Category: Uncategorized

Merry Christmas Rush

It’s not a small group that listens to Rush Limbaugh, or gets their daily “news” from “Fox and Friends.”  It is in the millions, nearly thirteen million weekly listeners for Rush, and one and a half million morning Fox viewers.  That’s a lot of Americans, and for the President of the United States, that’s a lot of Americans who agree with him.  

The Mueller Investigation has placed the Trump Presidency under a microscope.  Already several of the “President’s Men” are convicted felons, clearly more are coming under scrutiny.  Who knows when the next “shoe will drop” from the Special Counsel, perhaps members of the President’s own family are soon to be in the dock.  

The Democratic House of Representatives will join-in come January, taking away Trump’s biggest defenders, the Freedom Caucus.  No longer will Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Trey Gowdy be able to distract with Hillary’s emails or Stzrok’s love notes; now it’s going to be all Trump, all the time. Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight Committees are just a few that will be sending subpoenas and demanding answers.

The President’s only choice is to maintain strict control of his base.  The support of the “Trumpers” allows him to blackmail the rest of the Republican Party.  His control is so great that the Republican National Committee is going to merge with the Trump 2020 campaign (and we thought the Democrats were bad to Bernie.)  It’s kept Speaker Ryan in line; he is willing to end his Speakership in a government shutdown.  He can’t do much more than laugh (not so funny to the millions impacted.) The President’s got them all by the votes.

So when Rush and the “guys” on Fox and Friends speak, the President needs to listen.  He can’t afford any cracks in his base.   He sold his base on a single concept, from the moment his came down the golden escalator in Trump Tower back in 2015 and announced his candidacy:  WALL.  (Somewhere, somehow, we lost the articles that go with it, it’s not THE WALL or A WALL or SOME WALL, it’s simply WALL, the way a two-year old would say it.  Secretary of Homeland Security Neilsen even stated it that way in Congressional testimony; “…we need WALL.”)

WALL started out as “the Great WALL of Trump” like the Great Wall of China:  a shining concrete edifice that would stretch from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.  And, of course, for some inextricable reason Mexico would pay for it.  No matter that it wasn’t the best way to secure the border, or that it would destroy many natural wonders along the way, or that it would take thousands of acres of private property, or that the President of Mexico said “F**K no we’re not paying for it.”  Trump sold his base WALL, and now he has to deliver.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox and Friends may have a better understanding of the future than the President. After two years of not being able to get WALL through a Republican controlled House and Senate, now the House, where WALL got the most support, is going to be Democratic.  It’s WALL now or never!!!!!  When President Trump went along with his Congressional leaders and agreed to sign a continuing resolution pushing WALL debate into February, Rush and “the Friends” raised “HELL.”  So, after sending Vice President Pence to the Senate to reassure them that the “clean CR” was fine, and that they could vote and go home; Trump woke up to “HELL” on his favorite shows.  Rush was screaming from his studio just down the road from Trump’s Mar-A-Lago home, and the “Friends” were scourging Sarah Huckabee Sanders from New York on the morning show.  How could the President let this chance go by to get WALL?

It’s not a sign of Presidential strength, but weakness.  The President of the United States is under investigation, abandoned by “the adults” in the White House, and looking at possible impeachment. He’s only got Don Jr., Jared, Ivanka, Eric and his base, a base represented by Rush and Fox.  Now no matter what he told the Senate, Mitch or Mike; he has to make a stand for WALL.

The government didn’t have to shut down.  There was a deal on the table before Trump made his public spectacle with Leaders Pelosi and Schumer.  $1.6 billion for “border improvements,” the Dems could call it repairs, the President could say he got WALL.  That deal is still on the table, though Dems are now strengthened by the President’s actions.  He’s GOT to WIN, for Rush, Fox and his base.  So he’s got to get something, and the Dems will get more in return.  It’ll happen, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe as a Christmas miracle.  But it will happen, and Dems will get a present they didn’t expect.

Merry Christmas Rush – you’ve delivered again.

Birds of a Feather

President Trump announced Wednesday, via tweet, that the United States was withdrawing troops from Syria. Two thousand American forces are there, fighting the remains of ISIS side by side with our allies from Iraq, the Kurds. There was no warning of his decision; not to the Defense Department and Secretary Mattis or General Dunford; not to the State Department and Secretary Pompeo; not to the Congress; and not to our allies.  Secretary Mattis has resigned as a result.

The President has “declared victory” over ISIS, and is determined to leave.  This is a time honored American tradition, starting with Nixon’s Vietnamization strategy and leading to Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” sign in Iraq.  We don’t “win,” we find an “exit strategy.”  We do seem to have ISIS on the ropes, estimates are that as many as three thousand ISIS fighters are left from the thirty-five thousand that began the year.   Most American strategists see that they are near finished in Syria, though there are ISIS fighters in Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, and scattered areas throughout the world.

