Category: Uncategorized

Attacking Biden

Commentators are making a lot out of many of the Democratic candidates attacking Elizabeth Warren in Tuesday’s Democratic Debate.  They are writing Joe Biden’s obituary, saying that the others are leaving him alone because he is no longer relevant.  Warren is the “new” front-runner, and that’s why she got the most “heat.”

There is some truth to this.  Warren has moved up in the polls, currently tied with Biden in most.  But there is a more important reason that Biden was left pretty much to himself in the fourth Democratic debate.  

Biden is the target of Donald Trump.  And it’s not just from the President’s infamous “tweets:” the President of the United States pressured the leaders of other countries to give him dirt on Biden.  Trump may well be impeached for doing it.  So what Democrat wants to align him or herself with Donald Trump against Joe Biden?  That strategy just “sucks.”  In fact, it was clear that several candidates, particularly Cory Booker, were ready to defend Biden against such attacks. 

Knowing Tulsi

I didn’t know much about Tulsi Gabbard, other than her biography as a veteran and Congressman from Hawaii.  I did hear “rumors” that somehow Gabbard was a “Putin ally,” but I didn’t have any direct evidence of that: until last night.  

Listening to Gabbard create a narrative of “regime change” in Syria sounded much like Russian talking points during the Obama Administration.  She made it sound like President Obama sent troops to back the rebellion against Assad, and re-wrote the rebels as all terrorists. They weren’t, and the facts are that President Obama didn’t send US troops to back them.  Gabbard doesn’t get to re-write history to fit her own narrative, and her attempt to do so raises questions about where she’s coming from.

“Modern” Andrew Yang

I learned something last night.  Somewhere along the way, I missed the “FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.”  That’s what I get for being sixty-three and retired, I guess.  I missed a whole REVOLUTION.  But I do know about industrial automation.  Gee, Hillary Clinton got in trouble for talking about that four years ago in West Virginia.  She said that the coal mining jobs were gone, even if mines were re-opened.  Clinton was criticized for saying the day of the coal miner working the open seam was over, machinery would take his place.

So this new idea by Mr. Yang really isn’t that new.  And if automation displacement was the major answer to industrial unemployment, then why are all of those factories opening in Mexico and China and other places?  GM can automate their plants, but it looks to me like they are more interested in using manual labor, and taking bigger profits.  Not a revolution, just a corporation trying to increase stock values. Mr. Yang shouldn’t miss the point; automation is only a small part of the industrial and employment dislocation happening here in America.

But I can also see Mr. Yang’s appeal to younger voters.  He speaks “the language” of the “internet educated electorate” (like that phrase?)  He legitimately made fun of Senator Grassley’s questioning of Mark Zuckerberg, demonstrating a lack of “Facebook expertise.”  That joke cut against some of the other candidates: too old to understand “Tweets.”  Yang has a lot to add to the debate, pushing Democrats to deal with more modern social communications.  But he’s not going to be the nominee.  

Healthcare in Common

Democrats all want healthcare for all.  Senators Sanders and Warren want to move America to Medicare for All.  It’s a great idea, and if there were historical do-overs, it’s exactly what America should have done in the 1930’s and 40’s.  But we didn’t.  

A man not on the stage last night was Congressman Tim Ryan.  He makes an important point:  we need to recognize that many Americans are satisfied with their current insurance plans. Labor unions have often negotiated great health care for members, and given away other benefits to get it.  Those union members aren’t willing to give that away, especially when they aren’t guaranteed to get back the other benefits.

On the other hand, there’s a majority of Americans who aren’t in unions.  The millennial generation isn’t unionized, and they are looking for a better way to get health insurance.  So we are in a transition period.

Transition and “do-over” isn’t the same thing.  This means that while the Sanders/Warren plans of Medicare for All may be the ultimate goal, how the United States gets there, how long it takes, and who has to sacrifice now to get it; all need to be considered.  Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden are all offering a longer transition period with expanded public options.  

Democrats have to look at electing a President as well as choosing a nominee.  Whether that can be done with the “big ideas, big goals” of the Warren/Sanders wing, or more moderate candidates is unclear.  What is clear is that primary voters are often the most motivated, and Sanders/Warren are strongly connecting with them.

Klobuchar’s Best

Senator Amy Klobuchar made a strong case for staying in the race.  She positioned herself as the moderate who could draw independent and Republican voters, and implied that the Warren/Sanders candidacies risk losing that middle ground.

This was her best debate, showing strength and emotion.  The question is, will the Democratic primary electorate be interested in anyone near the middle besides Biden?  Klobuchar is betting that they will, but so far, Biden’s nailed down the center.

Joe is Joe

We loved Joe Biden as Vice President.  He is inexorably linked to Barack Obama, and that makes him a politically powerful force in the 2020 election.  Who can forget the “hot mike” whispered comment to the President about the passing the Affordable Care Act, “…this is a big f**king deal!!”  It was, and we loved it.

  But there is a reason why this is Biden’s third Presidential campaign. 

When Biden speaks in the debate, it always seems to be halting, correcting, and to fade away.  It would be easy to blame old age for that, using it as a reason to say that Biden is too old for the job.  But Biden did that when he ran for President in 1988, and he did it again when he ran in 2008.  It isn’t old age; it’s Joe.  Like that or not, that’s who he has always been.   

The Next Cut

The next debate will be on November 20^th in Atlanta.  The qualifications are tougher:  higher polling numbers and more individual donations are required.  Eight candidates have already made the cut:  Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Steyer, and Yang.  

There are candidates, notably Tim Ryan and Steve Bullock, who are still campaigning despite not making the stage in Westerville.  It’s not likely that they will get to Atlanta either.  And who else will miss the cut?

Tulsi Gabbard may well be the next left off the list.  She seems far from the mainstream of the Democratic electorate.  But the real question revolves around Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar.  If they could get on the stage in Atlanta, then they can probably survive, at least to Iowa.  But if they fail, then it might well mean the end of their campaigns.

As I write this, the news came in that Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland has died. He has been a “rock” in the current political crisis, and a leader for decades. The United States will miss his strength, especially at this critical time. A hero is gone.

Impeachment Investigation

In the past couple of weeks, the House Intelligence Committee interviewed multiple members of the Trump foreign policy team.  They’ve consistently heard the story of Rudy Giuliani, acting outside of the guardrails of the State Department or the National Security team, pursuing a renegade foreign policy in Ukraine.  When the US Ambassador in Ukraine stood up to him, she summarily lost her job.  The two “bagmen” who helped Giuliani “grease the wheels” in Ukraine are now in Federal custody in Alexandria, Virginia, under indictment and awaiting trial.  

Trump Was Warned

Even the National Security Advisor, John Bolton, another Trump appointee seen as “outside the lines” saw the danger.  He said Giuliani and Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney were involved in a “drug deal”.  Bolton saw Giuliani as a “…hand grenade waiting to explode.”  When he heard the scheme to extort information about Joe Biden from the Ukrainian government, he ordered his aide to take notes, and consult legal counsel.  And, like the Ambassador, Bolton lost his job as well.

What happened in the Ukraine?  Rudy Giuliani knows the answers:  he is the center of President Trump’s plan to extort the Ukrainian Government into investigating Biden.  Implicit in that was that the Ukrainians would find something, real or made up, to tar Biden. Critical defense money needed to defend against Russia was at stake.  

We already know what the President said, and what he wanted.  What Giuliani can tell is how far the plot went, both before and after the fateful phone conversation between Trump and President Zelensky on July 25^th.  

Rejecting Subpoenas

So it is no surprise that the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed both Giuliani’s documents, and his testimony.  The deadline to respond to the Committee was Tuesday, October 15^th.   In an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that afternoon, Giuliani announced his refusal to comply.

The letter to Congress from his personal lawyer, Jon Sale, cites the White House Counsel’s previous response to the impeachment inquiries. He claims they are illegitimate and unconstitutional.  Giuliani also claims that his actions were covered under attorney-client and executive privilege. Once the letter was sent, Giuliani fired Sale (National Review.)  

Rudy Giuliani is not an employee of the White House, the Executive Branch, or the United States Government.  He is a private citizen, acting as a supposedly unpaid attorney for Donald Trump.  He has no standing to claim privilege, or deny the subpoena.  

The Speaker

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sees the White House’s “Unconstitutional and illegitimate” argument as obstruction of Congress, another impeachable offense.  Tuesday night, in response to both Giuliani’s and the Office of Management and Budget’s refusal to cooperate, she reaffirmed that the House of Representatives power to determine their own course of action.  The House will maintain “regular order.” 

While there is little formal Constitutional process the House (or Senate) is required to follow in impeachment and trial, traditionally in Presidential impeachments, the House has voted twice.  The first was to authorize an impeachment investigation, the second whether to actually impeach the President.  This is different than “regular order” in the House, where bills are introduced, then referred to committees for study.

The House is following “regular order” by authorizing the committees to inquire as to impeachment.   Speaker Pelosi determined that it is worth the political cost to maintain regular order, that the demand for a “vote” is simply another White House obstruction. She knows that she has the votes to impeach:  clearly, the Speaker wouldn’t ask for a vote she couldn’t win.

A Citizen’s Duty

Giuliani should show up and testify.  If he wants to claim some privilege, then the hearing is the place to begin adjudication of those claims.  Superficially, it seems hard to see how attorney-client privilege would apply.  His actions in Ukraine and the United States are potentially criminal, and those are exempted from privilege by the crime-fraud exception (NOLO.)

Or, he can come in and exercise his Constitutional right against self-incrimination.  He can take “the Fifth” in front of the Adam Schiff, the Committee, God and the United States of America.

What private citizen Giuliani should NOT be able to do is defy the United States Congress with impunity.  He should not be allowed to hide behind the skirts of the President, like a five year-old child.  He was basking in Trump’s glory, travelling the world using the imprimatur of the President of the United States.  Now it’s time to own up for his actions.

The House of Representatives has a police force.  And they have the power to enforce Congressional orders, “inherent contempt” (here’s an essay on how that works.) They should seize Rudy Giuliani and bring him bodily in front of the Committee.  There he can make a choice, testify, exercise his Constitutional rights to remain silent or stand and defy Congress.  

Ambassador Marie Louise Yovanovitch testified for nine hours.  Fiona Hill, former advisor to the President on Russia, testified for eleven.  Secretary of State Pompeo’s former Chief of Staff is testifying as I write this.

Giuliani needs to “man up.”

Game Night

Here in Ohio the Democratic Presidential candidates are gathering for the fourth debate tonight.  It’s just up the road, in the Columbus suburb of Westerville.  Otterbein University will host tonight’s twelve-candidate extravaganza, and Jenn and I are looking for a “sports bar” nearby that will show the debates.  Beer, wings, and cheering Democrats:  sounds like a great way to spend an evening.

The debates seemed so important just a couple of months ago, but the shadow of impeachment may now obscure the great ideas, “plans for that,” and potential gaffs.  What happens in Chairman Schiff’s Congressional hearing room today is much more immediate and serious than what is said tonight at Otterbein. 

But we will watch.  My hope is that the candidates will continue to provide those great ideas for the future, and not fall into the trap of attacking each other.  The Democrat that echoes President Trump and attacks Joe Biden should be the next out of the race.  Right or wrong, Trump’s actions grant a form of immunity to the former Vice President.  Democrats can argue among themselves, but they need to present a united front towards the Trump campaign.

Trump’s Technique

If there is anyone in politics who should be worried about the action of their children, it’s Donald J. Trump.  Don Junior is trading on the Presidency to increase the profits of the Trump Organization. Ivanka gets favorable trade benefits from China, and son-in-law Jared is bailed out of a billion dollar debt by the Qataris.  

Compared to that, whatever Hunter Biden did or didn’t do is peanuts.

