Category: Uncategorized

He said I was Stupid, I’m Not Stupid

(another Hamilton quote – it’s amazing how that musical resonates with our time.  “History doesn’t repeat – it rhymes” – and Lin-Manuel Miranda found the rhythm)

The President of the United States used the “Saudi” line yesterday to try to explain the fate of Jamal Khashoogi.  Khashoogi, a Saudi citizen and critic of  his government, lived in Virginia and worked for the Washington Post.  He walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2^nd.  He never came out.

The Turkish government states that a fifteen man Saudi hit squad flew into the country and met at the Consulate.  They tortured and killed Khashoogi, dismembered his body and removed it from the country.  Turkish intelligence claims to have actual audio evidence of the torture and killing. The Saudis claim that Khashoogi left the Consulate, and have denied any knowledge of his fate.

President Trump yesterday stated that he had a conversation with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who denied any knowledge of Saudi action, and floated the possibility that a “rogue unit” of the Saudi government might have been involved.  The President lent some credence to the King’s denial, repeating with emphasis the conversation, and leading us to believe that this is the only evidence he has seen.

We’re not stupid, Mr. President.  We know that you start every morning with the Presidential Daily Brief on your personal I-Pad (though we also know you have it shortened to match your attention span.)  We know that US intelligence agencies have better knowledge on this issue than the media, and we hope that you listen to them.  Today, rumor has it, that the Saudi’s will change their story, coming up with a “botched interrogation” defense.  But it’s clear they did exactly what they wanted to do; you don’t bring a “bone saw” and a forensic specialist to an interrogation.

We also know, Mr. President, that the operational leader of Saudi Arabia is not eighty-two year old King Salman, but your son-in-law’s best buddy Prince Mohammad bin Salman.  We know there are serious questions about the mental health of the King, and it is more than possible that he doesn’t know what’s going on.  To quote him as the “authority” of the Saudi state shows that either your stupid, or you think we’re stupid.

Please don’t call us stupid, Mr. President, we’re not stupid.

And then there’s the even more insidious story, that seems to show the White House as “not stupid.” It’s about the media revelation of the Blasey-Ford letter, leading to the crisis in the Kavanaugh nomination.

The Republicans, and by extension the White House, have claimed that somehow the Blasey-Ford letter, accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault as a teenager, was leaked by Democrats at the last minute to derail the nomination.  Republican Senators, including Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have called for an investigation into the matter, targeting Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office.

So how did the Ford letter get leaked to online newspaper The Intercept?

At first, it seemed reasonable to assume that it was from a Democratic source in Feinstein’s office, or the minority committee staff, or from Democratic Congresswoman Eshoo’s office (who originally received the letter from Blasey-Ford.)  It fit into a “Democratic game-plan” to derail the nomination, and while many fellow Democrats shook their head at the timing, they accepted the action as the “hard-ball” required to prevent a conservative Supreme Court takeover.

Eshoo and Feinstein have publicly and vehemently denied their staffs’ involvement, going so far as to outlining the restrictions imposed on knowledge of the letter.  The committee staff seems to have found out about the letter from The Intercept article, ruling them out of the process.  So either Feinstein or Eshoo is flat lying, a possible but wholly indefensible position that will ultimately be revealed, or there was some other process.

Feinstein did release the letter to one other source prior to the “leak,” the FBI.  We all hope that the FBI would never step into another political snake-pit, and it is unlikely that they leaked the letter.  But, as it was made clear by subsequent events, the FBI regarded this as a background check with rules differing from their normal investigations.

The FBI regards background checks as “working for a client,” the client being the agency that requested the check.  The FBI neither vouches for information nor draws conclusions; they pass the information onto the “client” for their consideration.  So the Blasey-Ford letter, sent from Feinstein, would have been passed to the “client:” the White House Counsel.

And why would White House Counsel Don McGahn leak out the Ford letter?

If McGahn was worried that the Blasey-Ford story was going to come out, controlling the release of the information would be an important first step to managing the crisis. Keeping the “investigation” in the controlled environment of the Judiciary Committee, rather than letting the information “appear” on the floor of the Senate during final debate, would give Republicans an opportunity to do exactly what they did:  corral their votes, control the story, and slide Kavanaugh onto the Court.  And, it would give them a final talking point about the “mob-ruled” Democrats in the process:  claiming they would do anything, including breaking the Senate rules (enter “Spartacus”) to stop Kavanaugh.

It worked.  Kavanaugh is on the Court.  Maybe McGahn’s not stupid either.

Two Years Past and Present

“I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now” – Bob Dylan – My Back Pages

Two years past:  it was mid-October of 2016.  The nation was in the literal depths of the Presidential election.  Hillary’s emails were already being leaked; the “Access Hollywood” tape was out.  The nation’s leaders secretly knew that our election was being influenced by a foreign power (Russia, not China as President Trump suggested again last night.)  They determined that revealing that information would have a greater impact on the future President, than concealing it.  These smart people, President Obama among them, who knew polling and how to run national campaigns – they knew Hillary was going to win (what that leaves us is why, or if, they were really wrong?)

Only one bomb was left to explode – FBI Director Comey’s public investigation into convicted pervert Anthony Weiner’s laptop, looking for more Clinton emails.  That’s something any political campaign would want to happen to their opponent – a pervert, named Weiner, husband to the candidate’s closest advisor, with the candidate’s classified emails on his laptop (alongside the perverted pictures – it’s a great visual.)  It was a “bell” that couldn’t be “un-rung,” even when the investigation ultimately revealed nothing.

We learned about “bots” and “bot farms.”  We learned (at least this sixty-two year old did) that more people got their information from Facebook then they did from the news media.  We learned that the Russians were working hard to influence our politics; adding fuel to our fires, splitting our alliances, and disrupting our conversations with extreme views that stopped our dialogs.

We found out that secretive companies, as well as other governments, had “psycho-graphic” programs that could identify and single out individuals and carefully persuade them of a particular political view.  We found that the data used was handed to them by a company we trusted as a “social network;” that the brilliant Mark Zuckerberg had found a way to make billions of dollars on the information we gave him, and wasn’t all that concerned with what happened to it once he got his payments.  We discovered that the “line” between persuasion and manipulation was crossed long ago.

And, quietly, we heard that our actual voting system was compromised.  How much and to what effect no one will admit – even now.  But it seems likely that what we’ve already heard is just the “tip.”

But we are not the same as we were in 2016.  We are now in the “#MeToo” era, we have watched the Women’s March, we has seen the power of the Parkland kids, we know the utter disaster of Trump’s Presidency. We have been energized and mobilized and we need to change the world.

It’s October of 2018, three weeks before “the election after the election.”  Our government has really done little to “fix” any of the undue influences in our process, mostly because the “winning Administration” views any question about the election as a question of the legitimacy of their win.  They should.

So as we go back to the polls, the polling shows much the same as two years ago, that the United States is polarized, but there seems to be a “wave” of Democratic support coming. We know that “the bots” still live: there already are trending chats re-hashing the Clinton/Sanders battles of two years ago.  We see the “polls” that say more people think Trump will be re-elected in 2020.  We need to realize:  NOTHING HAS CHANGED in the digital world.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FIXED – so don’t fall for the same tricks that worked in 2016.  There is no incentive for the “winners” of 2016 to alter things; that’s what they used to win.  And the “big money,” in campaigning,  and for the social media companies, is in manipulation – so they continue to do so.

It’s all “in the mind” of the voter.  And if that mind is strong enough, to resist the dragging weight of the “bots” and the “false flags,” they can go to the polls and vote.  And, if they actual election systems aren’t fully compromised, then there will be change.  And it the systems are compromised, we will know, and a whole new battle will begin.

It’s about the vote. Do it.

 

 

Senators in Glass Houses

I fear that there’s going to be an assassination. I really worry that somebody is going to be killed, and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation … they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.  – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

 

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is worried that the escalating rhetoric surrounding the mid-term elections and the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination might lead to violence.  Paul knows about violence, earlier this year a neighbor attacked Paul in his backyard, breaking ribs and bruising a lung.  While the attacking neighbor was very different from Paul politically, there also was a “lawncare” issue of blown yard waste that festered to a breaking point.

Paul was also present at the attack at a Virginia baseball field where Republican Congressmen were practicing for the annual inter-partisan game. Four were shot, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.  The shooter was crying out, “…this is for health care.”

Paul spoke out after former Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told listeners that Democrats “…can’t be civil anymore.”  In addition, former Attorney General Eric Holder stated that “…if Republicans go low, kick ‘em,” in contrast to Michelle Obama’s 2016 “…if they go low, we go high” mantra.  New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters and others have also encouraged citizens to confront legislators.

Republicans are concerned.  They are confronted in the hallways of the Congress by protestors who see their basic rights being threatened.  And those confrontations have had more of an impact than just inconveniencing the passage from office to hearing room.  The elevator confrontation between Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and two sexual assault survivors is in part credited for the delay in the Kavanaugh nomination to allow for further FBI investigation.  While the investigation itself was a sham (with the White House circumscribing the witness list) it did show the impact of protest.

