was no “pressure” to investigate.  The Republicans’ claim that is proof there was no “offer the Ukrainians couldn’t refuse.”

President Zelenskiy continues to depend on future US aid; assistance that is still under Trump’s control. It should come as no surprise that Zelenskiy isn’t “crossing” Trump now; it is in the best interest of Ukraine to maintain the relationship.

Honorable Service

It was a long day of listening.  Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent told us what happened in Ukraine, and stuck by their guns against misdirection.  They were exactly as advertised:  non-partisan officials who have spent most of their lives supporting the policies of the United States.

Both Taylor and Kent made it clear that President Trump was asking for a deal, the dreaded “quid pro quo,” for Ukraine to receive military aid.  The Republican defense of Trump seems to be:  it never happened.  The aid was delivered: no investigations were promised.   

They’re right.  That’s because the Trump Administration is the “gang that can’t shoot straight.”

President Zelenskiy scheduled a press conference with CNN in New York. Before that conference could take place, the whistleblower report was revealed.  Soon after, the aid was forwarded to Ukraine.  The “quid” was delivered; there was no need for a “quo.”

Attempted Crime is Crime

President Trump was caught offering a bribe to Ukraine for investigations.  After that, he gave them the “bribe” anyway.  Now he’s saying they got what they wanted, so what’s the offense?

So we are faced with these odd facts once again.  As long as the President and his “gang” screws up and gets caught, then supposedly they didn’t do anything wrong.  It’s the same defense used in the Mueller Report.  They didn’t know talking to the Russians was wrong, they weren’t organized enough to work with anyone. They couldn’t even work with each other.

Special Counsel Mueller even accepted the “we didn’t know” defense.  The long-standing phrase, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” actually wasn’t true.  Donald Trump Jr. claimed he didn’t know he shouldn’t take information from the Russians, that it violated campaign laws.  Mueller noted that, and failed to bring charges.

Now we are being asked to accept it again.  The President, used his personal lawyer or fixer or consigliore Rudy Giuliani, and the “Three Amigos,” Volker, Sondland, and Perry.  They tried to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, and “Counter Strike,” the fantastical 2016 election conspiracy.  He threatened to cut off military aid to do it, and was caught in the act.  That doesn’t make him innocent.  It’s makes him a poor criminal.  

The facts are plain.  The President committed bribery – part of the Constitutional reason for impeachment –  “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Now it’s up to Congress to do their Constitutional duty. 

Sacrifice for Power

In imperial China, the Emperor, his family and his closest political associates lived in the Forbidden City.  The public was excluded from the Emperor’s insular life.  To gain Imperial access a servant was required to do one act:  emasculation.  Those surrounding the Emperor and his family were Eunuchs, required to give up their sex organs to serve.  Their “manhood” was preserved, pickled in a jar.  The Eunuchs believed that if they were buried with the jar, then they would become “intact;” made whole again in the afterlife.

This sounds like an ancient, barbaric practice, and it was.  But the use of Eunuchs in the imperial palace continued well into the twentieth century.  The last Eunuch to serve the Emperor died in 1996.  Why would men subject themselves to this?  

Access to the Emperor might mean styling his hair, helping him bathe, or dress. But it also gave access to the Emperor’s ears. The quiet suggestions made by the Eunuchs became Chinese policy. Having the “ear” of the Emperor gave them political power, despite what they had to give up.

Political Eunuchs

Here in the United States today, we have a new form of political “Eunuchdom.”  No one is asked to physically mutilate himself.  Instead, they are asked to give up their “courage” and ability to determine right and wrong.  They’ve place that “manhood” in the custody of Donald Trump.  He demands blinding loyalty, such that his devotees claim day is night today, and night is day tomorrow.  

We hear it quietly, over and over again, from reporters, friends, and former colleagues.  Republicans cannot stand Donald Trump; they worry about what he’s doing to the country.  They “oppose” his style, and his actions.  Republicans believe that President Trump is chaotic, impulsive, and manipulated.  It comes out from different sources:  former Cabinet Secretaries, aides, and allies; but all seem to say the same thing.  

