Category: Uncategorized

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.

Elmer Fudd – Kill the Rabbit

Whistleblower Act

The “Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989” was passed by Congress to protect Federal Government employees. It protects employees who find that their agency is committing fraud, waste, abuse, illegality or corruption.  The law established the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency to investigate charges made by whistleblowers, and to protect them from retaliation.

The Act established procedures for a “whistleblower” to use to raise their concerns.  The primary role of the Protection Act is to prevent supervisors from taking action against the whistleblower.

The Phone Call

The “whistleblower” reported information he/she heard that went on during a Presidential phone call. He/she did not have first-hand information.  The report outlined a “pathway” to the first hand information though, a trail the Inspector General and later the House Intelligence Committee used to discover the facts.

The current impeachment investigation began with the “whistleblower” report. It was delivered to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, and the House Intelligence Committee.  The report outlined potential illegal acts by the President of the United States in a conversation with the President of Ukraine. It also listed actions taken by members of the National Security Council and the White House Counsel to hide those actions.

According to depositions released by the Committee, and a redacted “transcript” released by the White House, the Whistleblower’s story is true.  President Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky “…for a favor, though,” after Zelensky requested money already earmarked for Ukrainian defense.  The favor:  Ukraine was to announce that they were investigating Democrats from the 2016 election, and Trump’s current political rival, Joe Biden.

Ignore the Facts

Every aspect of the whistleblower’s report has been verified from transcripts and first-hand testimony.  In fact, multiple witnesses have made it clear that the President’s “ask for a favor” was more than just a single request in a phone conversation.  Mr. Trump’s representatives have pressured the Ukraine government for months on multiple fronts.

Mr. Trump’s defenders are ignoring the facts.  Instead, they are screaming about the process.  They demanded that the committee have open sessions, and even declared the without them, the entire investigative process is invalid.  Last week, the House of Representatives passed a formal resolution of impeachment inquiry. It included open hearings and unprecedented opportunities for the President’s representatives to participate. The Republican defenders said it still wasn’t enough.

They are searching for a distraction, for a false narrative to alter the course of events.  The goal:  if they can somehow make the facts not matter, then they can discredit the impeachment process.

Change the Subject

The Republicans started with Trumpian name-calling. “Shifty” Schiff was the President’s attempt to “brand” the Democratic Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.  Mr. Trump has even called for Schiff to be prosecuted for “misrepresenting” the President’s conversation in an open hearing earlier this year.  But the Republicans have been unable to make anything “stick” on Mr. Schiff, and the Committee’s investigation moves on.

So Republicans need a new “bone” to chew.  And the one they’ve chosen is the whistleblower.  They hope that if they can find out who he/she is, then they can discredit him/her, and discredit the entire investigation.

This isn’t a new tactic:  it’s the same trick they tried with the Mueller investigation.  In fact, the entire “CrowdStrike” conspiracy theory (that the theft of Democratic emails in 2016 was done from Ukraine, not Russia, and at the behest of US intelligence) is a fiction created to discredit Mueller. They argue that if the investigation of the Trump campaign was instigated by a US intelligence operation, rather than the Russians, then the entire Mueller Report is invalid.

On the Altar

So if Republicans can discredit the “whistleblower” they think they can discredit the impeachment inquiry, regardless of the facts.  They want his/her name, they want to investigate his/her contacts, and family, and political affiliations.   Did he/she work for Democrats; are they registered to vote as a Democrat, can they establish some aura of bias?  Wreck the whistleblower’s life – regardless of the truth, or what protection the law says he/she should have.

It’s already happening.  Republican Senator Rand Paul, in a Trump Rally last night, said he knows who the whistleblower is. He pointed to the media, demanded that they “…do your job and print his name”.   The partisan crowd followed up with chants of “do your job, do your job:” so much for whistleblower protection.

Alt-right media already has a name – and they are doing everything they can to discredit the individual.  Whether that really is the whistleblower, or someone who conveniently fits the “profile” the Trump support team wants, is not clear.  

What is clear is that Republicans are willing to violate the “Protection Act,” and even destroy the whistleblower’s career and life, to change the subject.  They will sacrifice his/her to distract from the real issue:  that the President of the United States has committed impeachable offenses. 

The stakes are high.  The Whistleblower needs to be sacrificed on the altar of Trumpism:

The cry is going out:  kill the Whistleblower.

It’s November of 2019.  In exactly one year, the citizens of the United States will be going to the polls. The will choose a President, the entire House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate.  They will have a choice of either continuing “Trumpism” or putting an end to the radical regression that his “reign” represents. 

Watch the Process

We aren’t the only ones making that choice.   The narrow Brexit victory of 2016 in the United Kingdom predicted the rise of Trump in the United States.  The voters of the UK will be returning to the polls this December, trying one more time to untie the political Gordian knot that Brexit has created.  It will be instructive not only in its outcome, but in how external forces impact the voting.

Cambridge Analytica, a prime force in the original Brexit verdict is no longer around; but the voter identification and persuasion techniques they pioneered are still available to others.  And while voters are more aware now of the impact of State actors like Russian Intelligence, than they were in 2016; it’s likely the Russians will still try to influence the UK’s choice.