Republicans have also been confronted in more private settings. Senator Ted Cruz, Secretary Kristen Nielsen, White House Advisor Stephen Miller, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, and Presidential son Donald Trump Jr. have all been either harassed in restaurants or denied service.  They didn’t like it.

This is the political party that has embraced the confrontational tactics of the Right to Life movement for decades, including harassing patients going to clinics, sending out inflammatory mailings and messages, and turning a blind-eye to abortion clinic violence.  The “movement” justifies their actions by saying – “we are trying to save life.”  Agreement or disagreement on the question of abortion isn’t the issue:  the GOP has embraced these tactics as being “acceptable” in the pursuit of “life.”

So it shouldn’t surprise Republicans that many on the left are willing to embrace similar tactics when they see children separated at the border, healthcare coverage denied, and the rights of women, minorities and LGBTQ folks threatened.  The continuing actions of President Trump, with rally after rally of inflammatory rhetoric, threatening opponents with jail (“lock her up”) and demeaning critics and the news media, simply serve as more fuel on the fire.

There is no question that the political “temperature” is high. Historians are comparing our present age to the 1960’s Vietnam Era, or worse, the 1850’s pre-Civil War Abolitionist time.  But for the Republicans:  the White House, Majority Leader McConnell, and Senator Paul; to try to thrust the blame on the Democrats is simply one more step in ratcheting up the tension.

Perhaps that’s what they want.  Republican voters were motivated by the Kavanaugh hearings, now that he’s on the Supreme Court  the drive to go to the polls has lessened. Meanwhile Democratic voters are even more incentivized:  it’s the only way they can change the current path.  So Republicans leaders resort to scaring their constituency; creating fear of the “mob” and the “radical left.”  Get out to vote or “violence will rule.”

They should remember they live in  glass houses.

 

 

 

 

 

Kick ‘Em

There is an ongoing debate in the Democratic Party:  has the nature of politics changed?  With the election of Donald Trump as President, have we entered a new period of “reality show” campaigning?

Television had been around since the late 1940’s.  One of the first major political impacts of the medium was the televised McCarthy hearings in 1954, where Senator Joseph McCarthy led a hunt for Communists in the American government. The fervor of the chase led to a loose attitude about evidence, culminating in attorney Joseph Welch, defending a younger member of his firm saying:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

It was on TV, to a national audience.  The statement struck Americans, and began the decline of McCarthy (and has been echoed in recent times in the Strozk and Kavanaugh hearings – by both sides.)

In the election of 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon was the Republican running against Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy.  Nixon had been a World War II vet, a Congressman, Senator, and Vice President for eight years in the successful Eisenhower Administration.  Kennedy was also a vet, and was elected to the Congress and the Senate. He had been touted as a possible Vice Presidential nominee in 1956 for Adlai Stevenson. 

But it wasn’t until the televised Presidential debates of the 1960 election that TV came to the fore. Nixon, a star debater, thought he was well prepared to show Kennedy as ignorant.  Kennedy, on the other hand, had a much better understanding of what a national television audience would expect.  Kennedy was well prepared, but he was also “cool,” in the Frank Sinatra, Peter Lawford (his brother-in-law) sense.  Americans ended up seeing Nixon as a pale, unshaven (he had a terrible five o’clock shadow and refused to use makeup) and sweaty detail guy; while Kennedy was a tanned, well spoken, “cool guy.”  It made the difference.

There are many Democrats who see a similar change in politics today.  With the advent of the “reality show” Presidency, where the “good guys” and “bad guys” are called out and challenged, and the issues simplified to basics; should the Democrats find a “reality show” candidate?

I admit, I’m not a fan of reality shows.  But I have watched enough World Wrestling to understand the concept.  There are good guy competitors and bad; the crowd cheers for the good guys, boos the bad guys, and fully expect the bad guys to cheat and sometimes even win.  And while everyone in the stands recognizes that the outcome of the “matches” is pre-determined, a rehearsed show, it doesn’t slow down their enthusiasm.

There is a good reason that Linda McMahon, a former CEO of World Wrestling, was appointed by President Trump as the head of the Small Business Administration.  Trump learned to reach people through her business model.

So Democrats are faced with a conundrum:  join the reality show or follow a more traditional model.  Michelle Obama gave her answer to this question in the 2016 campaign:  “…when they go low, we go high!”  But former Attorney General Eric Holder, a potential 2020 Presidential candidate, this week modified her statement by saying, “when they go low, kick ‘em.”

Attorney Michael Avenatti, also eyeing a Presidential run, has taken this to it’s logical extreme, challenging Donald Trump Jr. to a mixed martial arts match (for charity) to resolve the ongoing Twitter insults they have exchanged.

The Obama’s had enormous political success staying out of the fray.  Perhaps the greatest contrast of our age is the “cool class” of Barack Obama, and the “crass braggadocio” of Donald Trump.  And we all saw the sad spectacle of Republican candidates trying to match Trump’s crudeness; the sweaty discomfort of Marco Rubio making penis size comments is still a national embarrassment.

There needs to be a larger discussion of what we want America to be.  Are we now the “reality show” nation, with campaigns a series of insults and unbelievable statements with the crowds cheering “lock her up?” Or are we going to determine the future of our nation in a more serious conversation, where intent and intelligent folks put forth their vision?  It’s not just up to us, it’s up to America.

Death in the Post-Truth Era

Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen who wrote for the Washington Post, is probably dead.

He was exiled from his homeland.  He made the cardinal sin of criticizing the Saudi Royal Family, and particularly the new leader of the Kingdom, Mohammad Bin Salman. At thirty-three, the young leader doesn’t tolerate criticism, particularly written by his own citizens in Washington, DC newspapers that go straight to his friends in the White House.

Khashoggi seemed safe in the United States.  But he fell in love with a Turkish woman, and went to Istanbul, Turkey with her.  In order to marry, he had to have some paperwork from the Saudi government; documentation of his prior divorce.  When he called the consulate to get it, they asked him to make an appointment.

On the appointed day, fifteen Saudi “hit-men” flew into Istanbul.  When Khashoggi left his fiancé in the consulate parking lot, the squad was waiting for him.  He entered, and disappeared.

There are gruesome stories emerging from Turkish authorities:  bone saws and plastic bags; a body “dissolved.”  The “hit-team” disappeared as well, boarding two different private jets and flying to different airports, eventually going back to the Kingdom.

In our current era, it has become more and more common for authoritarian leaders to “get rid” of criticizing journalists.  In Russia, dozens, and perhaps even more, have died at the hands of Vladimir Putin. In Turkey, a dozen have been murdered under Recep Erdogan.

The United States has always stood up for the right of journalists to report, and the power of the free press to keep governments honest.  But, while President Trump has said some “appropriate words” about the Khashoggi disappearance, the Trump Administration has been signaling otherwise for quite some time.

The President has made his views on the media quite clear.  From constantly claiming the media lies, crying “fake news” at every story critical of his administration, to showing open and public disrespect for journalists.  As recently as last week, he made a public comment about ABC journalist Cecilia Varga, saying “…I know you’re not thinking, you never do.”

Insulting NBC’s Chuck Todd, CNN’s Jim Acosta, the “failing” New York Times, the “Amazon Washington Post” all set an example of the American government’s view of the press.  If Trump can do that, what will those with absolute power do?

He has also shown his respect for the authoritarians of the world.  Putin, Erdogan, Kim of North Korea, Xi of China:  the President of the United States has had high praise for all of them (and perhaps “love” for Kim.)  As for bin Salman, the President sent his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to gain Salman’s trust.  In fact, Kushner stayed with bin Salman the week before all opposition leaders in Saudi were rounded up and put in custody, an operation the US probably signed off on.

And now it is emerging that US Intelligence intercepted messages from bin Salman ordering an operation to bring Khashoggi back to Saudi.  While the Intelligence agencies have a “duty to warn” if harm is intended towards an individual, they don’t have to warn of an intended “arrest.”  Khashoggi knew that bin Salman was after him, but he didn’t think it was with murderous intent.

When the “leader of the free world” ignores the importance of a free press, and shows a clear disdain for their role in American life; it’s not too much of a stretch for the authoritarians of the world to get a message:  do whatever you think you need to do.  Certainly the way President Trump acts, threatening news agencies and seeing the media as an impediment to his message, it would be a stretch for him to defend a “free press.”

The disappearance of Khashoggi is probably not the Trump Administration’s fault, though it’s not out of the range of possibility that they had some warning of it.  But their clear attitude about the media has made it “open season;” if you silence the press, you won’t hear the US complain.  It’s not what we stand for.

Money and the Straight Party Line

True confession:  I am a lifelong Democrat.  Ever since my Mom pinned a JFK for President button on my sweater in 1960, I’ve supported Democrats, worked for Democrats, and campaigned for Democrats.  Just wanted to get that off my chest.