The President’s abrupt proclamation leave our allies flat-footed; particularly the Kurdish forces.  The Kurds from Northern Iraq have proven to be most loyal, instrumental in winning the battles against ISIS in Iraq and continuing into Syria.  They also are the strongest force in Iraq standing against Iran.  We have served as “protection” for the Kurds from their enemies, particularly Turkey, who plans to exterminate them.  By abandoning them, we are not only leaving them to the ISIS remains, but also to the assaults of Turkish and Iranian forces.

President Erdogan of Turkey sees the Kurds, not ISIS, as the biggest threat to his regime.  For over a century there has been pressure from the large Kurdish minority in Eastern Turkey for more autonomy or even independence. The Turkish Kurds get support from their kinsmen in Northern Iraq, and Erdogan has continually moved to suppress them. With the US withdrawing, the Kurds are left caught between ISIS, the Assad regime forces in Syria, and the Turks. 

President Putin of Russia has fully backed the Syrian forces led by Assad.  Six years ago Assad was near disaster, caught in a civil war between his forces, reformers originally supported by the US, and ISIS.  He has been willing to use chemical warfare and weapons of mass destruction on his own civilians.  It was only with Russian backing that he was able to regain control of most of the country:  with ISIS dwindling, the US and the Kurds are the only forces that stand in the way of his total control.

Ultimately the United States is the reason for the current situation in the Middle East.  The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the removal of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein destabilized the region and empowered Iran. The US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 set the stage for the creation of ISIS, who conquered much of Syria and Iraq. The US was forced to return there to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces re-conquer Iraq and destroy ISIS.  The forces now in Syria, as well as the five thousand remaining in Iraq, are serving that continuing mission.

There is an ongoing political controversy about whether the US should have invaded Iraq, and the steps we took once we did so.  However, it does seem that this current strategy has been more effective, using a minimum number of US forces to stop ISIS and keep Iraq stable.  With only a small number of ISIS forces left, it would seem reasonable to actually finish the job before we withdraw.

President Trump must be acting on the advice of Turkish President Erdogan; they spoke last week.  Erdogan notified Trump that Turkey plans on waging a campaign against the Kurds.  Trump’s own advisors, including National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary Mattis, have been unanimous for staying in Syria until ISIS is eliminated, and standing by our Kurdish allies.  But the President has accepted the views of Erdogan and Putin over his own advisors.  Now Erdogan is delaying his offensive, happy to wait until the US Forces withdraw.

Just yesterday the President asked for a plan for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Again, on the surface that isn’t a bad thing; we have been fighting in Afghanistan for seventeen years and have little to show for it. But without consultation with NATO allies and provisions for sustaining the Afghan Army training mission, we are simply abandoning this post as well. 

 The US is continuing a policy of withdrawing from world leadership. From pressuring NATO to the Paris Accord, the US under President Trump is becoming self-absorbed.  Certainly the ongoing internal political crisis is making it even easier to put “America First” and ignore the rest of the world’s problems.  So it shouldn’t be a big surprise that we would withdraw from Syria or Afghanistan.

Finding ways to end US combat involvement is a generally good thing.  The issue is:  with the US so close to finishing off ISIS, wouldn’t it make more sense to complete that work and really be able to declare “mission accomplished?”  And wouldn’t it make long-term sense to show some loyalty to those forces that have fought beside us?

 With the current crisis in confidence in our own President, wouldn’t it be better if some of his own advisors agreed with his decision? And, of course, with the real concern that Trump might be in some way compromised by other nations, wouldn’t we all feel better if Trump’s buddies, Erdogan and Putin, didn’t think this was a good idea?

One Angry American

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia is an angry man. Sullivan, the judge presiding over the Michael Flynn case, was supposed to sentence Flynn as part of a plea bargain agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.  It was a “sweetheart deal;” Flynn pled guilty to one count of lying to FBI agents, the rest of his many (many) potential crimes were wiped away, and he was liable to serve up to six month in jail.  The Mueller team recommended zero time based on the amount of cooperation Flynn gave them.

In attempting to further mitigate any possible jail sentence, Flynn’s attorneys posited that the General had been “set up” by the FBI during questioning.  They suggested that Flynn was not warned of his right to an attorney, and that the questioning was what Rudy Giuliani would call a “perjury trap” (note:  the way to avoid any perjury trap; don’t lie.)  they also claimed that two of the three FBI personnel that were involved with the  Flynn questioning, Deputy Assistant Director for Counter-Intelligence Peter Strzok and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, were involved in some other improprieties that raised questions about their actions. 

Part of any plea bargain is the defendant accepting responsibility for the offenses.  Flynn had done so, pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.  But now, his attorneys seemed to be raising questions about the validity of that plea. Judge Sullivan’s primary job in a courtroom is to make sure that justice is served.  If Flynn wasn’t guilty, then Sullivan couldn’t allow him to take the plea.