“A Warning,” soon to be published and already a bestseller, exposes the dangers of the Trump White House. It tells of chaos and deceit, of “high minded” aides trying to steer the country away from the dangers that President Trump risks.  But “A Warning” is written anonymously, the author not daring to put their job and reputation on the line.  They want to be an unofficial “whistleblower,” protected from the wrath not just of the President, but also of his “base” of diehard supporters. 

Duty to Protect

United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley “outed” Secretary of State Tillerson and Chief of Staff Kelly in her new book this week, claiming they asked her to join in plotting to control Trump.  They are all “formers,” and Haley is certainly angling to gain advantage for her next political move.  But she does make a point:  if Tillerson and Kelly were so worried about Trump’s governing the nation, why didn’t they speak out?  Where was their courage to stand up, say what was wrong, and resign?  While Haley didn’t speak out, she did resign.  Whether it was in some form of internal protest, or to pursue different career options, we don’t know.

Former Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis resigned, and made it clear why he was doing so.  But he has said little more than his disagreement with policy in the Middle East.  Mattis isn’t talking about chaos or dysfunction, and refuses to be drawn into a discussion of Trump’s leadership.  He sees an even greater concern:  if the military leaders of the United States openly express a lack of confidence in the Commander-in-Chief, it will put us at even greater risk in the world.  So he remains quiet, as does his fellow Generals McMasters and Dunford.

What else would we expect from our Generals?  The military knows their role in our Democracy, and that role is to stay far away from politics.  Even though Mattis and McMasters moved into the political world, their shoulder stars stayed with them.  Not quite so true with John Kelly, who moved into the most political job in any White House, the Chief of Staff.  So it shouldn’t surprise us that he is less circumscribed by military protocol.

Constitutional Responsibility

But the Republican members of Congress aren’t bound by protocol.  They are sworn to an oath to defend the Constitution, and have a clear role in that process.  Why are they so willing to ignore the obvious, and defend the President regardless of his abuses of power? 

They have allowed their political futures to be placed in Trump’s jar.  Rather than risk the wrath of the Trump base, they are willing to risk the future of our nation.  Even in the face of clear impeachable offenses, those Republicans are allowing Trump to continue, secretly wishing for a Democrat to win in 2020, but unwilling to stand up and be counted.

They have lost their courage, if they had any to begin with.  

In the Oval Office of the White House is the “Resolute Desk.”  Built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute, a British Arctic exploration vessel, it was given as a gift from Queen Victoria to President Hayes.  It has been used by Presidents ever since.

Congressmen need to find their courage to protect our nation. For now, they have ceded it to Donald Trump, hoping to somehow become “intact” after he leaves office. Like the jars of Imperial China, they might as well have their courage stored in the drawer of the “Resolute Desk.”

Another Saturday Night

It was late October of 1973, almost a year and a half after the Watergate break-in. Two weeks previous, the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” occurred. President Richard Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, investigating Watergate.  Nixon had to fire the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General before he could find someone to fire Cox.

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee was New Jersey Congressman Peter Rodino.  He was reluctant to even start an impeachment inquiry.  The Committee was already breaking new ground. One or their colleagues, House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, was appointed as the Vice President. Spiro Agnew had resigned the office in disgrace. Now for the first time in history, a new Vice President was up for approval under the 25^th Amendment.

But in the middle of that, the “massacre” made the issue of impeaching the President real.  By a strict party line vote, a resolution of the Judiciary Committee (not a House vote) passed. It began the process of deciding whether to impeach the President.

The Committee Process

The Committee hired separate impeachment staff (including current Presidential candidate Bill Weld and a very young Hillary Rodham.)  It wasn’t until February of 1974 that the full House of Representative passed a resolution authorizing the Committee to launch a formal inquiry (by almost unanimous vote, only four opposed.)

The Judiciary Committee obtained full information from the previous Watergate investigations:  the work from the Special Prosecutors in the Justice Department, Grand Jury testimony, and the Senate Watergate Committee investigations and hearings in the summer of 1973.  Judiciary held hearings throughout the summer of 1974.  Ultimately, with the release of the Nixon tapes in July, the Judiciary Committee voted on five articles of impeachment.  Three passed, but even those had at least ten Republicans who voted against them.

Nixon realized that he would be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. He resigned a week later.