There are a couple of times in the forty-four years of voting (I’m pretty sure I never missed an election – even drove back to Cincinnati one time to vote) I’ve actually voted for a Republican.  It was always personal, in the sense that I knew the Republican running, and that they were a better choice than the Democrat, and it was invariably for a local office.

In the old days (and probably still in some cities) you could pull a lever and vote for every candidate of one party or the other.  Straight party voters didn’t make individual choices, they simply supported “donkeys or elephants.”   It was a lot quicker.

But the more typical American voter reserves the ability to choose “by person” in each office.  Most Americans vote “for the man, or for the woman” rather than by political affiliation.  Many spend a great deal of time actually studying the ballot, knowing the candidates, and choosing individuals.  We have been taught from our earliest lessons the power of a single person to change history.  Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, King, and more recently the re-telling of the Alexander Hamilton story:  all were individuals who powerfully made a difference in America’s story.  From that tradition we see the individual as crucial in the government, and want that individual to hold office, choose the path of government, and make a difference.

So having made that seemingly obvious case, I’m going to tell you to do something different.  For Federal and State offices, you should vote straight party line this time.

Our Federal and State governments have followed a Constitutional model, with three separate branches of government.  As such, we have always depended on the tensions among those competing branches to serve as a check to the power of the government.

This is as opposed to a Parliamentary system, where the legislature chooses the executive who then chooses the judiciary.  In a parliamentary system the political party is ascendant:  a majority in the legislature means control of all of the branches of government.  In countries with a parliamentary form of government, Party is everything.

Today our Constitutional governments at both federal and state levels are acting more like parliamentary bodies.  This is in part because of the power of money; to hold office even at a district level it costs huge amounts to win.  The influence of those who can provide that money is such that fealty to their causes has become the primary factor for a candidate.

Ask Susan Collins, whose position on abortion absolutely made Brett Kavanaugh an unacceptable choice. But because she was a Republican, depending on Republican funds to continue in office, she did the “mental gymnastics” of convincing herself that Kavanaugh would leave Roe v Wade as “settled law.”  There is nothing in his judicial history to show that will be true, and everything to show he would support overturning the decision.  But it didn’t matter, because Collins couldn’t stand against him.  She literally couldn’t afford to.

Money has placed the three branches of government into the control of one party, both here in Ohio, and in the United States.  Voting for the “good” member of a party that doesn’t represent your ideals, is simply putting the other party in power.  Individuals don’t exercise power; at least not for long.  While we have the trappings of a Federal system with checks and balances, we have practically become a Parliamentary system.

Our party tensions are narrowly balanced, with the Presidential popular vote in the negative for the winning candidate, the Senate 51-49, and the Supreme Court 5-4.  In the State of Ohio, where one party has almost unanimous control, the actual voting patterns are near even as well.

As such, you need to vote your party, not the individual.  To put the system back into balance, and to have your ideas represented, you currently don’t have the luxury of voting for “the person.”  Someday, when we find a way to get the money (on both sides) out of the system; in a world where ideas, not cash, make a difference, we should go back to our historic view of individualism:  but not today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why We Fight

1943, in the midst of World War II, movie director Frank Capra made a series of films called Why We Fight.  The goal was to explain to Americans why we were fighting World War II, what the stakes were, and how they could help. In the beginning stages of the War when United States forces were struggling to come back from losses in the Pacific and in North Africa, the movies helped solidify public support.

It is October 7^th, 2018, the day after the Supreme Court majority was turned over to the right wing conservative Federalist Society.  I sit here typing, watching Trump Advisor Kelly Ann Conway smiling smugly over the Trump judicial victory, and listening to her spewing layer after layer of nonsense into the air.  It is a low point for “the Resistance.”

As if it couldn’t get worse, a new movie has reopened the wounds of the Democratic Party of 2016, tearing at the scars of Sanders and Clinton.  The carefully re-constructive surgery performed by the National Committee is being pulled and pressed, barely knitted together after the stitches were removed.  A united Resistance to the Trump era is now starting to turn upon itself.

It is also twenty-nine days before the 2018 mid-term elections, the real “first chance” to change America since the disaster of 2016.  After yesterday, with the narrowness of the defeat, and the bitterness of the failure, it would be easy for “the Resistance” to quit.  Reading post after post on Facebook, there are many who would choose that path.  They depended on a Republican Senator, Susan Collins, to go against every power in her party, and stand up for women.  It shouldn’t have been a surprise:  she didn’t do it.

It is time to remember, Why We Fight.

We fight for those who can’t afford health insurance.  There are many Americans who cannot access health care because they can’t pay for insurance, and they can’t pay for care. And even for those with insurance, the cost of a catastrophic diagnosis may well drive them into bankruptcy.  Americans are forced to ruin their financial lives, to save their actual lives.  In our modern society, this is unacceptable.

We fight for those who live at the lowest incomes in our society.  We fight to create a “living wage” so that getting a job means getting paid enough to live, not working full time hours only to fall short.

We fight for all of those who don’t meet  “the norms” of 1950’s America.  In the past seventy years, we have learned that being “different,” does not mean “lesser.” We, as a nation, have recognized the right of folks to choose their lifelong partner, regardless of gender, and gain the legal rights that marriage offers.  We recognize that young black men are at greater risk of violent death than any other group, and that their lives do matter.  And we know that women are a co-equal force in every aspect of our lives, and need to be legally recognized as such.

We fight for a nation that recognizes that a child might determine that they are different than their biology, and should be nurtured and protected so that they can become the person of their fullest potential.  We fight so that child, or any child, can go to a school that hasn’t become a fortified prison, get an equal opportunity with all other children to learn and grow, and be protected from the weapons of war we have distributed into our society.

We fight for a nation where our leaders are not indebted to a hostile foreign power.  We recognize that Russia “fooled us once.”  Shame on them, but we fight to make sure, “we don’t get fooled again (thanks Mr. Townsend.)”

We fight for the child ripped from their mother’s arms at the border.  We believe in an America that treats everyone with respect, even those who come to us unbidden to find a better life.  It doesn’t mean we don’t have borders, it means we treat all with humanity regardless of their legal state.  It also means that  someone  raised in America, and  living as an American,  needs to have a way to become a legal American.  We fight for humanity, and for an America that enjoys the benefits of all races and ethnicities.  We fight against the white, male, elitist society that is being thrust upon us.

We fight to protect our world, and to make it a better place environmentally.  We fight to stop the changes in law that will allow more pollution in our air and waters, and create more warming of our climate.

And we fight for the right to vote, without restrictions or barriers, so that all Americans can participate in our Republic.

We have a lot to fight for. We have a nation depending on us.  We know that the America of today is not the America we believe in.  And we know that we can make a difference.  This weekend we lost a single battle in a long-term conflict.  We can mourn for the loss of the Kavanaugh seat later, for the next battle is near. Right now, we fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manchin’s Survival

Joe Manchin, Senator from West Virginia, was faced with a difficult choice this week.  Manchin is running for re-election in West Virginia, the most “Trumpian” state in the country.  He is the last of the “old school Democrats” of West Virginia, the Democrats elected by the coal miners union and the folks  “up in the hollars;” the voters that sent Democrat Robert Byrd to the Senate for over fifty years.

As a Democrat, Manchin represents a key vote in the Senate, where the current split is 49 Dems to 51 Republicans.  When it comes down to the most critical issues, such as the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, where every single vote counts, Manchin may well tip the balance.

So it is no wonder that he waited to the last to vote on the procedural motion on Kavanaugh.  If the cloture vote failed, then there would be no final  vote on the candidate.  While most Republicans, and all  Democrats other than Manchin, had committed, there remained three Republicans wavering.  Senators Flake of Arizona, Collins of Maine, and Murkowski of Alaska all had expressed doubts about the fitness of Kavanaugh for high office.

Flake voted to end debate and confirm Kavanaugh.  Murkowski voted against.  Manchin waited.  Clearly, if Susan Collins chose to vote against cloture, then Manchin would be the deciding vote (a tie would bring in the Vice President, who would vote for the Republicans.)  By holding his vote, he made it pretty clear that a Collins “no” would mean a Manchin “no” as well, and the end of the Kavanaugh candidacy.  It also might mean the end of Joe Manchin’s service in the Senate, as West Virginians were in favor of Kavanaugh 62% to 38% (MetroNews.)

When Collins voted to end cloture, it freed Manchin from the determining responsibility.  He voted to protect his re-election, joining the Republicans and the 62% of West Virginians to confirm Kavanaugh.  He solidified his position in West Virginia to win.

We can only project which way Senator Manchin would have gone if Collins had voted “no,” but the timing of his late vote indicates he would have joined his fellow Democrats if it had made a difference.  And his fellow Democrats gave him the “space” to make that choice.