At stake, both in the UK and the US, is our faith in the fundamental security of our election process.  Regardless of the outcome, these tests will determine whether we believe in Democracy or not.  American national security expert Malcolm Nance warns, “…This may be the last free and fair election in America.”  If we lose faith in the veracity of the outcome, we will have no motivation to participate.  

Endless Campaigns

Voter turnout in the United Kingdom averages over 70% (Research Briefings.)   The US turnout is dramatically lower, with 56% voting in the 2016 election (Pew.)  Should citizens come to believe that their votes are manipulated or not counted; then even fewer will vote, making it even easier to alter the outcome.

So in the next weeks and months, there’s a lot at stake in the US and the UK.

By the way, the UK at least knows how to “rip the bandage off.”  Their election campaign is six weeks long.  Here in the US, we have already been debating and campaigning, narrowing candidates for the President since last winter.  And we have fifty-two weeks to go.  It will be tough to get anything else accomplished: we may be paralyzed by the preparations to make a decision.

We are already mired in that indecision.  As the Democrat controlled House of Representatives investigates impeachment, the Republican Senate is contemplating whether it’s “proper” to hold a trial on the President’s actions in an election year.

Avoiding Decisions

There is existing precedent for this.  Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, determined in 2016 that the Senate could not consider a Supreme Court appointment during an election cycle.  McConnell ignored Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice for the open seat on the Court.  He instead successfully gambled on a Trump victory in the election, and gained the opportunity to fill the vacancy with Neil Gorsuch instead.

Republican are already making their “case” for not following through on an impeachment trial, or worse, issuing a “summary judgment” to avoid a decision.  It’s easy to imagine them arguing that, while the President’s behavior is egregious, it doesn’t rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  They may hide behind the “fig leaf” of protecting the “decision of the people,” pass the buck, and prolong the indecision until November of 2020.

Trump is not Trumpism

Even the Senate removing Donald Trump from office wouldn’t completely alter the arc of US politics.  Trump is a force unto himself, but his ideology is entrenched into a significant portion of the American political body.  We already can see others maneuvering to inherit his political legacy, Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence to name two.

So even in the unlikely even that the President is removed from office, it won’t mean “the end” of anything.  It still requires an election to determine the course of America.  

It’s all in the year ahead.

Quid Pro Quo

President Trump demanded that the Ukrainian Government investigate Joe Biden.  He had “an offer they couldn’t refuse;” either start a public inquiry into Biden, or not receive the military aid they desperately needed to fight Russia.  

And Trump has done this before.  On the White House lawn he asked China to investigate Biden.  This deal was less obvious, but the US was literally sitting at the negotiating table with China at that moment.  And of course, there is the famous line:  “Russia, if you’re listening, find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 emails…” Russian military intelligence began attacking Clinton’s servers almost immediately.

So President Trump has asked foreign nations to help against his political opponents quite often.  This isn’t a “question;” he’s said it “in the public square.” It is fact. But he’s not the first President to try to manipulate other nations for domestic political gain.  He, in true Trumpian fashion, just takes it “to the max” and does it out in the open. 

There are at least two other times when Presidential candidates offered some kind of deal, a “quid pro quo” to a foreign power.  Both actions are still shrouded in history; as much rumor and legend as fact.  But perhaps more importantly, they were done by two Presidents that Donald Trump respects as role models:  Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

1968 Election

The year 1968 was one of the most divisive times in American history.  There was a nexus of movements:  the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the “hippie” movement all came to a head.  It was the year of assassinations; both Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were killed in the spring.   It was a year of protest, riot, and demands for change.

Politically Democrats were split. It was the party of war, with President Johnson orchestrating. And it was also the party of dissent, with Eugene McCarthy and later Bobby Kennedy running for the Democratic Presidential nomination on anti-war platforms.  McCarthy was so effective that Johnson dropped out of the race, his spot taken by his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey.  

This left the Party fractured, with McCarthy not having enough backing from the “old line” party members, and Kennedy gone.  Humphrey won the nomination, but it was a tarnished victory.  Rioting tore the Chicago Convention apart, and the heavy-handed tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley made any kind of unification impossible.

The Republicans nominated Richard Nixon, who came back from defeats in 1960 and 1962 .   Nixon touted his secret “peace plan” to end the war, but absolutely didn’t align himself with anti-war forces.

Secret Plan

Humphrey was tied to Johnson and the war.  Johnson was attempting to negotiate a ceasefire with the North Vietnamese in Paris, an “October Surprise” that could tip the balance in the highly divided election. 

Nixon was desperately afraid that Johnson would end the war before the election, assuring Humphrey’s victory.  He turned to a shadowy figure in American history, Anna Chenault, the widow of World War II general Claire Chenault and a powerful figure in the Republican Party.  Nixon tasked Chenault with making sure that the South Vietnamese government, our allies, refused to cooperate with President Johnson in the Paris negotiations (Politico.) 

The “quid pro quo:” if the South Vietnamese government tanked the peace conference, Nixon would get South Vietnam a “better deal” when he became President.

Johnson knew about it before the election.  He called Republican leaders, and Nixon himself, demanding that they stop. Of course they denied any knowledge of Chenault’s actions.  But Johnson didn’t reveal any of this to the public, and on Election Day, Nixon eked out victory over Humphrey by .7% of the popular vote.