Smoking Guns

The “smoking gun” that began the Nixon impeachment was the “Saturday Night Massacre,” an obvious action of obstruction of justice.  It was only after months of more investigations and hearings that the full extent of Nixon’s additional criminality was revealed.

The “smoking gun” that began the current House Intelligence Committee inquiry into impeachment was the revelation of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.  Like the Judiciary Committee in Watergate, Chairman Schiff began his investigation on a party line vote in the committee.  But unlike Watergate, there was no Justice Department inquiry to lay the groundwork.  The Attorney General made a summary decision, based on the whistleblower’s report that there was “… nothing to see here, move along.”

And unlike Chairman Rodino, Adam Schiff had little other investigative work to draw upon.  The actions of the President all post-dated the Mueller investigation and report.  Like it or not, those issues were “closed” as President Trump and the Congressional Republicans, with the help of Attorney General Barr, stifled Mueller’s results.  Trump didn’t need to commit a new “ Mueller Massacre,” Bill Barr ended the investigation in-house.

Doing It All 

So the Intelligence Committee has all the work, doing what was done by three investigations in 1974.  Chairman Schiff, confronted with partisan attacks and Presidential insults, has led his Committee through a deposition process, the same kind of process that Special Prosecutors Cox and Jaworski did in 1974.  And on Wednesday, he is beginning the public hearings process, the first of two separate procedures in the House.  Much like the Senate Watergate Committee and the Judiciary Committee back in 1974.

Rodino was excoriated as a “partisan” aiming to remove a duly elected President.  And in fact, there was some discussion of stalling the Ford approval, leaving Democratic Speaker of the House Carl Albert as the next in line for President.  They didn’t do it, because the action was obviously too partisan.  Today, no one is talking about what Vice President Pence did in the Ukraine affair.  On the surface, it looks like he served as President Trump’s “bagman” in enforcing the “quid pro quo.”  But taking on Trump and Pence would be too “political.” 

Your Own Facts

So Adam Schiff takes up an investigative process.  The United States is as divided as it was in 1974, with one major difference.  Today we live in a world of differing “fact.”  The old phrase “…you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts,” doesn’t hold true anymore.  Pete Rodino was called a lot of things in 1974, but an entire news network didn’t make their living calling him a liar.  The same can’t be said for Adam Schiff in our world today.

Fox News, and the other alt-right media outlets, are choosing to create an alternative universe, where denying a desperate nation military aid unless they investigate the President’s personal political enemies is OK.  And that’s the difference between Rodino and Schiff.  And it might be the distinction between the fate of Richard Nixon, and of Donald Trump.

Get Excited?

Billionaire and former Mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg, is entering the campaign for President.  He’s running in the Democratic Primary (at least in Alabama).  He says he’s worried about the Democratic “field” and so he’s getting in.

Wow – another old white guy is running for President.  And, it’s another billionaire who “knows” how to fix America.  That makes three with Styer and of course “the Donald” himself – that is, if “the Donald” is worth that much.  He’s another New York businessman who has the answers (that’s two of them) and another New York Mayor who understands “the nation” (that’s one, Bill DeBlasio didn’t get far.)

I know what Bloomberg thinks:  the Warren/Sanders wing of the Party is going to get the nomination, and they can’t win the general election.  They’ll guarantee that Donald Trump wins another four years.  Old Mike’s figured that it’s his patriotic duty to step in, spend a couple of billion dollars, and save the country.

Democratic Nightmare

He is playing to every Democratic nightmare, deep down inside.  He thinks that if Democrats don’t nominate a “moderate” that in November the vast number of “independents” will shake their heads, hold their noses, and vote for Trump.  And it doesn’t hurt that Bloomberg is seventy-seven; if he ever wants to be President of the United States, and no doubt he does, this is his last shot.

Is it fair?  He’s skipping the early debates, taking a pass on Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina; he’s going to jump in beginning on “Super Tuesday,” March 3.  Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia all vote that day.  It’s a perfect fit for Bloomberg:  he doesn’t have to “personally campaign.” There will be little of the handshaking, coffee shop talking, VFW Hall speaking retail politics of Iowa and New Hampshire.  Nope, he can jump in with millions of dollars in media spending, make big speeches, and change all of the equations. 