The more progressive members of the Democratic Party have complained that Manchin is “more Republican” than “Democrat” in his voting.  What Manchin really represents is a test of how “big the tent” of the Democratic Party is.  If Democrats still represent a broad view of politics, from the “blue dog” Democrats (fiscal conservatives, social progressives) to the “social-Democrats (Bernie Sanders types) then there needs to be room in the party for Joe Manchin.

And on a more practical note:  if there is a “blue wave” coming in November, then the Senate could hinge on a single vote. Senate seats in Florida, Nevada, North Dakota, Missouri, Arizona, Tennessee and even Texas are up for grabs: if Democrats can gain a majority, Joe Manchin will be part of that block.

Now is not the time for Democratic leaders to push Manchin into the Republican Party.  Now is the time for Democrats to build their “big tent” inclusive of a wide range of political thought.  Manchin needs to have a place in that tent, for Democrats to have the best chance of controlling the Senate and to act as a barrier to the Trump Administration.

That “big tent” needs to be the model for the Democratic Party in 2020, when the Presidency will be back in play.  As the “more progressive” wing of the Party gains greater power, they should  see the need to keep moderates, and even somewhat conservatives like Manchin, as part of the group.  That will keep the Party representing the greatest swath of American thought, instead of continuing the current process of polarization.

Joe Manchin did what he had to do.  Keeping him in the Democratic fold is important, and accepting his views as part of the mélange of Democratic thought is important too.

Oh Lindsey, We Hardly Knew Ye!

Over the past three years, the senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, has made a strange journey.  It started with his Presidential ambitions, entering the Republican primaries in 2015.

“I want to be president to meet our problems head on,” Graham said. “Honestly and realistically, for the purpose of solving them, not hiding them or taking political advantage of them.” (Atlantic)

At that time he was asked to describe Donald Trump:

“ …That he’s a jackass. That he’s bringing his name down, and he’s not helping the process, and he shouldn’t be commander and chief.”(CNN)

And Senator Graham in 2015 was known as a best friend to Republican Senator John McCain.  McCain (jokingly) called Graham his “illegitimate son.”  Graham was a hawk on foreign policy, but a moderate on immigration, mirroring McCain in his acceptance of the need for a pathway to citizenship for current illegal immigrants.

But his Presidential bid failed quickly, and he was out of the running before Christmas of 2015.  He returned to the Senate, a senior member of the governing party, and seemed to be a moderating force in the now Trump-dominated GOP.  He was willing to call the President out when he did or said inappropriate things, but he was also able to play golf with him and keep “in his ear.”

John McCain, constantly insulted and degraded by the President, was diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor.  As McCain left the political arena, many looked to Graham to take up his mantel representing the “old Republican Party” against the new Trumpers.

But Graham took a different path, moving more and more in line with the President.  He went from being a member of the “three amigos” (McCain, Democrat Joe Lieberman, and Graham) to a stalwart defender of the President in the Senate.  It was telling that in the National funeral for McCain, one carefully orchestrated before-hand by the deceased, Presidents Obama and Bush, and Senator Lieberman were given ample time for eulogies; but Graham was consigned to reading a short Bible passage.

Graham has made himself an ardent supporter of the President.  His position was best outlined last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  During the tense hearing on the sexual assault charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh the questioning turned, and the “special assistant prosecutor” narrowed in on the candidate’s inconsistencies. It seemed that Kavanaugh was in the “cross hair.”   A recess was quickly called, and when the Senators returned, the “special assistant” was done.  Graham took the floor, and immediately launched a harangue against the Democrats that changed the course of the hearing (CNN.)  It was no longer about Kavanaugh, it was about the Democratic strategy to stop the nomination.

Many saw this as Graham’s audition for Attorney General, a position that, with the rumored firing or resignation of Jeff Sessions, may soon be vacant .  But it was really an audition to a much greater audience than just the President.  Listening to Graham’s vitriolic rant, it seems that he was reaching beyond the President to appeal to his base.

Lindsey Graham has made a political decision; he has determined the “writing on the wall.”  He has cast his lot, not with the mainstream or “old school” Republicans that John McCain represented, but with the “reality television” politics that Donald Trump has created.  Graham’s rant was a declaration; a declaration of his candidacy for the Presidency and his claim to Trump’s base, should the President chose not to run in 2020.

Graham has an opening. Vice President Pence has taken a subdued path, quietly supporting the President, but also quietly separating himself from the excesses of the Trump Presidency.  He seems to be reserving his role as the “replacement”, first determined before the election when the “Access Hollywood Tape” was released, and the Republican leaders thought to replace Trump. Graham, on the other hand,  is vocally in the President’s corner, and is reaching around the quiet Pence to gain the support of the base.

It is said that every Senator is running for President, and Lindsey Graham is seriously infected with the “Presidential bug.”   He has made a tactical choice, leaving behind his ideology and mentors of the past, to take on the mantel of Trump.  He is “all-in.”

Lindsey Graham  must know better than almost anyone how John McCain felt about that choice. While it seems to be an ultimate betrayal, perhaps in their last conversations McCain gave his blessings to Graham’s ambitions.   It is likely we will never know what was said.  For those Americans who hoped that Trump was an aberration in politics, and that we could go back to a less polarized world, McCain, and by extension Lindsey Graham, represented hope.  But Graham has seen his future, and it is a future of Trumpism and strife.  Both he, and his vision, are a huge disappointment.

Is it 2016?

So let’s, for today, throw out all of the arguments about the legitimacy of the 2016 election. Let’s ignore the Russian interference, and possible hacking into our electoral processes. And let’s ignore the impact of Director Comey’s actions in particular, and the FBI in general. Let’s look at the voter turnout, and what voters were willing to accept.

We know that Hillary Clinton was a weakened candidate.  The Sanders campaign, the continuing email scandal, and the years of Republican hard work to undercut her image took their toll.  House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy  said this about the impact of the endless Benghazi hearings:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”

We also know that Donald Trump was an “outlier” candidate, beyond  the boundaries of normal political decency and the Republican Party itself.

A significant portion of the American population were willing to accept the absolute “political incorrectness” of Donald Trump.  They were willing to accept his abusive and lascivious attitude towards women, his insulting and bullying actions towards those he saw as enemies, and his outright lies about his own life.  They knew, and know today, that they are making this choice; they see it as a way to “Make America Great Again” or more specifically, take America back to what  it was like seventy years ago.

We also know that a large portion of Americans were turned off by the entire campaign.  The old adage, “hold your nose and vote,” didn’t play for many, particularly groups that generally vote Democratic, and they decided to skip the entire process.  Bernie Sanders voters were mad, young people were disenchanted, and there was an undercurrent of  “malaise.”  The fact that Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner were tied into the “Clinton Family” negated much of the impact of Trump’s transgressions.  It was ugly every direction you turned.

President Trump is using the Kavanaugh nomination to try to recreate the atmosphere of 2016.  He is trying to brand Democrats:  particularly a woman – Nancy Pelozi, and a Jewish man – Chuck Schumer – as “…destroying a good man and his family to gain what they couldn’t earn at the polls.”  Trump believes he can drag this election into the same mud bath that he found in 2016. In that ugly hole, he’s the best!!

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the President mocked sexual assault victim Christine Blasey-Ford in a rally this week.  He is not just reading the “tea-leaves,” he’s also seeing polling data showing that the Kavanaugh crisis is firing up his base.  He has found the critical appeal:  your “white son” could be falsely accused, and destroyed, by the Pelozi-Schumer Democrats!

Trump thinks he can save the Republican Congress by putting himself “on the ticket.”  By making every Congressional Republican vote a vote for Trump, he believes he can bring out his base, and maintain a Congressional majority.  Kavanaugh gives Trump the perfect stand-in, particularly after the anger-filled display he made in the last Congressional hearing.

The Trump voters will turn out, just as Republicans always do.  It was a Democratic “pipe dream” to believe they wouldn’t.  But that is not the determinate factor in the mid-term elections.  The question is now, and always was,  will Democrats turn out?

Will Democrats take the passion generated in the special elections of the past eighteen months, and channel it into the November polls?  Or will they allow the ugliness of the Kavanaugh situation, win or lose, to drag the election back into the “everyone’s dirty as usual” mindset that will kill their turnout.

Democrats needed to fight Kavanaugh with every weapon “at their disposal” in order to keep faith with their base, and maybe, to actually win the fight.  The vulnerability of Roe v Wade, the Affordable Care Act, and all of the other Democratic foundations, required that action.  And the fact that the Republicans have orchestrated  a “whitewash” of an FBI investigation will make it an issue in the future.

But to be honest, from the Democrats point of view, the Kavanaugh nomination needs to be over, one way or the other.  There are four weeks left before the election, a lifetime in political terms; and Democrats need to get back to the battle of healthcare, jobs, children at the border, and the failed Trump promises of the past two years.  That’s a better strategy to fire up turnout, because when Democrats show up, they win.