But that’s the Trump plan – take the “wrong” things he does, and project those actions onto his opponents. He accused Vice President Biden of corruptly coercing Ukrainian prosecutors (Trump did that) or Hunter peddling his father’s influence (Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka and Jared do that) or President Obama caging children on the border (Trump did that.)  His strategy deflects the blame and tars his opponents:  the truth has little to do with it.

Ohio’s Referendum

Here in Ohio, the Democratic candidates will get the chance to see some “crazy projection” as well.  A few months ago, the Ohio State Legislature passed a law called the “Ohio Clean Air Program”.  The program doesn’t “clean” Ohio’s air; what it does do is cut incentives for renewable energy programs, and bails out the twice bankrupted First Energy Company, owner of two dated nuclear plants along Lake Erie.  The state will pay $1 Billion to First Energy to maintain the facilities. (Here’s the link to the essay about it.)

Ohio is a “referendum” state.  That means that “the people” can put proposed legislation up for a statewide vote, if they can gather enough signatures on petitions.  To get on the ballot, it requires 265,774 signatures.  The folks who are opposed to the “Clean Air Program” include an awkward combination of natural gas producers, environmentalists and renewable energy producers (including energy giant AEP.)  They are trying to get the signatures to put the “Clean Air Program” on a statewide ballot, where it would likely be recalled.

Red Scare

So the gatherers are out, going door to door to get over a quarter-million legal signatures.  And the folks who supported the “Clean Air Program” in the first place are spending a fortune on television ads, warning Ohioans that “strangers” are coming to get their “personal information” somehow to benefit: China.

China, with pictures of goose-stepping soldiers and President Xi, is being blamed for trying to take control of Ohio’s energy.  It’s not.  The only connection:  some natural gas plants got some construction financing from banks in China.  But it’s another example of projection.  First Energy, the nuclear guys, got financing from Chinese banks too.

But you can sense that old “cold war” feeling here in Ohio.  The “Red Chinese” are coming to knock on your door, and make you sign a petition.  Beijing will have your personal information.  Don’t sign, in fact, call this number to let us know they’ve come for you.

Fore-Shadowing

I imagine as they relax in hotel rooms after the debate, some of the Democratic candidates will be asking their staff:  what is that all about?  

Get ready.  Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will face exactly the same tactics.  Democrats are “socialists,” even though that really only describes Bernie Sanders.  Socialists are like Communists (not) and Communists are bad!!!  They’ll take you personal information to Beijing!!  You will be “goose-stepping” down your local Main Street!!

The Trump Administration has nothing to offer when it comes to health insurance.  But they’ll say that Democrats will take yours.  Trump says he will bring back manufacturing to the “rust belt,” but the plants are still closing and moving away.  All of the failures of the past four years will be projected onto the Democrats; it will be Adam Schiff’s or Nancy Pelosi’s fault. 

So, whatever happens tonight at Otterbein, or in the next months in Congress, get ready.  It’s all going to be projected back.

Complainer in Chief

The President of the United States, Donald Trump, called Suzanne Scott, the Chief Executive of Fox News on Sunday.  It wasn’t just to pass the time of day; the President had a complaint.  Fox News, called “Trump News” by many in the rest of the media world, wasn’t covering him fairly, according to the President (The Hill.) 

This is the same Fox News that the President sang the praises for in his recent Minneapolis campaign rally.  There, Mr. Trump went through the Fox News schedule, praising each host by name.  From Fox and Friends in the morning, through Carlson, Ingraham, Pirro, and finally to the “holy grail” of Fox Trump support, Sean Hannity:  Trump called for applause for them all.

Straight Shooters

Except for Shepard Smith, the aberrant “straight shooter” in the Fox News stable.  Smith called out his fellow Fox hosts when they fictionalized the facts to support the President.  Attorney General Bill Barr met with Rupert Murdock, the owner of Fox News on Wednesday night.  Thursday, Smith, a founding member of the Fox News lineup twenty-three years ago, resigned from the organization. 

Suzanne Scott encouraged the President to sit down for a long interview with Bret Bair, another Fox anchor with some reputation for fairness.  While we don’t know if Mr. Trump will do that, what we do know is that he is tremendously disappointed that Fox would conduct and report a poll that showed a majority of the country favors his impeachment and removal from office.  He was also struck that they would employ Smith, or Chris Wallace (“I liked his father better than him” Tweeted Trump) or others that might “cross the line” and criticize him.

The Numbers

Trump may not like the polling data.  The Real Clear Politic summary of polling data shows that the nation is split over impeachment and removal, with 47% against and 46% for (RCP.)  But perhaps more importantly for the President, the Murdoch’s are reading the data as well.  

The phenomenon of Donald Trump is a media creation.  The Fox News network was pivotal, but they aren’t the only ones to blame.  Trump got hours of free media coverage from MSNBC in 2015, particularly on Joe Scarborough’s show. It was invaluable in establishing Trump as a credible candidate.  But the open support of Fox, and the total access the network gave Trump to their airwaves and viewership, helped place him in the White House.  

Fox continues to be the most watched cable news channel in the United States.  It averages 2.43 million viewers per night, as compared to 1.5 million for MSNBC and 1 million for CNN (Statistica.)  (Note:  for those looking for further evidence of division in America, these numbers make it even clearer. There are about 2.5 million Fox viewers, and about 2.5 million MSNBC/CNN viewers.  We are truly a nation divided.)

Fox Follows the Nation

But what happens when the Murdochs’ decide that Donald Trump isn’t good for Fox News?  If the numbers for impeaching and removing the President turn into a growing tide rather than a brief wave, will the network stick with their falling leader?

The Murdoch’s are all business when it comes to their success.  Rupert Murdoch didn’t like Donald Trump in the first place, but business was business, and Trump was good for business.  If support for impeachment continues to grow, don’t be surprised to find Fox News separating from Trump’s side.  And with Fox News goes the Trump base.  Ultimately it isn’t Fox and Friends, or Pirro, or even Hannity.  It’s the man who pulls their strings, who will determine where the Fox Network will go.  

I’ll Supply the War

In the 1890’s making money in the media, newspapers at the time, wasn’t about presenting the facts.  Two famous names in the business, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, competed to sell the most papers with headlines that grabbed the most attention.  It was called the era of Yellow Journalism.

Pulitzer’s New York World fought for readership against Hearst’s New York Journal.  Hearst determined that a crisis in the Spanish possession of Cuba was “newsworthy.”  He sent reporters to detail the unrest there, and artist Fredric Remington to draw the graphic details.  When Remington, sitting in a bar in Havana, telegraphed Hearst that there was nothing going on, Hearst famously responding:  “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war” (Medium.)

Murdoch used Trump to sell his network.  He supplied the candidate and America provided him the conflict.  And here we are.  

All Media companies, even my hallowed New York Times and Washington Post, are in business to make money.  And while the Times and the Post may be leading the way discovering the facts leading to impeachment, they are using that leadership to sell papers.

But make no mistake, when Trump supplies his own coffin, Murdoch will supply the nails. 

It seems to happen so quickly.  The stories break, and the focus swings wildly from one part of the story to another.  From the Ambassador, to the texts, to Giuliani’s friends:  a nation used to the drip-drip-drip of the Mueller investigation is standing, mouth open, in front of a fire hose.

The evidence showing the President has abused his power is already out there.  The House could vote today to impeach the President, and send the matter to the US Senate for trial.  So why don’t they?

Teaching America

Nancy Pelosi recognizes that the issue is greater than the technicalities of the Constitution or a vote count on the floor of the House.  Her goal is to educate the American people in what she already knows:  that the President of the United States is using his powers to force other nations to intervene in our election.  

If she can achieve her goal, then the American people will place the Senate Republicans in an impossible position.  Either they vote to remove Mr. Trump from office, or they adhere to the Trump base and face disaster in the general election 2020.  It’s already happening, the latest Fox News poll, the “Trump Broadcasting Network,” shows 51% of Americans want Trump impeached and removed, while another 5% believe he should at least be impeached (Fox.)  Only 40% say he should not be impeached, a figure that closely correlates to the Trump base number.

Republican Plan

The Republican strategy is one of delay-delay-delay.  Members of the House are creating a new theory of impeachment, literally “out of whole cloth.”  They want a “trial” in the House, giving them the ability to present defense witnesses and develop an entirely different theory of the President’s actions.  

That’s not how the process works, but it “sounds” good on the Sunday news shows.  Republican conflate the criminal justice process with impeachment, demanding that the President is innocent until proven guilty, and that he has “due process” rights.  Of course, even in the criminal justice system, a defendant isn’t allowed to exercise those rights until after indictment, the process analogous to the impeachment process.

And the President is “stonewalling” every attempt to get information.  Witnesses are ordered to not testify, subpoenas for information are ignored, and the President’s counsel claims the entire impeachment process is “illegitimate.”  The stall is “on.”

The Courts are gradually ruling against the President.  The Federal Court of Appeals ruled that he must allow his tax returns to be turned over, the Supreme Court, despite being slanted in his favor, is likely to agree.  But the Courts grind slowly, months of argument, debate and decision.  And that’s fine by Republican standards; the longer it takes, the better.

What are they waiting for?  The closer that the impeachment process gets to the primary elections of 2020, the more pressure is placed on Republican candidates to “stand by their man” the President, exerted by the Trumpian base.  And the closer it gets to election; the power of their strongest talking point grows.  That point:  why are we overturning “the will of the people” from 2016?   With only months until the 2020 election, why not let “the people” decide?

The Danger of Delay

And that’s the most valid point Republicans have.  

It should be “the peoples” choice, if possible, rather than the twenty Republican Senators placed under the gun.  The problem is that the evidence shows that the President is trying to subvert the election process.  Speaker Pelosi is trying to educate America on this most important point:  the President is breaking the laws governing elections.  Waiting for 2020 doesn’t change that fact, and if we can’t trust election results (as many feel we couldn’t trust the results of 2016) then we can’t depend on them as the arbiter of Trump’s behavior.

Delay allows the President and his henchmen to continue to demand that other nations intervene in our process.  Trump has already openly asked Ukraine and China, and of course, Russia, “…if you’re listening.” 

And that underlines the greatest danger to our nation.  The danger is that impeachment and elections are both seen as illegitimate by substantial chunks of the American electorate.  And if both of those Constitutional processes don’t work, then what are we left with disaster, in slow motion.

In Support of Bernie

I’ve made it clear that I am not a big “Bernie” supporter.  But on one issue, I understand and agree with him:  heart attack.  Bernie states that he had two stents placed in his heart, and he feels better than ever.  I’ve been there.  Several years ago I experienced a gradual loss of energy and endurance, followed by throat and chest pain.  I went from running dozens of miles a week, to struggling with one.  

After testing, it was determined that I had a blockage.  A forty-five minute procedure put a stent in my coronary artery, and blood flow to my heart was restored.  Days later (five to be exact) I was coaching a cross country meet, scaring my assistants to death running back and forth, and feeling better than I had for months.

I didn’t have a heart attack: dodged that bullet.  Running saved me from that.  I don’t know what damage Bernie’s heart suffered, but clearly it wasn’t terribly traumatic.  I’m sure he feels better than he has for months.  Now let’s get back to finding the best candidate.

To the Wolves

Why did President Trump, unilaterally, throw the Syrian Kurds to the Turkish “wolves”?  What advantage did he, or the United States, gain by allowing our long-term ally to get attacked by the second largest military force in NATO?

The President will tell you that he simply is “keeping his promise” to the American people.  He says that this is just ending another “endless” war.  By withdrawing the few hundred American soldiers left, he ended US involvement easily. He ordered them loaded up on trucks to head north to the Turkish border.