What’s the saying, “all’s fair in love and war,” and you can add politics into that as well.  What it does allow Bloomberg to do is miss the “dog” test.  The “dog” test – if my dog likes you, I like you.  It can happen on the streets of Ottumwa, Iowa, or Concord, New Hampshire; but unless your dog (like mine) watches a lot of TV, they won’t ever meet Bloomberg.  And neither will individual voters. 

Say it Ain’t So

It’s also saying that Joe Biden ain’t making it, at least according to Bloomberg.  It was last January that Bloomberg said that he would stay out if Biden got in.  Now Bloomberg is ripping off the bandage on the Democratic campaigns.  Joe is a nice guy, but, just like his last Presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008, he isn’t catching on.  Biden is standing in as “the option” against Trump, and that isn’t strong enough for Democrats to get behind him.

And that’s the problem Bloomberg isn’t seeing.  The Mayor wants to fill the “anti-Trump” role, but Democrats are looking for more than that.  They want more than just a return to 2012; they want a future.  And Bloomberg, and unfortunately (to me) Biden, don’t represent that.

Add the reality of the Bloomberg record, and it’s hard to see him having a lot of success in the primaries.  He was elected as the REPUBLICAN Mayor of New York City.  Bloomberg was the Mayor of “Stop and Frisk,” and while that might play well in a Republican process, it isn’t likely to fire up Democrats.  Yes, he successfully managed the largest city in the United States.  But he didn’t do it in a way that Democratic primary voters are likely to embrace.

The Mayor’s Curse

But it will add to the “curse” of New York.  Five mayors or former mayors have run for President.  None have gotten even close.  The last few, John Lindsey (R), Rudy Giuliani (R), and Bill DeBlasio (D) all looked like they should do well, but found that while they could “make it” in NYC, they didn’t “make it” anywhere else.  Mayor Bloomberg may well find the same. 

What his presence in the primaries will do is split the “centrist” vote even more and make it even harder for Biden, Buttigieg, Booker or Klobuchar to stay in.  Given that Warren and Sanders will split the “left wing” of the party, it looks like Bloomberg’s role will be to extend the Primary process farther into the spring.  

So start “…spreading the news:” it’s not “…up to you, New York, New York.”

Soaps

In the “old days” – maybe twenty-five years ago – television stations made money by selling commercials.  Broadcasters used studies of who watched what show, produced by the Neilsen Company, to figure out the “demographics” of the audience.  Neilsen Ratings would identify how many watched, their age groups, sex and income level.  

The broadcasters would go to companies that wanted to reach those specific groups and sold them commercial time.  It really wasn’t that complicated.  It was no surprise that men, twenty to thirty-five, watched football games.  Beer companies bought the commercial time. Or, that kids watched cartoons on Saturday morning. The toy manufacturers jumped right in.

Even earlier, in the 1950’s, many American women were stay-at-home Moms and homemakers.  Televisions then were big boxes with little black and white screens that took a while to “warm up”.  To reach those homemakers, companies that made home care products; soaps, detergents and the like actually produced dramatic programs. 

They aired live, five days a week.  They were called “soap operas” not because they sold soap, but because they were actually produced by soap companies. The biggest manufacturer, Proctor and Gamble, produced Another World, As the World Turns, The Edge of Night, Guiding Light, and Search for Tomorrow among others.

Micro-Targeting

Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook team found a whole new way to make money through advertising.  Unlike the broad analysis that Neilsen provided broadcasters, Facebook’s interface with their users allowed them to gather detailed information.  It isn’t just the age, sex, gender, and income factors of Neilsen.  Facebook “knows” what the user likes and dislikes, from food to politics to movies to clothes.  Facebook “knows” how old the users kids are, and what they do for fun.  They know what the “user” does for fun too.

Facebook (and other similar Internet companies) can sell advertisers access to exactly the customers they want.  They have designed programs that specifically target individuals meeting exacting criteria, and get their ads directly to them.  For example:  I am a sixty-three year old white male, who has an RV, is interested in politics, track and field, sixties music and lost dogs.  When I randomly click on Facebook, the ads are:  retirement planning, ugly Christmas sweaters, Track n Field , and Ohio getaways.

It all sounds pretty harmless. 