 

 

 

 

Rules in a Knife Fight

“Rules in a Knife Fight – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”

Today, the United States Senate will begin the final process of voting on Brett Kavanaugh.  The truncated and carefully circumscribed FBI investigation is done, and it is now up to the Senators to decide.  Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of committing sexual assault as a seventeen year old.  It’s thirty-six years later, and he has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The victim, Christine Blasey-Ford, has convincingly testified, but there is little other evidence to back up her testimony.

Kavanaugh has not been truthful to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In testimony he has claimed that his high school youth and his college career was spent in training for basketball and studying, and that he liked beer.  What has been revealed is that Brett was a serious partier, drinking to excess, and like most young men, fascinated with sex.  While there is nothing that is so “wrong” with the partying  (as opposed to sexual assault), there is definitely an issue with a Supreme Court nominee lying in sworn testimony.

The Senate nomination process is not a legal process, even though the majority Republicans brought in a “female prosecutor assistant” to question the victim.  So the legal standard for criminal proof, beyond a “reasonable doubt” is an unreasonable standard to apply here.  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is 90% sure; it seems clear we will never reach that level in the question of sexual assault in the Kavanaugh case.

But Brett Kavanaugh isn’t going to jail if he doesn’t get confirmed by the Senate.  In fact, he will be returning to his Appellate Court seat, where he has a lifetime appointment.  The Senate confirmation process is not a criminal process, it is effectively a job interview.  So what burden of proof should be used?

The standard for civil cases (lawsuits) is “a preponderance of the evidence.”  When all of the evidence is considered, which side has “more than 50%.”  Is this the appropriate standard for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee?

Kavanaugh, with multiple women claiming he assaulted them in his youth, might still “pass” this standard. Against each victim’s testimony, there seems to be only a “50/50, he said/she said” level of proof.  But on the question of lying to the Senate Committee about his youth, it seems like we are way beyond even the criminal standard.  We are certain, 100%.

So, in a job interview, a potential employee lies.  He lies about his youth, about the meaning of the “dirty words” listed in his yearbook, about his activities, and about his drinking.  He lies about things he doesn’t have to lie about, events and actions that would be forgiven as youthful indiscretions; superseded by a career of service to the Republican Party and the government.

The question then is why is he lying, under oath, to the US Senate? Even in this “#MeToo” era, the sexual assault evidence may not be convincing enough for many Senators to vote no.  But whatever the reason Kavanaugh uses to justify his lying, or worse, whatever causes him to not remember that these are lies, should lead Senators to question his fitness for office.

An appointment to the Supreme Court is for a lifetime.  A reasonable doubt, say, ten percent, about the fitness of a candidate should be enough to “give pause” to even the most partisan Senator.  But it probably will not, and Mr. Kavanaugh, despite all of his flaws, lies, and possible assaults; will be placed on the Court.

Republicans are making a mistake in doing so, and not just because Kavanaugh has committed perjury. By placing this flawed man on the Court, they are setting Democrats up with an opportunity to “undo” history.  A Democratic strategy may be to wait until one of “theirs” is back in the White House, then re-open the investigation into Kavanaugh.  When an unfettered investigation takes place, with more and more facts laid out about his behavior, then it won’t be a nomination, but an impeachment and removal process that begins.

The Republican cry will be “unfair” and “un-American,” but of course all rules have already been tossed aside in this “knife fight,” and the majority opinion on the Court for generations is at stake.  To protect “their seat” on the Court, Republicans should step back to see the long-term effect of confirming this wounded and vulnerable candidate.  He will still be wounded and vulnerable when the Republican majority protection is gone.

 

 

 

 

Hold Your Breath

The debate over Judge Kavanaugh continues:  is he the next Supreme Court Justice; is he a perjurer of testimony to the United States Senate; is he a sex offender; or is he all of the above?  Americans are waiting for an answer; and for some Senator to demonstrate a “Profile in Courage” moment.  I hope your not holding your breath.

On the other hand, holding your breath might be a better idea.  The Environmental Protection Agency intends to roll back emission standards on coal, allowing for more pollutants and greenhouse gases. The EPA itself, in it’s own analysis, estimates up to 1400 premature deaths because of that change ( CNN.)

Or if the coal pollution doesn’t get you, don’t worry, there’s more.  The EPA also proposes to roll back fuel economy standards, meaning that cars will burn more gas and create more pollution (NPR.)   Even California, a state that has traditionally dealt with greater pollution problems from vehicles by having more restrictive standards, is not exempt. They are required to follow the national standards as well.

But breathing may not be the biggest problem.  Today the EPA announced it is now moving to loosen radiation standards.  This means that the amount of “allowable” radiation people can be exposed to will be increased, and the producers of that radiation will not be required to be as protective.

The biggest concern here: the EPA is following the “outlier” advice of a toxicologist, Edward Calabrese.  He believes, flying in the face of the vast majority of scientific thought, that exposure to somewhat higher doses of radiation is actually beneficial, by “toughening up” the exposed cells.  Kind of like that big sunburn at the beginning of the summer toughens up your skin – or raises your risk of skin cancer.

What about the “rest” of science?  They believe that any exposure to radiation increases the risk, and that raising the general amount of radiation folks are exposed to is going to cause more people to have cancer:  period  (AP.)

Why would the EPA choose to follow the outlier, over conventional science?  Why would they stop better fuel economy and less pollution, and allow for greater greenhouse gas pollution?  Of course there’s an easy answer — money.

Take radiation. Nuclear plant operators spend billions protecting their workers and their neighbors, from radiation, even small amounts of it.  If the EPA allows them to expose greater amounts, it will save them a lot of money. And, if they are meeting EPA standards, it will be far more difficult for workers or neighbors to file suit against the operators when they are diagnosed with cancers.

And if less protection is necessary; hospital and dental technicians and others who are routinely exposed to low-dose radiation will be at greater risk.  Currently the annual “limit” of exposure is 100 millisieverts (about 25 chest X-Rays), and even that raises the risk of cancer according to “mainstream science.”  The EPA changes would allow for much greater exposure, and less expenditures for protection.

What’s the goal of the Trump Administration?  The Environmental Protection Agency; doesn’t.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, won’t.  The Interior Department is allowing hunting in violation of the Endangered Species Act, by unilaterally and arbitrarily declaring endangered species not endangered (NYT.)  The Department of Justice promotes injustice on the border, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to hold over one hundred and thirty insecure children separated from their parents, and wants the Court to give them a pat-on-the-back (NBC.)

George Orwell in his apocryphal novel 1984, had four government ministries: the Ministry of Love (law and order), the Ministry of Peace (war), the Ministry of Plenty (rationing), and the Ministry of Truth (propaganda). Donald Trump and his REAL administration has taken his cue from Orwell, and flipped the roles of government departments.

All of this while he tries to convince us that our greatest danger is that young (white) men could be falsely accused of a sexual assault.

Hold your breath.

 

 

 

Bake Sales for Life

There was a television show on in the mid-1960’s called Run for Your Life.  It featured a lawyer, Ben Gazarra, who quit working and went on adventures, doing everything on his “bucket list.”  At least once each show, someone brought up the fact that he was living beyond his means; his money would soon run dry.  Then the facts of his doom were explained:  Gazarra had leukemia with little time left to live. He was trying to do everything before his time ran out.  He was “running for his life.”

Today medicine has made great strides in cancer treatments.  The leukemia of Run for Your Life, a death sentence in the mid-1960’s, is now a controllable disease with a good chance of long-term survival.  But, here in the United States, there is another controlling factor in the treatment of this and other cancers:  the cost.

The average cost of cancer treatment is $100000 to $150000 (AARP.)  For those who have “good” health insurance, including Medicare, 80% of the cost will be covered, but that still leaves $20,000 to $30,000.  For those who don’t have insurance, they not only have to bear the entire costs (though when income gets low enough, they will become eligible for government assistance through Medicaid) but their actual costs are higher. Insurance companies negotiate with care providers and drug manufacturers for reduced costs. Uninsured patients pay “full cost” for their care, often double what insured patients pay.

And, of course, during cancer treatment it is difficult to continue working.  So the bills from treatment are added to the bills of life; rent, food, and the rest.  Cancer patients are twice as likely to declare bankruptcy as non-patients (Chicago Tribune.) Even in Canada, with a nationalized health care system, patients in some Provinces (though not all) bear the costs of drug therapy, (in Nova Scotia there is a $29000 deductible.)

These are all numbers, but behind the figures are the living survivors who face an enormous health threat.  Added to their (and their families) burden is the enormous financial expense.  Their lives are threatened by cancer; their lifestyles and families are threatened by bankruptcy.  It’s not a choice.

So they find ways to try to keep up with the bills.  They max out their credit cards, wipe out their retirements, sell their houses, borrow from friends.  They put jars on the counters of gas stations and McDonalds; they have bake sales: bake sales for life.

In Germany, the cost of cancer treatment to the patient is €10 per day in the hospital, with a cap at twenty-eight days.  That’s roughly $325.   In the United Kingdom costs are similar.  Drug and other treatment costs are covered by their national health systems. These modern countries recognize health care as a right, not a function of employment.

