Category: Uncategorized

I Know it When I See It

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, a son of Cincinnati, struggled to reach some legal definition of obscenity.  In the 1960’s, as the boundaries of the First Amendment freedom of expression clause were tested, the Court pondered the question:  when is a pornographic film free speech, and when it is beyond the standards; obscene and legally banned.

Eventually the Court would come to a “community standards” decision, allowing individual communities to make their own call about decency.  Oddly enough, Cincinnati would become a “hotbed” of legal action over obscenity, with the Hamilton County Prosecutor testing exactly how much he could ban in the early 1970’s.  He went from films to magazines (Hustler) to art exhibitions (Maplethorpe) and made himself the “king of censorship.”

But before that decision, Miller v Californiain 1973, the nine justices of the Supreme Court had to decide film by film.  About once a month it was “movie day” in the theatre in the basement of the Supreme Court building.  There, some of the justices, and many of the clerks (it was a mostly male club then) would watch movies.  Justices Black and Douglas took the position that there was no boundary and that all movies were protected under free speech.  They didn’t attend.  The rest ate popcorn and watched porn.

While the clerks developed “standards:” guessing that if a certain action appeared then Justice so-and-so would call it obscene, ultimately it was a completely subjective decision.  And out of that process came what was known as the “Potter Stewart standard.”  In the case (this time Cleveland Heights)  Nico Jacobellis v Ohio, 1964; Justice Stewart concurred with the decision finding the film shown (Les Amants) not to be obscene.  In his opinion, Justice Stewart put forward his honest if subjective standard for obscenity:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

“I know it when I see it:” a legal standard written in a Supreme Court decision.  Today the obscenity level of porn films is less of an issue, probably due to the internet where there are no barriers at all.  But that phrase can well be applied to the seminal issue of our time, the looming impeachment of Donald J Trump.

The standard for impeachment is clearly written in the Constitution, “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  (US Constitution, Article 2, §4.)

Treason is  defined in the Constitution:  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (US Constitution, Article 3, §3.)  Bribery is not defined Constitutionally, but has an accepted definition of taking money to influence a decision.  

But “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not so easily defined.  In our current use of the term misdemeanor, should the President be removed for “jay-walking” or having a joint?  That doesn’t fit with the seriousness the authors of the Constitution placed on the impeachment process.  And “high crimes”  today is being equated with the criminal term “felonies.”  But was that the actual intent of the Constitution?

The basis for impeachment and removal of the President, as for much of the legal system of the United States, was English Common Law.  In Common Law, there were two types of crimes:  those against the king (the state) and those against commoners.  For example, “petit treason” would be to go against your brother, “high treason” would be go against the king (the state.)   A “high” crime wasn’t necessarily so much a legal “felony” as a crime against the country.

And it is possible for a President to commit a “high crime” without committing a felony.  Neal Katyah, former Acting Solicitor General under the Obama Administration, made an interesting point.  If the President decided that he was going to take a six-month vacation in Spain, abandoning his post as President, it would not be a “felony” offense.  But clearly his dereliction of duty would be impeachable.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 made a similar point, speaking of the Senate’s duty to try impeachments:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

As we await the next “shoe to drop” from the Mueller investigation, we should not get locked into the narrative that the President can only be held liable for “felonies committed.” Impeachment is “grander” than that, it is about conduct of the Presidency as well as legal or illegal actions.

What is the definition of an impeachable offense?  It may not be so legally clear, but we’ll know it when we see it.

This is Not Trump’s Fault

“Yellow vests” are rampaging through Paris.  “Brexit” is teetering on the brink of collapse.  Trump is on the verge of impeachment.  The leaders of Russia and Saudi Arabia, both murderers, are greeting each other like boys who won the big game.  Authoritarian leaders are in control in Turkey, and Hungary and the Philippines; nations we thought were well in the “democratic” camp.

What is going on in the world?  Why has a world that seemed to be moving towards a more stable society (or if you are an alt-right conspiracy theorist – a NEW WORLD ORDER) now seem to be falling apart;  why the unrest, why the uncertainty?  Didn’t we win the Cold War, the War to stabilize the world against Communist aggression?  Why didn’t that fix things?

So something you don’t hear everyday here in Trump World:  this isn’t Donald Trump’s fault.  The forces driving the unrest in the world, including here in the United States, were happening long before his ride down the golden escalator in Trump Tower.  I will say though, that he isn’t helping to solve the crisis.

It was on Christmas Day seventeen years ago that the red hammer and sickle flag of the Soviet Union was lowered for the last time.  With the end of the Cold War, a world carefully balanced ended as well. We were we no longer poised on the point of nuclear holocaust, but the “controls” that the Soviets placed on their “satellite” states were gone.

The lesson should already have been learned after the death of Marshal Tito, the dictator of Yugoslavia. Once Tito, in power since the end of World War II, no longer had his iron fist in control of the nation, it quickly broke up into combative ethnic regions.  One nation, held together by a shared history of resistance to Nazism and the fierce personality of Tito, became a struggling amalgam:  Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Serbia.  Ethnic violence between Christians and Muslims became ethnic cleansing; European cities like Sarajevo, site of the 1984 Winter Olympics, became battlegrounds with mass graves.

And the United States had to learn that lesson again, soon after the Persian Gulf War.  President George W Bush determined to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, taking the “cork out of the bottle” of ethnic hatred. Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurds fought for power, ISIS grew from the conflict, and the United States still remains bogged down in the region, unable to find a stable government to leave behind.

The battles in the Balkans and in the Middle East created waves of refugees that moved into the rest of Europe.  Many were Muslim, and most “looked different” than the Germans, or French, or British where they landed.  They needed jobs and housing and education; and “ethnic minorities” became an issue in places where it had never occurred before:  the small “crossroads and pub” hamlets of the United Kingdom and France and Germany.

Nationalism is the belief that a national group is “better” than the rest of the world.  It has a positive side, patriotism, evoking national pride and encouraging work and sacrifice.  But its ugly side: superiority that becomes a reason to hate and repress, grew powerful in the economic tensions of the 1930’s.   As a “ national force” it was discredited and disgraced at the end of World War II:  the catastrophic destruction of the war, and the racist annihilation of the Holocaust, made it clear what Nationalism could do.  National identities were subsumed into the idea of trans-national governments, whether it was the European Union, the Soviet Union, or even the United Nations. 

But Nationalism didn’t die, it was right under the surface.  In those nations where it was suppressed by force, like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union (now fifteen separate “republics”) the removal of authoritarian regimes quickly allowed ugly nationalism to blossom.  In more democratic nations it still existed, but in tension with the egalitarian ideals of “…liberty, equality and brotherhood.”

Discontent usually starts with economics.  In the “western world,” there has been an increasing trend of income inequality.  In the 1980’s the average income of the top 10% was 7x that of the lowest 10%, today it is 9 ½ x more.  Today in Europe, the top 10% of wealthiest households have 50% of the wealth, the lowest 40% have 3% (Understanding the Socio-Economic Divide in Europe– 2017).

As economic inequality increased in Europe, those in the lower economic range were left discontented and competing for lower paying jobs.  Their increasing competition was with the migrants and refugees coming from dislocated regions in and around Europe.  One way to “win” that competition was to block migration, a move that has nationalistic as well as economic foundations.

Add to this the forces encouraging nationalistic actions:  a nation that had a stake in the failure of democracies and world unions: Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin has his own economic issues and inequalities, but his nationalistic aspirations were to re-build the Russian Empire.  In order for him to do that, he had to reduce the power of the competing forces that blocked his expansion:  the European Union, NATO, and the United States.  

He found a new weapon: the internet.  Russia became the master at reaching and enflaming nationalist groups within a nation.  The US saw this happen in the 2016 election (and still today) but it also happened in the United Kingdom during the Brexit vote, and in the last French election (Marie LePen.)   It continues with the “Yellow Vests” today;  faked videos of French police shooting down protestors with sniper rifles go online and are amplified by nationalists throughout the world.

The underlying factors for unrest are already here:  economic inequity and dislocation.  The resulting despondency is looking for a rationale:  nationalism and the internet are providing the answer.  Governments are unable or unwilling to respond to the underlying economic causes of the crisis, so the nationalistic themes, repeated over and over on social media, take hold.   It wasn’t the right answer in 1930’s, but history is often forgotten. So it may not be repeated exactly, but unfortunately it may rhyme.

Individual 1

Michael Cohen, former lawyer to Donald Trump, pleaded guilty to eight federal felony counts in the Southern District of New York.  Six of those counts dealt with Cohen’s own actions dealing with business and taxes. Two of the counts were for breaking Federal Campaign Finance laws; he made illegal contributions and hid them for the purpose of evading the law.  Cohen also pled guilty to a felony count of lying to Congress regarding Trump Organization contacts with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign.

In his guilty pleas regarding the campaign finance law violations, Cohen stated that he made those payments for the Trump Campaign, and in fact at the direction and with coordination of “individual 1.”  Individual 1 was the candidate, now President, Donald J. Trump.

The legal definition of a conspiracy is:

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. (Legal Information Institute, Cornell University)

Cohen pled guilty to two counts of Campaign Finance Law violations, at the direction and coordination of “individual 1.”  By definition, Cohen was in a criminal conspiracy with “individual 1,” and if Cohen was charged with the crime, so too should be “individual 1.”  As he was not charged, he becomes an unindicted co-conspirator.