Speech is Money

The Founding Fathers were concerned about free speech, so concerned in fact, that it was included in the First Amendment to the Constitution:  “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”. They knew that for the Republic to work, it needed an educated electorate who understood what was going on.  Government support for public education even predates the Constitution, with the Northwest Ordinance providing for public school finance in 1784.

But the Founding Fathers also hedged their bets.  Out of the entire Federal Government, only one part, the House of Representatives, was originally selected directly by the people.  State Legislatures chose the Senate, and a separate Electoral College chose the President.  The Founders wanted an educated electorate, but they also wanted to place barriers on the public’s ability to quickly alter that government. 

(By the way, the current argument for keeping the Electoral College because “the founders wanted the smaller states to have a say” is just not valid.  In Federalist 68, Hamilton makes the entire argument for the Electoral College based on keeping those who choose the President separate from the rest of the government, and hopefully, avoid corruption and “tumult and disorder”.  It worked for 228 years.)

Even then, free speech meant access to money. The ability to read was commonplace  (about 75%) in 1800 United States, but to get a message out required access to printing presses, putting out newspapers or books.  The link between free speech and money began well before the writing of the Constitution, or even the Revolution.

Money and Politics

There have been several attempts to control money and politics in modern American history.  After the excesses of the Nixon campaign in the Watergate era, the Campaign Reform Act of 1974 placed limits on how much any one contributor could donate to a campaign, and how much a campaign could spend. 

In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out the campaign spending limits. In Buckley v Valeo, the Court linked money to free speech, saying limiting one limited the other.  However, Buckley did allow the contribution limits to remain in effect, as well as a public funding option for Presidential elections. 

From 1976 through 2004, all of the major party nominees for President accepted public funds for their campaigns.  They were required to follow the Federal Election Commission rules that banned donations and limited expenditures.  In 2008, Barack Obama found that he could raise more money outside of the Federal system with massive Internet generated small donations, and privately financed his campaign.  Other candidates caught on, and while FEC Presidential funding is still available, it isn’t used.

The Obama campaign raised unlimited funds while staying within the FEC rules.  But it was in 2010 that the Supreme Court re-visited Buckley, and in the Citizens United case, and opened the floodgates to unlimited donations.  Citizens United created a whole new “class” of political operators, outside the regular campaign structures.  While Political Action Committees (PACS) existed before, after Citizen United they could raise and spend as much as they wanted, with no limitation on the size of donations.  

In 2016 Hillary Clinton’s campaign and associated PAC’s spent $1.4 Billion.  Trump’s campaign was somewhat cheaper at $957.6 million (WAPO).  Money equals speech, and both campaigns had a whole lot to say.

Money Meets Influence

Ohio is considered a “battleground” state in Presidential elections.  Ohio residents are used to an infinite amount of candidate television commercials, so much so, that election day is a huge relief for the viewing public.  Millions of dollars are spent in the critical media markets of Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.

But television political commercials, like the “soaps” of old, still are a “broad brush.”  Money now buys detailed, intimate, and personalized contact with the individual voter on the Internet.  And it can do even more as Cambridge Analytica infamously pioneered.  It allows voters to be manipulated, using a mix of propaganda, facts and images.  There seems to be no boundaries.

At least on television, the broadcasters are ultimately responsible for what they air.  Facebook has declared itself a “platform” rather than a broadcaster.  The difference seems to be, “a platform” requires nothing of the provider other than to make sure the platform technically works.  Facebook takes no responsibility for what appears on the their service.  In fact, Facebook has determined that they are for “freedom of speech” by allowing ALL “political” speech, false or true.

A Capitalist View

This is the definition of a modern capitalist.  Mark Zuckerberg, through his own brilliance and hard work, has “built a better mousetrap.”  And he has absolutely profited from that “mousetrap;” he’s the fifth richest person in the world with a net worth of $68 Billion.

He claims he is defending “free speech.”  While that can be argued, there is no question that Zuckerberg is defending something even more important to him:  Facebook’s profits.  The Internet, and other broadcast mediums are awash in seemingly unlimited amounts of uncontrolled cash.  If the Supreme Court won’t take control of that supply, then it is up to the Congress to regulate the mediums. $68 billion doesn’t encourage self-regulation; it’s up to our government to do the job.

It makes sense that it takes some money to exercise free speech in a capitalist nation.  But today, a sea of money, buying detailed, “psycho-graphic polling,” is drowning free speech out.