My “Resistance” friends will tell you that this is all about the Trump Tower – Istanbul.  They say that the Trump Organization has money to be made in Turkey, and that now President Erdogan “owes” Mr. Trump.  Expect a big expansion soon.  They will add that the Turkish invasion plays into the hands of Russia, by ending the last resistance to Assad’s control of Syria.  The “Resistance” will tell you that while Erdogan made the call, it was Putin pulling the strings.

An Ultimatum

All this is posited on the premise that the United States is working from a position of strength.  But what if Erdogan recognized that even if the US has the most powerful military in the world, Trump has made it clear that he won’t use it.  What if Saturday’s phone call wasn’t about Trump Tower, or Turkey’s ability to stabilize the Middle East.  

The Turkish call may well have been from a more powerful position.  Erodgan may simply have said we are invading Syria, we are ending the Syrian Kurd Army, and your few troops either need to get out of the way or risk death.  Erdogan may not have been making a “request” but rather, issuing an ultimatum.

The speed and scope of the Turkish invasion has been planned for months.  The US troops must have seen the smoke and destruction in their rearview mirrors.  It seems obvious that the Turks were invading, Wednesday was D-Day, and the phone call was a “courtesy” to the President, not asking permission.

The few US troops in Northern Syria served as a “trip-wire.”  The Turkish forces know full well that US casualties change everything and a world picture of two NATO allies battling each other terrifies everyone. It also plays straight into Vladimir Putin’s hands.  The President of the United States may well have been given a choice: run or fight.  

It must be incredibly awkward at Incirlik Airbase in Turkey this week.  This is where US Forces flew air support against ISIS.  Now, the Turkish Air Force may well be flying combat operations against the Syrian Kurds from the same runways.  By the way, at least fifty US nuclear warheads are stored there.

Sanctions

President Trump threatens Turkey with economic sanctions.  It seems so, helpless, so weak:  after pulling the representatives of the might of the most powerful military in the world out of the way.  And what about the American supplied Turkish Army and Air Force?  Well, the Turks are already turning to Russia for military hardware; perhaps the US is “buying” their loyalty back by giving them the Kurds.

And certainly the world can recognize that Mr. Trump is weakened.  The Mueller Report, the Ukraine call, impeachment investigations, and the looming 2020 election; all show Trump as possibly a short timer in the White House.  

I’m no “hawk.”  I grew up in the Vietnam era; I know what it’s like for Americans to fight a war without cause, and seemingly without end.  But I also know that the President has sent a message to the world:

“Let the word go forth, the United States will bear little cost, suffer no burden, to stand by our allies.  Stand with us today, but don’t depend on us tomorrow.  When it gets tough, we’ll be gone.”

Trump was pushed around by Erdogan.  The United States was threatened by Turkey.  That’s the “powerful America” that Mr. Trump created, and that will be another of his legacies to be fixed.

Impeachment

The House of Representatives began proceedings to determine whether to impeach the President of the United States.  This is an awesome responsibility, the ultimate “check” in checks and balances.  There are seemingly endless academic debates about which branch of government is the most powerful, but in that argument, impeachment and removal is always the “trump” card (sorry.)  It is the ultimate power of Congress, one that cannot be “checked.”

How awesome is impeachment and removal?  It is such a final authority, that it has only been used against the President three times in the two hundred thirty-two year Constitutional history of our nation (Nixon dodged the process by resigning.) 

 Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, nine months before the Presidential election.  While there were several “articles” of impeachment, the major issue was that Johnson intentionally broke a law passed by Congress, the Tenure of Office Act.  At trial in the Senate, he remained in office by a single Senator’s vote.

The House impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.  While again there were several “articles,” the essential charge was that Clinton committed perjury by lying in a deposition.  In the Senate trial, the issue became more about whether that “lie” constituted a removable offense, rather than the “fact” of the lie.  Clinton remained in office.

High Crimes

Normal “crimes” like committing perjury or tax evasion may not be impeachable.  In 1973, the House Judiciary Committee prepared a report viewing the history of impeachment.  It made a distinction between “common” crimes and impeachable crimes.

Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.

Impeachment is exercised solely by the House of Representatives.  In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court had no role in impeachment or removal (United States v Nixon.) Impeachment is the bringing of charges against the President (or others in the executive or judicial branches) for trial in front of the Senate.  Put simply, it is like the bringing of an indictment by a Grand Jury, with the House acting as the Prosecutor and Grand Jury.

Indictment

Like the Grand Jury process, the defendant, in this case the President, has few “rights” in the process.  Grand Juries hear witnesses without cross-examination; the defense has no place in the room, or “right” to present evidence.  The defense has the opportunity to present their side at trial should the Grand Jury bring charges.

The Impeachment process is not regulated by the normal rules of criminal procedure, because Impeachment and Removal is not a criminal process.  The ultimate result is removal from office and restriction from holding future office.  The House and the Senate has the sole power to determine how that process works.

So the recent letter from the President’s attorneys, arguing that the current impeachment process is illegitimate, is simply bogus.  The House determines the process without oversight or appeal, the Senate determines whether to remove or not.  The Courts and the President (or his lawyers) have no role in how the procedure is determined. 

 The White House Counsel’s letter, written in legal form to resemble a court “brief,” hints that the Judiciary will intervene if the Congress persists on impeachment.  But the Courts have no role in this process. The President’s men hope to find a favorable hearing in the Supreme Court, the ultimate “backstop” of Trumpism.  But even there, it is unlikely that the “textualists,” the five man conservative majority, would overturn two hundred thirty-two years of precedent.

Obstruction

Just as the defense cannot “defend” until charges have been brought to the court, the President has no right to present evidence to the House.  The sole role of the House is to determine “cause:” whether impeachable offenses have been committed.  The House itself determines what those offenses are.  It will be in the Senate that the President and his lawyers can make a defense.

But if a President refuses to recognize the legitimate impeachment and removal authority of the Congress, that action itself can be impeachable.  Obstructing the Constitutional power of the Congress clearly would be “…incompatible with (either) the Constitutional form and principles of our government…” In the judicial system it would be called obstruction of justice.  

Here, it is obstruction of Congress.

Kurdistan

There are 8.5 million Kurds in the Middle East, living in a region that stretches from the mountains of Turkey across Iraq and into Iran, and dips south into Syria.  They are mostly Islamic, but there are Christian Kurds, Yazidi Kurds, and Zoroastrian Kurds.  They call it Kurdistan, but when the Allies divided up the Middle East after World War I, pressure from the new Turkish government prevented their unification.  The Kurds were split, and remain divided today.

They are the largest minority group in four nations.  The Turks see them as terrorists, as the Kurds in the Turkish mountains have long pressed for independence.  This includes a guerilla war that began in 1978, as Kurds fought to maintain their language and customs banned by the Turkish government.  

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein repressed the Kurds.  Prior to the US invasion, the Iraqi Government even resorted to nerve gas to control the northern Kurdish region.  It should be no surprise then that the Kurds in Iraq welcomed the US invasion, and allied themselves with the American forces.  

The Syrian Government of Bashar Assad also repressed Kurds.  When the “Arab Spring” led to a nationwide rebellion against Assad, the Kurds joined in against the government.  

So in the Middle East, Kurds are disliked by Iraqis, seen as terrorists by Turks, and viewed as rebels by Syrians.  

Stand with the United States

When the US occupation of Iraq began to fail, and ISIS made huge territorial gains in both Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi Army proved ineffective.  34000 Iraqi soldiers were killed, and they were consistently defeated.  They were riddled with ISIS infiltrators.  

It was the Iraqi Kurds who stood with the US forces, fighting ISIS.  It was the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds who spilled the most blood defeating ISIS in Syria.  In defeating ISIS, the United States lost 71 soldiers. The Iraqi Kurds lost 1500.  The Syrian Kurds lost over 11,000.

Over 80000 ISIS members were killed.

ISIS recruits foreign fighters from throughout the world.  The path most take is through the Istanbul Airport, across the Turkish/Syrian border, and into the battle.  After the general defeat of ISIS, the US and Syrian Kurds established border control to prevent more ISIS recruits from trying to join.

ISIS Still Remains

The Syrian Kurds also took charge of the over 10000 ISIS prisoners held in Syria.  It’s not just the fighters; the camps include their wives and children.  The Kurds are doing the job that no one else in the world wants to do:  hold prisoner those ISIS members who are irrevocably dedicated to their cause.  There is no “term,” no “parole” that will stop them from returning to battle.  Their choices are:  prison, enemy fighter, or death.

There are 1000 United States soldiers in Syria today.  They are working jointly with the Syrian Kurds, but there real effect is to keep Turkey from invading northern Syria.  Turkey sees the Kurds, not ISIS, as the ultimate threat to their nation.  President Erdogan waits only for the end of US involvement, to move into the area and “cleanse” it of Kurds.

Transactional Friends

In every conversation with President Trump, Erdogan presses for the removal of US troops from Syria.  He makes a strong case about the “safety” of Turkey, and how the Syrian Kurds are just like his own internal Turkish Kurds, terrorists. In the past, after most of these conversations, the senior members of the Trump Administration convinced the President of the usefulness of the US alliance with the Syrian Kurds.

But those senior advisors are gone.  General Mattis resigned after Trump’s last aborted decision to abandon the Kurds. Mattis understood the obligation of sacrifice we owed, he wouldn’t abandon an ally on the field of battle.  Even John Bolton, a man who never saw a war he didn’t like, saw the utility of protecting the Kurds from Turkey.

But now there is no one left to explain obligation, or long-term policy, to the President.  All that’s left is the short-term profit, transactional relationships that Mr. Trump understands from his prior life.  To him, it’s just business: the Kurds were useful against ISIS, but ISIS isn’t now a threat, and there’s value to gain from Turkey.  Erdogan is purchasing weapons from Russia instead of the US, and there’s a Trump project in Istanbul (Newsweek) to conclude.  So, dump the Kurds, and back the Turks.

ISIS Returns

ISIS will be a threat again.  If the Syrian Kurds have to choose between guarding ISIS prisoners or defending themselves against the Turks, then the prisoners will be released.  If 10000 ISIS fighters are freed, they will return to their cause, and the world will have to fight that battle all over again.

The world will see Turkey massacre the Syrian Kurds.  They will see America abandon an ally for short-term gain.   They will understand that the United States cannot be trusted.

And they will be right.

Democrats are outraged by President Trump’s actions, but few Republicans are saying anything against him.  In fact, many Republicans are defending the President, even using disproved “conspiracy” theories to justify his actions.  What will it take to get Republicans to acknowledge his abuse of power?

Figures

Pete Nix, my first Principal, had a favorite phrase:  “figures lie, and liars figure”.  He knew that you could make numbers say whatever you wanted them to say, and that sometimes you had to use something simpler:  common sense.

I’m going to use some figures here, and hopefully in the end it will make common sense.

Columbus

Franklin County is in the center of the state of Ohio.  The State Capital, Columbus, is located there, as is THE Ohio State University (along with Columbus State, Capital, and Otterbein.)  It’s a big, sprawling town, with the Columbus city limits pressing up against farmland on the edges.   And it’s not just Columbus City. Dozens of smaller towns from Grove City in the south to Worthington and Westerville in the north house the suburbs for the industry and businesses that thrives there.

More than 1.2 million people lived in Franklin County in 2016.  799,673 of them were registered to vote.  That’s a pretty high number of registrations. When you subtract those less than 18 years old and those who aren’t US citizens, over 90% of eligible voters were registered.  

Primary Elections

In Ohio, the Party candidates for office are chosen by an election called a Primary.  Only those voters who declare that they belong to a political party can vote for the candidates in that party.  The “declaration” is made at the table where they get their ballot: they ask for Democrat, Republican, Green, or Non Partisan.  Then they get to vote in that party’s primary.

The March 15^th 2016 Primary election on was important, a “high-turnout” Presidential Primary.  On the Democratic side it was in the middle of the Hillary versus Bernie battle. On the Republican side Donald Trump was just emerging as the eventual winner.  Still, less than half of the registered voters showed up to vote, in fact, only 41%.