The term “unindicted co-conspirator” is one with loaded meaning.  On March 1, 1974, when Richard Nixon was in the depths of the Watergate crisis, seven members of his staff, including the Attorney General, the White House Chief of Staff, the Assistant for Domestic Affairs, and a Special Counsel to the White House; were indicted by the Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.  The charges were obstructing justice, making false statements, lying to federal investigators and prosecutors, and lying to Congress.  

As a separate part of the court filing, a sealed report was delivered to the judge, outlining the actions of an eighth unindicted co-conspirator; Richard Nixon, the President of the United States.  That filing was ultimately transmitted to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, and became the basis for the impeachment of the President.

Jaworski determined that he could not indict a serving President of the United States, but that is by no means “black letter law.”  The US Constitution does make it clear that members of the House and Senate: 

“…shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same…” US Constitution, Article 1, §6, Paragraph 1

It however, it grants no such immunity to the President of the United States. In Article 1, §3 the powers to impeach and remove from office are granted to Congress, and in that section it states that once removed, the subject of removal can be indicted, tried and punished by the courts.  Article 2 states that the President can be impeached and removed for committing “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (Article 2, §4.)

The Department of Justice and many legal scholars take this Constitutional wording to mean that the President cannot be indicted until AFTER impeachment and removal from office.  Jaworski in 1974, and Robert Mueller today,  are bound by this Justice Department ruling.  However, that has never been directly adjudicated in court; so it still remains an open question.

The authors of the Constitution were weighing two conflicting concerns as they established the powers of the branches of government.  One of the main reasons for the Constitutional Convention was the weakness of the then-existing government, the Articles of Confederation Congress.  The Constitutional authors created a more powerful executive branch, and then tried to balance those executive powers with checks and restrictions from the other branches.

The Legislative branch was given the ultimate power to remove the executive for crimes:  impeachment and conviction.  The Judicial branch was given a very limited role in that process, simply presiding over the conviction phase.  The judiciary would get their chance at a criminal President, but only after removal from office.

And yet, the Constitution saw all citizens as equal in the eyes of the law, and carefully controlled those parts of the Presidency that resembled the monarchy they so recently revolted against.  The powers of the President were limited.  In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the argument that the President could be controlled. 

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. (Federalist Papers, #69)

So while there’s no “black letter law” answer as to whether “individual 1” can be indicted and tried for Federal crimes, it seems that the intent of the Constitution was for the Congress to exercise their power to remove him from office first, then subject him to trial.  And since the impeachment and removal process is political rather than judicial, the strict legal rules of court procedures need not apply.  How the Congress proceeds with the “trial” of impeachment is up to them.  It takes a majority of the House of Representatives to bring the charges (impeach) and two-thirds (67) of the Senate to convict (remove.)

In our current era of political division, the difference between “red” or “blue” power seems to rest on a knife-edge of votes (see North Carolina’s 9^th, where 900 or so votes divide the candidates, and a scandal may change the outcome.)  A two-thirds majority of the Senate for anything seems wildly beyond expectation.  Senators would need to be sure that they are doing the will of the vast majority of the people, and it would take an ironclad case to convince the American people that the President should be removed.  The Nixon tapes were enough to tilt the vote against him (though twenty some percent still supported him) and forced Nixon to resign in the face of the inevitable.  

It took more than being an “unindicted co-conspirator” then, and it will again today.  The nation will wait to see the “overt act” that shows a high crime and misdemeanor; one that  most (not just our Resistance minority) will view as beyond reason.  Then, and only then, will  “individual 1” face justice.

Land the Plane

This week, we watched the State Funeral of American President George Bush.  There were twenty-one gun salutes, jet aircraft flyovers, military bands playing “Hail to the Chief,” “Ruffles and Flourishes” and “For Those in Peril on the Sea.”  Just as the banner of King Richard was flown behind him in battle, the Presidential Flag marched behind the funeral party, carried by a sailor in honor of the President’s service.  The stalwart enlisted men, two from each branch, shouldered the burden of the flag draped casket.

A young Naval officer escorted the body on every step of the long journey to College Station.  And Major General Michael Howard was at the elbow of George W Bush, making sure the former President and new eldest member of the family was informed and escorted to the right place.  It seemed flawless.  It seemed controlled.  It seemed right.

But today we tumble back into the maelstrom of our current politics.  We are waiting for Robert Mueller to drip more information onto the flames of the Russiagate Crisis.  We watch President Trump’s tweets with dismay; he seems to grow more desperate each moment.  What has he seen, that we may or may not know?

Throughout the past two years, Americans on all sides of the political world have taken some solace in the strength of some of the President’s aides.  We leaned on General James Mattis at the Defense Department, trusting on his reputation and his frank comments about today.  He is one of the few within the Administration who openly recognized our nation’s condition;  “…hold the line until our country gets back to respecting each other,” is what he told our troops overseas.

We depended on General John Kelly, despite some of his impolitic statements, to temper the actions of the White House.  We knew that a man who is not only a warrior, but has felt the agony of the ultimate sacrifice, losing his own son in war; would be more than just careful with the lives of other soldiers.  

And, as odd as it seems to say now, we depended on Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Even though he had a history that makes anyone moderate or more cringe, we found that he had respect for the traditions of the office, recognizing his own conflicts of interest and recusing himself as appropriate. 

We had confidence in Nikki Haley at the United Nations.  The former Governor of South Carolina, showed the courage and wisdom to navigate the crisis of the Charleston Shootings by removing the Confederate Battle Flag from the statehouse grounds, and demonstrated strength and independence in representing our nation to the world.

Like the military at the Presidential funeral, we had confidence in their abilities, in their respect for the history and traditions of the United States, and in their strength in times of crisis.  But Nikki Haley is gone; to be replaced by an elevated Fox News host.  It’s kind of like the announcer in the booth coming down to play wide receiver on the field.

Jeff Sessions was fired; replaced by another commentator from the stands, Matt Whittaker, a man clearly unqualified.  President Trump is now reaching all the way back to the Presidency of George HW Bush to find another replacement in William Barr; it must have occurred to Trump as he stared off during the ceremonies.  Perhaps he hopes that the comfort of the funeral will be embodied in this appointment.  We will see, Mr. Barr has also been “trying out” on the Fox network.

And we hear that the Generals in command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are to be shuffled.  While this is normal, there is nothing normal about the current state of American affairs.  The quiet triumvirate of General friends, Mattis, Kelly, and Chairman Dunford; gave us the same sense of security and strength we felt at the Bush funeral.  Now Dunford will retire.

Kelly is rumored to be leaving; to be replaced by a thirty-six year old career political operative, Nick Ayers.  While he may bring some of the political acumen needed in a White House under investigative siege, he has none of the strength or gravitas of Kelly.  It hard to imagine him standing up to the President. 

The United States has a proud tradition of civilian control of the military.  But for the last two years, it has been members of the military or the “old” establishment that have given us some hope for stability in the White House.  Like the Presidential Funeral, we depended on them to “steady the ship,” or to use a more appropriate George Bush analogy, “land the plane.”  

They are leaving.  And they are leaving at a time when the current President is under attack from every side.  I believe in American Exceptionalism, and I believe that Americans will step up to the task when called upon to do so.  I hope those called in the next few days are up for it; we have entered a dangerous phase of our history.  I hope they can “land the plane.”

The Catafalque

I had the honor of working for a US Congressman in 1977.  I was twenty, a young “politician” with “all the answers.”  I interned in Tom Luken’s (D-Cincinnati) office, and had a pass that gave me free rein in the US Capitol.  While most know the four main floors of the building, there are several floors below, each with passageways and chambers.  There’s a barbershop, and stores, and in one anxiety filled moment, the power plant with armed guards.  That was the time to push the “up” button on the elevator!

In my wanderings I found the “Washington Crypt.”  It was designed for the internment of George and Martha Washington, a fitting national site for their graves.  However, their heirs determined that Mt. Vernon would be there final resting place (still there today) so the crypt is empty.  Stored in the room was a catafalque, the base caskets are placed upon when they are displayed “in state” in the Capitol rotunda.  The catafalque was first used to support the casket of Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and in 1977, you could walk in and touch it.

In these days of high security, you probably can’t get to the Crypt anymore and certainly not touch things.  The Lincoln Catafalque has been moved to the new Visitors Center. But it still is used; for over one hundred and fifty years it has supported our honored dead.  In August it supported John McCain, and this week, it held the casket of President George HW Bush.

It is easy to feel like our Democracy is at risk.  We are in a constant state of crisis; either the “Resistance” is a threat to the Presidency, or the President is a threat to democracy.  It feels like we are facing an extra-Constitutional chasm, a crisis not foreseen by the founding fathers, and one that our “…one nation, indivisible…” might not survive.

But yesterday we had the opportunity to remember our America again.  The death and celebration of the life of President George HW Bush gave us an opportunity to all be “Americans:” to see the people and the institutions that continue to function even as we struggle with events of the day.

Our structure survives. We can see it:  in the young soldiers who so proudly escorted the casket, in the old friends who cried in the Cathedral, and in the crowds that waited for hours to pay their respects.  We see it in Bob Dole saying goodbye to his friend and rival, and in the pew of Presidents sitting awkwardly together.

The celebration of George HW Bush’s life pushes us to take the long view, because of the scope of his long life.  Born “with a silver spoon,” Bush was the product of upper class society with education at Andover Academy and Yale.  But he also was the product of his sense of duty, leaving high school to join the Navy, and risking his life daily at that young age to fight in World War II.

President Bush forces us to take a wider view, raised in Northeast, he moved to make his own way in the oilfields of Texas.  The son of a US Senator, he didn’t run for public office until he had become accomplished in business, waiting until he was forty to step into the political limelight.