That can’t be what James Madison meant in the First Amendment.

It’s tough to look at the current political situation in America dispassionately, and I’m probably not the guy to do it.  But I do think there are verifiable “facts” that can be agreed on, even across the divide of Republican to Democrat.

With an Iron Fist

Donald Trump has captured the Republican Party.  We see it in every poll, no matter what the President does, probably including “shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue;” there is a hard core of Republicans that will follow him.  How strong is that core?  Well in the polling of all voters, it ranges around 36% of the total.  

But in the Republican Party, that’s somewhere over 80%.  The days of the 1960’s and my father’s “Rockefeller Republicans” or even the 2008 “McCain Republicans” are over; this is the era of Trump.  (Yep, Utah is the exception that proves the point, the only Republican state that Trump can’t control, thus Mitt Romney.  He couldn’t win anywhere else.)

We see those “old school” Republicans standing sadly on the sidelines.  The Party they grew up and loved is gone; they either must swallow Trumpism or step out of the political life.  We know them:  David Jolly the former Congressman from Florida, now an independent, John Kasich the former Governor of Ohio, Nicolle Wallace, a Bush advisor now on MSNBC, or George Conway, the conservative lawyer who happens to be married to White House advisor Kelly-Ann.

But for Republicans who want to stay in politics, there is little choice.  Democrats (like me) naively wait for the “Profiles and Courage” moment when they will stand for country over Party, but it’s not going to happen.  80% or more of Republicans support Trump.  And the President has made it clear that he will brook neither interference nor rebellion.  He will stomp the fire out with a tweet, calling on “his” voters to turn on the violator.  Ask Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Mike Pence

So for those Republican leaders who remain, what course can they find in this new era?  

Some have Presidential ambitions after the Trump Presidency is over.  Vice President Pence finds himself dragged into controversy, perhaps even being the messenger of “quid pro quo” to the Ukrainian Government.  But for Pence the course is clear; he will support the President, stand with the President, and do whatever works the President demands.  In return, he hopes that Trump will grant him the mantle of Trumpism, and lead him to the Presidency in 2024. 

Jeff Sessions

Senator turned Attorney General Jeff Sessions was an early acolyte.  But Sessions, for all of his unattractive political qualities (“Ahh du not ree-caull”) was unwilling to go all the way for the President.  He wasn’t a “Roy Cohn,” he turned out to still have principles that he would not give way.  Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, he betrayed President Trump in the worst possible way.  He failed to protect him, and now he’s so gone that he doesn’t even seem to be able to run for his old Senate seat in Alabama. 

The new Attorney General Bill Barr knows better.  He knows his role – protect the President at all costs.

Mick Mulvaney

Office of Management and Budget Director and Acting Chief of Staff and former Freedom Caucus leader Mick Mulvaney (there’s a title for you) had hopes to succeed to the mantle.  That was why he walked out in that press conference, and confessed the whole story:  quid pro quo, promises, favors, and all.  “Get over it” he said, that’s how we do business.  

Mulvaney strikes me as an Icarus; he has flown too close to the Trumpian sun.  Like Anthony Scaramucci (now an anti-Trumper) he melted down when the pressure was greatest.  Trump hates the weak, and the losers.  Now Mick will need to go be President of the University of South Carolina, soon to be thrust out of the Presidential orbit.  He’ll need to get over it.

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham wants to be President too.  And he, of all of the other Presidents-in-waiting, has felt the lash of Trump’s attacks.  Trump called him a loser, an idiot, and a lightweight.  And Trump publicly released Graham’s cellphone number.  The best Graham could do; destroy his phone in a campaign ad (YouTube.)   He looked weak and bullied, and it was another step in his failed 2016 campaign.

So instead of standing against Trump, as his best friend John McCain did, Lindsey told us exactly what he was going to do.  “I’m no John McCain” was part of his final words about his friend.  And Graham then pivoted to become the President’s “best friend” and defender in the Senate.  He made his “bones” with Trump at the Kavanaugh hearing, when he fired the “prosecutor” and ranted and raved against the Democrats.  