That 41% was split pretty evenly between Democrat and Republican, about 20% and change a-piece, with less than one percent voting in the Green Party. 

In a “high-turnout” primary election, 20% of the registered voters determined who was going to be the candidate for office for each political party.   The turnout in the general election in November was closer to 70%, but by then the candidates was already picked.  It was down to the “binary choice,” Republican or Democrat.  There wasn’t a menu of options.

After all of this figuring, so what?

The Twenty Percent

Franklin County is pretty evenly divided between the political parties.  But most of the Congressional Districts in Ohio are not.  They’ve been “gerrymandered” to heavily slant to one Party or the other, so that Jim Jordan’s 4^th District will always be Republican, and Joyce Beatty’s 3^rd will always be Democrat.  Since the “party outcome” of the general elections is pre-determined, the representative in those districts is determined in the majority party primary election.

And who votes in those primaries?  It’s the twenty percent, the most highly motivated “members” of the political parties.  And those most motivated tend towards the more extreme, less moderate voters.  In those “gerrymandered” districts, it is that high motivated twenty percent who determine the outcome.

Mark Sanford

It’s not just true here in Ohio.  In South Carolina the First District dilutes the Democratic town of Charleston by including the southern half of the town with the beaches and islands up and down the Atlantic Coast.  It stretches from the Georgia border, through Hilton Head and Edisto Islands, up through Folly Beach, Fort Sumter, and on up the vacation coast.  

For six years Republican Mark Sanford represented the First.  Sanford was a conservative Republican, but as a former Governor of the state, had a higher profile in Congress than most.  He was known for his strong stands against public debt, and his unusual (for a Republican) criticism of President Trump.  Sanford spoke out against the Muslim ban, and Trump’s frequent “untruths.”  Regardless, only four Republican Congressmen voted for Trump proposals more than Sanford did.

Public Criticism

But Sanford’s criticism was too much for the President.  In the 2018 primary election, Sanford had an “easy” opponent in Katie Arrington, a state representative.  But Arrington received a tremendous boost from a last minute Presidential tweet.  Trump called Sanford “very unhelpful” and “nothing but trouble” just hours before the polls opened.  

It was a primary election, and the “motivated few” chose the candidate.  In a surprise upset, Arrington won, 33,153 to Sanford’s 30,496.  When the “most motivated” voters got to pick, they followed the President’s advice.

From the Republican Party perspective, Arrington’s victory wasn’t helpful.  She wasn’t as strong a candidate as Sanford, and she was seriously injured in a car accident midway through the general election campaign.  In November, for the first time since 1981, a Democrat won the seat.

Profiles In Courage

But that didn’t do Mark Sanford any good.  And perhaps more importantly, it taught the rest of the Republican Congressional delegation a lesson: go against the President, and get “primaried” out of office.  Donald Trump could lay a heavy “Twitter” blow on any opponent:  either stay in line or face “the base” aligned against you.

As the actions of the President become even more outrageous, Congressmen confront the question of impeachment and removal from office.  The Democrats are filled with legitimate indignation, but most Republicans are silent. 

John F. Kennedy authored a book about taking principled political stands called Profiles in Courage.  He chose eight Congressmen or Senators, who stood up for what they believed, often to their own political detriment.  It began with John Quincy Adams leaving his (and his father’s) Federalist Party, and ends with Ohio Senator Robert Taft criticism of the Nuremburg Trials that costs him the 1948 Republican Presidential nomination. 

But the message politicians get from the book is this:  almost all of these courageous “profiles” damaged or destroyed their political careers.  The tale of Mark Sanford tells them the same thing.  

Perhaps silence is the best we can expect.

The Facts

President Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son.  He tied military aid that Ukraine desperately needs to “a favor.”  We know this, because he said it; it was on the modified transcript of his phone conversation with the President of Ukraine, issued by his own White House.  Who knows how much more the actual transcript would show.

President Trump then asked China to investigate Joe Biden and his son.  We don’t know what’s tied to that “favor,” though the US will begin negotiating with China over trade issues next week.  We do know that it happened, because he asked for it on the lawn of the White House, in front of the press corps.

The Spin

But when you listen to some Republican leaders, it sounds like what we all saw or read is not true.  Senator Marco Rubio thinks that Mr. Trump was simply “pulling the media’s leg” with the request from China.  And Congressman Jim Jordan seems to believe it was perfectly acceptable for Mr. Trump to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponent.

And of course, they all believe that the Mueller Report showed their was no “collusion” or “cooperation” between the Trump Campaign and Russia; and, of course, no obstruction.  This is despite Mueller’s statement that he only evaluated criminal conspiracy not “collusion,” and he wasn’t empowered to determine obstruction at all.

But it was on NBC’s Meet the Press that a real window into their “alternate world” was opened.  Host Chuck Todd interviewed Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Earlier in the week, Johnson revealed that he knew that Ukrainian military funding was being held up by the Administration, and “winced” when he found out about it.  Johnson has been a strong supporter of Ukraine’s battle against Russian incursions, but is also a strong supporter of the President.

Senator Johnson of Wisconsin

When Todd asked him about “wincing,” Johnson went on a minutes long tirade, shouting claims that the Ukrainians worked with the Clinton campaign against Trump in 2016.  He went on to bring up the “deep state conspiracy” led by former CIA Director John Brennan, and the text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.  When Todd tried to bring Johnson back to the “wince” question, he went on a different rant against the media.

After minutes of airtime, Todd said: “Senator, I have no idea why a (sic) Fox News conspiracy propaganda stuff is popping up here. I have no idea.  I have no idea why we’re going here.”

Johnson replied:  “Because this is underlying exactly why President Trump is upset and his supporters are upset with the news media.”

When Todd finally got back to the original question, and asked whether the President was holding up the military aid, Johnson stated: “When I asked the President about that, he completely denied it.  He adamantly denied it.  He vehemently and angrily denied it, he said I’d never do that.  So that’s the piece of the puzzle I’m here to report today.”

Then Johnson went onto present what he thought the President’s goal was:  “So unlike the narrative of the Press that President Trump wants to dig up dirt on his 2020 opponent, what he wants is he wants an accounting of what happened in 2016, who set him up.  Did this spring from Ukraine?”

CrowdStrike

Todd finally ended the interview, but it raised the question:  what are they talking about?  I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of news and discussion, read millions of words and written over half a million myself, but it is all “news to me” that the Ukraine was on “Hillary’s side.”  So to an “alternate world” we go, to figure out what the Hell they’re thinking.

The Democratic National Committee computers were hacked before the 2016 campaign.  Thousands of emails were stolen, and later published by Wikileaks and others to embarrass the DNC and the Clinton campaign.  The hack clearly impacted the results in the election of 2016.  The Mueller Investigation not only showed that Russian Military Intelligence, the GRU, hacked the computers and stole the emails, but actually brought indictments against multiple Russian officers.

CrowdStrike was the computer security company out of California, brought in by the DNC to investigate, clear the hacks, and secure the computers.   One of the actual hacked computer servers is on display today at the DNC headquarters, right next to the file cabinet that was opened during the 1972 Watergate break-in.  It’s not in Ukraine.

So here’s the theory.  The Ukrainian Government in 2016, under a different President and Party, were at war with Russia.  They wanted to make sure that the US would be against Russia and pro-Ukraine. “The Theory” states that CrowdStrike conspired with Ukrainian Intelligence to hack DNC computers, and then blame the Russians. (There’s a long article in the New York Times of 10/3/19.)

False Flag

Dmitri Alperovitch founded the CrowdStrike Company.  He came as a child to the US with his Ukrainian parents.  He is also a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, a research group in Washington DC.  There is also a Ukrainian oligarch, Viktor Pinchuk, who serves on the Atlantic Council international Board. 

According to George Eliason, a US journalist based in east Ukraine, Ukrainian Intelligence made a deal with CrowdStrike by contacting them through the Atlantic Council connection. 

The deal was to stage a “false flag” operation, with the hacking and email release done by CrowdStrike in Ukraine, but made to look like the Russian’s did it.  That way the US would continue to be inclined to support Ukraine over Russia.

That the Mueller Investigation found this to be complete fantasy is one thing.  But the fact that the entire operation was damaging to the Clinton campaign, the candidate more likely to support Ukraine as President, makes it even more unlikely.  

But the President and his cohorts, particularly Rudy Giuliani, are determined to take George Eliason’s word over Mueller’s, the US Intelligence and the “Five Eyes” intelligence agencies (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.)  It fits their narrative.  They insist that the “intelligence community” is hiding the “real” truth. It’s at the heart of the “Deep State” conspiracy.

So when the President asks for an investigation of CrowdStrike, he’s asking the Ukrainian Government to own up to their supposed transgressions, and absolve Russia from 2016 election intervention.  Even if it the “theory” were true, the Ukraine “confession” seems unlikely. It’s not in their best interest, and the theory isn’t true.

Ms. Alexandra Chalupa

The second concern that the President’s apologists’ raise has more basis in fact.  There is a former DNC staffer named Alexandra Chalupa who is the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants to the US.  She was doing legal work on her own behalf in Ukraine starting in 2014.  Over the next two years, she became a contact and source for government officials, reporters, and private operatives working in the Ukraine. She also passed information to her former employers at the DNC.

Paul Manafort worked as the political consultant to the Russian backed Ukrainian President, Victor Yanukovych.  When Yanukovych was forced out and fled the country in 2014, a journal was found that showed Manafort was paid millions of dollars under the table.  

Chalupa helped the journal make it to US media. Its revelation led Manafort to resign as Chairman of the Trump Campaign.  Ultimately, Special Counsel Mueller indicted Manafort with failure to pay taxes on those funds.  It was one of the charges that put him in jail for seven years.

Chalupa was helped by US Embassy personnel to connect reporters to Ukrainian Government officials.   Through the “Trump prism” that sounds nefarious. But at the time, the US Government policy supported the Ukrainians against Russia.   The US was “against” Yanukovych, and so against his employee, Manafort. But, according to Giuliani and Trump, this is proof of the “deep state” plot against the Trump campaign.

Their claim of proof that Democrats “colluded” with Ukraine is based on questions raised in a Politico article from January of 2017. It was written before Trump’s inauguration and five months before the beginning of the Mueller investigation.  

The Bidens

And, of course, there is the claim that Joe Biden intervened to have a Ukrainian Prosecutor fired. The conspiracy states he did that before charges could be filed against his son, Hunter, who was working in Ukraine.  

The facts are that as Vice President, Biden did intervene to have the Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, removed. Biden even threatened to withhold US funds unless Shokin was fired. This was because Shokin wasn’t investigating corruption in Ukraine, particularly Russian backed corruption. Biden not only represented the US view, but also the European Union. They all wanted Shokin gone.

 However, Shokin now states in a sworn affidavit that he was investigating Biden’s son. Rudy Giuliani waives the affidavits around in interviews on Fox News.  The problem is, Shokin wrote the self-serving affidavit as part of a Ukrainian court case to get his job back.  Other investigations by the Ukrainian government and the press show that Hunter Biden didn’t do anything illegal, and that Shokin wasn’t actually investigating his company, Burisma.

Back To Reality                      

CrowdStrike, Chalupa, Biden:  the three “pillars” of the Alternate World of Ukraine and Donald Trump.  Like any good propaganda, it has just enough of the smell of truth to make it seem real.  

But it requires this of the reader. They need to say that the FBI, the CIA, Robert Mueller, and almost all of the “real news” in the world are wrong. They need to believe a chosen few like Mr. Elaison have the “right” answer.  That is the essence of this conspiracy theory.   The scariest part: President of the United States believes this, and he sets the policy of the United States.  No wonder it seems like someone is in an alternate world.  

