Category: Uncategorized

Who’s a Card Carrying Member?

Let me be clear.  Since the day I took my famous escalator ride in 2015 to announce my presidential campaign, the Democrat harassment, fake news attacks, and blatant lies have never been about me.  Their target was you.

The liberal swamp hates the idea of people like you {your name here} being in charge of America, and there is no line the won’t cross to prevent that from happening.  Just look at the Phony Witch Hunt – NO COLLUSION.

In 2016, I was your voice, but YOU were the one that took our country back and made the liberal swamp and political leaders furious.  

Now headed into 2020, we have to remind them that this is your country, not theirs.

Since you’ve been such an important part of our movement, I wanted to give you the exclusive opportunity to become and Official 2019 Trump Executive Member and receive your PERSONALIZED membership card. – Trump Fundraising Letter – 4/13/19

President Trump’s campaign sent out an email this week, offering donors a chance to become “executive card members” of the Trump Campaign.  It’s fundraising, and every campaign from Trump to “Mayor Pete” is desperate for money. It’s not just for the cash: donating money is the surest way for a campaign to assure a vote, and capture an email or phone number for further campaigning.  

We “Liberals of the swamp” point out to the “perfect storm” of the 2016 election.  The combination of Hillary Clinton’s weakness as a political candidate despite her strength as a government leader; Russian interference both in social media and in stealing Democratic emails; Republican voter suppression in key states; and possible Russian manipulation of the actual voting process (we still don’t know):  it’s easy to say that it can’t happen again.

But, as my nephew-in-law is quick to point out (to my irritation) in our late night conversations, Trump did appeal to a lot of Americans who felt left out by the government. They saw the emphasis on the cities, the truly poor, the environment, the “Wall Street rich;” but not on them. They felt like Democrats in America didn’t care, and they voted accordingly.  While they may not have been able to afford to be a “card carrying member” of the Trump Campaign, many wore the badge, or more specifically the red “MAGA” hat, and cast their vote for Trump.  

Democrats could (and did) argue that the bailouts of 2009 that saved the auto industry and the finance markets saved jobs and everyone’s savings.  But somehow, Republicans who actually voted for those bailouts, were able to make it the “Democrats fault” by 2014, and the Trump Campaign could say they weren’t even involved.

Democrats argued that the Affordable Care Act provided insurance to millions, added benefits to all, and put pressure to hold insurance costs down.  But costs still went up (though not as much as they would have) and it was easy for Republicans to inaccurately conflate the rising costs of “Obamacare” with their own increasing health care costs, even if that wasn’t true.

The Trump campaign was somehow able to lay claim to patriotism, dividing Americans between “Black Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” when, in fact, we should recognize that we want police to be protected, and we want discrimination in law enforcement to stop.  Those are not mutually exclusive.  The Trump campaign was not the only ones to be “Proud to be an American,” but somehow they claimed it.

Right or wrong, Democrats lost those arguments to many Americans in 2016.  It wasn’t only to the “card carrying” Trump supporters, it was also to those working class white Americans who were convinced that Democrats represented “others” but not them.  In short, the Trump phenomenon was able to fill a need for a significant portion of Americans, and, like it or not, over sixty-two million voted for him.

The lesson for 2020 is pretty clear.  While liberals, including me, would like to see the investigations move forward on all fronts, Congressional, Judicial and in the press; the reality of American politics is that to a huge proportion that is at best a sideshow.  They either don’t care,  “…all politicians (or business men) do that…” or they feel like the investigations have taken precedence over their needs.

Democrats running for 2020 seem to get it.  Their emphasis is how to make America better for Americans, including the working class voters that felt left out by the Party in 2016.  Their talking about the issues Democrats should always be pushing: that many Americans haven’t seen an increase in spending power in years (what liberals would call income inequality) working far over forty hours a week, often at more than one job, to make ends meet.  

They’re talking about the cost of education, both for themselves and their kids.  When a candidate for President is still trying to pay off their own student loans  (several of them) they bring reality to campaigning.  It’s not just about their own loans, how can any parent look forward to their child’s future when, with or without college, it’s likely to include crushing debt.

And they’re trying to convince Americans that the future can include changes to protect the environment that can create new jobs and industries.  They are presenting a future where Wal-Mart’s automation (using robots for menial store tasks) isn’t a threat to employment, but an opportunity for advancement.  They are trying to present the future as a place of hope, not to be feared; America as already “Great,” not needing to be made “Great Again.”

The Trump campaign has found a way to mesh with many Americans who feel left behind. While not all of them will become “Executive Members” or be “card carrying Trump supporters,” Democrats will have some convincing to do to reach those millions who are disaffected.  You can’t control the weather, and perfect storms happen more than once.  It’s up to Democrats to reach out to everyone, to make sure we are more than just the party that’s against Trump.

Memories of Notre Dame

Yesterday we got home from our weekend trip, and fell to the couches to recover.  Soon, a familiar building came in view on the TV screen, and to our horror, smoke rose from the spire.  We sat and watched as the eight hundred year old Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, burned.  It looked like it must be totally destroyed, but after an hour or so, the French firefighters managed to staunch the blaze.  Today, Notre Dame still stands; damaged, smoke stained, roofless, but remaining on the Parisian skyline.  It will be repaired.

I have one direct memory of Notre Dame.  As a thirteen-year old, my family travelled to Paris.  Parisians are known for their “haughtiness;” unwilling to hear the fractured eighth grade French of an American boy.  I loved the city, but was frustrated with my inability to communicate. We went into the Cathedral, awed at the reach of the ceiling and the incredible faith in the labors of centuries. Gothic architecture draws the view, and the soul to heaven; Notre Dame is one of the great examples.

As we stepped out of Notre Dame, I asked a homeless man for directions.  He turned to me, and despite my middle school French, worked through a conversation on where we wanted to go, how to get there, and the debt he felt France owed to Americans.  “Vive l’Americans” he cried, thanking me at thirteen, for saving France in World War II. I pointed to my parents, who really were part of that effort, and he thanked them as well.

It was in World War II that my family had it’s other connection to the Cathedral.  My mother was a British “spy,” working for the Special Operations Executive (SOE) a branch of British intelligence.  She had finished her education in Belgium, and could speak French like a native.  Her job was to go into Nazi occupied territories, contact the Resistance cells, and arrange for sabotage or other operations.  She was flown in on small, one propeller planes called Lysanders; they could land on short fields, even farm fields, and quickly drop off, pickup and get back into the sky.

On one of my mother’s missions, she was sent to occupied Paris to connect with the Underground there. Mom, with a degree in English Literature from the University of London, was excited that her Underground contact was Sylvia Beach, the famous proprietor of the “Shakespeare and Company.”  The “bookstore” was so much more than just a place to buy books; it was the meeting place in the 1920’s for the prominent young authors of the time:  Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, Pound and others all gathered for discussions there.

Mom stayed with Sylvia Beach during her time in Paris.  She also did some shopping and some site seeing, and of course, as a good Roman Catholic, stopped to light a candle in the Notre Dame Cathedral.  As she told the story:

I was halfway (through my Rosary) when I was aware of a figure entering the pew.  He sat quite close to me and he had on a German uniform.  Am I now going to be arrested I thought – terrified of course. “Hail Mary, please help me in my hour of need.”

Out of the corner of my eye, I watched a long slender hand come out of his pocket.  He was a Luftwaffe officer – a sigh of relief –seldom did one get picked up by a Luftwaffe officer.  In his hand was an ivory rosary and he began his prayers.  I was compelled to look at him, he was blonde and handsome, and he turned and smiled.  I smiled back.  There we were, both praying to the same God and both of us, without a doubt, would have killed each other in a minute. (from the private writing of Babs Dahlman.)

Mom left the Cathedral, and proceeded with her mission.  A German troop train was destroyed.

Notre Dame Cathedral has eight hundred years of such stories; it has touched millions of lives, one soul at a time.  A new chapter will now be written, as the Cathedral again rises up to draw those minds and souls to the heavens.

A Family Thing

We had a family reunion, twenty-six of us.  It was my sister and brother-in-laws birthday (seventy!!) and we all travelled to Cleveland to celebrate.   We had a blast, lots of food, lots of drink, lots of laughing and high spirits.  It was one of those celebrations that will require a week to recover.

Relatives came; from Ohio, from New Jersey, from Colorado and Arizona.  It wasn’t a funeral or a wedding; we could have fun without a significant “event” beyond the celebration itself.   And like any family in our current political era, we brought widely divergent political viewpoints to the occasion.  

Our family trends from extreme “Resistors” to Libertarians to died in the wool conservatives, and while we don’t necessarily have any true “MAGA Hat Trumpers” we still are aware of everyone’s difference.   For most of the weekend, our political talk remained “among ourselves”:  the “Resistance” wing debated the latest Congressional moves and sorted through the candidates for 2020; then quickly altered the subject when the “non-resistors” came within earshot.  Since that was my end of the family political spectrum, I’m not sure what the “other” side did; but I expect they had a few of the same kind of conclaves. 