So Sullivan swore Flynn in, and placed him under penalty of perjury: if he didn’t tell the truth it could be a five year maximum sentence.  Sullivan asked him if he felt he was “set up” by the FBI.  Flynn said no.  Sullivan asked him if he knew it was against the law to lie to the FBI.  Flynn, at the time National Security Advisor, a three-star general and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he did. Sullivan asked Flynn if he felt the FBI personnel involved were in some way biased against him.  Flynn said no.

Flynn took full responsibility for his lies to the FBI.  He should have; he must have known that the FBI had transcripts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  The phones of Russian officials in the United States are routinely tapped, he would have seen similar transcripts as the DIA director.   From the transcripts of the FBI interview, we know that the agents quoted verbatim from the conversation.  Inexplicably, Flynn continued to lie about it.

Judge Sullivan was assured that Flynn was accepting responsibility for his actions.  But the Judge had been given access to all of the unredacted  information given to him by the Mueller team.  He also was made aware of an indictment filed the day before in Alexandria, Virginia, where Flynn was an unindicted co-conspirator.  If that indictment was charged to Flynn, he would be subject to years in Federal prison.

Flynn was a good general gone bad.  He was fired by President Obama from the Defense Intelligence Agency job, then retired from the military.  He immediately moved to monetize his skills and experiences, and soon made deals with the Turkish government.  Ultimately he was acting as an unregistered agent for Turkey, representing their interest in trying to gain custody of Fethullah Gulen, a US resident who was the longtime antagonist of Turkish President Erdogan.  That representation may have continued while he was serving as National Security Advisor.

He also had contacts with Russia, including making paid speeches in Russia and literally sitting at the right hand of Vladimir Putin.  His Russian connections ultimately led the FBI to him, as one of the four “persons of interest” in the original investigation of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.

Judge Sullivan saw all of this, and much more in the unredacted Special Counsel Report.  He recognized the obvious:  a man who had dedicated himself to service of the United States was now serving other nations while taking one of the highest national security jobs in our government.  Sullivan reached a reasonable conclusion:  Flynn was an agent of foreign powers while acting as the President’s chief advisor.

Sullivan was clearly outraged.  He stated that Flynn “…sold his country out.”  He asked if Flynn could have been charged with treason.  He made it very clear, that regardless of the “deal” made with the Special Counsel, he was seriously considering putting Flynn in prison.  He even intimated that the sentence might be longer than the “sentencing guidelines,” and suggested to Flynn that, “…the more you assist the government, the more you help yourself.”

The Defense accepted a recess, and then asked for a delay in sentencing.  Judge Sullivan pushed the hearing into March.  And, probably, he will then be more convinced of reasons for giving Flynn a deal.  But Sullivan was expressing what many Americans feel:  that this General has disgraced the uniform he served, and abandoned the flag he honored.  Sullivan made it clear that Flynn was getting off far too easy for the crimes he committed.  

We don’t know what Flynn has told the Mueller Team.  Perhaps his testimony is so significant, that it is worth the “cost” of giving him a pass. But Judge Sullivan didn’t think so, and he might not be wrong:  Mueller is going to have to really prove it’s worth it, or Flynn’s going to jail.  It’s where he belongs.

Health Insurance 

I listened to a podcast by Chris Hayes, the MSNBC commentator, called “Why is this Happening?.”  Chris was interviewing Abdul El-Sayed, the former Director of Health for Detroit, and a candidate for Governor in Michigan.  (if you have a 40 minute drive, it’s absolutely worth the time –Why is this Happening?)

There is a lot to talk about, but the interview helped me clarify some of the health care issues. The first was the difference between “single payer” insurance, and “nationalized medicine.”  Single payer means that private providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmacies) are paid be a single “insurance” entity.  It changes the health care cost equation in two ways. 

First, it takes the “insurance entity,” “Medicare for all” for the sake of discussion, and makes it a powerful bargaining tool.  Currently, large insurance companies bargain with providers for reduced costs.  The larger the insurance company, the better the “deal”.  We see this reflected in hospital bills, where we see a “retail” cost, a “charged” cost, as much as forty percent less, and the difference that the patient might have to pay.  Those without insurance pay the “retail cost:” no wonder they go broke in a medical crisis.

A single payer “Medicare for all” plan would make the insurance provider a massively powerful bargainer.  This is already recognized, as the GW Bush administration specifically prevented the current Medicare plan from negotiating for lower drug prices (Kaiser Family Foundation.)  An expansion to “Medicare for all” should include the power to negotiate, while allowing for pharmaceutical companies to continue research. The “cost of the first pill” needs to be recognized, but the cost of stable and unchanged drugs, like insulin, should be controlled (Humalog insulin prices have tripled in the past decade – CBS.)