In the debates over the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Congressman Mo Brooks revealed that repealing the Act:

“…will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy,” (New Yorker.)

And while other Republican leaders weren’t quite as blunt, they too have shared the view that sick people are at fault, and therefore need to bear the cost.  Healthy people shouldn’t have to share so much of the burden.

It’s “all-good” when you’re not sick.

The Trump tax cut will cost the US Government $2.3 trillion of the next ten years.  Over those same ten years, the estimated cost of cancer care in the US is $1.25 trillion ( HHS.)  At the same time, the US Defense budget is $696 billion for next year alone.  We are setting priorities:  not building infrastructure, not funding education, and not trying to ease the burden of healthcare.  We have cut taxes so even a new Congress or President will have difficulty financing different priorities.

It leaves cancer patients to have bake sales:  for life.

Why Kavanaugh?

After last week’s hearings, it’s difficult to understand:  why did President Trump pick Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court?  And, now that there is an FBI investigation going on, why is President Trump (despite his public statements) limiting the investigation to four witnesses, and perhaps even restricting what questions those witnesses can be asked?

Clearly, Brett Kavanaugh has staked his entire career on this nomination.  If he fails here; if corroborating evidence shows that he committed perjury in front of the Committee, and even worse, an attempted rape as a teenager:  his current judgeship on the Appellate Court, his license to practice law, and perhaps his freedom is in jeopardy.

Judging from the reactions of the Republican Majority, there must have been some warning that Kavanaugh had problems with his background.  When the letter from Dr. Ford became public, in only twenty-four hours a letter was produced with sixty-five female high school friends (not classmates – he went to an all-boys private school) attesting to Kavanaugh’s good behavior as a teenager.

And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was well known for saying he didn’t want Kavanaugh as the nominee.  Perhaps McConnell was concerned backlash from Kavanaugh’s work on the Starr Investigation into President Clinton (resulting in Clinton’s impeachment,) but he might well have heard some rumors of “life as a Georgetown Prep Boy.”

Why does Kavanaugh appeal to President Trump?

Let’s get the ugly ones out of the way.  Kavanaugh has problems with accusations of sexual assault and impropriety; certainly a situation the President shares.  And Kavanaugh is tied into the “Clinton Conspiracy World:” he spent millions of taxpayer dollars re-investigating again and again Clinton staff member Vince Foster’s suicide, trying to tie the Clinton’s to his tragic death.  He played “hard ball” with President Clinton, demanding that he be questioned about the intimate details of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  (No wonder Kavanaugh thinks that the Clintons were trying to get “paybacks” – he’s earned them.)

All of these are attractions for a President who continues to use Hillary Clinton as his bête noire. And Trump is antagonistic to Bill Clinton as well; seeing him as “getting away” with same things he did.

Above that, Kavanaugh is a disciple of the Federalist Society, and represents the culmination of a forty year program to overtake the Supreme Court.  The Federalist Society views themselves as “originalists” in interpreting the Constitution:  taking the original meaning of the authors as the only meaning for the document.  That the authors didn’t envision the problems of the current era can be solved only through legislation passed by Congress, not be expanding the interpretation of the authors words.

This view puts a premium on the property rights of individuals, and tight restrictions on the powers of both the legislature and the judiciary.  A good example is the Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United, where the Court viewed corporations as having free speech rights under the First Amendment, and therefore able to donate money directly to political campaigns.  Further Court decisions have removed limits on much of campaign funding, calling dollar donations as an exercise in unlimited free speech.

The “right to privacy” integral to the Roe v Wade decision is another area of law that the Federalist Society would like to restrict.  That expansion of the Due Process clause of the 14^th Amendment is seen as far beyond the original scope of the authors.

Essentially then, the “originalists” would require that to expand the Constitution to meet the needs and views of a modern era, the Constitution would need to be constantly amended, a process that has only been done seventeen times in since 1791.  This onerous exercise would prevent any kind of more rapid adaptation.

And Kavanaugh has espoused a view of the Presidency centralizing all authority of the Executive Branch in one office.  President Trump, in Kavanaugh’s view, should be immune from not just indictment, but subpoena and any “questioning” by Executive branch departments (particularly Justice) as he has ultimate and total authority over them.

Kavanaugh sees the only check on the President as legislation passed by Congress and impeachment and removal from office.  That view particularly must make him very popular with the current President.

Mitch McConnell has pledged to “ram Kavanaugh through.”  Trump even last night called Kavanaugh a man of; “…really quality character, one of the most accomplished legal minds of our time, who has suffered…”

Regardless of the results of the FBI investigation, the Senate will vote on the fate of Judge Kavanaugh.  Trump and McConnell are “all in;” there’s more for them to gain even in defeat (by the “Democrat conspiracy” Kavanaugh ranted about) then by withdrawal.  Buckle up for this week!

The Ring of Truth

It felt a little bit like getting ready for the “big game.”  I was up early, getting everything else that needed to be done, done. I made a big breakfast, got the right TV stations up, and at 10:00 am I sat down to watch history.  Gavel to gavel, taking breaks only when Chairman Grassley did, I watched the Kavanaugh hearing from Grassley’s first statement to Kamala Harris’s last question.  It was an inflection point in America, both about our current crisis in politics and the Supreme Court, and in culture.

In full disclosure, I am a “liberal Democrat,” and I would prefer Judge Kavanaugh not get on the Court. And I do think the Democrats on the Committee have pulled off the political “play” that Lindsey Graham threw his “hissy fit” about.  Democrats, operating from a two-vote deficit, have done everything they could do to try to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation.  And before anybody cries “foul,” they better look at Merrick Garland just a couple of years ago.  There are no rules in a “knife fight.”

The Republicans picked the wrong man, and they know it.  There was a reason that Mitch McConnell, the master Republican Senate strategist, wanted anyone on the Federalist Society list besides Kavanaugh.  Whether they had whiffs of the teenage scandal I don’t know, but they knew that Kavanaugh was the most controversial of their choices. But President Trump chose Kavanaugh, no doubt because of his views on Presidential power and immunity from prosecution, and, to quote the judge himself, they are “reaping the whirlwind.”

But yesterday wasn’t about the politics of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.  Yesterday was about whether a man should be accountable for his actions as a boy.  It was about whether we should allow a man to lie to the Senate, and the country, about his past for political expediency, or whether we should hold him accountable.  It was about truth.

The Judiciary Committee determined that the process of deciding about Judge Kavanaugh would be made only by hearing Dr. Ford and the Judge; making a decision using just what they had to say.  They chose not to have other witnesses, including the one eye-witness to what happened. They chose to decide just on the statements of the two principals, and we too, as a nation, are forced to decide on those terms.

My last job before retiring, was “judging” the actions of teenagers.  As a Dean of Students in a 1200 kid high school, I dealt with everything from spitballs to rape.  When a “real” victim told their story, you could hear truth in the details, in the feelings, in the “out-of-body” view, and the clear emotional terror.  Truth has a finality, and a clarity, and a simplicity that all of the fiction a Dean of Students hears the rest of the day is lacking.

Truth:  when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford stepped up to the table, shaking, and raised her hand to be sworn in, it was clear we were hearing truth. She answered questions carefully, effectively, and without evasion.  She told what she knew, and clearly acknowledged what she did not know.  She was an “unimpeachable” witness:  and it was clear when she was done that the harsh laughter of teenage boys echoed not just in her memory, but throughout the national conscious.

And as Dean of Students I dealt with “entitled” students:  those who felt that due to their parents, or their connections, or their membership on a team or in a social group; they were entitled to do whatever they wanted. When that entitlement was questioned; the result was often disbelief and anger; outrage that their “standing” was questioned.  It was called the “good kid” defense:  “I’m a good kid, I couldn’t do anything wrong, and if I did, I should be excused.”

Outrage:  when Brett Kavanaugh walked into the hearing room, shaking with rage, choking with tears; he was demanding his “anointed place.” His insolence and disrespect towards the Senators, his evasiveness answering questions, and his clear terror of an FBI investigation that would include his teenage friend Mark Judge:  this did not have the ring of truth.

The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have set the terms.  We can only decide by listening to these two, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. We are not allowed to search further, hear testimony, or investigate what happened.

On that basis the answer was clear:  truth versus entitlement.  Truth should win out, and Judge Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court.  But this is not a high school, it is the highest stakes political “game” in the United States; so I don’t really expect that truth will win.  What I do expect is that America will see truth denied; and vote accordingly.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

White Male Privilege

It was 1974.  I was a high school senior with just above average grades, high test scores, and even higher aspirations.  My college choices included Harvard, Dartmouth and Williams, as well as Washington, Miami and Denison.  1974 was the end of the era where a white male high school student was automatically given a “leg-up” in the admission process.  It was also a time when high school guidance counselors had an “inside track” with some schools.