But later on during the two evenings of the weekend, when great food, craft beer and Irish whiskey helped breakdown barriers, we gingerly “crossed the line.”  Gently, across a border established by the round banquet table, two sides began to communicate.  Surprisingly, it didn’t erupt in angry words and recriminations:  “how could you support;” “do you regret choosing not to chose in 2016.”  We found areas of agreement.   Both sides allowed that the true evil of our current political system is money; if the process of needing millions of dollars to run for office doesn’t change, than corrupting influences, on all sides of the spectrum, will continue.  

But despite our tentative areas of agreement, the haunting prediction of “civil war” was also spoken. How can our nation, so divided and so fragmented into pockets of different “facts” and seemingly different values, ever recover?  In a nation with a choice of either silence or argument, with no alternative of calm conversation; how will we ever return to a time when we can all agree on what America is?

Into the night it was more conversation, this time about climate change.  It became an issue of “I don’t believe your facts, I have my own.” It took a while to get past AOC and the Green New Deal and cattle farts and cheeseburgers; to more serious consideration of how we produce our energy, and why we can’t lead the world in finding new sources of energy.  But at the end of that conversation, to one it came down to a deep distrust of government; anything that the “government” is for, then it must be opposed.

But in the small hours of the morning, two older men, friends for fifty years, reached for understanding. We talked about our families, about the uniting force of love that crossed political and ideological lines.  We talked about the ability of smaller governments, of towns and counties, to focus on the practical problems of their communities, and let go the partisanship of our national discourse.  On the macro scale there seemed to be little hope of change, but on the micro scale; family, neighborhood, towns; there is still the ability to unite to solve problems and to love each other.  

We are an extended family; extended in age, geography, and political beliefs.   We were able to celebrate the birthday of our siblings, parents, grandparents and cousins together.  There was no screaming (other that the two year olds) and there was no disgust.  And there probably were no minds changed either. But in fact we were able to discuss our differences and be Americans in celebration together across partisan divides:  it was because of love.

That’s where Americans will need to start.  We aren’t ready to put down our partisan sword and shield; we aren’t ready to listen to each other on a national scale.  But we can start to tentatively reach out to those closest to us; our family, our neighborhoods, our towns.  That’s where we can begin to piece our nation back together again – one little group at a time.  And as my old friend said, with can use love to transcend our differences.

The Pentagon Papers v Wikileaks:  It’s Different

Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London yesterday, placed under arrest by the London police.  Assange, the founder of the internet site Wikileaks, spent seven years claiming asylum in the Embassy, after jumping bail in London.  Assange was wanted in Sweden for sexual assault, charges that were later dropped.  The London police are currently holding him for extradition to the United States, where he is under indictment.

Assange made the mistake of annoying his Ecuadoran hosts.  Like “The Man Who Came to Dinner,” his seven-year stay may have been ended as much by an out of control cat and a lack of personal hygiene than any international pressure placed on Ecuador.

What we know of the US indictment, accidently revealed several months ago in a filing in Alexandria, Virginia; is that Assange is accused of helping Chelsea Manning, a US soldier stationed in Iraq in 2010,  break into US communications to reveal over half a million documents regarding the Iraq and Afghan wars.  Manning claims that she is a “whistleblower,” revealing US knowledge of their allies’ corruption, and a willingness to inflict collateral damage waging the war, including intentional killing of innocent civilians and even journalists.

Manning was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison after pleading guilty to ten counts and being convicted on seventeen other counts of espionage. She served seven years, then her sentence was commuted by President Obama.

Manning claims that her actions were similar to those of Daniel Ellsberg, the Rand Corporation analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971.  The Paperswere a Defense Department internal history of the Vietnam War, revealing the duplicity of the US government in their public explanations of the War.  Revelation of the Papershelped lead to further public protests against the war when they were published by the New York Times and the Washington Post.  The United States Supreme Court denied the US Government’s attempt to block publication of the Papers in the landmark case New York Times Co v United States (403 U.S. 713, 1971.)

Ellsberg was charged with espionage, with a possible 117 years in prison. But, due to government misconduct in investigating him, including breaking into his psychiatrist’s office to find information (executed by the Nixon White House “plumbers” who later made a similar break-in to the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building) all charges were eventually dismissed.  

Assange and Wikileaks claim that their role in the Chelsea Manning revelations was the same as the New York Times and Washington Post in the Pentagon Papers:  they were simply revealing information and serving as a “conduit” for whistleblowing information.  Many journalists on “mainstream media” defend Assange, arguing that to charge him puts the US Government on a slippery slope of muzzling reporters.

 Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post helped Daniel Ellsberg sneak the Pentagon Papers out of his Rand Corporation offices. They received the complete files, got their editors (and their lawyers) together, and determined to print the material. They even gave the US Government the opportunity to comment, and redacted parts that they considered too sensitive to ongoing operations.  They acted responsibly with the information they received.

That’s a huge contrast with the actions of Wikileaks and Assange. Assange is accused of actually participating in the stealing of the information, allegedly helping Manning with passwords to get to the files.  Wikileaks then took the entire dump and put it online, without any regard for possible security implications.  That is Wikileaks standard, get information and put it out, regardless of the consequences. 

Assange is accused of helping Manning, but also dumped the Edward Snowden information, more documents stolen from the US Government.  The Snowden files revealed government surveillance of US domestic communications, and were published by newspapers around the world.

Progressives in the United States welcomed both the Manning and Snowden downloads, using the information to try to curb the excesses of government reaction to 9-11 and the terrorist threats.  In that sense, the “whistleblower” aspect of Wikileaks was welcomed as the new way to gain insight into government actions.

But progressives weren’t so pleased when Wikileaks became the conduit for Russian Intelligence and the hacked Democratic National Committee emails in the 2016 election.  “Wikileaks” became a common theme in the Trump Campaign rhetoric, and definitely contributed to the success of the Trump candidacy.  

But Assange hasn’t been charged with conspiring with Russian intelligence, and he hasn’t been indicted for the Snowden information.  He has been brought to the bar for conspiring to assist in Chelsea Manning’s espionage.  Whatever the information gained, the US Government has a reasonable claim to maintain security, and to prosecute those who participate in breaking into their computers.  Assange, if he aided Manning in stealing the documents, has taken a step beyond journalism. 

The slippery slope really isn’t that slippery, the US prosecutors are on firm footing.  It is the difference between the thief and the reporter, and Wikileaks ain’t the New York Times.

Democrats: Eyes on the Prize

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pushed the envelope for Democrats.  Whatever it means to be a Social-Democrat, Ocasio-Cortez has taken traditional Democratic values:  the struggle of the common worker, the protection of the environment, improving healthcare and education; and pushed the boundaries of what might be done.  She has raised the bar, and forced more moderate Democrats to deal with her issues.

And while many Democrats don’t agree with everything she proposes, most recognize that her aspirational results should be the goals of the party.  How we get to raise average worker’s pay, universal healthcare, fix climate change and low or no cost education; the devil is in the details and will need to be worked out.  But these issues will be the Democratic Party Platform.

Democrats cannot forget to keep their “eyes on the prize.”  The immediate goal is to rid the government of Donald J. Trump, and begin to repair the damage that his four years in office has done.  If this isn’t accomplished, then all of the other goals are for naught; if it is accomplished, the United States can begin to move to a better future.

Eyes on the prize:  defeat Donald Trump in 2020.  

Which brings us to the biggest threat to defeating Donald Trump in 2020:  Bernie Sanders.  The Independent Senator from Vermont, who registers as a Democrat for the purpose of running for President, is leading the polls of avowed candidates for the Democratic nomination (Joe Biden has yet to enter the race.)  Senator Sanders is the best known of the gaggle of Democrats in the race, having run for the nomination in 2016 and earning 13,206,428 votes.  He lost to Hillary Clinton, who gained 16,914,722 votes.  

Sanders and his followers hold a grudge from 2016, where they felt that machinery of the Party were stacked against him (and it was, right or wrong.)   His lukewarm support for Hillary Clinton in the general election didn’t help enough in her razor thin loss to Trump.  

He leads the polls now, nine months before the first caucuses in Iowa.  But neither Hillary Clinton in 2016, nor candidates today, have made negative comments about the socialist from Vermont.  Senator Sanders has never been faced with an “attack” campaign. Candidates have not raised questions about his taxes either, though Sanders didn’t release them in 2016 (except for a 2014 summary) and hasn’t done so through today (though he does claim that he will release ten years worth on “tax day.”) This despite the growing power struggle in the Washington, as the Treasury Department defies the law by refusing to turn over the Trump tax documents to the House Ways and Means Committee.

In addition, the 2016 Sanders campaign paid women less than men for the same jobs, and had campaign operatives who worked with Paul Manafort in Ukrainian politics before joining the Sanders campaign.  But these flaws aren’t mentioned by his opponents, and neither are the vast promises Sanders has made, without a clear plan to pay for them.

So, why does Bernie still get a pass?

Senator Sanders looms as a threat to the Democratic Party, not only as a winning nominee, but also as a bitter loser.  If his supporters decide (as many did in 2016) that he wasn’t treated fairly, they may vote for a third party, or simply sit out the 2020 election.  Or even worse, Bernie could decide to run as a Socialist candidate, a third party on the left that would doom the Democratic Party candidate to a loss and guarantee a second Trump term.

Those conditions held Hillary in check in 2016, and Democrats recognize them today as well. So Sanders is coddled, without direct challenge, even though there are big differences between him and most of the other primary candidates on many issues.  But if Sanders were to be the Party nominee, he certainly wouldn’t be coddled by the Republicans.  