And President Bush makes us look at the wide scope of our recent history.  He was a warrior in World War II, but became a Cold War leader as CIA Director, UN Ambassador and Ambassador to China.  As President he helped orchestrate the peaceful end to the Cold War, and began to deal with the complications of our current world.

And, of course, the ceremonies make us look at the contrast with our current politics.  When former Senator Alan Simpson talked of political courage, of Bush sharing his political popularity and then taking a political “gut punch” of increased taxes to support a bipartisan economic package; his example is a rebuke to our current politics of “bullying by tweet.”

Our structure remains. Our institutions, the military, the government, even the church; continue to function regardless of the seeming chaos at the surface.   The establishment of America, like the Lincoln Catafalque, is still there, supporting our nation, even in our time of peril.  The near future will be rough, we will face fear and crisis, but in the long view, that view from a lifetime of public service, our America will survive.

A Republican Challenge

Note: this is the 350th Post on Trump World.   I was going to write maybe once a week when I started in February of 2017, but like any other good exercise, writing and thinking becomes an addiction.  And the subject, our politics and history, is compelling and constantly changing.   This is the first time I’ve actually asked for a response — though there have been plenty responses before.  Enjoy!!

So this is a challenge. I am looking at our politics, and what I am seeing is a dramatic attack on our American ideal of democracy. These attacks are not the ones made by the Trump Administration:  anyone who has read “Trump World” knows I’ve already written volumes about that. These are more subtle, done state by state by the Republican Party.

I have made it clear from the beginning that I am NOT an impartial observer.  I have constantly shared my opinions about our political world. But I try to keep a balance, and  am struggling in this particular essay, because I am unable to think of the counter-argument, a tit-for-tat that the Democratic Party has done.

It started in 2008, with Karl Rove’s (former Bush campaign manager and later nicknamed “Bush’s Brain) Redmap plan.  The Redmap plan was a Republican effort to take over the state governorships, statehouses, and other state elective offices that controlled the re-districting systems in each state by the 2010 election cycle.  By getting control of the levers of power, or more appropriately, the pencils that drew the maps after the 2010 Census, the Republicans were able to gerrymander Districts to their elective benefit.

Gerrymandering is nothing new, it was named for Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts back in 1812. Politicians have always known the basics:  concentrate the opposition into a few districts, or dilute them among many districts, so that your party wins the majority in most Districts.  But the Redmap plan took gerrymandering into the age of computers, using targeting data down to the block and house, in order to maximize the power of the Republicans over the Democrats.

An outstanding example of the power of Redmap is in the Wisconsin state legislature.  In the 2018 November election, Democrats won 55% of the votes for the State Assembly, while Republicans cast 44%.  However Republicans won 63 seats to Democrats 35 (64% to 36%.)   As anti-democratic (the ideal, and in Wisconsin at least, the Party) as it seems, Gerrymandering works.

In addition to Redmap, the Republican Party has made a national effort to keep the voting population Republican by making it more difficult for minorities and the poor to vote. This has been done through a variety of ways, including:  stricter voter identification requirements, reducing voting opportunities, complicated voter registration procedures, scrubbing the voting rolls, and voter intimidation at the polls.

While voter suppression has been done in many states, it is best exampled by the Georgia Governor’s race in 2018.  The Republican candidate, Brian Kemp, was the serving Secretary of State in control of the state’s election apparatus.  His work to suppress the Democratic vote was obvious, and successful enough to get him to the Governorship.  Other states, from Kansas to Michigan to Ohio have legally suppressed the vote at some level, though the Georgia election was the most drastic.

A third emerging Republican action is the “sore loser” plan.  This is occurring right now in Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina. Many of the statewide elective offices in those states have turned over from Republican to Democratic, and in response, the “lame duck” Republican legislatures and Governors are working to reduce the powers of the incoming Democrats.

In Wisconsin, the Republican controlled legislature and Governor Scott Walker are working to reduce the power of both the Governor and the Attorney General.  They are attempting to remove the power of the Attorney General to determine what lawsuits the state will support or not (specifically, the previous Republican Attorney General joined the Federal lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, a key issue in the Attorney General’s race that the Democratic winner pledged to change.) The Republican legislature will demand that the state continue to support the lawsuit, wresting control of this power from the Attorney General and ignoring the expressed will of the voters.

This only works in states where both houses of the state legislature and the governor are in Republican control, and Democrats will take over the executive offices while Republicans maintain control of the legislature, so they can protect the restrictive laws they created.

Redmap gerrymandering, voter suppression, the “sore loser” plan:  none of these actions are illegal.  But all of these seem to fly in the face of American traditions of “fair play” in politics; our tradition of encouraging voter participation and respecting the voters’ decisions.   Republicans would say they are only playing “hardball” and “for keeps” (please note: I have NOT included the North Carolina absentee ballot scandal – I think Republicans there are just as appalled as Democrats.) But it seems to me that they are playing a more dangerous game – one that attacks the basics of democracy.

But maybe my “blue tinted” glasses are so dark, that I can’t see the other side.  So the challenge I make is this:  what has the Democratic Party done that rises to the same level in the past decade?  Besides voter registration drives, ones that I would argue increases democracy by increasing voter participation, I’m not coming up with any.  Please educate me (and us all):  comment to make your views known.

 

 

 

 

The Trick is Not Minding

The President of the United States is the Chief Executive of the government.  That role includes “Chief Law Enforcer,” in the role of overseeing the Justice Department. Traditionally (whatever that means anymore) that means that the President is careful not to interfere in the conduct of criminal prosecutions.  The weight of his statements is considered prejudicial to a jury, and could alter a trial’s outcome.

The famous example came from Richard Nixon’s Presidency in the middle of the Manson trial. He said, in what was an off-the-cuff comment to reporters, that Charles Manson was guilty of the Tate-La Bianca murders.

Washington Post – August 3, 1970 – President Nixon today, speaking to news men on the importance of respecting the judicial process, said hippie leader Charles Manson was “…guilty directly or indirectly of eight murders.”  Manson is currently on trial in Los Angeles with members of his communal clan for eight murders, including Actress Sharon Tate.

Manson’s attorneys immediately moved for a mistrial, and Nixon and the White House spent a couple of days walking back the statement.  Ultimately the Manson trial proceeded and he was found guilty, spending the rest of his life in jail.  He died last year.

Noting this, it would be a surprise that the President of the United States would try to instruct a judge on how to sentence a defendant.  It would be even more surprising that the President would make that instruction in a case where he is personally involved.  Surprise: President Trump specifically tweeted instructions to the sentencing Judge for Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, who has made a plea agreement with the Justice Department.

Michael Cohen asks judge for no Prison Time. You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc., and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence. – Donald Trump Twitter 12/3/18

This followed Cohen’s guilty plea for lying to Congress.  He lied about Trump’s involvement in a Russian real estate deal during the 2016 election campaign.  In his allocution to the plea, Cohen specifically cites President Trump, putting him in the center of a conspiracy to hide the Trump Organization’s involvement.

In our current era, where the “norms” of political conduct have been obliterated, it might be easy to let this tweet go by.  It’s one of thousands by the President, saying all sorts of outrageous things.  It’s Trump’s means of communicating to the people, supposedly akin to Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats.

But this one really isn’t.  It’s the President of the United States attempting to influence a judge through “ex parte” communication. Trump apologists would argue that this is just one more step in the Trump defense to the Mueller investigation, undermining the future value of Cohen’s testimony.  Maybe if Mr. Trump was still just a real estate mover and shaker from New York, this would be an acceptable strategy.  But as President of the United States, he has taken the power of his office and placed it on the “scale” of justice.

Cohen sees himself as the “John Dean of the Trump Era.” John Dean was the White House Counsel for Richard Nixon, and orchestrated the White House cover-up of Watergate and other campaign crimes.  When Dean saw himself being set-up by senior officials to take the fall, he made a deal with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, and “ratted out” the White House plans. Dean was instrumental in the downfall of the Nixon Administration,  pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, and spent four months in custody.  Cohen can only hope for the same, though with the President weighing in, and additional guilty pleas to eight other felony counts, Cohen must expect more.

And that was only one of several tweets yesterday.  The President also may have committed an overt act of obstruction of justice, encouraging Roger Stone to not cooperate with the Special Counsel.

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about “President Trump.” Nice to know that some people still have “guts!” – Donald Trump Twitter, 12/3/18

The President’s defenders will say that he is just encouraging Stone to “tell the truth” and not “lie” to get a deal from Mueller.  However, this is THE target of an investigation publicly encouraging a potential witness against him to “not talk:” the very definition of obstruction of justice.  And the fact that the “target” has the ultimate power of pardon, means that he can not only encourage, but back up that encouragement with a literal “get our of jail free” card.

Nixon established a group in his White House called the “plumbers.” There job was to “plug leaks” of information that Nixon didn’t want in public.  They took the task seriously, including “black ops” to try prevent information from getting out.  Famously, they broke into the psychiatrist office of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Pentagon Papers. The “plumbers” went onto more break-ins including American history’s most famous one at the Watergate complex.

The leader of the “plumbers” was a lawyer and former FBI agent named G. Gordon Liddy.  Liddy was fiercely loyal to Richard Nixon, so much so that he refused to answer any questions about his actions.  Liddy ultimately served the longest prison sentence to come out of the Watergate prosecutions, four and a half years in federal prison.

Liddy was also famous for his “party trick.”  He would light a candle, then put his hand in the flame, leaving it there until people could smell his flesh burning.  When asked what the “trick” was, Liddy would say “…the trick is not minding.”  He wouldn’t talk, and he went to prison.    Nixon resigned before he pardoned any of his subordinates, and many spent time in jail, Liddy the longest.  The trick was not minding.