Harvard called my guidance counselor – and told her I was in.  She ran down to let me know, in class, and for twenty-four hours I was in another world.  Then the very thin letter arrived, embossed in Crimson, saying that I would not be going to Cambridge, Massachusetts in the fall.  Williams also sent a letter, still thin, but letting me know that I was on the “waiting list.”

My counselor came back down and explained that this was a result of “affirmative action,” that a similarly qualified minority student was admitted, where I was left on hold. I was OK with that.  I recognized that the benefits the generations before me received were unfair to everyone else.  In 1974 we were trying to straighten out the world, and I was a part of that process.

In the end, I went to Denison University in Granville, Ohio, and loved it.  Denison challenged my mind, and gave me the flexibility to pursue all of my interests:  politics and teaching (and ultimately coaching.)  The choices of life plot a course, and the course that was set with the Denison decision is one that has been incredibly satisfying and fulfilling.

But let’s get back to 1974 and the supposed end of white, male privilege.  While the more regulated processes, college admissions and such, were being altered, the cultural aspects took a lot longer to change.  The culture said, “boys will be boys” to excuse incredibly poor behavior.  Whether it was hazing on athletic teams, or drunken sexual assaults in quiet suburban neighborhoods; that “privilege” continued for decades, and  in some places, goes on today.  Those drunken “rites of passage” were the way it was supposed to be, no matter who got hurt.

It wasn’t everyone. The movie Dazed and Confused was about brutal hazing in 1976, but that was in Texas and the rest of the world wasn’t quite so crazy.  Generally though, the white male privilege continued in one form or another, as does the tradition of alcohol, drugs and sex, both consensual and forced.

So it’s not a huge surprise that Brett Kavanaugh, class of 1983, might well have participated in some of these actions.  It’s also not a surprise that a lot of folks, particularly white males, are defending him. This may be the “last bastion” of privilege, what happened behind wealthy suburban doors when the “adults” weren’t around.

There has been a great deal of discussion that the “Trump Era” is a throwback, a response to all of the dramatic social and cultural changes of the last two decades.  One of the original essays in this “Trump World” series, Trump World and the Beaver, outlined many of those changes.

Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver never dealt with Wally and the Beav going to a drunken party; but it certainly happened.  We can see this Kavanaugh nomination debacle as another battle in changing our world; not just because of what Kavanaugh represents as a future vote on the Supreme Court, but because of the symbolism of his past.

It will play out today, probably in excruciating and embarrassing detail.  We will know far more about Brett Kavanaugh as a youth then we want to, even if there remains a question about what he did.  Judging from what evidence is available, Kavanaugh was more likely “Dazed and Confused” then “the Beaver.”  But what we will see, for sure, is a stand; a stand for white, male, privilege, led by Senators who gained every benefit of that bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Integrity of the Court

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority – US Constitution, Article III, § 1

John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He was a Federalist, appointed by President John Adams.  After the election of 1800, the Democratic Republicans were in power, with Thomas Jefferson as the new President. While the Supreme Court was a theoretically a co-equal branch of the Constitution, its position as the third branch (Article III) symbolized its standing – third in line.

Every branch of government determined what the new Constitution meant, and they did it with every action they took.  The Congress ultimately had the power of the purse, the ability to pay or withhold payment for government actions.  The President had the “trappings” of government power; the military and the Federal law enforcement agencies.  But what did the Supreme Court have?

They didn’t have prosecutors, those were in the Executive Branch.  The Court could only hear cases brought to them; it could not make an independent determination of law without a case.  They had no enforcement mechanism; the Court could make a ruling, but another branch had to enforce it (thirty years later President Andrew Jackson would supposedly say about the Cherokee removal:  “… Marshall made his decision, let him enforce it”.)

They had no control over their membership:  the President appointed Justices and the Senate confirmed them.  They had no control over their number; it started as five, then seven, then nine, then ten, back to seven, and finally in 1869, seemed set at nine.  But Congress can still determine that number, and it can be changed by their will (with the current controversy the Court membership should keep that in mind.)

The power of the Supreme Court was shrewdly established by the decisions of Chief Justice Marshall, with the most famous being Marbury v Madison.  In that decision, Marshall established that the Court could determine the Constitutionality of the acts of Congress.

While we think “our time” is the most political and controversial ever, the election of 1800 was just as ugly, and just as divided as we are today.  On losing office, President Adams tried to “pack” the judiciary with Federalists (including Marshall himself.)  The “last minute” nature of this action (they were called “Midnight Judges”) meant that not all of the legal paperwork appointing these judges was delivered before Adams left and Jefferson took charge.  Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them.

Marbury went to Court to get his appointment, legally signed and sealed by the former President.  Marshall wrote that Jefferson was wrong in not delivering the document, a statement that could have led to a crisis if Jefferson defied the Court.

But Marshall went onto say that the law under which Marbury was suing in Court, passed by Congress, unconstitutionally expanded the power of the Court.  He then declared that act of Congress unconstitutional, gaining the power of judicial review, determining the meaning of the Constitution, for the Court.

Marshall got his “shot” at Jefferson, and he also got his “shot” at the now Democratic-Republican Congress.  But most significantly he established the role of the Supreme Court in our three-branch system, in a most highly charged political atmosphere.  He did it without an Army, and through the power of his decision. And, like it or not, his decision, and the many others he wrote in his thirty-four years at the helm, established the third branch of government.

Politics and the Supreme Court are old friends.  The controversy over the Kavanaugh nomination may seem unprecedented, but the Court was born in political turmoil, and its power forged in the first peaceful democratic transfer of power in 1800.

Today’s controversy, combined with the long brewing battle over the makeup of the Court, is not much different from the “Midnight Judges” of John Adams.  There has been a long-term strategy of the “right,” represented by the aptly named Federalist Society, to gain control of the Court. They are on the cusp of success, Kavanaugh’s confirmation represents that fifth and decisive vote on this nine member court (the left has done their best as well, with four “liberal” justices already seated.)  Just as our Congress and our politics have lost a “middle ground;” so has the Court.

What Kavanaugh did as a younger man is important.  But, if he committed those alleged actions, what is so much more important is what he is doing now.  His denying that these actions even occurred, if they actually did occur, is perjury.  Integrity means accepting responsibility for past actions:  and integrity is what the Supreme Court stands upon.  Kavanaugh’s integrity is in question, either he is being falsely accused, or he is lying now.

But politics matter too, just as they did in 1800.  If Kavanaugh lies tomorrow to the Judiciary Committee, don’t be surprised if a future Congress doesn’t reopen the case, and potentially remove Kavanaugh from the bench. And that’s the risk that the Republicans are taking, as this nomination no longer is about Roe v Wade or the influence of the Federalist Society. It’s now about the honesty of the nominee:  and if he is dishonest, that opens a future door to his removal, and a change in the balance of the Court once again. Democrats know that too, which is what makes tomorrow’s testimony, on the record, so important.

 

 

The McCabe Memo

Last Friday, the New York Times ran a story. The Times,quoting memos written by then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, claimed that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein spoke about wearing a “wire” when talking to the President, and mentioned using the 25^thAmendment process for removing Mr. Trump from office.

The Times article stated that McCabe wrote the memos to “memorialize” events at the time, which was immediately after the firing of Director James Comey and before the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  Rosenstein at first denied the article, then claimed that the “wire” comment was sarcasm.

The facts of the article raise the questions:  was the Deputy Attorney General of the United States looking to remove the President of the United States?  Was he also trying to get evidence from the President to use in some kind of legal proceeding against him?  If that was the case, was he acting to protect the country, or was he acting as part of a “deepstate” conspiracy to stop the Trump Presidency?

At the time, a Rosenstein “joke” about a wire might have made sense. Right after the firing of Comey, Trump blamed Rosenstein’s memo for the firing.  Rosenstein was “betrayed” by the claim, and supposedly considered resigning at the time. In that context, a joke about “wearing a wire” might have been ironic, if not funny.

And Rosenstein, a career attorney with the Justice Department, was well aware that the 25^th Amendment is a burdensome and technical process, and also one in which Deputy’s had no place.  The 25^th requires the Vice President and half of the Cabinet members, something that Rosenstein had no control or say about. In addition, he certainly knew that “wearing a wire” would make him a witness against the President, and force him to recuse himself from the investigation.  It seems unlikely that he would even bring it up.

So what were the reasons for the New York Times getting the story?  Who were the anonymous sources that gave them the McCabe memos?

The memos were controlled by three entities.  The FBI and the Department of Justice of course had possession of the memos, as did McCabe himself.  The Mueller investigation team also was given copies of the memos when McCabe was fired from the FBI.  Other than that, the memos were held “in secret.”

The memos were part of the information subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee Republicans, led by the Freedom Caucus members.  This has been a “bone of contention” between the Committee members and Rosenstein, who has withheld the memos and other information as part of an ongoing investigation.  Supposedly then, the House members didn’t have access to the memos, yet.