When Nixon took office, he “doubled down” on US involvement in the War and support of the South Vietnamese government.  It took seven more years for the United States to fully leave Vietnam, and when we did, the South Vietnamese government was totally defeated.  Today Vietnam remains one of the few solidly Communist nations in the world.

A Hostage in the White House

Forty years ago, on November 4^th, 1979, fifty-two Americans were taken hostage in the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran.  The American ally, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown, and Muslim hardliners lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini had control.  The Shah was exiled to the United States; Iran wanted to trade them for the Shah.

President Jimmy Carter struggled to find a way to free the hostages.  It was a year from the 1980 Presidential election and the crisis became the most important issue.  Carter attempted to rescue them, the first use of the new “Delta Force.”  Dust storms and inexperience caused the operation to fail, and the Iranians were left with abandoned helicopters to use as a display of American ineptness.

Early on, Carter promised not to campaign until the hostages were freed, and while he ultimately came out, it was another example of his inability to control the situation.

What Iran Needs

Ronald Reagan, former Governor of California, was the Republican candidate for President in 1980.  The threat of an “October Surprise,” Carter freeing the hostages; was the key to victory.  

Reagan’s actions are still obscured.  In the middle of the campaign summer of 1980, campaign manager William Casey (later appointed director of the CIA) went to Madrid, Spain.  At that time, he supposedly met with Iranian officials, and offered incentives for a “better deal” if they held the hostages until after the election, avoiding a Carter “October Surprise” (LA Times.) 

Reagan won an overwhelming victory over Carter.  The Iranians announced that the hostages would be freed on Reagan’s inauguration day.  Jimmy Carter flew to Germany to meet them.  Not long after, the Reagan administration allowed Israel to sell US made anti-tank weapons to Iran, to use in their ongoing conflict with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Facts and Rumors

We now know that the story of Nixon and Anna Chenault is true.  What Reagan did or didn’t do is still not as clear.  But we can draw some conclusions.  The Trump Presidency clearly is influenced by Nixon’s actions.  Roger Stone, who began his political career as a Nixon “dirty trickster,” has had tremendous political sway over Donald Trump.  

And Reagan legacy is the Trump “touchstone.”   “Making America Great Again” and Trump’s fixation with “Wall” (Trump wants to build one, Reagan wanted one tore down) are intentional echoes of the Reagan Presidency.

Trump is so drawn to the two Presidents, is it really isn’t a surprise that he would follow their example of using foreign intervention to influence American elections?  Creating or avoiding the “October Surprise” is a Republican tradition; Trump is simply bringing it out to the full light of public scrutiny:  ask Hillary Clinton.

Dubious Honor

Thursday the United States House of Representatives formalized the impeachment investigation into the President of the United States. In the two hundred thirty one year Constitutional history of the nation, this is only the fourth time.

The reasons for impeaching and removing the President are defined in the Constitution: treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. The definition of treason and bribery are clear. It is what defines “high crimes and misdemeanors” that makes it difficult for Congress.

President Donald Trump now joins an ominous list. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and William Clinton:  all Presidents who have faced the ultimate rebuke by Congress.

Lincoln’s Decision

Andrew Johnson became Abraham Lincoln’s Vice President in 1864, as part of the “National Union” Party.  Lincoln’s Republicans were worried that they would lose the Presidential election in 1864.  The war in Virginia was bloody and discouraging, and the public grew weary of long casualty lists in the newspapers.  A war “hero,” General George McClellan, was on the Democratic ticket.

To gain re-election, Lincoln replaced his Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin a Republican from Maine, with a Democrat. Andrew Johnson was the military governor of Tennessee, a Democrat from the South who remained loyal to the Union.  

When Lee surrendered his Confederate Army in Virginia to Grant, the nation was overjoyed. The War was soon over.  But only a week later that joy dissolved when John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre.  Lincoln’s death left the Republican Party in a true dilemma; the new President, their new President, was a Southern Democrat.

A Political Impeachment

Over the next three years, the Republican Congress constantly clashed with Johnson over how to reunite the nation, and reconstruct the South.  Johnson vetoed twenty-nine bills passed by Congress, and they over-rode his veto a record fifteen times. Congress tried to restrict Johnson’s ability to determine his cabinet secretaries. They passed (over his veto) a law requiring Senate approval to remove Cabinet members, the Tenure of Office Act.  Johnson refused to obey the law, and fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton anyway.  His replacement was General Grant, though Grant quickly resigned from the post.

Firing Stanton was the “last straw,” and the House impeached Johnson.  The charges included violating the Tenure of Office Act, but also conduct “unbecoming” of a President. Republicans had an overwhelming majority in the Senate, holding 45 seats out of 54. Nine Republicans refused to vote against Johnson, and allied themselves with the nine Democrats.

Conviction and removal required two-thirds of the Senate, or 36 votes. The President’s fate came down to one Republican, Edmund Ross of Kansas, who ultimately decided to vote in his favor. That left Johnson as President by one-vote.

The Supreme Court later ruled the Tenure of Office Act unconstitutional, and Johnson’s impeachment came to be viewed as a “political” action, rather than fitting the Constitutional mandate of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Impeachment was put aside for over a century.