Stone, a young man when involved in the Nixon campaign, has taken on the “Liddy” role for Trump.  Whether Stone is the conduit to Trump in the Russia-Wikileaks-Trump campaign chain is still unclear, but if he is, you can be assured that he will follow his hero and not talk.  Stone will say:  the trick is not minding.  The trick may also be a “dangled” Presidential pardon, but Stone will know that, like Liddy, that may never come.

The Mueller Investigation is coming closer to the core of the Russia Investigation.  It may lead directly to the President.  If it does, you can be sure that the President will fight back with every tool at his disposal, legal or extra-legal.  The norms of the past; norms that even circumscribed Nixon’s behavior, are gone.  The outcome will depend on how much the American people care about the actions of their President.  Trump depends on the hope that to the American people; “…the trick is not minding.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sand Slipping Away

The 41^st President of the United States, George HW Bush, passed away this weekend.  He was 94 years old, the patriarch of the Bush political dynasty.  With his passing, another member of the historic Republican Party, the Party that rejected the absolutism  of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater; the party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller and yes, Richard Nixon; is gone.

We have seen this Grand Old Party; tough on foreign policy, free marketeers on trade; a party that still had a heart; slowly pass away before our eyes this year.  Barbara Bush, John McCain, and now the President, all revive memories of what a “kinder and gentler” Republican Party was.  And, as the speeches are made and the memorials articles are written, we see the stark contrast between the Republicans of then, and the Trumpians of today.

It’s not that President Bush 41 was soft.  Mike Dukakis, his Democratic opponent for President in 1988, would beg to differ: the raw racism of the Willie Horton Ad run by Bush, literally blaming Dukakis for murder, was as ugly as the ads of today.  And it’s not that the Republican Party of the era was so compassionate:  the “…thousand points of light…” was about volunteering to solve the problems the government wasn’t going to pay for.

But there was a class, and an understanding of service to America, that is missing today.  While Democrats might disagree with Bush, or Reagan, or even Bush 43; there was still a presumption that they were trying to do what they thought was best for the country, as opposed to what was best for themselves (OK, Dick Chaney might be the exception.)   Today, after a week of more Trump revelations of self-interest over country, it seems clear that the old GOP is gone.  Even the lesser leaders of the Party, McConnell and Ryan and Graham, have remained silent as the drip-drip-drip of the Mueller investigation hammers away at the Trump Administration.

I never voted for Bush 41: the truth is that I have never voted for a Republican President.  But, I could still have respect for them.  For Gerald Ford, who took on the Presidency at its lowest point after Watergate, for Ronald Reagan who seemed like the “harbinger of the apocalypse” before he took office (but we survived); for Bush 41, who was the last of the “Greatest Generation” to lead our nation.

All of them are in stark contrast to the President of today.  And that’s the problem President Trump has this week:  another funeral where by contrast his Administration will be held up to ridicule.  Another ceremony where the grace of American politics and politicians will demonstrate what we are missing, and the shadow of the Mueller Investigation will continue to darken this White House’s  door.

While I don’t agree with them, I do feel for Ohio Republicans like John Kasich and Rob Portman (he served as a Bush 41’s White House Counsel.)  They are Republicans of the “old school;” one dared to speak out in opposition to the President, and the political price has been that his Party has left him.  They must feel like they are standing on the beach, as the waves tumble onto the shore, and the sand dissolves into the sea under their feet.  The ideas they built their careers on; the mentors and leaders they worked for; all are slipping away, leaving them standing alone in the waves.

So we say farewell to George Hebert Walker Bush this week.  We know he is where he wants to be; a man who’s marriage was so strong he didn’t want to live without his love.  And we can admire the courage and the class of President Bush, and those others who will stand, gray and stooped, beside his casket.   Perhaps seeing this contrast once again will embolden other Republicans to stand up for the ideals of their Party, rather than knuckle under to the bully in the White House.  I’m not holding my breath, but those Republicans may soon need to, as the tide of history washes their current President, and with him their Party, out to sea.

 

 

Open Letter to the Veterans Affairs Department

Honorable Robert Wilkie, Secretary
US Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave
Washington, DC  20420

November 29, 2018

Secretary Wilkie:

The news just broke, that you shorted a bunch of veterans’ newly legislated educational benefits, finances that those veterans depended on to cover their costs.  And now, we are told you are unable to “fix” those mistakes, because if you do, you have to audit the entire program.  Auditing the program will slow benefits to future veterans, so rather than make your first mistake right, you’re going to leave the veterans who were shorted, short.

We are also told that you are unable to implement a new program, the “Forever GI Bill,” supposed to go into effect this year.  You are saying that you can’t do this until December of 2019.

This is from the same agency that seems unable to fix their medical programs, leaving veterans in long lines waiting for treatment.

So here’s some suggestions on what you can do.

I’m no IT guy, but I can give you a possible fix for your educational benefit screw-up.  It’s called mirror programs.  Take the computer program that you have to audit, mirror it onto another system, then hire some people to go and audit and fix the mistakes.  This way you can go on with the new applicants, without leaving the others hanging out to dry.  Yes, it will cost money, and time, and personnel.  Looks like you don’t have the folks to deal with it, so you’ll need to find some more. I know that doesn’t fit the President’s “small government” goals, but this is for our veterans.

I guess the same goes for the new program that you somehow can’t figure out.  I know we have people in the US government who have the knowledge and skills to build the program you need – and it shouldn’t take more than two years to do it.  You don’t need to find “contractors” to suck up all of the funds, you should search the government for the skills you need.  There are folks available who want to help our warfighters, especially those who sacrificed their well-being for our country.  This isn’t just “some program,” this deserves “emergency action” to get it going.

You have an awesome responsibility:  caring for those who made the sacrifice of serving their nation.  We know the transition from military service to civilian life is tough — what the Hell is wrong with you that you would jerk these folks around. “Here’s the money for your classes – oops we don’t have it?”

Unless, this is some great “plot to prove” the VA is ridiculously incompetent.  If that’s what you want to do, you’re doing a great job!!!!!  The “plot” goes like this:  let’s be completely incompetent, unable to do what we’re supposed to do, and the case for privatizing the VA is strengthened. We’ll follow the Conservative-Right-Republican agenda of giving the VA services over to the private sector. Just a bet (I don’t know for sure) but I bet you’ve already done that with your computer services, the very thing that’s screwing up.

You know, this country is already pretty divided.  Right and Left, Trump and Anti-Trump, urban and rural.  There isn’t a whole lot we all agree on.  But taking care of veterans is one on them.  After seventeen years fighting a war in Afghanistan, and with our young men and women in Syria, and Korea, and spread throughout the world; there’s lots of arguments about our policy.  But there’s no argument about our need to take care of the vets.

So get it together. Failure, especially failing the vets, is not an option.  Turning this over to someone to make a profit shouldn’t be an option either.  Get the people together, spend some money to do it and do what Americans do when it’s crunch time.  Get this done, fix the problem; no political agenda, no point to make, except making things right for those who have sacrificed for us.  It the most important problem, and the least we can do.

Sincerely,

Martin Dahlman

Retired Teacher/Coach, Pataskala, Ohio

 

What We Know

A flood of news has been unleashed about the Mueller investigation in the past few days. Manafort broke his plea bargain deal. Corsi refused his.  Trump turned in written answers to Mueller’s questions. What is going on?

We know the following: Corsi predicted the release by Wikileaks of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta.  He discussed the leaks, before they occurred, with Republican operative and Trump advisor Roger Stone.  While Corsi denies that he had a direct communication with Wikileaks and/or Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, there is text and email evidence to the contrary.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team offered a “plea deal” to Corsi, agreeing not to prosecute him for multiple charges of lying to Federal Prosecutors, committing perjury to Congressional Committees, and obstructing justice.  Instead, Corsi would plead guilty to one charge of lying to Federal investigators, receive probation, and cooperate with the investigation.

Corsi turned the offer down, claiming it was his intuition that allowed him to predict the Wikileaks releases, despite the evidence.  He now is open to multiple federal felony charges, and possible prison time.

Former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort his violated the terms of his plea agreement with the Special Counsel.  The Mueller team filed with the DC Federal Court, stating that Manafort lied to them during his “cooperation” phase, and in addition, his lawyers shared information with a subject of the investigation, namely the President.  Rudy Giuliani, one of the President’s lawyers, has bragged about it.  Manafort was, in fact, playing for both “sides.”  Manafort is now facing sentencing for multiple felony charges resulting in several years in Federal prison.

We also know that there is a sealed indictment against Julian Assange filed in the Federal Court of Eastern Virginia.  We do not know whether it was filed by the Mueller team, or whether it was about some other Wikileaks action, but it means that the United States could well ask the United Kingdom to extradite Assange, should he be forced out of his sanctuary in the Ecuadoran Embassy.

And finally, there are news reports that Paul Manafort visited Assange in London three times before he took the job as Chairman, the last time being just prior to getting the job. While these reports have not been confirmed by other news outlets,  The Guardianhas proven to be accurate in the past (full disclosure, I have grave concerns about The Guardian’s willingness to expose intelligence, as opposed to their accuracy – Edward Snowden’s revelations are one example.) 

We know that if a direct connection is made between Assange and the Trump Campaign, it could be the basis for a conspiracy charge.  Assange is already linked to the Russian Intelligence Agency that hacked the emails, and Manafort has connections to Russian oligarchs who are close to Vladimir Putin.  We also know that Corsi, and through him, Stone, had prior knowledge of Wikileaks email releases.