A single payer program could reduce medical costs.  The United States has some of the best medical care in the world, but it also has the MOST expensive medical costs in the world.  In 2016, the average medical cost per person in the United States was $10348.  The next highest was Switzerland at $7919, while Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden were all in the $5000’s (Kaiser Family Foundation.)  

A single payer system is NOT Nationalized Medicine (like the United Kingdom) or, dare I say it, “socialized Medicine.”  The pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors remain private entities.  A single payer system takes out the cost of insurance company profits (in 2017, the top six insurance companies made $6 Billion, up 29% from the year before, CNBC.)  And while the health insurance companies, Anthem, United Health Care and the like, would be out of business, their employees would not be.  They would still be needed to provide the services for the new “Medicare for All” program, just as CMS runs the current Medicare.

By the way, “Medicare for all” should NOT threaten existing Medicare.  Republican Senator Roy Blount (MO) used the current fear-mongering catchphrase on Meet the Press this week, “Medicare for all will be Medicare for none.”  This makes the invalid assumption that the current Medicare resources would have to deal with the incredibly expanded patient base of “Medicare for all.”  But, of course, that wouldn’t be true, the resources would have to be expanded in conjunction with the patients.  The Republican criticism is just a way to scare those “old folks” (I have two and a half years to go) who use and love Medicare now.

So a single payer system, well organized and staffed (like current Medicare) would reduce medical costs and remove a substantial cost in insurance company profits.  But it wouldn’t be free.  Medicare isn’t free now either.

Everyone with insurance pays something for it.  In our current employer-based insurance environment, a portion of insurance cost is part of your “pay.”  That part is paid directly by the employer, while the remaining costs are paid by the employee.  Under “single payer” the employer no longer has an insurance responsibility. Employers could (whether they would or not) pay their “share” amount directly to the employee in wages, who would then “pay” for single payer through taxes.  Estimates show that while “TAXES WOULD GO UP” (of course) payers would no longer pay the now continually rising cost of medical insurance, for a net decrease in cost to the individual.

Personally we have a great healthcare plan, the advantage of being retired government employees.  We pay almost $5000 a year (for the two of us); it’s a great deal considering what the retail cost of insuring two retirees is.  But we are in a unique position; there are many Americans who pay much more for less quality insurance, and many who cannot afford insurance (and can’t qualify for Medicaid.)  

The cost of medical care is careening out of control.  Our system may work for many of the 90% of Americans that have insurance, but the cost is increasingly steep.  And for the 28 million Americans that don’t have insurance, it doesn’t work at all (US Census.)  We need to look at alternatives without the scare tactics of loaded terms like “socialism” and “losing Medicare benefits.”  We are paying more than the rest of the world for care, and that “more” is simply going to profit of hospital systems, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical firms.  While We are a capitalist country and they have the right to a profit, it should not be at the expense of the health of Americans.

Softening the Ground

A REAL scandal is the one-sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? – Tweet from Donald Trump – 12/16/18

Sunday, the President of the United States stated that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to network television.  He wants to be able to sue them for defamation (and belittling, though that isn’t a legal cause of action.)  And he claims that they are “colluding,” supposedly with his other opponents, though we know he knows “…collusion is not a crime;” at least that’s what he’s said many times.

I get it: the President doesn’t like getting laughed at.  Saturday Night Live, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and most other network comedians are making their living poking fun at him.  It is more than Chevy Chase imitating President Ford falling, or Will Ferrell saying “strategery” as President Bush.  It is relentless, any network, any show; President Trump is the laugh line.

But it comes with the territory, and with the Constitution of the United States.  In 1800, Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the fact the newspapers were making fun of his ongoing affair with slave Sally Hemmings (there was even a song put to the tune of Yankee Doodle about “Monticellian Sally”.)  Abraham Lincoln was lampooned as an ape and a buffoon, and those were the Northern newspapers.  The world laughed at Lyndon Johnson’s surgery scar, Richard Nixon’s jowls, and Jimmy Carter’s sweater.  

But no one since John Adams (the second President) has actually suggested that we should regulate criticism of the President.  Adams, notoriously thin-skinned, got Congress to pass the Sedition Act criminalizing “false” statements critical of the Federal government. The Supreme Court never had the opportunity to rule on the law, it was allowed to expire when Adams and the Federalists lost control of the government in the election of 1800.

Since that time, we have protected the right to criticize the President.  And we all expect that protection will continue.  We shrug off the Trump tweets as “dog whistles” to his base, without meaning or basis in reality.  But, of course, that’s not true.  The President conducts his business through Twitter; we learned of the new Chief of Staff, and the banning of transgendered individuals from the military, and the firing of multiple officials through Twitter.  He conducts foreign policy there (my button is bigger than yours) so how can we assume he isn’t serious here.