High Crimes

It was President Richard Nixon’s acts that brought the impeachment power back into use. When all was revealed, it was found that he ordered his staff to commit crimes to further his political campaigns, then used the power of the Presidency to cover them up.

It was the “cover-up;” when the President used his powers and agencies including the FBI, IRS and CIA, to hide crimes and intimidate opponents, that led Congress to begin impeachment investigations.  During hearings, it was revealed that the President not only knew about the crimes and cover-up, but also was the center of the conspiracy.  Nixon directed the cover-up, suggested sources for payoffs, and was fully involved.

When audiotapes of Nixon participating in the conspiracy were released, the House Judiciary Committee voted out impeachment articles.  Before the articles went to the full House for vote, the Republican leadership of both the House and Senate went to speak to Nixon.  They presented him with a stark choice:  be the first President to resign from office, or the first President to be impeached, convicted and removed from office.   He chose to resign.

Moral Outrage

It was only twenty-four years later that the House of Representatives brought the impeachment power back out again, this time to punish the immorality of President William Clinton.  Clinton took sexual advantage of a twenty-one year old White House intern, having relations with her in the Oval Office and halls of the West Wing.  

When that information came out (a result of a different investigation into possible illegal land speculation) Clinton originally lied about it, both to the American people and in a sworn video deposition to a Grand Jury.  His argument that “oral sex” wasn’t sex (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”) wasn’t reasonable or convincing.

Clinton was impeached for lying to the Grand Jury in the video deposition. He also obstructed justice by encouraging Lewinsky and others to lie about the affair as well.

The ultimate argument in the Senate wasn’t about the fact of Clinton’s actions. The question was whether his actions constituted “high crimes and misdemeanors” as defined in the Constitution.  He had an affair, and he lied about it.  He committed perjury in a Grand Jury investigation of his sex life.  The issue for the Senate was defining a “high” crime, one that required the President be removed from office.

It was a clear vote:  45 for removal to 55 against on the first article, and 50 – 50 on the second article, with 67 required to convict.  The Senate determined that Clinton had NOT committed a removable offense.  It did not exonerate him, but acknowledged that the charges did not rise to the level required by the Constitution.

Today

The House of Representatives is developing evidence of President Trump using the power of his office to extort campaign aid from a foreign country.  He held military aid back to try to force Ukraine to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden.

It’s true that the Democratic House is at political odds with the President, much like the Congress of 1868 was at odds with Andrew Johnson.  And, while President Trump has committed the same kinds of moral “outrages” that Bill Clinton did, those actions aren’t even mentioned in the current impeachment talk.

This is the question that the House and ultimately the Senate will need to answer.   Did the President’s actions constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” important enough to remove him from office, like Nixon, or is this just a political vendetta, like Johnson.  While there will be political messaging from all sides, the final analysis will be left to the one hundred individual Senators.

Roger Stone

It all goes back to Watergate: those days that echo in the memory of Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s friend. Somewhere, deep down inside, Roger Stone wants to prove that Nixon was right and everyone else was wrong.  Nixon is Stone’s hero; the tattoo of Nixon’s face on his back proves the point.

Congress began its investigation into the Watergate crisis and the White House in February of 1973. That was seven months after the actual break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex.  The President himself wasn’t the “target” of the investigation.  In the beginning, no one knew how far the scandal went into the White House.  

The Committee held closed investigative depositions at the beginning.  It was only after three and a half months that they began public hearings.  Those went on for another almost four more months.

In the middle of those public hearings, the President’s two closest aides, Bob Halderman and John Ehrlichman resigned. So did the Attorney General.  Nixon appointed a new Attorney General, Eliot Richardson, who immediately appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. 

Alexander Butterfield

The Senate hearings were on TV throughout the summer of 1973.  It became a daily ritual for me (I was sixteen) that summer, watching intently as the networks rotated gavel-to-gavel coverage. July 16^th, 1973 was just another day, another White House guy that no one knew about testifying.  But what Alexander Butterfield said changed the entire investigation.  He revealed in public testimony that the White House had a taping system.   The President recorded all conversations in the Oval Office, the Cabinet Room, and his private office.  

Howard Baker was a Republican Senator from Tennessee.  Baker naturally supported the President, but he kept an open mind in the hearings.  His question, “what did the President know, and when did he know it,” became the purpose for the entire investigation.  And, after Butterfield, the way to find out the answer to that question was obvious:  let’s hear the tapes. 

Special Counsel Archibald Cox subpoenaed the White House for the tapes, but they refused to release them.  He persisted in Court, and was fired by Nixon in the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre”.  Outrage over the firing (it included Richardson and the Deputy Attorney General as well) led to the appointment of another Special Prosecutor, who continued the relentless efforts to get the tapes.

The legal battles went on all winter.  The Senate Committee concluded their investigation, and the House Judiciary Committee took up impeachment proceedings against the President’s obstruction based on the “Saturday Night Massacre”.  The White House claimed “executive privilege” over the tapes, arguing that no President could do his job if every conversation he had could become public. The Special Prosecutor argued that “privilege” couldn’t shield the President’s possible criminal actions.