A Sander’s candidacy and the likely Republican smear campaign would drive moderate voters to either choose not to vote, or hold their nose and re-elect President Trump. Of all the candidates running for the Democratic nomination, the election path for Sanders is the least probable.  He fails to win the “middle” of the political spectrum.

Sander’s supporters argue a novel path to the Presidency.  They prophesize a millennial outpouring of support that completely changes the electorate by creating an entirely new voting population.  But Sanders still is weak among key Democratic constituencies, including African-American and Hispanic minorities. And the millennial outpouring is still only prophecy, the “Bernie Bros” haven’t shown their voting strength yet, if it exists at all.

Bernie Sanders has the least probable path to defeating Donald Trump. He is a polarizing force, unable to capture the “middle vote” that was so important in the 2018 Congressional victories. He is vulnerable to a negative campaign, one that he is yet to experience. Democrats: whether you agree with AOC’s plan, or fall in with the more moderate plans of Amy Klobuchar or Joe Biden; nothing gets done until Trump is defeated. Keep your eyes on the prize.

No Room at the Inn

“Our Country’s full – we’re full – no one can come in” – Donald Trump 4/6/19

President Trump has declared our nation closed.  He says “we’re full,” whatever that means.  He’s fired or left vacant virtually the entire top management of the Department of Homeland Security; they aren’t giving him the options he wants to deal with the border “crisis.”  There’s so much more to Homeland Security than ICE and the Border Patrol; it’s worrying that they may not be so focused on terrorism, or internet security, or election infrastructure.

The President is even rumored to want to fire the Homeland Security Counsel, the head lawyer in the agency.  The counsel keeps saying “no,” they can’t ignore court orders and laws, they can’t just “do what Trump wants.”  Mr. Trump is instead putting his alt-right advisor Stephen Miller “in charge” of the border situation. Miller is one of the authors of the child separation policy (and wants to bring it back again) and has had his ideas stymied again and again by the Federal Courts, even as recently as this week. 

Meanwhile, the President has doubled the number of H-2B visas.  These are worker visas issued to “guest workers,” mostly from Mexico, who serve as landscapers, and workers in hotels and amusement parks.  He has added 30,000 more visas to the program.  Maybe we are “sort-of” closed.

There is no question that there are more migrants at the border than in the past few years.  The situation in the Northern Triangle of Central America has gotten worse, that is the condition driving migration.  The American mantra, “Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free,” is now “go back, were closed,” unless you’re a good gardener or hotel maid for Mara Lago.  Trump needs sixty-one workers there, and more than 400 total at his properties.  He doesn’t seem to be able to afford Americans.

Current asylum laws and treaties came as a result of World War II.  The world recognized that the cost of the Holocaust was exacerbated by the unwillingness of nations to accept Jews and others running from the Nazis. The United States strictly limited immigration, and many were trapped in Europe to face concentration camps and gas chambers.  After the war, the United Nations developed a “right to asylum” based on credible fear of persecution or harm.  The United States was a leader in those negotiations, and signed onto the treaties.

Stephen Miller’s ancestry belies his political positions:  his Jewish family emigrated from Eastern Europe to escape pogroms in the early part of the 20^thcentury.  But his view of the migrants leaving the Northern Triangle is different, he sees them as both a racial and political threat to his ideology.  Miller fears the “browning” of America, where the white population for the first time is faced with a loss of majority.  Regardless of the policy at the border, within twenty years America will be “majority-minority” nation.  It’s not just racial, the nation of 2040 is more likely to support the Democrats rather than Republicans who have committed to a political death sentence by harnessing themselves to the “white middle class.”

So instead of following US law and treaties and sending more judges to adjudicate asylum claims, the Trump Administration has slowed the process down, stacking the migrants in Mexican border towns, then blamed Mexico for the migrants trying to cross illegally. Their strategies have been struck down by Federal Judges time and time again, including the child separation strategy to deter migration, and the new MPP policy of denying migrants who reach US soil the right to request asylum.

The Dustin Hoffman movie of the 1990’s, Wag the Dog, was a story of a President beset by scandal, who created a war in the Balkans to take the country’s mind off of his personal problems.  This President is creating a similar crisis at the Southern Border; trying to focus away from his ongoing legal issues.  It’s a “win-win” for him, it not only distracts but also works for him politically. The Trump Administration has clearly determined on a 2020 election strategy of “threading the electoral needle” once again by winning with a minority vote.  They can only make this work by gaining a huge turnout from the 40% that supports Mr. Trump, the “…I could shoot someone in the middle of 5^thAvenue” supporters.  Trump’s manufactured crisis on the border fits the bill.

26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1)

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request…

The law is clear.  It was passed as a result of the “Teapot Dome” scandal of the early 1920’s.  Secretary of Interior, Albert Fall, gained control of the US Naval Oil Reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.  He then gave exclusive rights to that oil to the Mammoth Oil Company, in return for personal cash and bond payments.  The Wall Street Journal broke the story, and the US Senate led the investigation.  Albert Fall ended up serving time in prison for accepting bribes, and the Congress gained two significant powers.  

The first, confirmed by the Supreme Court in McGrain v Daugherty (273 US 135, 1927), allowed Congress to compel witness testimony under pain of criminal contempt. The second, an addition to the US Tax Code, allowed the Chairmen of the Senate Finance, House Ways and Means, or the Joint Committee on Taxation, to get an individual tax return from the Internal Revenue Service.  It is the law:  26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1).

President Trump’s “Acting” Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, Sunday made it clear that the President would not allow the Internal Revenue Service to obey the law, and would do everything in his power to withhold his taxes from Congress, despite the law’s clear intent.  While the Secretary of the Treasury has not responded to the House Ways and Means Chairman’s request for Donald Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns, it is unlikely that he will voluntarily defy the President.

The Chairman will be forced to go to Court to compel the Secretary to produce the returns, and the clear intent of the law will likely mean the Courts will order him to do so.  It sets up a confrontation between the Court and the President.  As President Jackson once said about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall; “…John Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.”  Perhaps President Trump will join Jackson in defying the Court, or perhaps he will, like President Nixon and his tapes, accede to a Court ruling.

Yesterday another Federal judge made a clear order.  Federal District Judge Richard Seeborg issued a nationwide injunction, stating that the United States could not send asylum seekers back across the border to Mexico to await their hearings.   This despite the President’s gutted Homeland Security Department trying to institute Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) that would do exactly that.  The President even told Border guards in California this weekend to prevent migrants from crossing the border, telling them the “…country is closed.”  The guard administrators told their personnel to ignore the President’s order because it would disobey the law.

The President of the United States has found himself burdened by the restrictions of our legal system; in the past few days he has decided not to allow legality to stop his actions.  Just as we have become used to a “fact free” and “truth free” Presidency, we now are faced with a “scofflaw” President.  

The President avoiding the constraints of law is even clearer in his actions regarding the Department of Homeland Security.  Unable to convince the current Secretary to violate Court orders, the President has fired her, as well other high officials in the Department.  

The Deputy Secretary job is vacant, and the Under Secretary is rumored to be next on the block.  The President also fired the Director of the Secret Service, and nine other senior jobs in the Department are either vacant or filled in an acting capacity.

The Constitution of the United States in Article II, § 2, provides that the Senate shall consent to the appointments of all other officers of the United States, including public ministers.  The vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security, now filled by “acting” officers without Senate approval, is another way that the President has found to avoid the constraints of law.  Mr. Trump says; “…I like ‘acting’ because I can move so quickly. It gives me more flexibility.”  Currently seven cabinet level positions, and eight agency heads are “acting” without confirmation.

The President may feel that he has altered the Court system enough that he can win these fights.  His two appointees to the Supreme Court, as well as the ninety-one lower Court appointments that have been rammed through the Senate, may give him some hope of success. But one of the foundations of the Federalist Society, the legal society that has provided Mitch McConnell fodder for the Bench, is respect for the Constitution that grants Congress the power to determine the laws.  

26 US Code § 6103 (f) (1) has been the law for ninety-five years.  The power of Federal Judges to interpret Federal law has been established since Marbury v Madison in 1801.  Will the Supreme Court turn over both Congressional and Judicial powers to the President, out of gratitude for their jobs?  Or will they take their lifetime appointments, and stand for the Constitution the Federalist Society claims to revere?  We will soon see.

Leadership in America

I learned about leadership early in life.  I was in Boy Scouts at its height of popularity back in the sixties and early seventies; we had a troop of forty or fifty boys, with a leadership structure: Patrol Leaders who led groups of ten, Assistant Senior Patrol Leaders and the Senior Patrol Leader, older boys, who were “in charge” of the troop.  Those boy/leaders were advised by even older boys, Junior Assistant Scoutmasters, and adults, the Scoutmasters.

My troop in Cincinnati, Troop 819 in Wyoming, Ohio, had adults who were committed to letting the kids do the work. Clayton Warman, my first Scoutmaster there, had fought his way across Europe in World War II, earned a battlefield commission, and three Purple Heart medals.  He was a career Proctor and Gamble man, which was all I really knew about him when I was a kid. I just knew that Mr. Warman was a very “proper” man, who wanted the kids to lead the troop.  He saw himself as the advisor, who helped make decisions, but also let mistakes happen. 