It’s either them, or us.

Fifth Avenue in New York City just south of Central Park has some of the most expensive stores in the world.  Armani, Dior, DeBeers, Omega, Gucci, Tiffany: they all are lined up just two blocks south of the Park and north of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.  In the middle of all that opulence with gold tinted windows is Trump Tower, the headquarters of the Trump Organization, and home of the President of the United States.

So when Donald Trump said, “…I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” he knew exactly where he would be standing:  right outside Trump Tower, aiming down the street towards St. Patrick’s.  

No Consequences

Trump believes that if he did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, he is protected from legal consequences.  What we didn’t know is that this would be Trump’s overarching philosophy:  as long as he acted in full public view, his core backers would stay with him and he was safe.  And it’s not just his supporters; he depends on the Attorney General, Bill Barr, to protect him from Federal investigation, and even intervene in state and local matters.

So on Thursday, on the White House lawn, in full view of the world, God, and MSNBC; Donald Trump asked China to investigate his potential opponent in 2020, Joe Biden.  He called for a foreign nation to intervene in the US elections, in direct violation of US campaign laws.

Trump can be unpredictable on many issues, but when he’s in trouble he always follows the same pattern.  It’s “double-down,” time. It’s as if he was saying, “if you think that was bad, watch this.”  He then proceeds to accuse someone else of doing exactly what Trump himself has done.  “Corruption, I know they’re corrupt, and you do too.”

In His Own Words

We know that President Trump linked desperately needed military aid to Ukraine to the Ukrainian government’s willingness to investigate Joe Biden and his son.  That’s in plain sight, in the summary transcript of his phone conversation with President Zelensky. It’s backed up by the text messages from Ambassador Volker.  

Trump was always doing this.  “Russia, if you’re listening, find Hillary Clinton’s thirty-thousand emails,” wasn’t a joke, it was asking “for a favor.”  The Russians attempted to do exactly that, within hours of Trump’s request. 

And when the President told George Stephanopoulos of ABC that he would accept foreign information in aid of his election campaign, in his own mind he was simply stating the facts.  That it would violate Federal Election law didn’t seem to be a problem.  He could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and do that.

When the President Does It

This isn’t a unique situation in American history.  We’ve had Presidents willing to break the law before.  Richard Nixon made the famous statement to interviewer David Frost,  “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. 

 Nixon acted on this, setting up a squad in the basement of the White House who broke into homes and offices, sabotaged political enemies, and organized disinformation campaigns.  One of the victims of Nixon’s “Plumbers” was the leading Democratic candidate for President in 1972, Senator Edmund Muskie.  As “Deep Throat” said in All the President’s Men:

“…they were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed–they wanted to run against McGovern, and look who they’re running against. They bugged, they followed people, false press leaks, fake letters, they canceled Democratic campaign rallies, they investigated Democratic private lives, they planted spies, stole documents, on and on…”

Nixon’s actions echo through today’s news.  The Trump team is trashing the man they see as their strongest opponent. Whether Joe Biden wins the Democratic nomination or not, his candidacy is damaged by Trump’s false allegations.  Trump has calculated that making Biden look dirty is worth the risk of his own impeachment.  As poker players say, “he’s all in.” 

Nixon ultimately left office in disgrace, caught by his own voice orchestrating the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.  But not every President committing crimes has suffered Nixon’s fate.

Plausible Deniability

Ronald Reagan committed much grander violations of law.  In what we now call the Iran-Contra Affair, He decided to ignore Congress by selling weapons to Iran in violation of US sanctions. He then used the sales profits to support insurgents in Nicaragua, also breaking the law. 

 Reagan insulated himself from the legal ramifications, making the term “plausible deniability” famous.  He wasn’t accused, but eleven of his subordinates were charged with various crimes. His National Security Advisor, John Poindexter, was convicted.

Many of those convicted were pardoned by Reagan’s successor, George HW Bush.  And here’s another echo in our present conflict, the Attorney General then who recommended those pardons is back today, Attorney General Bill Barr.

Constitutional Duty

The US Constitution states that the President can be impeached and removed from office for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  Most Americans think that “high crimes” are legal felonies, and they can be. But the Founding Fathers had a very different definition in mind.

 A “high crime” is a crime that impacts the state, the government, and the Constitution.  It could be a legal felony, but it could be a less legally defined action as well.  Abuse of power for personal gain might be difficult to prove under the US Criminal Code (though there is a statute addressing that action, 5 CFR § 2635.702) but it clearly is an action that threatens the government.  And this President has openly admitting to doing so.

The current President of the United States has used his power for personal gain. He is using government money, our taxpayer money, to promote his personal campaign.  The proof is in his words, and buttressed by growing evidence.  Just like a shooting on Fifth Avenue, it’s in plain sight.  

The House of Representatives will do their job, and bring the President up on charges.  Will the Republican controlled Senate act, or will they hide their eyes to what is plainly in view?

Would we really let him shoot a man on Fifth Avenue?  That is America’s question.

We’ve been talking and debating politics for weeks.  There is no doubt, whatever side of the impeachment issue you’re on – it’s intense!!  So let’s take a break, and reminisce about forty years ago.  Even that can be controversial. Let’s talk about – beating kids!!!!!

Back in the Day

I first started teaching in 1978, in a rural school in Licking County, Ohio.  Cornfields surrounded the high school; the joke was you had to push a cow aside to get a parking spot.  One of the big events of the fall was tractor day, when the seniors drove their tractors to school and paraded them in the parking lot.  A senior “prank” involved dumping dozens of live chickens in the school’s enclosed courtyard.  Each had a name tag, with the name of a faculty member written on it. We taught class looking out at the “chicken coop.”

Only a few years before I arrived, the school had been out of control.  There was little student discipline; freshmen took their lives in their hands even going to the restroom.  They hung from the hooks in the stall by their belts, kicking to get back down, or got wrapped in duct tape to the flagpole in front of the school.  (If you’ve ever watch the movie “Dazed and Confused” you’ll get the idea.)  The new Principal and Assistant came in to regain control.  They did it at the business end of a three foot wooden paddle.  

When I showed up as a student teacher, there wasn’t a whole lot of paperwork involved in discipline.  You gave a detention, fifteen-minutes before or after school.  Or, you the student went to the office, where they generally got paddled. One or two “swats” was standard, boy or girl, freshman or senior, it didn’t matter.  There was one senior who proudly had the record, fifty-four swats in a year.  I imagine he had callouses in the appropriate places.

Swats

Get in a fight:  two swats.  Cheat on a test:  one swat.  Skip school, a swat for each period you skipped.  Often students knew that they were going to get it when they came to school in the morning.  Some were better prepared than others.

The process was simple.  The student would go in the office, and the door would shut.  The principal would say, “is there anything in your pockets, empty them on the desk.”  Then the student would turn around, and place their hands on the desk, leaning slightly forward.  The paddling would begin.

Senior Skip Day

The principals weren’t interested in a “senior skip day.”  But the seniors were serious about it, and decided they were going out no matter what.  There was a problem for the track team members; they had to be in school for half a day to run in the meet that night.  So rather than skip the “skip day,” they came in at the end of fourth period.

The highly annoyed principals determined the punishment was one swat for every period missed.  Four swats:  my hurdler ruefully showed me the welts in the locker room before we went out on the track.  It didn’t seem to hurt his times though!

Equipment Failure

We were having a pep rally; the whole student body of over eight hundred kids stuffed int0 the five hundred person capacity gym.  We called it the “snake pit”.  The cheerleaders were on the stage getting everyone fired up, when one senior boy decided to have fun by going under the bleachers and poking up through the seats.

I was on duty, and dragged him down to the office.   During pep rallies there was usually one administrator left there: his job was to be “the goalie.” Kids misbehaving during the rally were sent down to him (or her) for punishment.  Thirty years later as Dean of Students, I often had that “goalkeeper” duty.

It was in the early 1980’s and paddling was growing more controversial.  So this time the assistant principal asked me to stay around and witness the punishment.  The boy followed the procedure, emptying his pockets on the desk, and “assumed the position” (thanks to Animal House for that catch-phrase of paddling.)  The Assistant Principal took the paddle back like Sabrina Williams going for a forehand winner, and swung.

The paddle hit, split in half, and fell to the floor.  The boy looked down, first left, than right, with a look of shocked surprise more than pain on his face.  The Assistant in his deep voice said, “take your wallet, you are dismissed”. The boy dashed from the room.  It was a good thing he left quickly; it was hard to keep a straight face as we picked up the paddle pieces.

Smack or Thud

The principals got pretty good at metering how hard they hit. They knew what a “good swat” sounded like.  The idea was a stinging “smack” that would remind the student about the cost of transgression.  Even the toughest senior guys left with tears in their eyes.

So when students attempted to pad themselves, the principals were usually aware.  It was the difference between “smack” and “thud.”  A “thud” would send a student to the office restroom, to get down to one layer of underwear.  It all sounds almost medieval now, but it was the standard process in those “ancient” times.

The Smart Kid

One boy decided he could beat the system.  He knew what was coming, and he went into the office with unusual confidence.  Wallet on the table, he placed his hands and faced the music.  The principal laid the first hit, a satisfying “smack.”  As he did, the boy’s t-shirt slid slightly above his belt, revealing something more than a Fruit of Loom label.

The principal asked, “…What is in your pants;” another question that couldn’t possibly be asked today.  Not smiling now, the boy reached back, and pulled out his “cheek chaps.”  He had cut off the top section of a western boot, split it, and placed leather “chaps” over each “cheek.”  The principal laughed, and gave the boy credit for creativity.  He then administered another swat, without leather protection.

We stopped beating students by the early 1980’s.  It did maintain discipline, but as the community became suburban, corporal punishment became unacceptable.  That made sense; if parents weren’t using corporal punishment at home it wasn’t going to work at school.  Besides, as an educator I never did understand how we could hit one student for hitting another.

But the concept has come down through time.  To that “beaten” generation of Watkins Memorial High School students, now well past fifty years old, they know what they need to “cover their ass.”  They need “cheek chaps.”

Agnew

Spiro Agnew, the Vice President of the United States resigned in disgrace. The former Governor of Maryland and Executive of Baltimore, he took bribes in each of his public offices.  The payments didn’t end when he moved into the White House; a man arrived once a month with a white envelope stuffed with cash.

It was October of 1973.  Nixon was trying to scratch and claw his way out of the Watergate scandal.  It must have been some relief to him for the spotlight to leave his Presidency. For just a moment, the glare was off him, even if it was on his own Vice President.

With Agnew gone, Democratic Speaker of the House Carl Albert was next in line for the Presidency.  But unlike any of his predecessors, Nixon had the opportunity to pick a new Vice President. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, was ratified in 1967, in response to the assassination of President Kennedy. It allowed the President to fill a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, with two-thirds vote confirmation from the House and the Senate.

Nixon’s Pick

Nixon, with the shadow of possible impeachment darkening the White House, got to choose the next Vice President.  He passed over the obvious strong Republican candidates, Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan.  Instead he chose a Congressman from Grand Rapids, Michigan, the House Minority Leader, Gerald Ford.

Why pick Jerry Ford?  Ford was a standout football player at Michigan, who turned down offers to go pro.  Instead, he became an Assistant Coach at Yale, and enrolled in the Law School there.  He graduated with a law degree and entered the Navy in World War II. After the war he returned to his hometown Grand Rapids to run for Congress.

Nixon knew that Ford would easily pass the two-thirds requirement in the House and Senate.  Ford wasn’t seen as a political obstacle for Republicans who wanted to run for President in 1976.  He would be a “place-holder” throughout the rest of the Nixon Administration.

He was a conservative Congressman, at the time known best for demanding the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren because of his liberal leanings.  President Lyndon Johnson summed up the general view of Ford:  “He’s a nice guy but he played too much football with his helmet off.”