Nixon’s Voice

In April of 1974 that the White House tried to defuse the case by releasing “transcripts” of the tapes, edited, supposedly, to protect “national security”.  The transcripts left open the question about the role of the President in the scandal, but they did add a new term to the American political lexicon, “expletive deleted”.  If nothing else, we found out the Richard Nixon was a “potty mouth” in almost all of his private conversations.

The “redacted” transcripts weren’t enough, particularly one important conversation that had an eighteen minute “gap”.  The Special Prosecutor continued to pursue the actual tapes in Court.  It wasn’t until July of 1974 in the United States v Nixon that the Supreme Court ruled (8-0) that the tapes had to be released to the Special Prosecutor.  When the full versions of the tapes were heard, the Judiciary Committee found that the President knew and helped orchestrate the Watergate cover-up from the very beginning.  Nixon finally resigned in the face of sure impeachment and removal from office.

Edited Transcripts

In historic “echoes” of Watergate, Donald Trump released a “redacted” transcript of his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky.  Even with redactions, the summary shows the President pressured Zelensky to investigate both Joe Biden, and the alt-right conspiracy theory called “CrowdStrike.”  While the White House summary does not clearly show a deal, US aid money for Ukrainian investigations: the testimony of many of those involved demonstrates that there was a “quid pro quo.”

This week, in “closed” testimony, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who listened in to the President’s original phone conversation, noted that the “redactions” were hiding damning statements by the President.   In addition to all of the other evidence the Intelligence Committee has heard, it’s clear that the full transcript of this conversation, and potentially transcripts of the President’s discussions with President Xi of China, would reveal more.

Burn the Tapes

Roger Stone believes that Nixon should have had a bonfire on the White House lawn, and burned all of the tapes.  His view is, while there would have been outrage, the fire would have destroyed the “smoking gun” that led to Nixon’s removal.  He might be right; Nixon could have claimed he was defending “executive privilege”.  With the tapes gone, Stone thinks, there would be little the Courts could do.

The full transcripts of Trump’s phone calls are on a high security server in the White House.  White House legal counsel and National Security staff saved them there, instead of a less secure site, to fully protect their content from going public.  Perhaps they’ll consider burning that server in the Rose Garden. They can invite the “Freedom Caucus” over to roast marshmallows.

The Judiciary Committee in 1974 waited for the tapes to be released.  The full import of Nixon’s own words were what led to his impeachment.  It was those actual words that convinced the Senate, and the American people, that he should be removed.  Today’s House of Representatives doesn’t feel like there’s much time left to resolve impeachment.  But it’s still the words of this President that will prove to be his own undoing, edited or not.

Be Careful What You Ask For

House Democrats gave Republicans and the President what they asked for yesterday. Trump supporters have decried the process of impeachment, demanding that the Democrats stop their “illegitimate” approach to investigating Mr. Trump’s actions.  Republicans demanded “a vote” to put the impeachment process “on the record.”

Thursday they will get what they want.  Speaker Pelosi is putting the impeachment inquiry resolution up for a vote.  The Speaker doesn’t leave anything to chance, if the vote is going to the floor, then the vote will pass.  Past Democratic arguments over the vulnerability of some of their House members are now over; the evidence is convincing enough that most of them are “inoculated” from sacrificing their seats.  

And then, Republicans will have their “process problem” solved.

Of course, they won’t.  Senator Lindsey Graham, sponsoring a Senate bill decrying the House process, has already used that famous legal trope “…you can’t ‘un-ring’ the bell.”  He means that, in his view, once the House began without a resolution, they can’t add one on now.  But Graham would find any fault to try to save the President from impeachment.

Hammer Time

Speaking of legal tropes, we have recently heard a lot about this one:

“If you have the law, hammer the law.

If you have the facts, hammer the facts.

 If you have neither the law or the facts, hammer the table.”

As witness after witness speaks to the House Intelligence Committee, the information coming out has made it clear that the Republicans have neither the law, nor the facts.  The President of the United States, in a months-long concerted effort highlighted by a direct phone call to the President of Ukraine, withheld vital defense funds from that country to extort a public investigation of his Democratic political opponent.  

Those are the facts.  The law is just as clear, the President of the United States used needed defense funds to force Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son.  Biden is a likely opponent in 2020, and more importantly, is the one that currently has the greatest chance of beating Trump in the election. Asking a foreign nation to intervene in US elections is a violation of campaign law, and Trump’s actions also violate Congressionally mandated spending.  

Much like bribing a “porn star” to keep his affair from the public, Mr. Trump’s team is likely to say, it’s only “election laws” not really important ones.  They got away with this argument once, though Michael Cohen is paying the price in jail today.  But this “payment” is much more serious, it’s not Mr. Trump’s money laundered through a dummy corporation, it’s US government money, our money, that’s being used to advance his political campaign.

So Republicans will keep hammering the table.

Convince the People

Speaker Pelosi is outlining the next steps towards impeachment:  open hearings of the witnesses.  Democrats will lay their case before the public, a public that already supports the impeachment inquiry 51% to 42% (RCP.)  The Democrats’ goal:  to convince the majority of the American people that the President has abused the powers of his office, and deserves to be removed from it.