He was followed by Tom Morgan, another career P&G guy, who navigated strategic bombers in the Air Force after the war.  Tom was a lot more relaxed, and was dedicated to letting kids lead the troop, without much interference from the adults.

So that’s how I learned about leadership, first as a Senior Patrol Leader, then as a Junior Assistant Scoutmaster.  These men knew to let us go, encouraging us in the right direction, but allowing us the “rope” to learn about how to lead, and how to get others to follow to reach our common goals.  It worked: we had a tremendously active troop, out every month (even in sub-zero weather) with two weeks of summer camp where the younger kids learned, and a “high adventure” expedition where the older boys were challenged.

That’s the leadership model I thrived under in my life.  Luckily for me, most of my “bosses” believed in that model as well; they gave me a job, and let me have the space to get it done the best way I could.  Whether it was in political campaigns as an operative, in the classroom as a teacher, or in athletics as a coach; they let me find my own way to succeed.  It’s the same model I used with the folks I worked with, my assistant coaches, my staff on campaigns, and the groups of kids I helped.  Here’s the job, let’s find a way to get it done together.

My first Principal, Pete Nix, passed away yesterday.  He was another of those Clayton Warman kind of guys; strong, determined, and willing to let you do your job.  Pete believed in “doing what’s right for kids.”  That was his most important goal, and he hired the people for his schools to get the job done.  He was a model of an administrator, he could be stern (I broke a window in my classroom – reporting that scared me to death) but he could also be fun (as an Alabama man, he made it clear that not standing for Dixie was a serious employment risk.)

Kids will remember him as scary, but also as the best pep-rally speaker ever.  When he got done, the whole school was ready to take the field.  He motivated, he lead, but he allowed others to lead as well.  

That model of leadership seems to have been lost.  In schools, “data-driven” decision-making has become a cover for micro-managing.  “Data doesn’t lie” is the line; but of course, data doesn’t tell the whole story of human interactions, what schools are all about. But administrators are too afraid to allow their staff the room to lead, every box must be checked, every step coordinated.  No wonder those administrators look so weary, they spend all of their time trying to do everyone else’s job.  

This form of “leadership” does not allow for creativity, or for mistakes.  It presses everyone into a common “form” so that they are easily controlled.  Trying to “raise the worst” has resulted in “smothering the best.”

And it’s not just in the schools, this is the new “American Way” to lead.  It must be some great new academic model, get your “data” and keep those you lead “in line.”  But it’s not the model that Clayt Warman or Tom Morgan or Pete Nix (or Marty Dahlman) used, and it’s not the model that encourages new leaders to learn and improve.  It makes the numbers look good.  But numbers aren’t faces, whether it’s kids in school, or employees doing their job.  

Mr. Warman and Mr. Nix are gone: I hope the next generation will find the kind of role models that those men were for me, and find that faces are more important than data points on a graph.

Let Biden be Biden

(OK – so when not looking for Hamilton references, I fall back on The West Wing!!)

I saw a post on Facebook from a former student and current friend the other day.  He was in the locker room at the gym and was shocked when a man started a conversation with him, without any clothes on.  The guy was talking to him, and he was NAKED!!  

At sixty-two, I grew up in a different era.  I was a swimmer, and a wrestler, and a track sprinter; being naked in a locker room was always just part of the deal.  Even in the locker room at Dad’s tennis club, it was completely normal to have a conversation with strangers, some much older, with little or nothing on.  It wasn’t that we ”hung out” naked, but there wasn’t a rush to cover up, and it didn’t seem to get in the way of discussing the  “play of the day” or any other topic of conversation (avoiding saying that came up!!)

I coached high school athletes until two years ago, and I am well aware that times have changed.   Even in wrestling, where nudity at weigh-ins was not only expected but required, the rules now require everyone to be in uniform on the scales.  There is no such thing as being naked in a locker room; kids even wear swimming suits in the shower.  When a full change is required, it is quick, and furtive.

That’s not the only “norm” that’s changed in the world today.  I am a “contact” kind of guy, a hand on the shoulder, a pat on the back (not on the butt, I never cared for that), the occasional joyful hug, and for people I’m close to, the forehead to forehead “talk.”  I’ve lived that way for sixty-two years, and never intentionally “invaded” someone’s privacy.   In fact, I tried to learn to recognize which folks were uncomfortable with contact, and respect their boundaries.  

It has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with finding a way to relate, to be compassionate and empathetic.  It was a hug when my best pole vaulter broke the school record, whether it was Kyle or Sammi.  It was an arm across the shoulders when we failed, and a forehead-to-forehead talk to regain focus when everything was going wrong.   And sometimes even a “Gibbs slap” (gently) to the back of the head for bonehead moves (like losing a $350 pole vault pole.)

There’s a picture of Vice President Biden forehead to forehead with a woman, deep in conversation. The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winner Jonathan Capehart was head to head with Biden too. It’s not about sex, it’s about relationships.  It’s the way of Joe Biden, and the way of his generation that is all too quickly passing.

So, while I’m not in locker rooms often anymore, and change in them even less, I know that no matter what I’m comfortable with, others aren’t comfortable with nudity even in a place to change clothes.  And while I’m not coaching anymore either, I also am aware that what seems to me like a natural extension of personal contact may now be considered violating someone else’s space.  

Joe Biden will figure it out.  He’ll do what needs to be done politically; he’s already figured out how to acknowledge the concerns of the women involved and accept responsibility without apologizing for doing something he didn’t (and doesn’t) consider wrong.  We know he’ll “slip up” along the way, it’s too much a part of him.  The millennial media will eat it up, and Democrats will have a crisis moment.  

There are lots of Democrats running for President (and even a quasi-Democrat named Bernie Sanders, who seems to only be in the Party when it suits his needs.)  There are fantastic women running: Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand.  There are dynamic men running: Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Jay Inslee, Mike Bennet (I hope, he’s pretty good) and, of course, Beto O’Rourke. There will be a lot for the Party to sift through, and a wide-ranging spectrum of ideas to choose from.  Hopefully, the Party gets the most important point: we need to choose a candidate that can defeat Donald Trump.

But if Joe Biden really does become the Democratic candidate for President, we will have a great contrast. Two men of the same generation; one who reaches out to people in order to connect with them, and one who reaches out solely to pleasure himself.  That’s a contrast that Democrats should be able to win with.

The Geometry of Politics

In tenth grade, I transferred to Wyoming High School in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Wyoming was a “top tiered” public school, still rated highly (US Newsnumber two in Ohio.)  And while I got a top education there, I was never, ever, going to be a good math student.  The agony of sophomore year was sitting in the back of Mr. Parker’s geometry class, trying to memorize theorems and postulates, and watching Mr. Parker dust his fingers in the chalk tray and then lick the chalk off.  The basketball team must have given him a sour stomach.

But I did learn the definition of an axiom:  a statement that is self-evidently true.  And the axiom of politics today is this:  Special Counsel Robert Mueller is an honorable man, who pursued and honest and serious investigation into the election of 2016 and the Trump campaign. As his former FBI Counsel and later Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency Chuck Rosenberg said; “Robert Mueller is a Marine, if you tell him to take the hill in front of him, he’ll take it, but not the hill to the right or the left.”

As we await whatever Attorney General Barr is doing to Mueller’s report, we can take as “axioms” a few things about how that report was prepared.  We can assume that Mueller prepared the report properly, including sections that needed to be protected due to Grand Jury testimony or classified information.  We can assume that Mueller was well aware that there would be a Congressional version and a “public” version of the report, and prepared his work for both.  

Knowing those things, it’s an open question what the Attorney General is doing to the Report. 

But there are a couple of additional “axioms” that we can be sure Mueller followed.  The Department of Justice operates on internal regulations, and one of those regulations states that you cannot bring charges against the serving President of the United States.  If the regulations say that Mueller couldn’t bring charges, he wouldn’t bring charges against the President.  He also wouldn’t say that there “should” be charges against the President; such a statement would have the same impact as actually bringing the charges.  

What Mueller would do is present the evidence of what he found, organized in a way that would draw them to the conclusion that Mr. Mueller reached.  If that conclusion was that, if Mr. Trump wasn’t President, he would be charged, then the Report will show that.  Robert Mueller was well aware that the Constitutional alternative to a President committing crimes is the Congressional impeachment process; it is to them that the evidence presented in his Report would be directed.  He would then allow Congress to reach its own conclusions.

Robert Mueller knew his job well.  He was the FBI Director who, with less than a week on the job, confronted the 9-11 attacks and completely reshaped the FBI from domestic crime fighting to counter-terrorism.  He was not afraid to set priorities and make decisions.  Given that, clearly Mueller was not afraid to reach a conclusion about the President’s possible actions to obstruct justice.  He chose not to reach a conclusion, because he wanted the Congress to do so.

Instead, the most recent political appointee to the Justice Department, William Barr, chose to intervene and announce a conclusion.  Not only did that immediately politicize the Report, but it re-opened the original controversy about how Barr got the Attorney General appointment in the first place.  

In June of 2018, then private attorney Barr sent an unsolicited twenty-page opinionto the Justice Department and the White House specifically stating his views on the limits of Presidential obstruction.  That opinion, made without any specific knowledge of what evidence the Mueller investigation had, attracted the attention of the White House, and was clearly one of the reasons Barr was tapped to return to the Attorney General’s job.