And Nixon also knew that Ford was regarded by many as a “light-weight;” a man both parties in Congress would consider not qualified for the Presidency.  Ford was Nixon’s “trump card:” impeach and remove Nixon, and you get Ford.

It didn’t work.   The audiotapes showed Nixon planning and executing the Watergate cover-up were released under Supreme Court order. Congress had the smoking gun to remove him from the Presidency.  To avoid impeachment, and the loss of his retirement income, Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became the 38^th President of the United States.

Pence

Mike Pence has similarities to President Ford.  He too is from small town Columbus, Indiana, and graduated from Hanover College and Indiana University Law School.  Mike Pence was a radio and television talk show host who, after two unsuccessful bids, was elected to the US Congress.  He then served as a conservative Governor of Indiana, and considered a run for the Presidency in 2016.

Pence’s selection for Trump’s Vice President put a “mainstream” conservative Republican and devout Christian on the ticket.  It was just what Trump needed to contrast to his own cosmopolitan background.   But now, to Republicans concerned about impeachment by Trump’s extorting campaign information from the President of Ukraine, Pence might offer some welcome relief.

Trump’s Plan

The White House is executing a strategy to counter that possibility.  We already knew that Vice President Pence met with the President of Ukraine soon after Trump’s fateful phone conversation where he asked for information about the Biden’s.  We also know that Pence explicitly tied US military aid funding to “cleaning up corruption.”

But now the White House has leaked that a Pence aide was on the phone with Trump during the conversation, and that the “summary transcript” of the conversation went into Pence’s briefing materials before his meeting.  Pence knew, or should have known, that Trump demanded information on Biden.  That means that Pence was the one who made the “quid pro quo” offer for that information out in the open.

The White House has tied Pence into the scandal.  Their strategy seems to be, if Congress were going to impeach Trump, then they would have to impeach Pence as well.

A Bridge Too Far

The Democratic House of Representatives may be faced with multiple candidates for impeachment.  The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General:  all seem up to their necks in abusing the powers of their office.  But if the Democratic House were to impeach ALL of them, then President Trump could convince his base that it’s a “coup d’état” with the Democrats trying to throw out the entire Administration.  

But it’s not just his base that would be influenced.  The Republican controlled US Senate actually decides whether the President, or the others should be removed from office.  If all of the Democrats and Independents there vote for removal, it would still take twenty Republican Senators to join in.  

And President Trump would tell them:  remove me and you must remove Mike Pence.  Remove the President and Vice President, and the Speaker of the House becomes the President of the United States.

It’s even better than Nixon’s strategy.  If Trump and Pence are a package, removing them makes Democrat Nancy Pelosi the President of the United States.   Regardless of what Trump and Pence have done, that would be a “bridge too far” for Republican Senators.  

Trump will bind himself to Pence, making sure they share the same fate.  Then he will dare the House Democrats to impeach them both.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.  I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other  – Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, – 6/16/1858

…. If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.”  – Pastor Robert Jeffress,  – (re-tweeted by President Trump, 9/29/2019)

A War over Slavery

In the 1850’s the United States became irrevocably divided over slavery.  The Southern economy was based on growing cotton.  The problem:  growing cotton drained the soil of nutrients and after decades of growth fields would no longer produce good crops.  To continue to profit from cotton, growers had to move to new ground. 

The Southern “model” of cotton growing was based on massive amounts of manual labor.  In the 1850’s South, that meant enslaved black people.  So for the South it was simple:  cotton growers needed to expand into new territories, and they needed to take slavery with them.  

In the North there were Abolitionists who demanded that slavery end.  But the vast majority of Northerners weren’t that radical.  They were more interested in slavery staying in the South, and not expanding into the new territories opening up in Kansas, Nebraska, and the rest of the West. 

So the argument for the majority of the nation wasn’t Slave or Free, but rather expand slavery or not.  

The Law Takes a Side 

The South maintained a fierce balance of votes in the United States Senate.  That power enabled the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, a law requiring all citizens, including those in the North, to support efforts to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners.  This forced Northerners to directly participate in slavery, essentially expanding the rights of slavers into the North. 

In 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It was a novel about the conditions of enslaved people, and their frustrated attempts to escape.  Even though it was fiction, the book caught on as a “gospel” description of slave life. The South saw it as Abolitionist propaganda (what we would call Fake News today) and multiple “Anti-Tom” books were published lauding the “gentle plantation life.”  To the North, that was Fake News as well.

The United States was further polarized by the violence in Kansas between Free and Slave forces, and literally hundreds of newspapers espousing their particular side.  Radical Abolitionists took extreme actions, with John Brown attempting to arm the enslaved people.  The US Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were property, with no civil rights, even in Free states.  There was no room for compromise, and with the election of a “no-expansion” Republican candidate in Lincoln, war became inevitable.

History Rhymes

It all should sound vaguely familiar to the “Trump World” of today.  A United States Senate and US Supreme Court that stand as bastions of conservative power.  Information published as “news” but with little relationship to “facts.”  People picking their “news” based on their political views, rather than sharing a common basis of knowledge.

And now, a President placed under impeachment inquiry, actually suggesting that his removal might cause a Civil War.  

We are a nation divided.  Are we on the brink of a division, a civil war?

Red and Blue

A civil war wouldn’t be as simple in 2020 as it was in 1860.  While we are a nation divided, we are not split in convenient geographic patterns.  Free and Slave in 1860 was pretty clear, but Red and Blue today are not.  Ohio is a Red state, but in 2016 almost 44% of the state voted Blue.  Massachusetts is a solid Blue state, but 31% voted Red.  

We are a nation divided, but we are urban, suburban, exurban and rural rather than North and South.  And, of course, we are a nation divided by race and ethnicity as well.  Part of our current great divide is the “browning” of America.   “White people” will no longer be a majority in the next twenty years.  Many of them feel incredibly threatened by that fact.

Reality today is that Donald Trump may be impeached, but unless there is a sea-change in public sentiment, the Senate will never reach a two-thirds vote to remove him.  And even if he were removed, Mike Pence, a perhaps even more conservative Republican, would become President for the short time remaining until the 2021 inauguration.  Would there be a civil war over that?

The real question is, could the divide created by Donald Trump turn into some form of physical violence?   Much like John Brown at Harper’s Ferry, there likely will be some who determine that if Trump doesn’t remain President, somehow the Constitution was thwarted.  That will be true even if actual Constitutional processes: impeachment and removal, or election, are followed.  But most will recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution. Even if their “news sources” screams something different, they will stand with the red, white and blue of the United States, not the Red or Blue of ideology.  

I hope.

Adults in the Room

Last week, we discovered that the President of the United States was using federal money to “leverage” foreign nations for help in his 2020 campaign.  To paraphrase House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, “…you want money to defend yourself against Russia, I need you to do me a favor.  Give me dirt on Joe Biden.”

The evidence of Trump’s conversation really isn’t in dispute.  The White House itself provided a summary of the transcript with him saying it.  They wrote the summary themselves. It will be fascinating to see the actual transcript, currently buried on a super-secret, super-secure computer normally used for America’s highest security operations.  It’s not likely to be more favorable to the President.

And in the past week, we discovered that the Trump Administration is even more deeply involved than simply the President doing his lousy “Godfather” imitation to President Zelensky.  

The three highest ranking Administration members aren’t “the adults in the room”.   Vice President Pence, Attorney General Barr, and Secretary of State Pompeo are all being dragged into the abyss ofBreitbart backed nonsense.  They are focused on re-writing the history of the 2016 election, and looking to somehow rig 2020.

The highest officers in the American Government are spending their time investigating the farthest alt-right conspiracy theories. While they’re doing that, they are trashing international confidence in the United States, and engaging in the kinds of acts that could put their jobs and careers on the block along with the President’s.

Pressuring Ukraine

There are two different alt-right schemes supposedly going on in Ukraine.  The first is the Administration’s attempt to trash former Vice President Joe Biden, the “proximate cause” of the impeachment inquiry.  We know that Trump himself was pushing for damaging information.  And we know that Rudy Giuliani, acting as a surrogate for the President, has been pushing that narrative on the Ukrainian government for months.  

But Vice President Pence has a piece of this story as well.  He met with Zelensky in September, discussing US aid to Ukraine.  He presence was also used as leverage on the new Ukrainian government, with Pence cancelling his planned attendance at the Ukrainian inauguration in May.  Secretary of Energy Rick Perry was sent in his place.

Ukraine is not just a possible source for dirt on Biden.  In the alt-right world, Ukraine is the alternate site for election hacking in 2016.  The story goes, that despite the exhaustive findings of the Mueller Report, the actual hacking came from Ukraine and was backed by the Democratic Party, liberal bête noire George Soros, and, of course, Hillary Clinton.  

Barr’s Revenge

After Mueller indicted fourteen Russian operatives and described down to the street address in St. Petersburg how election interference occurred, the facts seemed set.  But the Trump Administration, led by Giuliani and Attorney General Bill Barr, are determined to re-write the narrative, leaving Russia out.  Russian leader Vladimir Putin told Mr. Trump he wasn’t involved at the Summit in Helsinki, and Trump, Giuliani and Barr are intent on proving him right.

Attorney General Barr is currently in Italy talking to their intelligence leaders.  His goal seems to be to find a “deep-state” conspiracy in US Intelligence to stop the Trump candidacy.  He has already pressured the Australian government for information, and has two other on-going Justice Department investigations looking at the issue.  US Attorney John Durham leads one, analyzing the FBI counter-intelligence investigation of Trump campaign operatives.  Inspector General Michael Horowitz leads another, looking at the same issue.

It’s all about Carter Page, his contacts with known Russian agents, and a FISA warrant. It also involves George Papadopoulos’s drunken conversation with the Australian Ambassador, and the more than one hundred contacts the Trump Campaign had with Russia.  But it’s mostly about the fact that the FBI dared to investigate a campaign for President that was apparently colluding with Russia.  That campaign won the Presidency, and the levers of power that comes with it.

Barr tries to exact revenge for the Trump Campaign. Pence quietly pressures Ukraine to “play along”. What about the State Department?

Enabling Trump

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is a man of acknowledged brilliance and ambition.  He sees himself as the Republican candidate for President in 2024.  But surprisingly, Pompeo was on the call, listening to President Trump pressure Zelensky for cooperation.  

But it makes sense.  Giuliani states that he has had help from the State Department for the two years he “investigated” Ukraine.  He specifically got help from the US Special Envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, as well as the US Embassy in Kyiv.  Volker resigned this week.  

The President of the United States withheld US taxpayer dollars to extort information from Ukraine, information to further his own 2020 campaign.  But he didn’t act alone.  The Vice President and the Secretary of State actively participated in pushing Ukraine.  And the Attorney General is seeking revenge for imagined 2016 affronts.  

Trump isn’t acting alone.  The “adults in the room” are enabling this renegade President.

Three Years Ago

On Wednesday, November 9^th, 2016:  America changed.  That morning we woke up to the reality of Donald Trump as President of the United States.  Whether that result filled you with joy or horror, it definitely marked a sea change in American life.

Americans knew little about Russian interference, Stormy Daniels, or social media manipulation on that morning.  And we didn’t know what influence the more “mainstream” Republicans would have on President Elect Trump.  It did seem that the Trump Campaign was almost as surprised by the victory as the rest of us.

We watched Barack Obama follow the best traditions of the United States. He welcomed the new leader and his wife to the White House,  following the example of John Adams.   The second President and his Federalist Party lost control of the national government in the election of 1800. He peacefully turned over the “keys” to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, and took a carriage back to Boston.  It was a triumph of nation over ideology.  

Adams, of course, did his best to keep the Federalists relevant, packing the Federal Courts with his judges. President Trump and Mitch McConnell are following that tradition, doing everything they can to fill the judiciary with “their” appointees.  Whatever else happens, America will have that legacy of the Trump Administration for the next thirty years.