But it’s not just the American people that Pelosi wants to influence.  When the President is impeached, the Senate of the United States will sit in judgment of his actions.  It requires 67 Senators approval to remove the President from office. There are 47 Democrats and Independents; to remove him twenty Republican Senators would have to turn against their President.

In this age of extreme partisanship, it seems impossible to imagine that twenty Republicans would have the courage to stand against the President’s twitter rampages, and more importantly, the 42% of Americans who still think that he is doing a good job (RCP).  The “age” of Profiles in Courage seems long gone.

But Pelosi isn’t depending on courage.  Her goal is to depend on the Republican’s sense of self-preservation.  If the polling numbers continue to shift against the President, there will be a point where Mitch McConnell sees Trump as an anchor dragging down the GOP Senate majority.  At that point, McConnell could well “cut the line,” knowing that Vice President Mike Pence is even more amenable to Senate Republican interests.

What is the real percentage of Mr. Trump’s hardcore base?  Should the job approval ratings drop into the low thirties, or the percent for impeachment get near sixty, Majority Leader McConnell will have a real choice to make:  save the President (perhaps only to lose in 2020) or save the Republican Senate majority. 

As Nixon Went

It’s already started.  When the “whistleblower” report first came out, there were questions about whether the Senate would even “hold” an impeachment trial.  But as the Democratic investigation has progressed, Mr. McConnell has laid out a full judicial process of Senate impeachment trials, and made it clear that Senators can expect perhaps a month of six day-a-week hearings.  As the information got more serious, so did he.

Richard Nixon, through most of his administration, had a job approval rating of 55% or more.  It was only in the last year that his ratings dropped, averaging 34% and ending in the last two months at 24% (Gallup.)  The present era is different – for those who remember the controversies of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the divisions today seem even worse.  The “sides,” “Trumpers” and “Resistors,” seem even more set in stone.

So while Trump never saw the “high” approval rating Nixon reached, he probably won’t see the low either.  But there is a point where, shorn of all but his most loyal supporters, the Senate may be unable to sustain him.  If that happens, like Nixon, Trump will have to chose between removal or resignation.

And that’s what Speaker Pelosi is trying to do.  Her strategy isn’t just a House impeachment; it’s a plan to remove the President from office.  But she can only do that if the American people are convinced she is right.

Eyes on the Prize

Andrea Mitchell of NBC News interviewed Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez.   Perez gave this advice to Democrats in the primary process:  “I hope you fall in love with multiple people, and then fall in line when we get the nominee” (NBC.)

There was lots of criticism about his statement.  Members of the Democratic Party are notoriously strong headed; the concept of “falling in line” is not really what Democrats do.  We’re more like “herding cats:” we will never be “in line” but hopefully will all meander in the same direction. 

But what Perez meant was clear.  There are lots of candidates running for the nomination for President of the United States.  Perez wants Democrats to get involved, get excited, and get to the polls for the primaries.  And when that process is over, and the convention chooses one of them to run against Donald Trump (or whoever is standing in his place) then we need put our efforts behind that candidate.  Our eyes need to be on the prize, removing Trumpism, and winning the Presidency.

My Pledge

So as a Democrat, less than 100 days from the beginning at the Iowa caucuses, I’m working on “falling in love” with a candidate.  But regardless of the choice I make today, I make a pledge to Mr. Perez:  I will “fall in line” after the convention, and put my energies behind whoever we decide will be the Democratic nominee, even if it’s Bernie Sanders.

But Bernie Sanders isn’t the one I’m falling in love with.  So lets examine the candidates in light of that.

Incremental Change

If the United States was “table rasa,” a blank slate, then I would be all-in for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. The goals of Social Democrats, including universal public health care, are ideas that I agree with.  But I also have been a participant and student of politics for my entire life, and I don’t see the United States making the kind of massive changes that those candidates demand. 

We are a nation of incremental change.  Even in the Great Depression, really the last chance for the overarching changes that the Social Democrats want, the US made what really are modest changes.  The New Deal was practical and worked within the framework of a capitalist democracy.  Like it or not, that’s what the nation would accept then, even in their moment of extreme economic crisis.

Our nation is in a crisis today.  The income inequality that exists, with the top 10% holding 70% of the wealth, and the top 1% having 29% of the total wealth; is unsustainable in a democracy.  This is particularly true in our democracy, where the Courts have ruled that free speech means unlimited spending in political campaigns.  

So the United States is primed for a change, but not for the “revolution” that Sanders and Warren want.

The Environment

The one area where incremental change may not be possible is the looming environmental crisis.  We need to change, and change right now, to avoid the worst of the climatic changes we have created.  Whoever the Democratic candidate is, they must have a commitment to make dramatic changes to the current “back to the fifties” vision.  

All of the Democrats have a plan, and all of the candidates will do a better job.  But it is clear that the answers of the past decades haven’t provided a solution for the future.  We need a new plan, and a leader to make it work.

Health Insurance

The United States is ready for everyone to have health care.  But a substantial number of Americans want to keep the private insurance they now have.  This is a “deal breaker” for many, so much so that whoever the Democratic candidate for President is, there must be some provision in their health care plan to allow for private insurance.  This puts Sanders and Warren out, and Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Biden and some others in.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t include a public option insurance plan, and it doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t be able to control drug costs.  That should be a part of every Democratic health care plan. 