That creates a conflict of interest, and the appearance of bias on the part of the Attorney General. For him to intervene and reach conclusions that Mueller specifically did not, immediately raises a cloud of suspicion over his actions.  It’s the last thing that Robert Mueller would want.

Like geometry, there will be an eventual proof of what the Mueller Report states.  Whether it is fully released soon, or held for history scholars later, we will all find out what Mueller knew.  “History has its eyes on you” Attorney General Barr (yep – another Hamilton reference) and if what you’re doing is trying to obscure the evidence in the Mueller Report, history will not look kindly on you.

Barr has promised a report to Congress by mid-April.  The House of Representatives has demanded the entire report, in order to reach their own conclusions about the actions of the President, and to determine how best to protect the electoral process from further foreign intervention.  Congress and all Americans need to know what happened, in order to move past 2016 and onto 2020.  A truncated document will only prolong the fight, and extend our “long national nightmare.”  Mr. Barr needs to “finish the proof” and release the Report.

Love of Country

Sergeant Joseph Collette was killed in Afghanistan on March 21^st.  His body was brought to his hometown of Lancaster, Ohio yesterday, with thousands of Lancaster’s citizens coming out to honor his service. He was 29, a newly married young man who sacrificed himself for his comrades and his country (Lancaster Eagle-Gazette.)  He was eleven years old when the war in Afghanistan began.  He will be buried Friday.  He is a hero.

No matter how you feel about the continuing presence of United States troops in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria; you have to honor the men and women who are serving their country and risking their lives there. No one is being drafted to go and fight, these are volunteers.  And, while Sergeant Collette was on his first tour in Afghanistan, many have been asked to go back again and again.  Most return home eventually, but many are damaged by their experiences, changed for life by what they were required to do or witness.

I had a discussion yesterday with a friend about honoring the Sergeant’s service.  My friend remembered that returning Vietnam veterans were not treated with the respect and honor that we show our current service members, and made it clear that to him, either you support the current President, or you are against our soldiers.  After some calculation I determined that my friend was eight years old at the end of the Vietnam War. 

I was eighteen when the war in Vietnam ended in 1975. The war had been winding down for a couple of years, and while I had a draft registration card in my wallet, no one was drafted from my age group to go to Vietnam. I was strongly against the war, and as a teenager I marched in protest against it.  I never protested the veterans of the war, and in fact, many of them joined in protest as well.  But I also have friends who fought in Vietnam, who came home to be personally attacked.  They were told to change out of their uniforms at the San Francisco airport when they arrived from Da Nang, to avoid being harassed by protestors.  

That was wrong then, as it would be wrong now.  But somehow the actions of those protestors in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, has been conflated with those who are appalled by the actions of our current President.  The logic seems to be:  liberals were against Vietnam and some acted dishonorably against returning soldiers, so, the liberals that are against the President today are dishonorable.   My friend claimed “patriotism” and “the flag” as his ideological own, drawing a straight line from the hippie/protestors of the 1960’s to today’s opposition to President Trump.

I guess in my case there is some accuracy in the drawing, though I was hardly a “hippie/protestor.” I was against Vietnam, and I am against the actions of President Trump.  But I don’t accept that this means I am not patriotic; I see my opposition to “Trumpism” as honoring my nation.   Patriotism is defined as “love for or devotion to one’s country (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).”  Both in the 1960’s and today, my opposition to some of the policies of our government is the most patriotic stand I can take.  If our government, in Vietnam then, or at the Southern border today, acts immorally or improperly, it is my duty as an American citizen to call out those actions as wrong.  This is the absolute definition of love and devotion.

I can be against the President, and proudly fly the American flag.  I can protest the actions that the US government is taking in my name, and love my country.  And I can ask that we can find a way out of our eighteen-year war in Afghanistan, while still honoring the service of the men and women who fight in our name there.  I am asking for them to be relieved of their burden, a burden they have voluntarily taken on for us.  

Patriotism is not described by a #MAGA hat, but it can be shown in the honoring of military sacrifice in Lancaster, Ohio this week; or in protests for the Mueller Report throughout the nation today.  Both are acts of love for our country. 

The Right to Choose – The Briefing Book

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes.  It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue. I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

It is the most divisive issues of our time.  For single-issue voters on either side, it is the determining factor.  It is how folks who believed they were taking a “moral” stand, voted for a demonstrably immoral President.  It is the question of the legality of abortion in the United States. 

No one is in “favor” of abortion.  Abortion is a “last chance” act; everyone should be in favor of education and contraception, both of which lead to fewer abortions.  All Americans should be in favor of fewer abortions.  And all Americans should be in favor of effective sex education in the schools, education that actually deals with the issues of sex and contraception rather than continuing the myth of “abstinence education.”  The “just say no” mantra of abstinence has been about as effective as it was in drug education; not effective at all.  It is sad but not surprising, that many of the same people who want to ban abortion, also want to ban school’s abilities to teach children how to avoid the situation that requires abortions.

And no one is “against life.”  Americans need to be more than just “pro-choice” or “pro-birth;” we need to have as much concern for how a child will live, and eat, and grow, as we do that the baby exists.  This includes the life of the young women who often seek abortions; recognizing their needs and concerns.  Like being a parent, “life” is more than just birth, it is a lifetime commitment. 

The right to choose to have an abortion should not be an issue where men dominate the conversation. Men are not having abortions, and legally, should have little or no say in what happens.  This is a woman’s decision; the picture of “old men” telling women what they can or can’t do with their own bodies is a vision from days before women had the right to vote, or work, or stand as equal citizens. 

Prior to the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, access to legal abortion was on a state-by-state basis.  Thirty states absolutely banned abortions, sixteen allowed for some abortions based on the health of the mother, rape, incest, or fetal damage; and four allowed for abortions upon request, up to the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.  

This did not mean that there weren’t abortions in the thirty states where it was banned, it meant is that those abortions were performed illegally, often unsafely, and with a much higher risk of infections, complications, and death.  It also meant that if a woman wanted a safer legal abortion, they had to have the finances to travel to one of the four states that allowed them.  Safe abortion was about having money, not “right or wrong.”

In 1973 the US Supreme Court weighed the right of the woman to control what happened to her body against the right of the fetus.  The Court reached a difficult decision, ruling that the fetus had limited “rights” until it reached a stage in development where it could survive outside of the womb.  That was around the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy, and the Court in a series of rulings established a pattern:  abortion on request for the first twelve weeks, abortion for reason the second twelve weeks, limited or no abortions the third trimester to birth.

The Court ruled that the fetus had limited “civil rights” under the 14^thAmendment definition, and that those rights increased with the increasing viability of the fetus. The civil rights of the mother were not limited, and therefore her 4^thand 14^thAmendment right to privacy outweighed that of the fetus, before it could survive outside the womb.

A new Court might take a different look at the Roe decision, perhaps denying the “privacy right” the 1973 Court found in the 4^thAmendment.  But currently, the law is established.

As women see it, the law was established by nine old men (1973) making women’s decision for them. Should the current Court take a different view, it would be led by the five conservative Federalist Society men who now hold the majority on the Court, with the women of the court, three of them, in the minority.

The ability of a woman to have an abortion is a personal question, one that needs to be answered by the woman herself; not others, and particularly not men.  The decision to have an abortion is a matter of personal morality, akin to choosing one’s own religion, and is one that should be decided individually rather than societally.  In that mode, men need to defend the “right to choose.”  Like other moral and religious decisions made in the United States, this may be a matter of discussion and debate, but not a decision made for everyone by “old men.”  It is a personal decision to be made by individual women, and America needs to respect that right, and the right to have safe access to the procedures that protects women’s health.

“Mexican Countries”

President Trump is threatening to “close the Southern border” because of his self-made migration crisis.  Under international law and treaty, signed by the United States, migrants have the absolute right to enter the United States and ask for asylum.  The United States is not required to grant the asylum requests, but treaty obligations require that those requests be adjudicated.

Instead, the President has significantly slowed the process of entry and adjudication.  He has intentionally stacked migrants in the Mexican border towns, knowing that they will be under unrelenting pressure to cross the border, either legally or illegally, in order to make their asylum claim. This is why those found in the wilderness surrender to Border agents rather than run; they are looking for an agent to ask for asylum.  So thousands, and now hundreds of thousands, are poised at the ports of entry, and risking hazardous treks through the mountains and deserts that make up much of our Southern border. 

These migrants are in Mexico, but they are not Mexican.  They have trekked across the length of Mexico from their home countries in the “Northern Triangle” of Central America.  They are Guatemalan, Honduran, and El Salvadoran, people from three sovereign nations; not the “Mexican Countries” that Fox Newsreferred to in their Sunday morning broadcast.

Why are they leaving their homes and risking the thousand-mile trek to the US border?

Violence:  the three nations of the Northern Triangle rank in the top ten nations in the world for homicides.  Honduras has a rate of over 90 murders per 100,000 in population, ranking it the highest in the world.  El Salvador was fifth, and Guatemala sixth on the list, making the Northern Triangle the most dangerous place in the world.  Migrants are the poor, living in the most dangerous slums of those nations.  They are most at risk for crime, and are choosing to leave rather than suffer (World Atlas).