Graham has not turned back since.  This week he’s stated that he won’t read or listen to the “illegitimate” evidence in the House impeachment investigation.  He’s already made up his mind: the President is innocent.  Lindsey is hoping that in the internal Party battle to follow Trump, the 80% will remember who was the loudest defender of the President when things were at the worst.  His strategy may well work, regardless of whether Trump survives his term in office.

Mike Pompeo

And finally, The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is the most ambitious man in Republican politics.  He doesn’t want to become the President; he knows he will be the President.  Pompeo has built his resume carefully, developing a base in Kansas, serving the Party in the House, and now in the Cabinet.   Of the Trump “replacements,” it is Pompeo who has the best “exit” strategy.  Should things really look bad and impeachment and removal possible, Pompeo will return to Kansas and run for Senate.  There’s no place like home, and home is where he can rebuild his political dreams.

And what if the House impeachment hearings reveal so much, that it somehow is even worse than shooting someone on Fifth Avenue?  What if the true Constitutional “high crime” is too great to ignore?  Than the sinking of Donald Trump will drag down the hopefuls, Pence and Graham.  But the wily Pompeo, he will survive.  His ambition is all-consuming, but it is also all-protecting.

Small Town Ohio

Our street is just off of State Route 16, the “main drag” through our small town of Pataskala, Ohio.  If you’re east bound, turn right on Linden Avenue, then left at the stop sign, and you’re there.  If you look down the street, you see several US Flags, some on poles, and some displayed from houses.  But that’s not all.  As you turn the corner, you’ll see a “Trump 2020” sign, and the blue Trump flag waving in front of a well manicured home.  Farther down the block, you’ll see a similar blue flag, this one displaying the words “Literally Anyone Else.”  Welcome to Linda Avenue.

This isn’t a story about Blue versus Red, or Trump supporters versus “Resistors.”  This is a story of how a neighborhood in suburban Ohio manages to get along and work together, even if we don’t agree on the national political picture.  We know:  we all know who supports Trump (most) and who does not (us, and maybe???)  But as far as Linda Avenue is concerned, that really doesn’t matter.

Helping Pat

Our little street came together a year ago to support one of our own.  Pat was an eighty-seven year old widow who lived in her house on Linda Avenue for almost sixty years.  She lost her husband and only child in a horrific freeway accident in the 1970’s. Her house remained frozen in that time.  

Pat was often the “mean old lady,” roughly turning down offers for help with shoveling snow or raking leaves.  She took care of her own property with pride, and I had conversations with her as she spryly trimmed branches up in the tree.  “Pat, let me do that,” I’d say.  “Mr. Dahlman, I can still climb trees and take care of myself, go along now,” she’d respond.  

She lived alone, ultimately finding friendship with the widower across the street.  They teamed up together, getting the grass cut, the leaves raked, the bills paid, and sharing the his “Meals on Wheels.”  Pat would never allow them to deliver to her, but she wouldn’t let his food go to waste.  They were “just friends” she’d say, for decades.  But then, he died as well.

Pat didn’t want help, and if you offered, you might get yelled at.  “Stop being nosy” she would say.  But when her friend died, she didn’t come out at all.  After a month or more, the neighbors started checking on her, knocking on the door, and dropping groceries off.  They made sure the grass was cut, and the leaves cleaned up.

Losing Track of Time

Sometimes Pat would just yell “go away.”  Sometimes she’d open the door and talk.  And, very occasionally, she let them in.  But even if she wouldn’t come to the door, if you left food on the doorstep, it would disappear into the house.

But then there was the mail.  Pat didn’t have a mailbox in front of her house, she was afraid someone would steal out of it.  So she had a box at the post office.  But, if she didn’t ever leave her house, she couldn’t get the mail.  And no one else could have the key, even to run in and get it for her.  And finally, the rent came due, and the office closed it.

Pat lost track of time.  It wasn’t hard to do:  she didn’t leave her house or yard from October to July.  The TV stopped working, and so did the clocks. No one was allowed to do repairs, not even to fix the broken toilet.  She had to take to top off to flush it.  She knew her bills were up to date, because she didn’t get any more. January and February passed.

Jenn and I got more involved when the neighbor down the street mentioned that she was paying Pat’s water bills.  There hadn’t been a cutoff notice; it couldn’t arrive.  But when it was “time” to cut off the water, the folks in Pataskala City Hall didn’t want to do it.  They let the neighbor cover the bills, three months worth.  