The Trump Administration has engaged in an ongoing strategy of  “softening the ground” towards restricting America’s foundations.  The list is inclusive:  the intelligence agencies, law enforcement, the press, citizenship, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, voting; all these rights and institutions have been challenged by the President.  Whether he is successful in those efforts or not isn’t necessarily the goal.  The strategy seems to be to raise questions about all of the long history of American progression, and what is today’s reality.  It’s Orwellian; intelligence lies, FBI breaks the law, voters shouldn’t vote; the Ministries of Truth, Love, Peace and Plenty all doing the opposite or their titles. 

You hear it from the President’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, as he tells us the President didn’t do something, but if he did, it wasn’t a crime, and if it was a crime, well he didn’t know it so it wasn’t really a crime.  Following that logic…there is no logic here.  It simply serves to distract and create confusion. 

And we now have proof that the President isn’t alone in his strategy.  While we intuitively knew that the Russians were attacking our electoral system, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report shows millions of Russian social media interventions in favor of Trump.  They didn’t create issues, but they took them, many brought up by Trump, and echoed and amplified them across the internet. And after the election, they turned their sights on the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, undercutting his validity.

It’s a strategy to allow for “reasonable doubt” about whatever conclusions law enforcement reaches about the President’s conduct.  But it’s even more than that.  This constant undermining of American traditions and values enable an overall Administration strategy of changing America from a pluralistic society of many races, ethnicities, and beliefs, to a white dominated society of a mythical past.   This is about the “shock” that some Americans felt about the changes of the last decade; the first black President, a national understanding that everyone deserves health care, and greater efforts toward universal suffrage.  The Trump Administration MUST knock down the science of global warming and the value of American leadership in the world. It’s the only way they can move back to the “simpler time” that guaranteed white control.

It’s their plan of survival.  Whatever the law and courts say in response to the Mueller Investigation, if the President’s men can go to the American people and convince them it doesn’t matter, then he has a chance of survival.  As we now know more than ever, the Russians will probably chime in to help on social media.  

James Comey, former Director of the FBI, spoke after his second round of Republican hearings. Comey is the flawed figure of our era, the man whose judgment is questioned by both Democrats and Republicans. Being questioned by both, perhaps he was right.  But he is a man enraged by the faithlessness of the President, the chief of the executive branch, who is attacking his own agency.  Comey stated:  “It undermines the rule of law…it’s about what it means to be an American.”  

It’s not normal, and it’s not right.  We can’t let our values be undermined by the constant pounding of the lies.  Soon, we will all be called to stand by our values, or stand with the President.  There will be no middle ground. 

Inexorable Pressure

Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller was interviewed on CBS Sunday morning.  Miller, always primed for a fight, was asked about the death of a seven-year old Guatemalan child while in the custody of the Border Patrol. She was with her father and one hundred and sixty one some others; picked up in the New Mexican desert north of the border.  She died of heat exhaustion.

Miller expressed his sorrow at the loss, and described it as a tragedy.  He then placed the responsibility for her death on the “coyotes;” the smugglers on the Mexican side that take willing immigrants out to unprotected areas of the border, then point them towards the North.  Hundreds have died trying to make the journey into the United States,  most of the survivors are picked up and taken into custody by US authorities.  

There was no discussion of the US Border Patrol agents, who failed to immediately recognize the condition of the child.  It was only after an hour bus ride arriving at their headquarters that her situation was realized.  She was flown by helicopter to the hospital, but it was too late.

Miller wasn’t altogether wrong.  The “coyotes” are making their money, literally sending people out into the wilderness to fend for themselves.  But it is the larger picture, the impact of the Administration’s border policy, that is creating the inexorable pressure on the migrants to find a way into the US. They can’t cross legally, the Department of Homeland Security has refused to send additional judges to determine asylum requests, so thousands wait in Mexican border towns to get the opportunity to legally enter the US.  The number accepted to enter and ask for asylum, is less than one hundred per day, so few that migrants are assigned numbers (carefully written in ink on their forearms, an echo of history that should strike close to home for older generations of Miller’s family.)

So as the legal crossings are squeezed to near-closed, migrants are trapped in the border towns, often living in the open air, on hand-outs, and prey to crime.  When the conditions become intolerable there, the migrants have few choices:  find a way to continue their journey, or return to a home they have abandoned.  For only a few hundred dollars, the “coyotes” offer a way onward.

So sure, it is the “coyotes” fault that this child was in the desert.  And it was, according to the Washington Examiner, the parent’s fault:  “A Guatemalan girl dies of dehydration after her father drags her through the New Mexico desert and the media immediately blame Trump.”   On the surface, that is all true.