Corporate Loyalty

It is clear that many US corporations are loyal only to their shareholders.  There seems to be no greater loyalty to their workers, or their nation.  Whether it’s GM closing its truck manufacturing in the US and moving to Mexico, or Apple tailoring apps to the will of the Chinese government, the US government will need to examine the incentives they provide to these companies.  While Warren and Sanders have made it clear where they stand, the more moderate candidates have said less about controlling them.

And finally, the giants of social media have determined that they are unwilling to control the platforms they created.  These brilliant intellects believe they can simply remain a conduit without responsibility for what’s delivered.  The fact that this increases their own profits I’m sure has something to do with their refusal.   Most of the Democratic candidates are willing to take those giants on.

The Choice

While I respect and admire Joe Biden, I agree with those who feel his time has past.  Biden is not Barack Obama, and the nation of 2020 is not the same as the one that in 2008 took the remarkable step of electing him. 

The argument for Biden is the one he made from the first:  that he is the one sure thing against Donald Trump.  But in watching him campaign, I’m not sure he’s up to the task.  And more significantly, I’m not convinced that the famous “binary choice” is Trump or Biden.  In listening to our nation, I’m closer to believing that it’s “Anybody” or Trump.  And if it’s “Anybody”, then Biden doesn’t HAVE to be the one.  Biden represents the successes and ideals of the Obama Administration, but he also represents the failures and compromises made by them.  We are moving onto a different era, with different and more pressing problems.  

And while I like Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, and think either would make a great President, I don’t see either catching fire with the electorate.  

Voting My Heart

So, after all of this, who has “won my heart?” 

Pete Buttigieg is thirty-seven, articulate, a veteran, and a city mayor in the Midwest.  Every time I listen to him, I become more convinced that he would be the one to pick up the mantle of change, of bringing the United States into a future of diversity, climate change, and diverging economics.  I see him as the one to stand on the shoulders of the Obama legacy, learn from his mistakes, and move our nation forward.

I well know his weaknesses.  He has less Federal government experience than the other leading candidates.  And the fact that he is gay will be an excuse for some to vote against him.  He needs to increase his appeal to the broader base of the Democratic Party.  If he cannot find a way to do that, he won’t survive in the primary.  If he can find a way to reach the broader base, then he can win the general election in November.

And, to speak to the “elephant in the room;” if someone votes against him because he’s gay, then they would have found some other reason to vote against any other Democrat.  It’s just where we are today.

So, if Mayor Pete remains in the running come the Ohio primary, he will get my vote.  

But if he fails to win the nomination, I will gladly “fall in line” for the Democratic nominee.  It’s not just that I am a “yellow dog” Democrat (I’d vote for a yellow dog if it had a D by its name.)

I have my “eyes on the prize.”

He died like a dog.  He died like a coward.  He was whimpering, screaming, and crying.  Frankly I think it is something that should be brought out so his followers and all of those young kids that want to leave various countries, including the United States, they should see how he died.  He did not die a hero, he died a coward; crying, whimpering, and screaming, and bringing three kids with him to death.  He knew the tunnel had no end.

–Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in answer to questions at his announcement of the death of ISIS Leader al-Baghdadi

The End of Bagdhadi

US Special Forces killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Bagdhadi Saturday night.  It was a complex operation, with eight Chinook helicopters, additional air coverage, and fifty or more US Special Operators from the Army and Navy.  Special Operations canines were used as well, with one injured representing the only US casualty.   Much as the killing of Osama bin-Laden, US Forces breached a well-defended secure location, searched through the buildings, and found their man.  

According to the President, who stated that he watched the entire operation “like a movie” from the White House Situation room, US Forces and canines chased al-Bagdhadi into a tunnel under the house.  Bagdhadi took three of his children with him, and wore a suicide bomb vest.  When he was finally cornered, with the a canine chasing him, he detonated, killing himself and the children, and wounding the canine.

Al-Bagdhadi is dead.  That’s a good thing for the world.  He led a brutal regime, executing captives in video broadcasts of decapitations, drownings and immolations, and murdering thousands of Yazidi and other ethnic groups.  The Middle East, and the world, is a safer place without him.  This is at least the fourth reporting of his death; the President assures us that this time it’s real.

Mission Accomplished

Congratulations to the US Special Forces, US Intelligence, and the State Department for coordinating this complex operation through a war zone with Turkish, Syrian, Russian and Kurdish forces all on high alert.  It’s possible that even an Al-Qaeda linked group, HTS, who controls the town where the operation took place, fed information to the US Forces.  

And congratulations to the President of the United States, who made the call and “green-lighted” the operation.  Had it failed, Mr. Trump would have borne the brunt of the failure, so he should get credit for having the strength to do his part.

Knowledge of Death

I have never faced death in battle. While I still have my draft card, in 1974 the US was well on the way to leaving Vietnam.  My turn never came.  For me, I can’t say how I, or others, should act in the face of the ultimate test.  I have been under fire, shot at in the woods by a young target shooter who liked moving targets.  When that happened, I didn’t freeze, I ran as fast as I could and dove into a sticker bush.  But I have not faced certain death.  And I certainly have not faced death with my children at my side.