Trump World

We are now almost three years later.   

We discovered that Donald Trump works and lives in a chaotic environment. He rotates advisors in and out of the White House at a whim and compulsively speaks to the nation through 280 characters on Twitter.   He allows an extremist view to hold sway in his Administration, led first by campaign advisor Steve Bannon, then continued by another advisor with little experience, Stephen Miller.  America has abandoned much of its world leadership under Trump, turning its back and becoming coldly dispassionate under the guise of “America First.”

President Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry from the House of Representatives.  It seems likely that in the next few months, he will be impeached, and the charges sent to the US Senate for judgment.  Trump’s stalwart ally, Majority Leader McConnell, already has determined that the Constitution demands a Senate trial.

Just This Week

And with that, the absolute craziness began.  Here’s what we’ve seen in just this past week.

• The White House released a damning summary of the President’s conversation with Ukraine’s leader. If that’s the summary, what does the actual transcript contain?

• Rudy Giuliani, the President’s private lawyer, tried to change the subject from Trump’s actions to former Vice President Biden’s; loudly claiming that the news media is refusing to cover his allegations.

• Stephen Miller, claimed a “Deep State” conspiracy created the “Whistleblower’s Complaint,” and demanded that Trump himself is a whistleblower of Democratic corruption. After “three years” in Federal service, he “knows.”

• Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, disregarded the actual language of the summary, misreading it to further his own narrative of Trump’s innocence.

• Republican leaders, from Jim Jordan to Steve Scalise, tell us: don’t read the summary, don’t believe you lying eyes; believe us.

• The President of the United States re-tweeted a message claiming that his removal will result in Civil War.

• Trump also suggested in his own tweet, that the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, be arrested for Treason.

• And, of course, Russia is using social media to push their own agenda in support of Donald Trump.

Buckle Up

This week the furor will only grow louder, with further evidence likely to leak from the White House, and further testimony in the House Intelligence Committee.  How serious is this?  The “whistleblower” is now under Federal protection, a $50,000 “bounty” on his/her head from the President’s supporters.  

And should the whistleblower testify to the committee, who believes that Devin Nunes, ranking minority member, will keep the identity secret from the President?  Congressman Nunes has proven in the past his willingness to do whatever is necessary to aid Mr. Trump, it’s hard to imagine he will keep this secret.

Meanwhile Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association, quietly went to the White House to get his own “quid pro quo”. He offered the President millions of NRA dollars to fight impeachment, in return for Trump’s support to stop any new gun legislation.  

Chaos will be the Trump strategy, a chaos that he will then blame on the Democrats.  It seems clear that the President of the United States will be impeached.  While conviction and removal still seems unlikely, even acquittal in the Senate won’t end the craziness.

It will simply fold into the election of 2020.  Buckle-up, we’ve got a long way to go.

White House Facts

It’s pretty clear.  The President wanted an investigation of Joe Biden and his son.  He wanted it badly enough, that he was willing to withhold funds from Ukraine, funds that were desperately needed to fend off Russian advances in the ongoing war. 

It isn’t clear what the Ukraine was willing to do, but whatever they decided, who could blame them.  They are between a literal rock, Russia, and a hard place, Trump.  Even though they’ve investigated Biden and found nothing, they certainly would do so again to survive.  And this time, they’ll find something.  It’s what Trump wanted.

The evidence is plain, and provided by the White House.  We have a “summary” of his conversation with President Zelensky, and we have the “Whistleblower’s Complaint,” also provided by them.  If this is the stuff they willingly provided, how bad must the actual transcript be?

He Can’t Refuse

The President of the United States got on the phone with a foreign leader and asked for a favor.  The favor was to get dirt on his enemies, to help him politically in the next election.  The “quid pro quo” was the money for Ukrainian defense, money already approved by the United States Congress.

He’s asked for favors before.  Remember that first call to the President of Mexico, when Trump begged for him to pay for “THE WALL?”  The difference there, at least to our knowledge, wasn’t there wasn’t the offer of a quid pro quo, he wasn’t dangling the money of the government of the United States. He was trying to fulfill an ill conceived campaign promise, not get outside help to trash an opponent. 

But there was Trump, talking to Zelensky, making “…an offer he can’t refuse.”  It would make the plot for a great comedy on Netflixs if it wasn’t true, sort of the Sopranos meets Vice.

Smoke and Mirrors

Don’t get lost in the smoke.  There’s already a lot of it out there.  Giuliani is trying to “flip the script,” claiming he’s he “real whistleblower.”  His fantasy:  that Biden intervened to protect his son, that the 2016 election interference was from Ukraine, not Russia, that Hillary Clinton’s email server is somewhere in Kyiv, and Ukraine was working for Clinton, not Russia for Trump.  

Of course, the Mueller Report states the opposite.  But the “big lie” theory of the Trump campaign continues with Giuliani at the lead:  the bigger the lie, the better.  And half of Fox News is backing the play, with Hannity and Carlson, and particularly the “Giuliani whisperer,” Ingraham, all chiming in.  Oddly the other half, Chris Wallace and Shep Smith, are calling out their comrades in “Foxiness.”  They obviously can’t stomach the lies.

Even the “above the fray” Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has a hand in this.  He ordered another investigation of the Clinton emails, this time threatening anyone who emailed Clinton on her private server from the State Department. The Department is finding them “culpable” for sending classified emails to a private server. Those emails weren’t classified until long after the fact of their delivery, but that doesn’t matter to Pompeo.

For the personnel involved, it may mean a tough time renewing security clearances.  But the real purpose is to stir more mud up for 2020.  If they can’t chant “lock him up” then back to the old favorite, “lock her up.”

Pelosi’s Plan

Speaker Pelosi’s strategy is clear.  Put a simple, one part impeachment article on the floor of the House of Representatives. There is so much, Russia, taxes, emoluments:  but this is the one clear act; extortion, withholding the money, and hiding the evidence.  It’s simple, it’s easy to understand, and it’s immediate.   There is already a majority in the House ready to vote for it; they are waiting for the process of “educating the American people.”

Educating the American people is really a political term.  By taking the time and effort to hold hearings, listen to testimony and present evidence, the House hopes to win support from citizens, who will then hold their Senators accountable.

Senate Math

Actual impeachment is bringing charges against, in this case, the President of the United States.  It is the US Senate with the power to adjudicate those charges.  The President can be removed and barred from running for office by two-thirds majority vote, sixty-seven Senators.  

There are forty-seven Democrats (with two independents) and fifty-three Republicans.  Assuming all forty-seven Democrats would vote to remove the President, including Joe Manchin from West Virginia; it would take twenty Republicans to convict.

It seems an impossible task, convincing twenty Republicans Senators to vote against President Trump.  And it may well be.  But former Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona let out the “dirty little secret” of the Senate Republican caucus. Flake estimates that thirty-five of the fifty-three would vote to remove the President, except for the political ramifications. 

The greatest fear for most Republican US Senators is a primary challenge from the right.  Primary voters are dominated by the extremes of the Party, in the GOP, by Trump supporters.  Twenty-one Republican Senate seats are up in 2020.  Ten of those seats are considered “at risk,” vulnerable to a strong Democratic challenger.  But all of those seats would be open to a primary challenge from the right, if they supported removing the President.  

Profiles in Courage

If the House presents a compelling case for removal to the American people, the Senators are left with a difficult choice.  They could vote their conscience, as we know from Jeff Flake they actually have.  Senators could vote to remove a President who is running US foreign policy like an unprofessional Mafia don.  

They could do so, and risk the fallout of a primary challenge from the right, backed with the full Twitter power of the (disgraced) President and his allies.  

Or they could choose political expediency, and stand with Trump. But that creates a problem too, at least for the ten at most risk.  If the American people recognize their lack of political courage, will they be able to win a general election and keep their seat?  

Courage or Expediency:  they must pick their poison.  

John Dean was the White House Counsel for Richard Nixon.  In the early days of the Watergate crisis, Nixon ordered Dean to investigate what happened.  After Dean concluded his study, he came back to Nixon and told him, “Mr. President, there is a cancer on your Presidency.”  Dean told Nixon that his closest advisors were involved in covering up the felonies committed in the Watergate break-ins and other actions.

Planning the Crime

Dean knew exactly who was involved in the cover-up, because he was part of the planning .  But he also realized that he was being set up as the “scapegoat” by Nixon’s other advisors.  Nearly a year after the break-in itself, Dean testified to the Senate Watergate Committee.  He laid out the entire depth of the White House involvement.  It took the Watergate Committee, and later the House Judiciary Committee another year to gather enough evidence to conclude that the President himself was leading the cover-up.

The essence of the Watergate Affair was that Nixon agreed to organize a group to commit illegal activities within his White House, called the “Plumbers.”  When the 1972 campaign began, many of the “Plumbers” moved into his Re-Election Committee.  Nixon knew what they were doing, and personally orchestrated the cover-up of their crimes.

Bugging the White House

Richard Nixon was deeply concerned about how his Administration would be seen by history.  He wanted to control “who wrote his story” (thanks again, Hamilton.) Nixon wanted to write it himself, and he wanted the best “notes” about what happened.  What better way, he thought, than to record the conversations in the Oval Office.  He had a taping system set up.  Nixon “bugged” himself.

Once the taping system became known, the Congressional Committees knew they could get the answers to all of their questions from the tapes.  “What did Nixon know and when did he know it,” was knowable, it was recorded.  The legal battle than moved to the Courts. Congress demanded the tapes, and Nixon claimed Executive privilege.

Executive Privilege

The President of the United States has wide latitude to keep the internal workings of the White House secret.  It’s reasonable, the President should be able to talk freely to his staff, world leaders, and others, and receive their advice without it becoming public information.  Those conversations are generally privileged, exempted from Congressional and Court subpoenas and testimonies.

There are exceptions.  In the Watergate case, the “crime/fraud” exception was used.  It’s simple:  if the conversation involves the participants committing a crime, then it isn’t privileged.  In 1974 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the White House tapes weren’t privileged because they demonstrated guilt of crime (United States v Nixon).  It was a few weeks later that Nixon’s own voice planning the cover-up, served as proof of his guilt.  Nixon soon resigned to avoid impeachment and conviction.

The Trump Administration has expanded the theory of Executive Privilege to include almost anyone who communicates with the President.  Even those not employed by the White House are restrained by White House orders. 

Opening the Door

Democrats have been stymied.  They knew that the President and his campaign committed illegal acts, but were unable to prove it.  Even a full Justice Department investigation led by the venerable Robert Mueller failed. It showed criminal actions, but couldn’t prove criminality.  In his Report, Mueller admitted that he was blocked by the silence of Trump’s compatriots.

It took the “Whistleblower Complaint” to open the door to Trump’s White House.  The complaint is not a first hand account of illegal actions by the Administration.  It’s much like John Dean’s testimony:  an internal investigation of the President’s actions to extort information about a political opponent from a foreign nation, in exchange for US aid.  It shows that, like Nixon, the cancer on the Presidency is the President himself.

Dean’s testimony in Watergate laid out the investigative path for the Committees. The “Complaint” does the same for the House Committees today.  With the power of an impeachment investigation, and the crime/fraud exception, they should be able to get the evidence and testimony they need to prove Donald Trump’s actions.  

Battling for Evidence

There are likely to be the same fights, Court battles over privilege.  One obvious point of contention:  the actual transcript of Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine.  Right now Congress only has the White House summary, though that’s bad enough for Trump.  The transcript is stored on the “super secret, super secure” computer used for our most secret military operations.  It isn’t supposed to be there, but White House lawyers (like John Dean) determined that Trump’s words were so bad they needed to “hide it.”  That itself is evidence that they knew the conversation showed criminal acts.