Not only are these the most violent countries in the world, they are also among the nations most dominated by gang activity.  El Salvador is ranked the worst country in the world for gang activity, with the MS-13 controlling the streets. To grasp the violence, think of MS-13 having more in common with the tactics of ISIS rather  than the New York Mafia.  Guatemala is ranked second worst, while Honduras is fifth (Business Insider).  Gangs forcibly recruit boys and girls from the slums to become gang members; the alternative to not being in a gang is violence and death.  No wonder parents are sending or bringing their children to “America.”

Gangs dominate life in these countries, and bribes and extortion becomes the way of life.  The Honduran newspaper El Prenza estimates that El Salvadorans pay $390 Million in extortion fees every year, with Hondurans paying $200 Million.  This is in nations where the vast majority of people live in abject poverty (CFR).

Poverty:  the three nations rank near the bottom in per capita income.  Honduras is ranked 170^thout of 229 world nations, with an average per capita annual income of $5600.  Guatemala is ranked 153^rd($8100) and El Salvador 146^th($8900). In contrast, Mexico is ranked 91^stwith $19,900 average income, and the US 19^thwith $59,900 (CIA.)

They have good reasons to leave, and face huge risks by staying.  Whatever “disincentives” the Department of Homeland Security “creates” at the border, they are unlikely to match the risks these migrants face every day in their home countries.  They are coming to America, because it’s the only choice they have.

The solutions are not at the border.  The answer is in doing the hard work to make Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras places where people want to stay, not go.  This requires a regional effort, by the United States, but also Mexico and Nicaragua and Panama and Columbia to intervene and change the environments there. Instead, President Trump has threatened to cut what little funding the United States is providing now.  

Making things worse in the Northern Triangle will not improve conditions at the border.  And making things worse at the border cannot equal the risks that these migrants face at home.  

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes.  It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue. I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

What We Can Afford – The Briefing Book

Here is the number; on February 11, 2019, the United States reached a new milestone: the debt of the United States exceeded $22 Trillion.   The anticipated income for the United States government for 2019 is  $3.422 Trillion.  The anticipated spending is $4.407 Trillion; so in 2019 the United States will add to the debt by almost $1 Trillion (this is the annual deficit.)

What is the debt of the United States?  It is the total amount that the government has spent over the years more than it has received in income.  $3.9 Trillion of that debt is in held by foreign countries in the form of US bonds or Treasury notes, a little over $1 Trillion of that is specifically held by the government of China (28%.)  That leaves about $18 Trillion held either by the American people, or that the government has “borrowed” from itself.  

As the United States owes money to other countries, so other countries owe the United States.  The US has $29.27 Trillion owed by other nations. So on the balance sheet, the US is owed more than it owes.

To simplify all of this – think in terms of credit card debt.  The United States is spending using long-term credit cards, financed by all sorts of people, and nations, and from other US Government line items (kind of like borrowing from your own retirement account.)   Like all credit card spending, the good news is you get to have what you want when you want it.  The bad news is that there is a cost; the interest paid to carry the debt.  In 2019, the United States government is expected to spend $389 Billion on interest on the debt, or about ten percent of the US budget.  In 2016 the debt service was the third line item on the budget, behind pensions, healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, etc) and Defense.

Last year, President Trump and the Congress cut taxes (income) by $1.5 Trillion.  Their hope was that the cut would spur an economic boom, creating more income taxes to ultimately make up for the amount lost in the cut.  Currently, that boom hasn’t occurred, with economic growth staying steady between 2.5% and 3.0%.  So the net effect so far of the tax cut, is an estimated $1.3 Trillion loss in income to the government.

The President has increased defense spending in his budget requests, between $40 to $60 Billion over the past three budgets.  Congress has continued to operate on a budget over $4 Trillion, so there has been little action to reduce Congressional spending, despite the reduction in income due to the tax cut.

So here we are:  little interest in either Party for attempts to “balance” the budget, and increasing pressures on both Parties to spend. Republicans want more for Defense and Border Security, Democrats want more for Heathcare and Education, and both want to address “infrastructure.”  Going into the Presidential election of 2020, everyone wants to spend and no one wants to cut; so it’s likely that both the deficit (yearly) and the debt (total) will continue to grow.

Like a growing personal credit card debt, it’s easier to ignore the debt rather than deal with it. There are too many urgent problems for the American government and people, then to worry about a financial issue that looks like a lot of book keeping.

But there are long term impacts of the Federal Debt, both on what the government can do, who controls our finances, and what happens to our economy.  The first impact is that paying for the cost of the debt (interest owed) will continue to take up bigger and bigger “pie slice” of our total government spending.  $400 Billion or more on debt service is $400 Billion NOT spent on other budget items; items from border walls to student debt relief.  And the greater the debt grows, the greater that service budget item will grow:  estimates show that the debt will exceed $30 Trillion as soon as 2028, with estimated annual interest approaching $600 Billion. 

And, since a large portion of the debt is the US Government “borrowing” from itself, it essentially is increasing the amount of money in circulation.  This increase causes the “value of money,” the actual purchasing power of that money, to decrease.  That’s called inflation, and means that while there is more money around, it doesn’t purchase a whole lot more.   So both the Debt and the Deficit create inflationary pressure on the economy, and can have devastating impacts on the finances of regular citizens:  savings accounts, retirement accounts, and fixed incomes are directly hurt by inflation. The quotes:  “why isn’t a dollar a dollar anymore” or “go find a penny gumball machine;” both highlight the impact of inflation.

As the debt grows, more and more of the “spending decisions” of the government will be made by the financial institutions that own, manage, or control the money. Government priorities will be set not by elected officials, but by the financial markets.  This isn’t some “deep dark conspiracy” of the alt-right or radical left, this is the natural outgrowth of the growing impact of the debt.  Everybody loves bankers when they are loaning money out, but no one likes them on the first of the month when the payments are due.

Like the environment, social security and Medicare; the debt is a long-term problem.  And like the environment and those others, it doesn’t yield to quick and easy answers; it will require a re-prioritizing of what Americans want to get done.  But it will continue to loom over every other American decision in the next decades; it will require a solution; the longer we wait, the bigger and more invasive that solution will need to be.

Trump 2020

The release of Attorney General Bill Barr’s letter summarizing his “conclusions” about the Mueller Report has unleashed President Donald Trump.  There has been the obvious political strategy:  proclaim victory and decimate the opposition before the actual Mueller Report hits the scene.  But there is much more going on here than just the political maneuvering expected of anyone in the President’s position.

In what seems like a politically suicidal move, the Trump Administration has ordered the Justice Department to take a legal position that if successful, would completely wipe out the Affordable Care Act.  While Trump enthusiasts would say “promises made, promises kept;” it’s difficult to see the electoral upside to the end of pre-existing conditions coverage, coverage expansion, wellness care, and twenty-six year old staying on parents’ insurance.  

Mr. Trump has said, over and over, that it will be replaced with a “better” plan, but there is no such plan in sight, and little consensus among Republicans on what that kind of plan might look like.   The calculation by someone on the Trump political team has determined that literally “nothing” will contrast well against the 2020 Democratic candidates plans to expand government involvement in health care: the reality of a loss of health care by up to forty million people might have a different effect.

The President has once again doubled-down on the border (by now, it must be something more like quadrupled down, or “octupled” down.)  He again threatened Mexico with closing the entire border unless they control the northward flow of migrants, and he now has added the threat of cutting aid to the Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador; the origin of most of the migrants.

This reverses what most has seen as the single effective long-term strategy for dealing with the migrant issue, improving conditions in the Northern Triangle.  The Departments of Homeland Security and State were unaware of the pending announcement, scrambling to adapt to the new plans.  And while the $500 million in aid must be tempting, it is unlikely that it could be diverted to the President’s proud project at the border, the Wall (Washington Post.) 

They have also declared the need to deport  “unaccompanied minors,” those who have crossed the border without parents (NBC.)

It is clear that Trump 2020 has made the decision that “the Wall” is their winning strategy; and that “promise kept” must be defended at all costs, even if it hasn’t really happened. 

The Education Department, led by their insipid Secretary, Betsy DeVos, has become the striking point for reducing the reach of the Federal government.  While the proposed cut of federal funding for Special Olympic was dramatically reversed by the President; it was only the tip of the iceberg for Education Department cuts of programs.  Millions of dollars have been reduced, but even more have been transferred from existing programs to Ms. DeVos’s pet projects in charter and independent schools.

2020 Trump will point to this as a signature move to get “the government” out of education, and give “choice in education” to “the people;” a rallying point for the right.

And behind the scenes, the Administration has continued its assault on protections for American wildlife and lands.  The Interior Department lifted endangered species protection on the greater sage grouse, with the net effect of opening nine million acres of US controlled land for mining and oil exploration.  Not only does this pay off the President’s friends in those industries:  it feeds into his narrative that there is no need to explore alternative energy sources (Washington Post.) 

As the current swirl over the Mueller Report fills the air, the Trump campaign for 2020 is laying the groundwork for the election.  They are intent on reenacting the campaign of 2016, added to “#MAGA” the Vice President’s mantra of “promises made, promises kept.”  It is a strategy that will do little to expand the President’s electoral base, but it is one that will energize the support he does have.  