The migrants have already made a dangerous choice:  to leave their homes on a trek of thousands of miles, living in the outdoors for month, at the mercy of smugglers who are interested in profit, not care.  This is not the Underground Railroad of America before the Civil War, but these migrants are taking similar risks for similar reasons.  The lives they have in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras is intolerable: just like the slaves who ran North to freedom, they are trying to find a better life for themselves and their children.

We never faulted those slaves who didn’t make it to freedom, who were betrayed for money, or died of exposure.  We understood why they ran away, the atrocity of slavery forcing them to risk their families’ lives.  They were heroic, following the North Star.

It’s not about open borders, allowing anyone to cross without controls.  But there is a recognition of reality required:  that these migrants are fleeing a life so intolerable that they are choosing to take the risks, because those are less certain than the risks they are taking by remaining at home.  They need to be treated as the heroes and victims they are, not as some “criminal horde” trying to invade America.

 If we are looking to place blame, we should start on the conditions in Central America that force them to leave.  We should look at the criminalization of the migration process, where profit margin rules all.  And we should recognize that the United States of America should act as a nation of mercy, not fear.  Our fear has squeezed the border so tight, that we are creating the inexorable pressure that led a father to take his daughter into the desert to die.  We are better than this.  

It’s Not Enough

Michael Cohen, the personal attorney to Donald Trump, has pled guilty to violating Federal Campaign Finance Laws during the 2016 election campaign.  Under US Code Title 52, the possible penalties set forth are:

(1)(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of  this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution,  donation, or expenditure-

(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both. (52 USC 30109).

This is by definition a “felony” crime.

Cohen established a “dummy corporation” for the purpose of paying “hush money” to keep women who had extra-marital sexual affairs with Trump quiet during the run-up to the general election in November of 2016.  In paying off the women, he used his own money to make illegal campaign contributions. In the indictment, the US Attorney stated that the evidence showed that he acted with the knowledge of, for, and under the direction of “Individual 1:” Donald J. Trump the current President of the United States.  This makes the President a “co-conspirator” in the commission of a felony, and should put him a risk for indictment on the same charges.

Except, that the Department of Justice has an internal ruling that does not allow the serving President to be indicted.  There are long and complicated Constitutional arguments about whether that is a valid finding; regardless, the rule is binding on all Federal Prosecutors, and is not likely to change under the current DOJ administration. They will not bring such an indictment to court.

The alternative set forth in the Constitution is to remove the President from office through the impeachment process, and after he is out, hold him accountable in the courts for his actions.  This is certainly what the authors of the Constitution intended as the action needed to be taken against a “criminal” President. Many commentators and “resistance” activists are calling on the new House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings when the Democrats take the majority in January. It seems like a clear “reading” of the process.  

But impeachment is a political process in the Congress, not a judicial process in the Courts.  As a political process, the outcome of impeachment is determined by votes, and votes are at least in part determined by the “will of the people” as reflected in the decisions made by Senators.  To put it more succinctly:  Senators are not going to vote to remove a President if there isn’t a reasonable amount of popular support for removal.

This was evident in the Clinton Impeachment in 1998.  Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, both coming from his sexual affair with a White House intern. He was charged with perjury, lying under oath about the affair (“…it depends what the meaning of the word is, is,”) and with obstructing justice by orchestrating a cover-up of his actions. The perjury count was passed by the House of Representatives (a simple majority needed) 228 for and 206 against, while the obstruction charge was 221 for and 212 against.  Two other counts failed to pass.  The votes were near party line in the Republican House, with a few of each party voting across lines.  

The closeness of the votes showed that there was limited support for impeachment nationally.  The action was seen by many as a partisan attack of Republicans against the Democratic President.  And it was also seen as imposing a “national standard of morality” on the private actions of Bill Clinton, a standard that struck many as hypocritical with the immediate two past Republican Speakers (Gingrich and Livingston) both guilty of extra-marital affairs (they were replaced by Dennis Hastert as Speaker, who was later found to have molested boys as a coach before he ran for office.)

Republicans had a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate, but removal required a two-thirds vote (67) of the Senate.  The “trial” lasted a month, and after deliberations both articles failed: perjury 55 not guilty to 45 guilty, and obstruction 50 to 50.  

The opposite was true in the removal/resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974. There was strong Republican support for the President, until the release of White House tapes showing that not only did Nixon know about the cover-up of the Watergate break-in, he actually planned and orchestrated it.  With this undeniable evidence, the Republican Congressional leaders (then in the minority)  went to Nixon and told him he would be impeached and removed, urging  him to resign instead.  While impeachment articles were voted out of the House Judiciary Committee, Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on them.

President Trump may well have orchestrated a felony conspiracy to violate campaign laws and led a cover-up.  But many of his supporters, including members of US House and Senate, feel that this is all part of the “sex stuff” that was known before the election.  Their argument:  the people had the opportunity to vote on the issue, and Trump won the election.  While there are good arguments for impeachment, the “political” part of the process isn’t ready:  Yet.