It took a year after Dean’s testimony to reach the final stages of Nixon’s Presidency.  Now, forty-six years later, information moves much faster, and President Trump’s transgressions are perhaps simpler.  The question:  did Donald Trump jeopardize national security, try to extort campaign aid from a foreign nation, and use the funds of the United States to do it?  The answers to that, will determine the fate of Donald Trump.

For many years I taught American Government to high school seniors.  It was a great time to teach about how America worked; the students were just reaching “adulthood,” gaining the right to vote, and developing interest in national affairs.  In education, we call that the “teachable moment”. It’s the nexus of interest and intellectual capacity that makes it “easy” to learn and teach.

Teachable Moment

One of the “special” events for those seniors was going to the Franklin County (Columbus) Courthouse to watch trials.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees a public trial; the students from Pataskala, Ohio could sit in any courtroom and see “the law” at work.  It gave them a real taste of what “justice” was like, and it also demonstrated how many criminal cases revolved around drug use. The excursion was an annual event for years.

And, we went to Spaghetti Warehouse afterwards to “debrief” and consume as much pasta and bread as humanly possible.

The “field trip” was scheduled in the spring, and most of my students were already eighteen, legal adults.  Regardless, the law makes no distinction about how old you have to be to sit in a public court.  With sixty kids in the building, we would “scout out” where the different trials were going on, and divide up.  We didn’t want to overwhelm any one courtroom.

The kids were well aware of their role as observers.  They weren’t to speak, or in any way disrupt the courtroom:  slip in quietly, watch for a while, slip out just a quietly.  I wandered through the halls, checking in on everyone, and directing students to different cases.  When there were breaks in the trials, the judges and lawyers would often engage the students in conversations. They asked why they were there, and discussed the cases and law with them.  One prosecutor took students into a conference room to show them the photographic evidence. It was a great experience for all.

Called to the Bar

So I was more than surprised when a student stopped me in the hall, and breathlessly informed me that a judge was demanding that the “teacher in charge” appear in her courtroom.  I immediately went, and found five students sitting in the back.  I asked them what happened. They said they walked in and sat down, and the judge looked up, pounded the gavel, and recessed the case.  She then demanded to know where they were from and what they were doing in her court. After they explained, she demanded that they “get your teacher”.  

The judge called me to “the bar”.  Lawyers in the case stood at their tables, and the judge began to grill me.  The judge didn’t think these “kids” should be in her courtroom (those students actually were all legal adults). The case was a rape case, and she didn’t think it was appropriate. She demanded that I remove them at once and keep all of my students from her courtroom. If I didn’t, she’d hold me in contempt and throw me in jail.

The lawyer from the defense table leaned in to whisper in my ear.  “Tell her about the Sixth Amendment, tell her it’s a public trial, I’ll defend you!!”  I whispered back, “I’m not going to jail today, thanks.”  I spent the rest of the day sitting outside the courtroom, keeping kids away.

No Appeal

It wasn’t legal, and it wasn’t right. But she was a judge in her courtroom, and she had the ultimate power of contempt: she could put me in jail, fine me, or both.  I would have no recourse, no “appeal”.  The judge even went so far as to call my Superintendent that afternoon and try to have me fired.   She was later removed and disbarred for her abusive behavior from the bench (not just to me, but pretty much everyone who appeared in her court). But it wouldn’t have helped that day, when a teacher from Pataskala worried about ending up in the Franklin County jail.  

If a Common Pleas Court Judge in Franklin County, Ohio, has that power of contempt, how can the US Congress have less? 

Contempt for Congress 

The House of Representatives is opening impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States. They are exercising their power and duty under the Constitution of the United States. The House acts as the “Grand Jury,” determining whether the President should be brought to trial in front of the Senate.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives also have a Constitutional duty of “oversight”.  They are required to see that the laws they passed are executed correctly.  To do that, they have to be able to get information from the Executive Branch, to get facts and question those that are “executing” the laws.  

This has normally been done as a matter of course.  The Executive Branch agencies and the White House routinely sent information to the Committees of the House, and the Secretaries and Administrators came to Congress with answers and information.  Only when there was a serious impasse between the two, did Congress issue subpoenas demanding information.  And when that happened, the Executive Branch almost always complied.

But now in the Trump Administration, the President has determined that they will provide little or no information to Congress. His appointees seem to take some “pride” in stonewalling committees, in failing to have information on hand, and in refusing to answer questions.  Even his chief “law enforcer,” Attorney General Barr, refused to respond clearly, and even failed to appear for the House of Representatives. We can only expect that with impeachment on the table, it will get worse.

Enforcing Power

If a subpoena is ignored, Congress has four ways to enforce it.  First, they can use the power of  “the purse,” and refuse to fund that portion of the Executive Branch until cooperation is provided.  While that is a good long-term strategy, it takes years to alter budgets, and requires cooperation from both sides of the Capitol.  The Democratic House is less likely to agree with the Republican Senate, so using purse strings is difficult.

The Congress can file criminal contempt charges with the Department of Justice, demanding criminal sanctions.  That’s fine, except a contemptuous Attorney General controls the Justice Department.  It’s very unlikely that the charges will ever be pressed, or subpoenas enforced.

Congress can also go to Court in a civil action, suing for contempt.  That works, but it’s time consuming, and with a Federal Judiciary now packed with Trump appointees, it no longer is a certainty.

Besides, filing criminal charges or going to Court puts the Legislative Branch in a position of depending on the Executive or Judicial Branches to enforce their powers.  In order to exercise legislative powers, the Congress needs to have a way do so on their own, without depending on another branch: and they do.

Inherent Contempt

Since 1818 the Congress has had the power of  “inherent contempt.”  Like that judge in the Franklin County Court, the Congress can take a person into custody, hold them in “jail” for a period of time, or fine them.  They can do it without recourse to the Courts, or to the Department of Justice.  It’s immediate, and it doesn’t even require the cooperation of both Houses.  The House and the Senate both have the same power as that judge:  to demand cooperation, obedience, and information.

It’s been over a century since a House of Congress has used the “inherent contempt” power.  Even through the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, Congress was able to maintain cooperation with the Justice Department and Courts.  But that’s not happening now.

A Cell in the Basement

Corey Lewandowski sat in front of the House Judiciary Committee and tried to make a mockery of their proceedings.  He was openly belligerent, refused to answer questions, and used the proceedings as the opening gambit in his own Senate candidacy.  Many viewers wanted to reach through the TV screen and slap him upside the head.  

Even more significantly, the White House and Justice Department ordered the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community to violate the “Whistleblower Law,” and withhold a specific report from the House Intelligence Committee.  While that report may finally be turned over, we still aren’t sure whether its the full version or a White House edited one. And this isn’t the first time the Administration ignored the law: the White House ordered the Commissioner of the IRS to keep the President’s tax returns from a Committee Chairman.  

It’s time for Congress, and specifically the House of Representatives, to use its “muscle.”  They need to enforce those powers themselves, and demand the respect that the Constitution requires.  

There’s a nice room underneath the Capitol building.  It was designed to be the crypt for George Washington’s coffin, but he was never buried there.  The crypt room was used to house the “Lincoln Catafalque” the stand that displayed Lincoln’s coffin. But that is now been moved to the new Visitor’s Center, so the room’s empty. 

The crypt has a barred door:  it would make a perfect jail cell.   

This essay is about the nuts and bolts of a Trump Impeachment. But before we dive into the details, take a moment: we lived through history yesterday. It’s an important turning point, however it all turns out. To quote Robert Kennedy: “there’s an old Chinese curse: may he live in interesting times. Like it or not, we live in interesting times.”

Yesterday, Tuesday, September 24^th, 2019 is a new important day in history.  On that day the majority party in the House of Representatives made it clear that they are investigating the President of the United States, for the purpose of considering whether to remove him from office.  

The Process Begins

The headline in the Washington Post was “House opens Impeachment Inquiry:” carefully chosen words.  The President was not impeached.  The House didn’t pass a resolution of impeachment, it didn’t even vote on a resolution to investigate.  But despite all of the “word games,” history was made yesterday.  For only the fourth time in the United States, a President faces the possibility of impeachment.  Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, all were here; now Donald Trump faces that possibility.

What the Transcript Shows

The President is playing “word games” as well.  After originally denying it, he now acknowledges that he asked the President of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, several times, in a phone conversation.  But, the President says, he did not hold almost half a billion dollars of US aid money back to coerce Ukraine into doing it.

In fact, Mr. Trump will soon release the transcript of the conversation.  It will surely show that there was no “quid pro quo,” no offer of “…a deal he couldn’t refuse.”  The “mantra” of “transcript” was echoed by many of Mr. Trump’s supporters.  “We will see the transcript, and then we’ll know,” drawled Louisiana Senator John Kennedy on MSNBC, highlighting it as the pivotal piece of evidence.

The “word game” here:  draw a big circle around the transcript.  Make the entirety of the evidence inside of that circle, the transcript, and everything outside of the circle NOT important.  That seems far too simple, we know that the President could have communicated the money part of the deal in multiple different ways.  For example, Mr. Giuliani, acting as the President’s lawyer and de facto representative, was communicating with Ukraine.  So was the Secretary of State, Mr. Pompeo.  

The Actual Report  

The “whistleblower” report is not available.  Neither is the “whistleblower.”  While we know that the phone conversation may have been the “final straw” for the “whistleblower,” we also know that the report details a pattern of disturbing Presidential behavior.  The House of Representatives will look at the entirety of the evidence, not just the pieces within the President’s circle.

But the talking point for the President’s supporters:  the transcript “proves” something.  And, don’t forget, Joe Biden.  He needs to be investigated. He might have been corrupt.  We’ve got to know, and we’ve got to say it over and over and over. 

The White House is sure to “adapt” the transcript, and perhaps the “whistleblower report” to meet their political needs.  We know what Attorney General Barr’s summary of the Mueller Report did, months before the actual report showed it to be misleading and, in some cases, an outright lie.  A “summary” of the “whistleblower” report may be the same.  

And, for historical purposes, the transcript may be redacted as well.  Perhaps there will be an eighteen-minute gap accidentally inserted, just for old times sake.

Winning the Moment

The Trump “game” is to hold onto the Republicans, particularly in the Senate.  Right now most Republican Senators are playing “possum,” saying little other than they are waiting to see the documents.  They are scared:  the President really has gone too far this time, and if the evidence shows it, Senators will be faced with accepting a criminal, or standing against Trump.

The “word games” are to win the moment, much as the Barr summary did.  The narrative right now is that the President withheld funds from Ukraine to get them to investigate Biden.  If the Trump team can shape the information they release to regain the story, refocusing it on Biden and Ukrainian corruption rather than their own, then they can hold their supporters.

Empaneling the Grand Jury

But the Democrats are playing a “word game” too.  Speaker Pelosi says we are moving on impeachment, but the reality is that the actions of the House of Representatives today aren’t very different than they were yesterday. 

 Much as I hate to admit it, Republican Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, had it right.  Democrats don’t seem to know what they’re doing: impeachment, investigation, or just re-hashing old arguments.  The Democrats are going to have to show a more focused process to win the “word game,” and more importantly, the confidence of the American people.

The Speaker says Democrats are now opening an impeachment inquiry.  The judicial analogy: a Grand Jury has been empaneled.  Now the facts will be presented to that Grand Jury, and ultimately, they will either bring charges, or return a “no bill.”

And then we’ll know if the words are a game, or for real.  

Postscript – the summary of the transcript was just released. In it, the President brings up the term “Crowd Strike.” That term is a code word for an alt-right theme that the Mueller Report is wrong, and that the Russians didn’t hack the DNC emails. The theory states that someone in Ukraine did it and the “Crowdstrike” computer security company working for the DNC made the whole Russia hacking up to cover their errors.