The second part of that plan must then be for the Democrats to in some way self-destruct, in order to recreate the electoral math of 2016.  Democrats – the choice is yours.

Second Grade 

I was in Miss Meyer’s second grade class at the “annex” to Clifton Elementary School.  My Mom was 5’4” and my Dad was too (at least so he claimed) so I definitely wasn’t the biggest kid in the class, but it wouldn’t have mattered out on the playground anyway.  The playground belonged to “Marshall.”  At the time, I thought Marshall was a fourteen year-old fourth grader (remember I was seven) though he probably was closer to eleven.  But he was huge, and he was strong, and he wanted my milk money.

And he took it, daily, for weeks.  Standing up to him wasn’t really an option, he would just push me down and take it anyway. My friends didn’t like it, but there was little they could do; if they protested, Marshall would take their milk money too.  He ruled the playground like a fiefdom of the Cincinnati Public Schools; I can’t remember the Principal’s name, but I absolutely remember Marshall’s.

Finally my parents intervened with the school, and Marshall went away.  We kids thought he went to juvenile prison (isn’t that what they do with robbers?) but I really don’t know what happened.  Marshall was gone, and my daily donation to his fiefdom was over. I remember my Dad taking me in the backyard and showing my some boxing moves; that’s how he handled the kids that bullied him for having a German last name after World War I.  But I’m glad I didn’t punch Marshall, he’d have slain me.

Second grade:  a time when things were simple, and the monsters were fourteen.  When you called your friends “pencil necks” and “dumb butts,” or maybe one of the “magic words” you heard the older kids use in the woods behind the house when they saw two dogs locked in love.  It was a time when there was no difference between common sense and “apparent” sense. 

• “If there was such a food crisis in China, why didn’t they go to a different grocery store?” 
• “Of course you couldn’t send a space ship to the sun during the day, you had to land at night.” 
• “All of those famous explorers who froze getting to the North and South Poles should have gone in the summer.”

Second grade in Miss Meyer’s class was a learning time for me.  I learned that left-handed people didn’t write correctly, and that sometimes you got knocked down for your lunch money.   And I learned that sometimes your heroes get shot in a limousine in Dallas.

But as I grew up, I learned that what seemed logical to second graders isn’t really logical at all.

So it is always with some surprise that I listen to our current President of the United States, speaking last night at a rally in Grand Rapids.  I have to reach back fifty-seven years to the Clifton School Annex playground and Miss Meyer’s room to understand what he is saying.  To hear him call Congressman Adam Schiff, Democratic Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “pencil necked” and “not a long ball hitter” (not a golfer myself, my guess is that is some vague sexual reference) puts me back playing four-square in the sun.

I think of those watching as like my friends in the circle around Marshall and me, wanting to do something to stop him, but knowing if they act, then Trump would turn on them, and take their “milk money.”  

I hear that same second grade “apparent logic” we used:

“You’d be doing wind, windmills, whirr.  And if it doesn’t blow you can forget about television for that night. ‘Darling I want to watch television. ‘I’m sorry, the wind isn’t blowing.’ I know a lot about wind.” (Trump, Rally in Grand Rapids 3/28/19)

It’s too bad they haven’t evented some kind of energy storage devices, maybe that could retain the power developed by the windmill, to use when the wind isn’t blowing, then recharge when it is.  

I bet a fourth grader could figure it out.

To my Trumpian Friends:

Once I have the opportunity to read the Mueller Report, I will accept his finding of no criminal conspiracy with Russia. I say once I see the report, because I am sorely disappointed that Attorney General Barr has ignored the non-partisan intent of the Special Counsel regulation, and has made a political decision with his four Page “summary.”

But I will not accept that all of the evidence of cooperation with Russia is false – because it’s not.

I know Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian representatives in Trump Tower with the intent of getting “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.  This is a fact.  Donald Jr. said he’d “love it.”

I know that Donald Trump lied to the American people about his business dealings with Russia throughout the 2016 election campaign. Not only did Cohen testify to it, but Trump himself and his lawyer Giuliani acknowledged it.

I know that campaign manager Manafort and his assistant Gates met with a Russian operative in the Cigar Bar in New York and passed him campaign polling data.

I know that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn made multiple contacts to Russian officials, then lied to the FBI about it.  I know that in some of these calls, he promised a change in the future administration’s policy if they would ignore the Obama administration’s sanctions for election interference – and the Russians did.

I know that either Roger Stone is a soothsayer able to predict the future, or he knew about the subjects of the WikiLeaks email releases well before they happened.  As I don’t believe in supernatural powers, that leaves Stone in contact with Wikileaks.

I see a record of lying about Russian contacts from the President, the children, and the campaign staff that has stretched over three years. Why did they lie if there was nothing to hide?

You ask why we “liberals” can’t just let this go. You state: “…see,  we told you there was no collusion (whatever that word means.)” But what I actually “see” is evidence of exactly that.  I hope that the Mueller Report will address my concerns because what Bill Barr is saying is; “believe me, not your lying eyes.”

Legal constraints on Robert Mueller in his Special Counsel position may have pre-ordained the outcome of his investigation.  There are two issues that hamstrung the Special Counsel, unlike the Independent Counsels of the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton eras. Those Counsels were operating under a law passed by Congress, creating their position and guaranteeing its independence from the rest of the Executive Branch.  While there were questions about the Constitutionality of creating such an office, while it existed it could operate in the Justice Department as an independent entity.

Mueller was given no such powers.  He was appointed under the Special Counsel regulation of the Department of Justice itself.  He was never independent, but an employee of the Department of Justice, and subject to its restrictions and controls.  He served under the Attorney General (or Deputy Attorney General during the recusal of Jeff Sessions) and had to run major decisions through him.

The Special Counsel regulations require that if the Counsel and the Attorney General disagree about a decision, that has to be reported to the Congress.  What the Regulations don’t mention, is that if a Special Counsel knows there will be disagreement, and therefore does not bring an issue to the Attorney General, there is nothing to be done.

Robert Mueller is an honorable man.  He was well aware of the rules of his new office.  One of those rules was that the Department of Justice would not bring an indictment against the President of the United States.  This means that regardless of the outcome of his investigation, Robert Mueller knew that he could not bring an indictment of Donald Trump.  It was unreasonable for anyone to expect differently, Mueller is a straight-ahead litigator, he is not a rule breaker.   He was not going to demand a re-write of long established policy.

So what if Mueller found evidence that President Trump broke the law?  Leon Jarworski, the Nixon Independent Counsel, didn’t indict the President, but named him as an unindicted co-conspirator.  Robert Mueller didn’t do that, but the Federal Southern District of New York has all but done so, naming him as “Individual One” who participated in Cohen’s crimes.

But Mueller also knew his greater task, to let the nation know what really happened in the election of 2016.  Those details, the evidence that might serve Congress in an impeachment of the President if required, are in the Report.  That’s why the Barr Letter is so dissatisfying; it, intentionally or not, hides the facts.

In addition, when the new Attorney General, Bill Barr, was appointed; Mueller knew full well that Barr had a unique view of Presidential power. Barr ascribes to the “Unitary Executive” theory, granting all powers of the Executive Branch in the single individual, the President.  Under this theory, the President cannot obstruct justice, as obstructing an investigation by the Department of Justice is theoretically just stopping himself. In the same way, the President can fire any executive branch personnel for any reason. He is the sole decider. The only Constitutional check on the President recognized by the theory is the power of Congressional impeachment.

Mueller could have brought a recommendation to indict President Trump for obstruction, but that would run counter to both Department policy (indicting a President) and the avowed views of the new Attorney General. Instead, Mueller did what a good prosecutor does, he presented his evidence for the Congress and the Country to decide.

We will, when we get the opportunity to see the Report.

So I am sorry my Trumpian friends and Attorney General Barr, it will take more than your say-so to overcome what I already know. I believe in Mueller, but I need to see what he saw to understand his conclusions. In our current world of “fake news” – created by this – President – it’s the only way to know.

Payback Tour!!

Like it or not, the Mueller Investigation was unable to prove that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.  The explanation that we are now expected to accept, is that there were a series of contacts with Russia, from Flynn to Don Junior to Manafort, that were not coordinated on the Trump side.  We now “know” that all of these and more; Papadoupolos, Stone, and the President himself, lied to the American people about their interactions: for no particular reason?  Sometimes what apparently is what it really is:  the Trump campaign was clumsy, and ignorant, and unaware of the multiple attempts Russian intelligence was making to influence their campaign.  We await the actual Mueller Report.

But with Attorney General Bill Barr’s little letter to the Congress, the President and his campaign are off the conspiracy hook.  The Trump apologists are in full cry:  we need to punish those who dared called out the Russian connections.  Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stated that critics called the President an agent of Russia, committing treason, a death penalty offense. As Emerson said,  “When you strike at a king, you must kill him,” because if you fail, he will definitely try to kill you.

The Trump Campaign 2020 has sent a list to news program producers, detailing the folks who should not be allowed on the air, “… given the outrageous and unsupported claims made in the past.” Senator Mike Blumenthal, Congressmen Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Jerry Nadler, DNC Chairman Tom Perez, and former CIA Director John Brennan are, according to the campaign, to either be blackballed, or attacked for their prior statements.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who admitted to advising John McCain to turn the Steele Dossier over to the FBI, has a list of investigations he wants to reopen as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He wants to follow the Jim Jordan plan:  attack the FBI leadership from Comey to McCabe to Strzok; investigate the Carter Page FISA warrant; and perhaps even re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigations.  He and fellow traveller Trey Gowdy were at Mara Lago with the President last weekend, clearly preparing their responses to the Barr letter. 