We know that Donald Trump has not either.  When he faced his Vietnam choice, he managed to avoid the draft under medical exemption.  He’s not the only one of that era to do it, and whether it was a moral judgment on Vietnam, a personal decision to not risk war, or a real medical defect, it’s hard to know, and not for me to judge.

But I don’t think we should find “glory” or “satisfaction” in how a man dies, regardless of what they’ve done.  I’m all for our Special Forces doing what they do best, and removing from this world a threat to us all.  I just don’t think we need to take pleasure in the manner and demeanor of his death.

Higher Standard

Did he hide behind his children as a shield?  Was he screaming and whimpering?  Did he set off a bomb to kill himself and his kids, in a way that hoped to kill the Americans?  Who cares?

It demeans the Presidency, the nation, and the forces that risked their lives in battle, to glory in the manner of his death.  And Trump’s belief that it would somehow change those impressionable minds that would consider joining ISIS:  if they are indoctrinated enough to consider joining, then they are blinded enough by propaganda to ignore what Trump says.

But for the rest, we see a President taking pride in another man’s failures at death.  I doubt it makes al-Baghdadi’s victim’s families feel better:  his being gone is enough.  

And finally, the only US casualty was a canine, injured by the bomb blast.  The dogs too, acted with courage and fidelity.  Why sully their name with “dying like a dog?”  They are more than willing to lay down their lives for their handlers; it would be an honor to die with the loyalty of those “dogs.”

We should hold ourselves to higher standards. 

That’s what you get for sleeping in.  President Trump’s on right now, declaring his “bin-Laden moment” with the reported death of al-Baghdadi.  If it’s true, I’m glad he’s dead.  I’m sorry the President can’t see the gravity of the moment, and needs to talk about what he wrote in a book in 1999.   And I am confused – did we leave Syria, are we in Syria, or did we just say it was OK for the Turks to invade Syria?

The Warning 

In the months leading up to the release of the Mueller Report, we were warned.  We were told that the Trump Administration would do everything to distract from what Robert Mueller and his team found.  They told us to expect anything:  from personal attacks on the unassailable honor and decency of Mueller himself, to the honesty of the team his assembled.

We heard about “the seventeen angry Democrats” and the “lying” witnesses.  And we were ready for all of that.  But what we weren’t ready for was Attorney General William Barr.  The man was presented to us as an “institutionalist”.  He would defend the fundamental impartiality of the Justice Department, and was a “friend” of Robert Mueller.  The two were compared to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski and Attorney General William Saxbe. They were friends who came to the Senate Judiciary Committee together to guarantee the impartiality of the Watergate investigation.  

The Zealot

What we didn’t know then was that Bill Barr, at the end of a distinguished career, was a zealot.  He believed so strongly in an aberrant Constitutional theory of the Presidency, that he was willing to throw his “friend” Mueller and his work “under the bus”.  He lied about its conclusions, and hid the actual findings for almost a month. 

What we didn’t know was that Bill Barr would put the full resources of the Justice Department at the disposal of the White House.  Attorneys paid for by US taxpayers are going into court defending the President’s “right” to hide his taxes and ignore subpoenas.  They not only are defending the absolute authority of the President, but they are claiming his absolute immunity from trial, indictment, or even investigation.

And what we really didn’t expect, is the Attorney General Barr would personally lead an investigation based on Russian propaganda and alt-right conspiracy theories.  We thought this former AG, an “establishment Republican” couldn’t be sucked into that black hole.  But he has travelled the globe trying to find any evidence he can to “prove” it.   By lending credence to it, he gets the opportunity to threaten the President’s old enemies:  Comey and McCabe, Strzok and Page, Brennan and Clapper.   Not only does that make Mr. Trump “happy,” but it also distracts from the deep trouble he’s in.

Distract and Divert

But here we are. As the impeachment investigation into the President taking US military aid to extort Ukrainian help in the 2020 election goes on, we can now expect even more extreme actions.  This weekend, it is the “free Flynn” outcry, claiming that convicted foreign agent and liar Michael Flynn was “set up” by the FBI.  It only adds to their fury that one of the agents questioning Flynn was Peter Strzok, and that the questioning was under the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Reports from the hearings in the House note that Republicans are actively participating.  They are asking questions and taking notes. More specifically they are digging into witnesses, trying to find out whether they “support” the President, and do they know who the “whistleblowers” are.  

The next great Republican “revelation” will be the names of the whistleblowers, and why they are “tainted” by Democrats.  They will be truly excoriated, their lives torn apart, and their careers in the government over.  They will be sacrificed, even though the truth of the President’s own words and actions are all the evidence that’s needed to impeach.

Come Tomorow

Much of this is merely diversion and distraction.  But his announcement of the Delta Force operation ending in the death of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi is real.  It’s good that he’s dead, but the President has already given out more specific information and detail than US Forces would have liked.  This gives Mr. Trump his “bin-Laden moment,” and he’s certainly allowed to enjoy it.   

But by the end of the day, the President will be back to attacking Democrats.  By tomorrow morning, the center of his universe will pivot back to a House “SCIF” where depositions are being taken.  This won’t go away.   And expect the President to “kick, scream and whimper” all the way to impeachment.