What We Can Speculate About

Manafort:  why would he guarantee a long federal prison sentence by breaking his cooperation agreement? The sixty-nine year old man can now expect to be incarcerated until he is in his eighties.   There are three possible reasons for this action.

First, Manafort may have simply gambled, as he has done throughout his whole professional life. He tried to play the Special Counsel, using the information he was getting from the investigation (from questioning) to feed information to the President’s lawyers.  Manafort may have felt that he could get away with this.

Second, Manafort may have a promise of a Presidential Pardon “in his pocket.”  The Trump lawyers have discussed this openly, perhaps there is a “deal” done that Manafort could sit through all of this, in jail, but ultimately would receive a pardon.  A pardon would clear Manafort of any Federal charges, however it would not relieve him of state charges in Virginia in New York that could result in multiple years in state prison.

Third, Manafort may be acting as some kind of “triple agent:” cooperating with Mueller, feeding the President’s lawyers, and acting as an agent of Russian Intelligence. Manafort is deeply indebted to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and friend of Russian President Putin.  The pressure of that debt may have pushed Manafort into a deal with Russian Intelligence to influence the Trump Campaign.  He volunteered to run the campaign, despite the fact that he was deeply indebted to multiple entities. The Russians have made it eminently clear what happens to folks who cross them; the Novochok murders in the United Kingdom are evidence.  Perhaps Manafort knows that if he talks, he dies.

Corsi:  why would he pass up a true “get out of jail free” card? It would seem that he must have a “better card,” perhaps a Presidential Pardon offer as well.  Or, perhaps Corsi’s friend Roger Stone has somehow convinced him that they can weather this investigation by stonewalling.  Stone, himself a subject of the Mueller investigation, is a fierce admirer of G Gordon Liddy, the Nixon aide who chose to go to jail rather than talk.

So what might Mueller have?

Manafort visited Assange right before he volunteered himself to be Chairman of the Trump Campaign.  It was assumed at the time that he was just trying to “get back in the game” after years working for dictators abroad. Perhaps the reason was more nefarious. Russian Intelligence had the emails, and Assange knew it.  To have the greatest impact on the election, Russian Intelligence would want someone on the inside of the campaign to coordinate.  Manafort would be perfect.

Manafort left the campaign when his Ukrainian business relationships were revealed.  Wikileaks and Russian Intelligence still needed coordination with the campaign, so a new corridor had to be accessed.  Roger Stone, a long time informal advisor to Donald Trump, was an obvious conduit.  To reach Stone, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi would be a good contact.

All of which leaves the question:   if this is true, who else in the Trump operation knew?  Donald Trump Sr. is well known for micro-managing his business, and keeping his family close.  If it can be shown that the current President of the United States knew and/or cooperated with Russian hacking of emails, and used those emails to support his campaign, then Mueller has a case of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

While Mueller won’t indict a serving President, he certainly can report his findings to the House of Representatives.  They have the duty to determine whether those charges rise to the Constitutional definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors:”   the Constitutional grounds for impeachment.

 

My Little World

I live in a small town, Pataskala, Ohio; located near the center of the Ohio in Licking County.  Just down State Route 16 is another small village, Granville; home to Denison University, my alma mater and the reason I’ve lived my entire adult life here.  This morning, the Licking County Board of Elections affirmed the “right” of Denison students to vote in local Granville elections.  On the surface, that’s great!

But deep down there is a real concern that forced the Board of Elections to this statement.  It wasn’t a “high and mighty” issue of National or even State import.  It was about the Granville Exempted Village School District asking for the town to pass an income tax to support the schools.  After a close vote passed the tax, 3586 for to 3444 against, some of the local townspeople challenged the right of Denison students to vote.

Over a thousand Denison students who live in the dorms are registered to vote in Granville Village Precinct C, making up about half of the precinct’s voters. 778 voted in Precinct C this last election, with 546 for the tax and 242 against. That’s 69% for, 31% against. Only five of the fifteen precincts in the school district approved the levy; it was a close contest in almost all.

So some opposed to the levy attempted to disenfranchise the students, claiming that they could not “legally” identify themselves with the proper paperwork required by law.  The students countered that the law allowed them to present a utility bill as verification of their residence, even if the bill showed they paid no amount. They presented the utility bill paid by the university in their name, one that the state was required to accept.

When the United States was founded, voting was truly limited.  Not only did voters have to be adult (21), white, males; but they also had to own property in the jurisdiction.  The belief was that owning property gave them a “stake” in the community, while those who just lived there without that stake shouldn’t have a voice.

Things have changed over the last 231 years.  We have recognized that everyone has a stake in where they live, whether they own property there or not.  We have accepted the creed that every voice should be heard, and every vote counted. At least, that’s what we teach in school and what we say in speeches; it’s the “Schoolhouse Rock” version of our democracy.

In Granville students have been making a difference since the 26^th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1971, lowering the voting age to 18.    As a member of the Denison Student Government in 1974, I helped register many students to bring Granville into the 20^th century.  It wasn’t a high and mighty social cause:  we wanted Granville to stop being a “dry” town and allow for alcohol sales.  We managed to pass the regulation for the village, making it easier for residents, and student-residents at the University, to get legal beverages.  It was fitting that Denison’s first big electoral impact was about beer; it was at the time, and probably still is a big part of Denison life.

The community was fine with that change:  today the Main Street is lined with upscale restaurants and bars.  But some folks in Granville don’t want students to have a voice in “their” town, and in this era of voter suppression, they have found sympathy  from Larry Wise, the Republican Chairman of the Board of Elections. While he grudgingly allowed the students their right, he followed it up with this statement:

“…Until legislation is either changed, corrected, amended, clarified, whatever, we are stuck following those guidelines and directives issued by the Secretary of State,” Wise said. “Every board (of elections) in this state faces the same situations and the fact that we cannot set our own guidelines. … We have to follow (those guidelines) until we’re told to do something different.” (Newark Advocate – 11/17/18) 

Oh, if only he could get “unstuck” from these regulations he could take away the right of those students to vote where they reside.  Oh, if only the law allowed, he could make sure only the people he wants to vote are allowed to vote (no he didn’t say this, but it seems a logical extension of his quoted statement.) 

And that’s the point, here in Ohio and across much of the nation.  There’s a view that the right to vote is a political strategy to win elections, not an inviolable right guaranteed by the Constitution.  As long as voting is “strategic,” then making voting harder, complicated, and inconvenient for those who might have a differing view will continue to be a legitimate political strategy.  We will remain a government “of the people who agree with me” rather than the aspirational “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We will remain a government of “tribes” rather than a nation of “E Pluribus Unum” – out of many, one.

That’s Our America

President Trump has what he wanted.  He has a crisis on the border, at Tijuana, where thousands of migrants from Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua have come to cross into the United States.  They have walked a thousand miles because of rising gang violence at home, threats to their children and to themselves, and to find a better life.

In preparation for their arrival, the President sent the more than five thousand US Army soldiers to the border.  They didn’t do a whole lot, spread some barbed wire, and built their own camps.  They ate MRE’s (meals ready to eat) in sight of Burger King, and spent Thanksgiving far from home.  According to the latest, they are scheduled to withdraw in a couple of weeks, and they are specifically NOT to directly confront the migrants.  Other than that, the President has done little to prepare for this temporary increase in pressure, except to raise the rhetoric with his language of “caravans” and “hordes” and “invasion.”

The Mexican government has done a lot to prepare.  They have moved Federal Police to Tijuana, and they have arranged for food and shelter for the thousands in sports stadiums there as they wait.  And when some of the migrants attacked police, the Mexican government rounded up the violators and sent them back to their country of origin.

The Trump Administration set the rules for this confrontation.  Most of these migrants seek asylum in the United States.  Asylum is a legally defined term, controlled by the UN Convention on Refugees signed by the US in 1951.  It is the granting of residence and protection to a migrant, based on a legitimate fear of punishment or death in their home country.

Asylum was an easy concept in the 1950’s; the Cold War between the Communist Soviet Union and the West made it clear.  If you were an East German escaping to the West, or a Cuban crossing the Straits of Florida to the Keys, you were automatically granted asylum.  But it has become more complex today, as the “black and white” values of the Cold War no longer apply.  In Syria, where civil war has burned for years, millions of refugees have left to the surrounding countries.  They left from fear for their lives, and their family’s lives; from all sides of the battlefield.  The world has recognized their plight, but has struggled to deal with the volume of people seeking help.  Camps are still packed in Jordan and Lebanon, and there is pressure at all of the crossing points along the border.

To clear up a couple of technical points:  a refugee (migrant) must be in a country to claim asylum in that country.  Someone cannot walk into the US Embassy in Nicaragua and demand asylum, they have to literally have feet in US territory.  Think back to the 1960’s, of the Cubans on rafts, who until they actually reached the US beach, could not claim protection.  And, other than in the European Union, migrants do not have to claim asylum in the first country they enter.  They may transit to another nation, before asking for that legal status.

The migrants in Tijuana know the rules:  they have to get into the US to claim asylum.  They also know that getting asylum is not a “sure thing,” that it is a legal decision that will be made by a US judge.  But if they don’t get “feet on” the United States, they cannot even apply.

The Trump Administration has unilaterally ruled that only those who cross the border at an official “point of entry” can ask for asylum.  This means that those who cross at some other point, say, a river (notably the Rio Grande in Texas) or by climbing a fence (say along the Pacific Ocean beach) who are able to get “feet on” US soil, are still denied the right to ask for protection.  The US Federal Court in San Diego has ruled that this is not allowed under law, but the Trump Administration continues to do so anyway.  And, since no additional immigration judges have been sent to help, the maximum number of “legal migrants” who can be processed at the point of entry (San Ysidro at Tijuana) is one hundred.  This means a delay of months.