So while the House of Representatives will continue to investigate the Trump Presidency, with Committees looking at everything from taxes to obstruction to conspiracy; the Trump Administration has moved aggressively into attack mode.  It’s not just against the Trump critics.  They have opened a full-on assault against the “MSM” (mainstream media – not a Microsoft product) and particularly the big four, the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN.  

They have also doubled down on their attacks on the new young Congressional Democrats, accusing the entire Party of being anti-Semitic.  Even Benjamin Netanyahu joined in, echoing the Trump propaganda in his speech to AIPAC, the American-Israeli lobby.  

So with “the enemy” on the run, the last thing any political entity would want to do is step on their own message.  From the Trump perspective, ride the “vindication” of the Barr Letter for as long as he can; who knows what will happen when the actual Mueller Report emerges. But of course, this is the same Trump operation that had dozens of contacts with Russians, supposedly without the right hand knowing what the left hand was doing; so it should be no surprise that the “payback tour” would get cut short by a move of their own making.

The first action in “stepping on the message” actually occurred before the Letter was released. Last week Trump released the proposed budget for 2020, including a line item cut of Medicare of $845 Billion. While the real “cut” is closer to $595 Billion, cutting Medicare going into an election year is always going to be a tough sell.

Then yesterday, the Department of Justice weighed in on the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.  Up until this time, the DoJ had taken the regular position of defending the law passed by Congress, but yesterday their brief was a full out attack on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.   Should the Administration prevail in the case that undoubtedly will in end in front of the Supreme Court, ALL of the Affordable Care Act would be gone.

Getting insurance with pre-existing conditions, Medicaid expansions, keeping children on parents insurance until twenty-six, wellness care, Medicare drug cost reductions, purchasing individual insurance on the marketplace:  all would end.  The Trump Administration has failed to put forward any alternative plans, and neither have the Republicans in the Senate, so if this were to come to pass, the United States would be back in 2009 as far as healthcare is concerned.   That’s not going to be popular.

At first glance, it might seem that Mr. Trump is so embedded in hatred towards John McCain that he would take an impossible political position just in spite.  But all of this “payback tour” is really part of a clear campaign strategy.  The Trump/Republican strategy is one based on the election of 2016; essentially conceding that they are unable to get a majority of Americans to vote for him. Giving up “winning” means that the campaign will need to follow the extremely narrow path they fell upon in 2016, winning by narrow margins in enough states to tip the Electoral College to their side.

So in fact, the “tour” is exactly what it seems to be, more “red meat” to the Trump base.  They don’t need to win the “popular” vote, they need to hold their 40% and get enough of the rest in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin to win the Electoral vote.  Their actions are specifically targeted:  the “victimhood” of the investigation, the continued state action to restrict voting rights (Florida legislators are in the process of undoing the Florida Constitutional Amendment granting former felons the right to vote,) and the continual lying about healthcare (we will have a “great” system – “trust me;”) all aimed at their narrow base.

It looks like “paybacks” but it’s actually the new campaign strategy:  and we’re not even in 2020 yet.

Food Poisoning

So Sunday night I found myself in and out of bed with food poisoning. Lost six pounds – and Monday was spent laying low. Many of my “Trumper” friends will say it wasn’t food poisoning at all – but “Barr Poisoning” — maybe so.

Special Counsel Mueller has found that there was no indictable conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russian assets. There’s a far legal cry from not guilty to innocent, but it doesn’t matter. While we still await Mr. Mueller’s actual report, the bottom line is that Russia can no longer be a Democratic focus. Mueller has spoken – regardless of what seemed to be a huge circumstantial case, we need to move on. Dwelling on what he should have found won’t change what has passed, and it won’t win in 2020. We must leave it to historians to determine what happened.

The Trump side demands an apology.  Tell them as soon as we get one from Trey Gowdy, we’ll think about it.  After seven years of Benghazi and now more threats of FISA and Clinton email investigations – don’t bother. There was more than enough probable cause to believe the President was conspiring – it just couldn’t be proved.

And while it is the right, and perhaps the duty of the House of Representatives to investigate the President’s potential obstruction of justice, it would be difficult to convince the nation that there was an involved cover up of a crime that didn’t occur. Americans are common sense people, and “that dog won’t hunt” for most.

So, my disappointed Democratic friends, let’s move on. We celebrated the appointment Mueller as the “umpire,” we can’t complain about the calls. And it’s not like there isn’t plenty to complain about with the Trump Presidency, as my “Trump Friends” point out, it’s onto healthcare, the environment, income inequality, and all of the other issues that a vast majority of Americans can see are being bungled. The “Trumpers” see those as winning issues – but we know they aren’t.

To quote Hamilton – “…if we can get this one right…” we can demonstrate that Trump has done exactly what we knew he would do: make the rich richer, the powerful stronger, and make America “white” again.

That’s enough. Democrats have the answers that the majority of Americans want. Let’s get that done, and not spend time on what might have been.  Get to work!

What Democrats Shouldn’t Be Talking About

There are three major “plot lines” in Democratic politics today.  The first, and what should be the most important; is what can a Democratic House of Representatives get accomplished in the next year and a half. What proposals can they put forth to the American people; ideas that, if they could get a Democratic Senate and/or Presidency, would make America a better place.  Ideas like extending health care to more Americans, making major improvements to protect the environment, and working towards a higher minimum wage; all are things that Democrats should be talking about.  

The second is the behavior of the President of the United States.  It is the legitimate authority of the House of Representatives to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch.  There are many, many questions about the actions of the President; his unusual affinity for dictators and potentates, his personal financial gains in the Presidency, the behavior of his appointees from the Department of the Interior to the Environmental Protection Agency.  

If there is a swamp in Washington, it’s the one appointed by Donald Trump.  There’s a lot to investigate, beyond the actual questions about the President himself.

And the third “plot line” is the 2020 election, the excruciatingly long campaign for the Democratic nomination for President.  Eighteen have officially declared so far, with several, most importantly Joe Biden, still waiting in the wings.  They are barnstorming the nation, talking about almost everything, and trying to find a way to rise above the crowd.

In trying to gain some of that visibility, there should be some topics that simply aren’t given much discussion, because they are distracting from critical issues, and give ammunition to whomever the future Republican candidate might be (if not the President.)

The Electoral College should be off of the table.  Yes, it’s an anachronism, with hints of the same kind of compromises that made slaves 3/5’s of a person.  It gives more power to smaller states, though in the end a large enough popular vote offsets the effect.  And, from the Democrats side, it has resulted in winning the popular vote in two elections in the past sixteen years, but losing the Presidency.  It’s easy to envision a much-altered history with Al Gore instead of George Bush, or Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

But it doesn’t matter. There is no conceivable way that Article II and Amendment XII of the Constitution of the United States are going to be modified.  Even if two-thirds of the Congress were willing to make the change, there wouldn’t be the three-fourths of the states to vote for an amendment that many would consider against their own interests.  

So it’s a non-starter, and fodder for the alt-right media and politicians who will use the discussions to energize their base.  There is little to gain from discussing it, and lots to lose.  Candidates need to say exactly that; and move onto more important issues.  So should “bloggers” (like me) who get sucked into theoretical Constitutional discussions. It ain’t gonna change, so get over it, and gain enough popular votes, including the 77,744 votes that would have changed  the electoral votes of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to “blue” in 2016.

“Socialism” has been a Republican “bête noire” since the New Deal era of Franklin Roosevelt. Democratic candidates for President shouldn’t get trapped on the flypaper of “are you a socialist” questions.  The United States has a capitalist economic system, and that’s not going to change.  Even the most “left” Democratic candidates recognize that, and see their role in government as regulating capitalism so that it doesn’t take advantage of the people, and to secure basic human rights like housing, food, healthcare, environmental protection and individual opportunity.  

So unless Eugene Debs is running for the Democratic candidacy (founder of the Social Democratic Party in 1898 and five time Socialist Party candidate) everyone else should acknowledge that we’ve got a lot of work to do to improve our capitalist country, but capitalist is what we are.   There is no reason not to be ready for the question, and even the extreme left supporters of Sanders and Warren would recognize the reasoning.

And finally, Presidential candidates shouldn’t be talking about impeaching the current President.  Impeachment discussions, while they might be warranted, are premature.  Americans view impeachment as a quasi-judicial action by the Congress; they don’t like their judges and jurors deciding a case before the trial, and we don’t want the Congressmen and Senators running for President to pre-judge the case either.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has it right.  The committee chairman, Nadler, Schiff, Cummings and Neal; will make sure that the investigations are carried out properly.  They will provide the evidence and if impeachment is warranted that evidence will trigger the issue.  There’s no need to continue discussion until it is presented, and that’s a matter of time.

In the meantime, the Democratic candidates should be telling voters how they will make our nation better, heal it from the intense divisions we face today, and improve the life of our citizens.  That’s what folks are looking for, not the inflammatory rhetoric that serves only to galvanize the opposition without any real chance of success.