There is much more to come.  The Mueller investigation has indicted a range of Russians and others for direct involvement in Russia’s attack on the US election.  Should Mueller be able to show the President’s involvement in that, or show that the President is under the influence of Moscow due to his personal finances; that’s a different “political” story.  

Cohen’s and Trump’s actions in the campaign were illegal, but it’s not enough. It’s not enough for impeachment and removal, and will be seen, like the Clinton impeachment, as a partisan “witch hunt.”  The President and his lawyers are already laying the groundwork for that defense.  We:  Democrats, “resistance members,” the American people; need to wait for the “real stuff;” the Mueller evidence about a US President who may have conspired with a foreign nation to win an election, or may be under the financial “thumb” of Russia. That will be enough.

The Invisible Hand

1776 was a momentous year. Thirteen British colonies in North America banded together and determined to break away from King George III, joining in a Declaration of Independence.  As Franklin supposedly said at the time, “…we must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”  

But Jefferson’s Declaration wasn’t the only foundational document of that year.  In Scotland, Adam Smith authored The Wealth of Nation, the basis of modern economic thought.  In his treatise, Smith describes “the invisible hand,” the equilibrium between supply and demand that establishes costs in a market.

Supply and demand concepts didn’t begin with Smith, but his description of those forces clarified it. And while there have been many other theories and philosophies of economics since Smith, his fundamental description of market forces remains true.

In the United States today, we look at the nations to our South as “a danger.”  Some want to militarize our borders, others want to “Wall” ourselves off from the world.  Many Americans feel threatened by all manners of evil from the border: drugs, criminals, sex slaves, terrorists; all have been described as crossing into the United States unfettered by the border guards.

It makes some simple sense: put up a wall, and keep what we don’t want on the outside of it.  Many make the analogy of locking your house at night, preventing break-ins.  And yet that doesn’t seem to work, there are break-ins all the time.  The next step, get a security system, alarms that will call police.  But, while that has some deterrent effect, in the end houses with alarms get broken into as well.  

So some Americans then arm themselves with weapons, threatening to shoot any intruder.  The problem:  they spend the nights on guard, in fear of attack.  And sometimes they do shoot the intruders, only to find their child was sneaking back into the house.  So while weapons might stop intrusion, it raises the risk of accident, and makes a questionable moral statement:  I can take your life for trying to take my property.

Before we spend billions of dollars to build a wall, we should ask ourselves two questions:  why are people coming across our border, and are they of value to us?  

Honest migrants want to come to America for safety and protection.  They are the reason for the UN Treaty on Migration:  folks in fear of their lives, asking for asylum and protection in a larger, safer nation.  We should all agree that this is clearly the moral thing to do, to offer that protection and safety to those who cannot protect themselves.

Honest migrants come to America for jobs and a better way of life.  And America needs those migrants to work; they do jobs that most American citizens don’t want.  Whether it’s chicken factories in Arkansas, or truck farming in California, or housekeeping at the Trump National Golf Course in New Jersey; Americans need migrant workers.  We, the United States, have created a demand for their supply.  The “invisible hand” of economics is filling that demand, regardless of border guards or concertina wire.

If we want fewer migrants, legal or illegal, then we need to change THEIR supply.  We could do that be altering their lives at home, by changing the socio-economic forces in their own countries.  We are already seeing in Mexico, as conditions improve and fewer Mexicans leave for the US.  Spending money to make Central America a better place to live, rather than on a wall, would be a better long term investment.

Sadly, the United States has an almost insatiable demand for drugs.  In 2010, the Rand Corporation estimated that Americans spent $100 billion on four drugs:  heroin, meth-amphetamine, marijuana and cocaine.   With the increased use of heroin and the advent of Fentanyl we can only assume that that cost has gone up, probably by several orders of magnitude.

With that kind of demand, and the subsequent profit available, it’s hard to imagine a simple wall would stop anything.  Drugs come through customs, they come by air, they come through tunnels, they come by boat, the come in the digestive tracts of human drug-mules.  Since Richard Nixon declared “a war on drugs” in 1971, the United States has done everything it can to interdict drugs, and punish drug sellers and users.  We have locked the doors, put an alarm system in, and guarded the border.  The problem has continued to grow.

We have even tried to destroy the supply, using chemical agents on South American coca crops.  We have had little impact on drug supplies, but what we have done is encouraged a wide range of “creative” ways to get drugs in. And when we do manage stop some, we find “home brew” drugs being manufactured: go almost anywhere in rural Ohio and ask about crystal-meth.  The bottom line:  a wall won’t stop drugs.

So how can we use “the invisible hand” to change our border?  First, we can recognize that the United States NEEDS a significant amount of the labor provided by migrants.  We can alter our policies to allow for legal immigration for them, and then we can assure that employers both pay a living wage, and are punished for using illegal immigrants.  We can then try to change the environment in those countries in Central America where people live in poverty and fear.  By improving their lives there, we keep them from coming here.