It can be no surprise then, that the thousands of migrants, who have left their homes because of the dangers to their families and walked a literal thousand miles; aren’t so willing to wait for the US process.  They know what they have to do, even if it means going into US custody by crossing the border illegally.  The pressure at Tijuana is going to grow, and the spectacle of US border agents firing tear gas at women and children will continue.  Unless the situation is defused in some way, ultimately someone will die.

Jordan has this figured out. They set up refugee camps in their territory along the Syrian border, and they care for the refugees while they sort out the legalities of asylum.  The US has the resources to build camps to hold these folks, already many have been built; we could bring them in, then adjudicate their cases.

The Obama administration had this figured out.  When large influxes of migrants were headed to the border, they sent judges rather than troops to greet them.  The judges sped up the process of determining asylum, and the crisis of thousands trying to cross was alleviated.

But all of these are short-term measures.  Until the nations of the Americas, from Canada to Mexico to Columbia, and certainly including the US:  begin to deal with the core problems of violence and poverty in the “northern triangle” of Central America, there will be no end to the refugee crisis.  There is no easy answer:  we know that economic improvement is critical, and that the US demand for illegal drugs fuels the gang activities in the region.  When those two factors are changed, then life will improve, and there will be less pressure on families to leave.

Instead of doing any of these, the Trump Administration has determined to “stop the horde,” using violence and ignoring US law.  They have precipitated an unnecessary crisis, intentionally, to leverage their goal of “building a wall” and keeping their base inflamed.  The price will ultimately be someone’s life, probably several, and the continuing spectacle of American forces waging war on children.

That’s our America.

 

Forest Fires and Tear Gas

This weekend the President of the United States got what he wanted.  The “caravan” of migrants arrived in Tijuana, Mexico.  Five thousand men, women, and children; fleeing their homes in Central America, all seeking asylum in the United States.  The President has ordered the “…border held at all costs!”  He must feel very proud, defending our nation and using that old dog whistle to racism – “America First.”

As the migrants stack up in Tijuana, already one of the most dangerous cities on the continent; some have decided to try to cross illegally.  Trump has rallied the border patrol to stand against them, preventing the migrants from getting to stand in the US to ask for asylum.  Men, women and children (children) were first confronted by the Mexican police, then when they rushed the border; US “forces” fired tear gas at them.  Thirty-nine were arrested in Mexico, forty-two made it across the border to be arrested in the US.

The pressure on the border is going to continue to build.  With thousands of migrants in Tijuana without shelter and with nowhere else to go, there will continue to be outbreaks of violence.  Sooner or later, someone is going to get killed.  The US is trying to force Mexico to move the migrants away from the border, to take charge of them as they are slowly processed for possible asylum.  Mexico, reasonably, thinks this is more the US’s problem than theirs, and wants the US to get to the root of the problem in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala rather than deal with people at the border.

The United States cannot solve the migrant crisis at the border.  As Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all realized:  the problem is what’s going on in Central America.  The US has to impact the gang violence and poverty and try to change the conditions where the migrants live, rather than wait for them to show up at the Southern Border.  But making the migrants want to stay home is a difficult task, requiring America to commit to solve the problems of others; other brown people.

It is similar to the Administration’s approach to the forest fires in California and rising tides on the coasts.  President Trump states that if we “raked the forest floor” we could avoid the conflagrations that are becoming so commonplace.  He ignores the real problem:  extended drought, high heat, continuing winds; all caused by the shifts in global climate, the real cause of the fires.  If we don’t find some way to alter those changes and reset the “world,” then we will continue to face this destruction, as well as rising tides, and extreme weather throughout the nation.

Sure, California can use more fire fighting planes.  Sure, many parts of Florida will need to build up their dunes to protect the coast. And sure, we need more judges to adjudicate asylum cases at the border (rather than troops and tear gas.)  But all of these are not solutions, they are only temporary band aids that will ultimately cost more and do less.  We need to reach to the heart of the problem.

But California is the “Great Blue State,” voting Democrat through and through.  Is the President really committed to helping a state led by Jerry Brown, with Diane Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff all representing them?  Or is he OK with letting them burn?

And then there is the final, more insidious question.  The racists’ echoes in  “America First” leads to questions about our current President’s motives at the border.  Does he want to solve the migrant crisis, or does he want to encourage more confrontation with “brown people?”  Does he have an interest in making the world “better,” or is he only interested in encouraging his political base by demonstrating his “resolve”  against an “invading brown horde?”

Like it or not, the President of the United States represents us all.  We – yes we – are firing tear gas at the migrants:  we are creating this confrontation at the border. This, and the ridiculous Administration stand on global warming, and the clear choice of money over morals in the Khashoggi case, is what the United States is today.  What WE are. That is the real challenge going forward for all of us today.

Dealing with Low Lifes

Jerome Corsi; conspiracy theorist, father of “Birthism” and “Swift Boating,” and author of two inaccurate best selling books about the unfitness of John Kerry and Barack Obama; is now cooperating with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Corsi, a friend of Trump advisor Roger Stone, may be the contact between Julian Assange of Wikileaks and Stone.

Roger Stone is a shadowy Republican operative with a picture of Nixon tattooed to his back (really.)  As a young man in his twenties, Stone was drawn into the “Rat-F—kers,” the dirty tricksters of the Nixon campaign.  They did whatever was necessary to disrupt Nixon’s opponents, most famously faking the “Canuck Letter,” a letter that led to Democratic Senator Ed Muskie’s withdrawal from the 1972 Presidential election.  Stone then went on to become a “political consultant,” working with future Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort on international campaigns for autocrats throughout the eighties and nineties.

Stone lived in a shady world on the edge of the Republican Party.  He was looked upon as a “Nixon Freak” who backed dictators for cash, but when the dirty work needed to be done, he was called in.  One of the more recent examples was in the contested 2000 Presidential election in Florida.  When the Bush campaign needed protestors to disrupt the recount in Palm Beach County, Stone delivered the “Brook Brothers Riot,” temporarily stopping the count and giving the Bush team more time to get to the courts where they eventually “won” the election.

Stone, Corsi, radio commentator Randy Credico and Sam Nunberg, a lawyer and Stone acolyte; all are an unlikely group to link the Trump Campaign to Russian Intelligence. They seem to be from the “isle of misfit toys,” odd, often incoherent, and easy to ignore.  How could these almost laughable stereotypes connect the President of the United States to near treasonous actions?

Donald Trump lived in his own shady world, the world of high stakes real estate, urban construction and casinos. Throughout most of his career he depended on a lawyer to “fix” his problems.   Payoffs, deals, promises made and broken, were all part of the “fixer’s” role. Trump had one of the best, Roy Cohn, made famous for being the legal counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950’s.  After McCarthy was disgraced, Cohn moved to New York, did the “dirty work” of the Republican Party, and gaining a reputation as a “first class fixer.”

Cohn introduced Stone to Trump, and Stone became the political force behind Trump’s interest in running for President.  Stone claims that he got Trump to run, then stepped away to take an “informal” role in the campaign.  What he did best was best not part of the campaign structure.

It was Stone who couldn’t resist predicting the release of the DNC emails in August.  And it was Stone who prophesized Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s “time in the barrel” before Podesta’s emails were released on October 6^th, 2016, to counter the impact of the Access Hollywood tape.  He knew that the emails were coming, and he knew when it was going to happen.

Here’s how the line is drawn.  Stone was connected to the Trump Campaign.  Corsi was connected to Assange and Wikileaks.  Assange was connected to Russian Intelligence.  If Corsi testifies that he was in communication with both Assange and Stone, he becomes “the dot” connecting Russian Intelligence to the Trump Campaign.  If Mueller has evidence showing Stone’s direct connection to the top of the campaign, then Corsi may well be the key to proving conspiracy against the United States (or what the President would call collusion.)

In the Watergate crisis, FBI Assistant Director Mark Felt, the “Deep Throat” informant to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, warned Woodward not to think too highly of those in the White House.

“Forget the myths the media’s created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.”

If treason was committed, we visualize it as being done by brilliantly flawed individuals, clearly willing to give up their country for money or power.  It’s hard enough to accept the possibility that any American would be treasonous, it’s even harder to believe that it was this group of oddball misfits that did it.  And it’s even more incredible that they were successful, electing a President of the United States.

Special Prosecutor Mueller has a problem.  Guys like Corsi, Credico, and Nunberg are not convincing witnesses; they are men who have spent a lot of time spreading falsehoods.  There credibility is easily attacked.  But the whole affair is filled with lowlifes, from Manafort to Gates, from Cohn to Stone, and there isn’t a person of “shining honor” among them.  They are the misfits who won the election.  That makes them the only ones who can testify to treason.

 

 

Note:   title quote from Paul Butler, former US Attorney and Georgetown Law Professor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money Can Buy My Love

Yep, I altered a Beatles title!  –

To make it up – here’s the boys:  Money Can’t Buy Me Love 

The Trump Administration is drawing closer to admitting it:  Muhammad bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, ordered the brutal butchering and murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Turkish Consulate in Istanbul.  The evidence has been mounting; from the Turkish audio of the murder (too “hurtful” for the President to listen to,) to the advice of the “forensic expert” (wear headphones to drown out the screams,) to the CIA’s report with highest confidence that bin Salman ordered the deed.