So the neighborhood was buying a little bit of groceries, and pitching in to get the water paid.  We knocked on the door with a Kentucky Fried Chicken “three piece” meal and iced tea; even if Pat called out “what do you want, I’m in bed,” it would go inside if you just left it on the stoop.  

Looking for Help

We called members of her family over and over, but they showed little interest in Pat.  We tried the County Aging Services:  they stopped by, but said there was nothing they would do.  It was frustrating frustrated. It felt like the whole world turned it’s back on this little old lady in Pataskala.

We’d rotate calling, usually one of us every day.  Pretty much no matter what time you called, Pat said she was in bed and didn’t want to talk.  Then the phone was shut off.

Here in Ohio the utility cutoff date is April 15^th, just like taxes.  That’s the day the gas and electric gets cut off if you haven’t paid the bills.  But phone companies don’t wait so long.  No one freezes to death from not having a phone.  

Utility companies are kind of funny.  They won’t give you information about the “account” without the having all the identifying numbers, but they’ll let you pay the bill.  The phone company was the first:  after explaining everything that was going on, that the phone was the only lifeline, they sadly said there was nothing they could do.  

Fifteen minutes later, the agent called back, in tears, and said he couldn’t let it go. He blessed us, took our information for payment, and turned the line back on.  Jenn and I were overwhelmed by his response.  I don’t think Pat ever realized it was off.  

Jenn went over to Pat’s house, and explained that she was going to lose all of her utilities.  “Just snoopin” said Pat, but Jenn managed to persuade her.  She got the old utility bills so she could copy the identification numbers.

Pay the Bills

Gas, electric, water and sewer, phone:  it all had to be paid.  And we had to get her mail going again.  The Pataskala Post Office knew Pat well, and they were worried about her.  When we explained what was going on, they were anxious to work with us.  We got the PO Box back open, and delivered Pat’s mail to her again.

So, for a couple of months, we’d go over to Pat’s house, knock on the door, and try to get her to pay bills.  The hardest part, once we got in the door, was the argument:  “What month is it?  What year?  When did I last pay the bills?  You paid what?”  It was every time and overwhelming; she’d shake from shock and fear.  It was the realization that she had lost a year; her checkbook said it was 2018. It would take fifteen minutes to write three checks.

No Good Ending

 And she had skin cancers:  on her face and on her back.  They were growing, but she wouldn’t let anyone take her to a doctor.  She was embarrassed about how they looked.  And she was eating less and less.  

We had a lot of discussions, about whether we should leave Pat to die in her house alone.  It’s seemed like that’s what she wanted.  But it would have been a horrible, helpless death:  cancer, and starvation, and cold.  Right or wrong, we couldn’t do that.

By mid-July Pat wouldn’t pay bills.  She wouldn’t let anyone in the house, peeking out the front window to tell us to go away.  She even stopped taking the groceries from the stoop.

We had a neighborhood meeting, trying to figure out what to do next.  Jenn did a “deep dive” into the Internet, trying to find someone in Pat’s family who would help.  She reached a niece we hadn’t known before, and arranged a meeting on the last day of July. 

We all met in the kitchen of our neighbor down the street.  The conversation started out cold:  the niece seemed like she was thinking, why was it our block’s business what happens to Pat.  But after some discussion, and Jenn’s incredible documentation of texts and payments going back to before Christmas, the niece melted, and took charge.  She called Licking County, and heard, “…well, if she wants to starve to death in the house, there’s nothing we can do.”  Then she stood up, marched down to Pat’s house, and called the ambulance.

Her Legacy

The memory I want to have is of Pat proudly walking out of the house, flannel shirt covering her wounds, and marching to the ambulance, on her own.  To the end she did things her way.  

She never came back home.   We visited her in the hospital and nursing home, but the cancers spread and she was too weak for treatments.  She passed away two weeks ago, her niece at her side.  As lonely as her life must have been, in the end she had relatives and friends who cared.

The house is for sale now.  But Pat left a legacy, beyond her determination to live her life her own way.  She got our “block” to work together.  We don’t talk much about politics; the conversation is more about kids, grass, leaves and new fences.  But we know we can work together, regardless of what the banners say.  It’s our block.