And while we can’t stop policing drugs at the border, we should start looking at the reasons for drug use. Drug-use prevention, rehabilitation and de-criminalization may (there are no guarantees) impact on reducing demand, thus reducing the pressure to supply.  This is not a panacea;  but our current strategy hasn’t worked for almost fifty years, and “doubling down” with walls, concertina barbed wire and guns at the border is expensive, and will have  little impact.

To solve our problems at the border, we need to look at ourselves, not those outside.  The “invisible hand” tells the tale:  it is our demand, not their supply, that creates the problem.

Make A Deal

“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best” – Otto Von Bismarck

There’s a deal to be made, a Christmas political “miracle.”  There’s an agreement that can be reached between the President and the Congressional Democrats, a deal made necessary because there can’t be an “inside trade” within the Republicans. So Trump should bargain, but instead he demeaned “Chuck and Nancy” (imagine if they called him Donny.)

Yesterday we had the spectacle of the President and Vice President (if you could wake him up) putting on a demonstration, rather than a negotiation.  The in-coming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, were brought in for a public “humiliation.” They were ambushed; anticipating an actual meeting where they could make a “deal,” they were instead brought in for public abuse by the President.

They gave as good as they got, maybe better.  President Trump promised that a government shutdown would be “on him,” taking responsibility for the possibility of failing to pay millions of employees and closing government services at Christmas.  In our recent political history, no one has “won” a shutdown.  But a government shutdown at Christmas wasn’t his goal for that meeting. 

President Trump is not foolish.  Looming over his immediate future are indictments from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller, perhaps including his own family members.  He knows that the specter of impeachment is also on the horizon (and promises a revolt of it occurs.)  His current goal is not to solve government problems, but to solidify his base, to keep the 30-40% of Americans who see him as doing a “good job” in his corner.

And he hit all the right buttons in yesterday’s “meeting.” According to him,  he is for protecting America, the Democrats aren’t.  He is for keeping drugs, terrorists and criminals out of the United States, the Democrats must want them in.  And he is able to argue with the Jewish minority leader from New York City and the woman House leader from San Francisco.  Don’t think he misses the optics of that; there are a significant number of his supporters that buy all of those stereotypes of hate.

Nancy Pelosi shrugged off Michele Obama’s “they go low, we go high” advice. Pelosi compared Trump’s failed wall to his “manhood” (as Colbert said, he can’t erect either one.) She can dish it out if she needs to.

It’s all about $3.4 billion, the difference between the $1.6 billion in the current legislation on the table and the $5 billion Trump want’s for his wall.  And while $3.4 billion is significant, there are quite a few things the Democrats would take for that amount. 

But Republicans still have majorities in both the House and the Senate, Paul Ryan is still Speaker, so why not just make a deal among the Republicans and tell the Democrats to “kiss off?” Because there isn’t a majority of Republicans who are willing to spend the $3.4 billion either. They are “all of a sudden” shocked with the incredibly huge deficit, almost a trillion this year.  The fact that they created this debt with their own tax cut last year, and that the promised 5% economic growth to cover the lost revenue didn’t happen, well, that doesn’t seem to matter.  Now they just have to cut, cut, cut spending.

So President Trump was right, he needs Democrats to join with him to solve the problem.  The Republican “Freedom Caucus” in the House will dramatically oppose the spending, and Senators Paul and Cruz will grandstand in the Senate.  It will take the Democrats to get the work done.

No one really knows how the game is played
The art of the trade
How the sausage gets made
We just assume that it happens
But no one else is in
The room where it happens

(lyrics from “In the Room Where it Happens – Hamilton)

So, IF the President can get over his need to excite his base, and IF he isn’t so committed to changing the subject from the Mueller Investigation that he WANTS to shut down the government, there is a deal to be made.  

The last time the President, Senator Schumer and Congressman Pelosi met on in the White House, they reached a deal.  The issue was DACA, the Dreamers, over 800,000 Americans who were raised here, but because of their parents’ actions, are not citizens.  They reached a deal giving those Dreamers a status, and a chance to be Americans.  And then White House Advisor Stephen Miller and Chief of Staff Kelly made the President “take it back.”

It’s been over a year since that meeting; a year where nothing has been done to advance the Dreamers’ cause.  Put it on the table, let the leaders of the Congress and the President engage in the “…art of the trade” and make some sausage.  If it costs an extra $3.4 billion for a Wall we don’t need – and keeps the government from closing down, it’s worth the cost.  

No one else needs to be “…in the room where it happens.” No one needs to take “the blame;” there would be credit enough for all.   President Trump put his name to a book, “The Art of the Deal.”  Show some “art” Mr. President:  make a deal.

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.