The execution puts the United States in a difficult position.  The Administration has placed its prized foreign policy goals, protecting Israel and isolating Iran, squarely with the Saudis.  From President Trump’s first foreign visit to the Kingdom, replete with sword dances and mystic ball ceremonies; the Trumps’ have placed their individual trust as well as that of the nation, on our friend, Saudi Arabia.

In addition, the Trump Administration played a small hand in choosing the next king of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman.  The young prince, thirty-one years old, out maneuvered thirty-four relatives with a claim to the throne.  Quietly supporting him:  a “prince” of the American Presidential family, thirty-seven year old Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner.  Kushner spent the week with bin Salman just before the Prince consolidated his power by imprisoning his rivals for the throne.  It’s reasonable to assume bin Salman acted with the tacit consent of the White House.

So the Trumps have invested, staking their plan for Middle East order on Muhammad bin Salman.  They have even been willing to accept bin Salman’s ugly war in Yemen, fighting elements of al Qaeda while starving and killing civilians.

It’s not just about saving face, or even loyalty.  It’s about the plain thinking of the President of the United States.  The “rap” on Trump is that he is transactional; every decision is based on a “balance sheet” with the benefits determined in “real” terms:  in this case, dollars.  Long term US moral standing in the world doesn’t have a line item on the balance sheet, therefore, it isn’t taken into consideration.

I take the President at his word when he says that he won’t denounce the Crown Prince.  Trump claims hundred of thousands of jobs and $450 billion worth of contracts are at stake.  Those tangible items completely outweigh his concern for the morality of Saudi actions.  The President has accepted the word of the Saudis:

“This is an unacceptable and horrible crime. King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi.”

He did have the Treasury Department sanction seventeen Saudi citizens, including several with direct connection to the Prince, for the murder of Khashoggi.  But those sanctioned, and those that are being held for murder by the Saudi government, look to be the “underlings” who followed orders; orders that could only have come from the Prince.  The CIA has reached the same conclusion, but the President denies that outcome.

So what lesson are we teaching the world about current US behavior?  What are the Russians, and the North Koreans, and the Turks and Filipinos and the other nations governed by authoritarian regimes learning?   It’s not about morality, right or wrong; it’s about the cash value of the offending nation in pure dollar and cents terms.

So what if President Trump is overvaluing the future Saudi contracts by $300 billion (the actual number is closer to $110 billion.)  So what if he exaggerates the number of US jobs to be created by multiple thousands. He knows there’s money in Saudi, and he can read a balance sheet.  He wants it to stay that way, regardless of the moral cost.

The President is treating Muhammad bin Salman the same way he treated Scott Pruitt at the EPA and Mike Flynn as National Security Advisor.  Yes they may be violating some “policies”, but they are doing a “great job.” Bin Salman, well he may have gotten carried away with Khashoggi, but he’s really doing fine in dealing with the US.

Maybe money can’t buy love for Paul McCartney and the Beatles, but it sure can buy the President.

“He don’t care too much ‘bout murder, ‘cause money will buy his love.”

 

 

It’s Thanksgiving

It’s Thanksgiving – the truly American holiday where the focus is on gathering family together and sharing fellowship and food.  In many families, it’s time to talk football, or weather, or pretty much anything other than politics.  Politics is too volatile; the issues too divisive, for many families to discuss.  It ruins turkey digestion.

A couple of weeks ago I went to a birthday celebration for a friend.  I knew that my political views weren’t “acceptable” in that company, and I determined that I would not disrupt the festivities by entering the political melee.  But there was that one guy, who constantly wanted to stir the pot.  From forest fires to immigration, he kept dropping comments to see what kind of local inferno he could ignite.  Out of respect for my friends, I didn’t jump into that fire, but it was hard.  I ate a lot, and drank little, in order to keep busy.

So it’s Thanksgiving. It’s also the week that Ryan Zinke, the “king” of the Department of the Interior (his flag is raised when he enters, lowered when he’s “left the building”) blamed the forest fires in California on “radical environmentalists.”  His argument:  if they’d stop suing logging companies, and the forests could be cut, then there wouldn’t be fires.

I have to admit there feels like a small truth inside that statement.  Forests don’t burn if you cut them down.  But it ignores all of the benefits of forests, from carbon dioxide absorption to mudslide management.  And, being Ryan Zinke, it plays directly into the hands of “big lumber” who have spent decades trying to buy passage into the heart of California’s forests.  There’s plenty of money to be made there.

Zinke’s statement echoes the right-wing meme on Facebook, blaming the “woodsy owl” for the fires.  The woodsy owl was an endangered species whose habitat was threatened by logging, one of the first court cases testing the Endangered Species Act.  They didn’t log out that forest, but it wasn’t the one that burned in California. The woodsy owl’s habitat was located on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, far from Paradise or Malibu or the other California fire targets.

Zinke, and President Trump, have both ignored the scientific FACT of human induced global warming.  In doing so, they struggle to find reasons for the fires in California, and the increasing levels of hurricane damage in the Southeast, and the growing flood dangers on the coast.   And they do so not because they are stupid; they ignore global warming because it is to their “supporters” economic benefit to do so.

Global warming is in large part caused by burning fossil fuels:  gas, oil, and coal.  In order to deal with global warming, we have to reduce fossil fuel use,  it’s really that simple.  But, in political terms, that means there is no “clean coal,” there needs to be increased spending on mass transportation to get cars off of the roads, there needs to be less oil and gas production.  The US, now the largest petroleum producer in the world (thanks to fracking, whatever that may be doing to local environments) has every vested interest in increasing fossil fuel use, not decreasing it.

So global warming can’t be human fault.  It must be a “natural cycle” that we play little part in.  And forests don’t need to burn:  we can cut them down.  No one burns in a desert.  And the friends and supporters of Trump and Zinke will make their money, at the cost of untold millions in future generations.

I know my Thanksgiving table.  We can have these conversations – and no one will throw a drumstick or a roll.  But if you are in a “mixed” setting; find a neutral subject.  And find the wishbone to share with your Trumpian relative.  It would be a start.

 

 

 

The Case for Old

I am sixty-two years old and retired.  I spent thirty-five and a half years teaching and administrating in public school, and forty seasons as a track coach.  When I was a younger teacher in the 1980’s and early 90’s, I worked in an amazing middle school.  Kids absolutely came first and the staff was excited:  we made a difference and changed lives.  We were a mix of young and old, led by a veteran Principal who cared about us all.  We often experimented with new ideas, but we always valued what worked in the past.

Once in a staff meeting, after getting our attention by playing the Steve Winwood’s “Roll with It,” our “older” principal (younger than I am now) told us to be glad we were teaching then.  He knew education was changing, getting more complicated and would become very different profession in a few years.  He wanted us to keep doing what we were good at, helping kids, and hoped we could “roll” with the changes.  He was right. In the end teaching got hidebound with paper and regulations; the reports were more important than the impact on kids lives.  Red tape and “annual growth percentages” counted:  the light coming on in the eyes of a kid who just figured out a new concept did not.

There is nothing wrong with new ideas, youthful energy, and differing philosophies.  But as an “old” teacher, I discovered that with the new came a loss of values; ignorance of institutional history and traditions, and a disregard for the successes of the past.  The “new” way of doing things swept out the good with the bad, and disregarded and disrespected any who disagreed.  When I left, it was a good time to retire.

What would be best is to respect what was done, employ what was working, and alter what needed to be changed.  A melding of the best of the old and the new and a recognition that while new ideas were good, old experience had value as well.  The excitement and surety of the young combined with the history and values of the old, like my principal did in that amazing middle school, is that “magic mix” that changed lives.

Nancy Pelosi is seventy-eight years old and has been in Congress thirty-one years.  She has had a storied career;  the first woman ever to be Speaker of the US House of Representatives. She represents the “old;” the traditions of the Democratic Party in Congress.  Pelosi has been vilified, made into the “bête noire” of the Republican right. She represents everything they hate: a woman and a liberal from San Francisco where you can pick you right-wing poison: gay rights, sanctuary city, environmental concern, even taxing businesses to help provide for the homeless; the Haight-Asbury home of flower power and the hippie generation.

Pelosi has proven to be an effective leader in the House.  As Speaker, she managed the Affordable Care Act passage, willing to risk her House majority to change American lives by providing insurance.  It did cost the majority, but she has worked since to bring that majority back.  She is the “queen” of fundraising, she has given support to all of the successful new Democratic Congressmen.  And she has allowed them the space to “run away” from her when they needed to, not forcing some artificial fealty to her leadership.  She achieved her goal:  winning back the House Majority at a time when America needed it most to serve as a check on a runaway President.

We are in a time of national crisis.  The next two years will continue the “stress test” on our Constitutional system.  Whether impeachment is in the future or not, Democrats and Americans will still need an experienced hand on the gavel in the House of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi is that experience.  She will be like my “old” principal, melding the energy and values of the young with the history and tradition of the old.  She may ask her members to “Roll with It,” and if the Mueller investigation warrants it, she may ask them to risk their majority for the good of the nation. And like my old principal, she will look to those younger Congressmen to take on roles in leadership, so that her ideals won’t be lost in the future.

I hope the Democrats in the House can see her value, and find the courage to combine tradition and youth.  We need her strength, and her wisdom.

The Fourteenth

It’s a cold November day.  Good day to hear some Guns and Roses, and head back to Senior Government class!  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution changed the nature of our United States.  From “…We the people of the United States…” of the preamble, establishing a federal government of sovereign states in 1787, the Fourteenth Amendment demonstrated the results of victory in Civil War, with the final outcome of one nation, indivisible.

The Fourteenth extends the requirements of the Bill of Rights to the states.  No longer were those rights  applied to just the Federal government, now each state government needed to protect them.  Section 1 of the Amendment is clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In our current political climate, the Fourteenth Amendment has immense significance.  To start with the “easy” argument, the plain language of the Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens…”  The foolishness put forth by the President, demanding the altering birth-citizenship laws, would require a Constitutional amendment to change the Fourteenth.

The key provision of the Fourteenth is the “due process” and “equal protection” clause.  Due Process is interpreted to mean that before a “right or privilege” is taken away (life, liberty, or property, voting) there needs to be a process where the citizen is given the opportunity to argue their side. This often is in a Court setting: the most recent example would be the denial of CNN’s Jim Acosta’s First Amendment right to freedom of the press by kicking him out of the White House Press Room.  CNN sued the White House because there was no “due process” provided Acosta for the removal, and while the case is not yet resolved, a Federal District Judge has found enough validity in Acosta’s arguments to temporarily order the White House to allow him back in.

“Equal Protection” means that all citizens must be treated the same.  This is a critical issue today; questions of voter suppression in some states,  religious rights and LGBTQ issues, and  ICE actions towards American citizens of Hispanic descent; all raise equal protection issues.

The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is less discussed today is the second clause.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Parts of this clause have been changed by Amendment.  The 15^thAmendment specifically guaranteed the right to vote to any race.  The 19^thAmendment allowed women to vote, and the 26^thAmendment added those eighteen to twenty to the electorate. This clause guaranteed suffrage, the right to vote, to everyone, and threatened to punish states that restricted suffrage by reducing the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives (and therefore the number of Electors for President.)

While that punishment was never exacted, even in the Jim Crow Era of grandfather clauses (you couldn’t vote unless you grandfather could) and literacy tests; today it might be a cause to invoke in voter suppression cases, particularly in places like Georgia.  If the state acts to suppress votes, particularly with a clearly racial bias, it would violate not only the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth and the Voting Rights clause of the 15^th, but also the “denial of voting rights” clause. The state should either stop suppressing, or lose representation.

The Fourteenth Amendment can be read historically as the legal implementation of victory in the Civil War. But its implications are much more far-reaching, as it defines citizenship, and expands protection of rights from just the Federal government to the States.  It should serve as a tripwire in our current era of regression and control; and remind us as well of what the alternatives are to protecting the law:  Civil War that created in blood what could not be done by legislation.

 

The Grand Strategy

When Steve Bannon joined the Trump Campaign, he brought his strong theories to an organization that had lots of energy but little foundation.  Bannon believed that the existential threat to world safety was from the Middle East, particularly, Iran.  Much of the foreign policy espoused by the Trump Administration came from his view:  the desire to improve relationships with Russia, the immediate decision to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the coziness with other Middle Eastern powers.

John Bolton, the current National Security Advisor, is another proponent of this view;  stop Iranian expansion and contain Iranian support of terrorism.  But perhaps the biggest proponent of the “grand strategy” is Presidential Advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner.  Kushner has been close to Israeli Prime Minister “Bebe” Netanyahu since childhood, and has developed a peer-to-peer friendship with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS.)

The Grand Strategy: array an alliance of the Sunni Muslim nations led by Saudi Arabia, with the tacit cooperation of Jewish Israel, against Shiite Muslim Iran.  Add Russian support, and the Trump Administration believes they have the key to peace in the Middle East, protecting Israel, and controlling the costs of oil for the next generations.

Russia, with significant internal pressure to control Muslim extremists, may be willing to go along with the deal, as long as they get control of Syria through the Assad regime. But Turkey has been an issue.  The authoritarian regime of Recip Erdogan has its own plan for the Middle East, including the suppression of the Kurds, and the restriction of democracy at home.  They see themselves as the key Sunni power in the region, harking back to the days of the Ottoman Empire.  And as a member of NATO, Turkey is a key to projecting US power into the Middle East through bases located in the nation.

The fate of the Grand Strategy may be linked to the fate of two individuals:  Jamal Khashoggi and Fethullah Gulen.   These two are proving to be a test for the Trump Administration’s commitment to the Plan:  whether the moral imperatives that have been the basis of American action, fairness and justice, will be upheld or fall to the situational needs of the Plan.

Jamal Khashoggi:  a US resident and Washington Post columnist, excruciatingly tortured, killed and dismembered by agents of the Saudi regime after being lured into their embassy in Istanbul, Turkey.  The entire process was captured on audio by Turkish intelligence, and shared to the world.  The US Central Intelligence Agency concludes that the murder was ordered by MBS, to stop criticism of his takeover of Saudi power.

The murder puts the US in an awkward position.  The Trump Administration and Jared Kushner have staked their entire Plan on the relationship with MBS, and have accepted all excuses made by the Saudi regime for Khashoggi’s death.  But as it becomes clear that this was MBS’s work, the Administration’s will need to decide: accept the murder, or ally with a murderer.

Fethullah Gulen:  a Turkish cleric who has been exiled to the United States for decades.  He is a legal US resident, granted political asylum.  He is also the “bête noire” of the Erdogan regime; Erdogan himself blames Gulen for an attempted military coup last year.  Erdogan knows what the US wants:  Turkish cooperation with the Grand Strategy, and continued access to bases in Turkey.  So he has offered a deal:  give him Gulen and he will fall in line with US desires.  Gulen’s fate in Turkish hands is clear:  imprisonment, torture, and death await.

Is one man’s life worth a plan to gain world stability and peace?  If our nation gives up moral standing and accepts the murder of one and condemns a second to a similar fate, does the end of “the Plan” justify the means?  While the US has always claimed a high moral standard to the world, there have always been actions belying that view.  But seldom have US moral standards been put to such a public test:  ally and abet murderers, or not.

President Trump is known as the “transactional” President; he knows how to make a deal.  Khashoggi and Gulen are pawns, will Trump sacrifice them in his bid for a Grand victory, or take a more moral view?  The former seems more likely, Gulen ought to find a safer environment than the Pennsylvania Poconos.  I hear Montreal is nice this time of year.

 

 

 

 

 

Waiting for the Shoe to Drop

After a few days of driving – I’m back!!!!!

There is an old saying: “…waiting for the other shoe to drop.” If you’ve ever lived in a downstairs apartment, with another tenant above, you know what this means.  As you lay in bed, trying to sleep, your upstairs neighbor comes home, sits on their bed, and takes off their shoes.  First one drops, thump – and then you wait.

We, as a nation, are waiting for the other shoe to drop.  Florida, Texas and Georgia aside; the mid-term election results, with at least thirty-six House seats flipping to the Democrats, was a statement against Trumpism.  The President’s pouting reaction, first claiming a great victory, then firing his Attorney General and replacing him with a Trump “made man,” then acting like a churlish child in the rain in Paris, then stating over and over and over that there was “no collusion:” all were his reaction to rejection.

Donald Trump:  he made the election about himself, and he lost.  Donald Trump is a loser.  That, to a man of his fragile ego and a life based on image rather than substance, is intolerable. The ongoing dribble of defeat, as the narrow election returns and recounts come in, has simply prolonged his agony.  He can’t “flip the script,” the next  return comes in and another House seats falls to the Democrats.  And even when he tried to turn his failure into someone else’s fault, stating that Republican Congressman Mia Love lost because “…Mia gave me no love,” fell flat. Love is now leading the recount.  It’s almost as if the process was designed to continually humiliate the President.

All of that was the first shoe, the jolt in the night that interrupts dreams and opens your eyes.  You lay in bed, waiting…waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has carefully avoided breaking precedent.  He took his investigation “underground” for the sixty days leading up to the election.  There have been no press conferences, no leaks:  he has told his story only through indictments.  When last we left off, he indicted the “Russian side” of email theft, social media manipulation and election interference.  In those indictments he implicated US citizens as part of the conspiracy (the legal term for the undefined “Collusion”.)  The next step, the next shoe to drop, is the American side.

And yesterday we had a sliver of intrigue, perhaps an accidental glance behind Mueller’s curtain. In an August filing on an unrelated case, it appears that a “sealed indictment” has been issued against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, the online organization that was used by the Russians to publish stolen emails.  Whether this is part of the Mueller investigation, or some other Federal action, or whether it was just a “copy/paste” mistake by a junior Assistant US Attorney, it does lead to some great speculation.

Roger Stone, the old Nixon dirty trickster, is convinced he is going to be indicted by the Mueller team. Stone’s friend, Randy Credico, who has been thoroughly questioned by the team, was in contact with Assange prior to the release of the emails.  Credico communicated with Stone, and Stone may well have communicated with the Trump campaign.  There is even some evidence that Credico was attempting to negotiate a clemency deal for Assange with the Trumps.

Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, is cooperating as hard as he can with Mueller; doing anything to avoid spending the rest of his life in jail. Manafort and Stone have a long history going all the way back to their youth in the Nixon campaign organization. If there was a path to Wikileaks, it could have gone from Trump, to Manafort, to Stone, to Credico, to Assange.

It’s absolute speculation. We do know this:  the Mueller team has asked the Court to delay finalizing the plea deal with Manafort for another ten days.  Why ten days, instead of the usual sixty or ninety?  What will happen in the next ten days to change his situation?

Roger Stone; and perhaps Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner; must be laying awake at night. And laying alone in the Presidential bedroom of the White House, Donald Trump must be desperately plotting to find a way out of this threat to his family, his business, his Presidency, and his all-important image.  Mueller is upstairs:  the other shoe is about to drop.