That leads back to the three entities that did have access.  There have been NO leaks from the Mueller Team, and it is unlikely they would have broken precedent in this case. Rosenstein has been the “air cover” for the Mueller investigation; taking the heat from Congress and the President.  There is no value for the Mueller team to put Rosenstein in jeopardy.

McCabe himself has the memos, and knows what “he knows.” McCabe may also be bitter about what happened to him at the FBI; fired just twenty-four hours before earning a full retirement.  Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General was ultimately in charge of the Department and therefore the firing.  The problem with this scenario, is that McCabe himself was a fierce advocate for the Russian investigation of the Trump campaign.  Attacking Rosenstein is likely to result in compromise in the investigation, presumably a result McCabe wouldn’t want.

This leaves us with the FBI and the Justice Department itself. If the memos were leaked by them, who would they have given them to, forces for or against?

Forces in the Department against the President, might have used the memos to further the narrative that the President was erratic and out of control.  This was in the Times anonymous letter from inside the White House, and the  Bob Woodward book, Fear.  The memos might add to the pressure to “invoke the 25^th.”

The problem with that theory is that the removal of Rosenstein, a foreseeable result of the memos publication, removes protection from the Special Counsel and puts the entire investigation in jeopardy.

The President’s allies, particularly his advisors on Fox News, have urged him NOT to fire Rosenstein.  They believe that removal will precipitate a crisis in Congress, ultimately resulting in a more protected Special Counsel investigation.  They argue that the memos must have been leaked by those opposed to the President.

On the other hand, the Freedom Caucus has made it clear that they want to see Rosenstein removed; in fact, they have filed a motion of impeachment in the House of Representatives.  The memos further their conspiracy theory that the “deep state” Department of Justice was working to remove the President.   The Freedom Caucus also act as if “…blowing everything up” is to their advantage, and starting this crisis might be there way to light the fuse. So if they got their hands on the memos, it might make sense for them to leak it to the press.

It is likely that someone in the Department of Justice accessed and leaked the memos to one side or the other.  Either side might have fed them to the Times, (though I’d bet on the Freedom Caucus.)

What happens next?  Trump now has some cover to fire Rosenstein; those Republicans who called for Rosenstein’s protection will be placed in the “deepstate” conspiracy. But if Trump fires Rosenstein, the Federal Vacancies Act will not apply.  That Act allows the President to temporarily (ten months) fill a vacant position with any executive branch member who was approved by the Senate (see Mick Mulvaney’s appointment to the Consumer Protection Board after Rich Cordray resigned.)  Trump could pick someone who would restrict or even end the Mueller investigation. But to do that, Rosenstein needs to resign, not be fired.

On Thursday the President and Rosenstein will meet (in part a distraction from the Kavanaugh hearings.)  The result of that meeting will determine what happens next.  In all likelihood, Rosenstein won’t resign even if asked, and Trump won’t add to obstruction of justice by firing him.

And the games go on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes after a weekend off:

Last night another victim of a young Bret Kavanaugh came forward to tell her story. It’s four days out from the Judiciary Committee Hearing.  It’s difficult to judge how far the Republican members of the Committee will go to try to push the nomination through, but it’s hard to imagine too many more “…shoes can drop” before Mr. Kavanaugh will be forced to withdraw.

And now Michael Avanatti is stepping into the Kavanaugh fray, saying he has evidence about Dr. Ford’s allegations and the behavior of Kavanaugh’s high school chums in the early 1980’s.  Avanatti may have found an even bigger “ambulance” to chase than Trump and a Porn Star; but he also knows how to work a story.

Also this weekend memos from former Deputy FBI Director McCabe were revealed to the New York Times.  In them, he discusses how the new Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was worried about the state of the President, and talked about “wearing a wire” when with him.  Was it a joke, or serious?  Should Rosenstein be fired or admired for his concerns?  And politically, who leaked this, and who gained an advantage from Rosenstein being “outted.”  For those who further the “Deepstate” conspiracy, this is “red meat.”  For those who think Trump is unfit, it is further evidence of his failings. Or maybe this is McCabe’s “paybacks” for being fired.  But for those who are whispering in the President’s ear to “fire them all,” it’s just what they needed.

A Universal Solution

The greatest failing of today’s American politics is the inability to get much of substance done.  The great achievement of the Obama Administration, the Affordable Care Act, was left totally vulnerable to succeeding governments, because it did not draw on a consensus.  It was solely a Democratic vote, and plan, and Republicans were left in the cold.

It’s not the Democrats fault.  Both Democrats and Republicans have become so polarized, so wedded to the extremes of their own political base, that they are unwilling and unable to work together.  When politicians talk about “working across the aisle” they do so at the peril of their own re-election.  They will be “primaried;” faced with an opponent from their own party who can “flank” them to the right (Republican) or left (Democrat.)

This division has been structurally built into our political process.  It’s been done through the re-drawing districts by computer from the state to the federal level.  In the far past (twenty years ago) districts had some rough geographic integrity, and while there has been manipulation of District boundaries for political gain since Governor Gerry did it in Massachusetts in 1812, the advent of the modern computer has taken manipulation to an extreme.

Districts are drawn statewide to maximize the power of the party in control, and minimize the party in the minority.  Regardless of the actual percentages, through boundary manipulation the majority can gain enormous power.  For example, here in Ohio in 2016, Donald Trump earned 52% of the vote, will Hillary Clinton gained 44%.

Yet out of the sixteen Congressional Districts in Ohio, twelve are Republican for 75%, and four Democrat for 25%.

This was all done in a hotel room in Columbus in 2011.  The Republican Party controlled the entire re-apportionment process, elected to all of the state-wide offices.  They used a highly developed computer program, carefully dividing the state to maximize their political clout.  Two of the results of this process were Ohio’s 4^thand 9^thDistricts.

The 4^thDistrict was careful to skirt Democrats, running from the suburban Columbus to suburban Toledo.  It is rated in the top ten Republican districts in the United States.

The 9^thDistrict was designed to “dump Democrats” into, so that their political influence would be lessened.  Two generally Democratic districts were stretched into one, pushing two incumbent Democrats into a single district.  It stretches over 100 miles long, but no more than 15 miles wide, stringing along the Lake Erie coast from Toledo to Cleveland.

The effect of this is to minimize the impact of the general election.  No matter how good or bad a Republican in the 4^thor a Democrat in the 9^th, they are very likely to get elected in those districts.  The actual contest is in the primaries.  So when a Republican runs in the 4^thDistrict primary, they are running to the most likely and motivated Republican voters, who tend to be the most conservative.  It’s no surprise then, that the Congressman from the 4^th, Jim Jordan, is one of the most conservative members of the House, leading the “Freedom Caucus.”

Marcy Kaptur, the Democrat representing the 9^th, has been in office for thirty-six years, the longest serving woman in the Congress.  And while she is not as outspoken as Jordan, she has a strong progressive voting record. She won her last election by 68% of the vote.

While it’s easy to blame the Republicans for the structural changes in our government that have created this polarization, what they did was legal, and seemed reasonable to them at the time.  They had the power, and they used it.

But what has happened due to this apportionment process, is that there is no room for “the middle” or for political compromise.  The candidates are unable to risk “crossing the aisle,” as they will be attacked from their base in the next primary. It’s hard to imagine anyone could get to the right of Jim Jordan, but by positioning himself there he guarantees his political future.  He has no political incentive to do otherwise.

Polarization is built into the structure of the process. Until that structure is changed, there’s no point in arguing for cooperation or compromise.  It is the structure of our political apportionment process that determined our current state and must be changed.

To change the world, change the process.  There are varying groups, from both sides of the aisle, who recognize the unintended consequences we are now living, and are working for change. While some on both sides are trying to “get at all,” whether it’s from the far left or far right, America will need to bring everyone along to reach a “better place.”  Everyone includes most of those who you politically disagree with; without them, nothing can be permanent.

As “the Resistance” looks to wind back the damage of the Trump Administration, it would be easy to take the position that “…they did it, so should we.” But that path will simply maintain a cycle of division that prevents real change.  The opposite of Republican division should not be Democratic division:  if it is, nothing gets done.

 

 

 

 

 

Due Process Matters

The Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination has reached a new low.  The Committee hearings on his confirmation were a political process; not so much a “finding of information” than a sales (or hatchet) job.  And now the Ford accusation makes that process even more political.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that the timing of the Ford accusation, after the close of hearings immediately before the Committee vote, was on purpose.  It was a Democratic tactic to disrupt the “steamroller” to confirmation.  It was purely political.

Does that matter?  The fact that the Ford letter was leaked, probably by a Democratic staffer, for a political end; does it change what is required of the Committee and the full Senate?  It shouldn’t.

Bret Kavanaugh, the darling of the Republican political establishment, has been accused of committing what would have been a felony sex crime when he was seventeen years old.  Maryland does not have a statute of limitations, so in theory he could still be prosecuted for such an act.  And while there are many that would give Mr. Kavanaugh some kind of “pass,” the “boys will be boys (and drunk boys worse)” exception, it doesn’t change the possibility that Mr. Kavanaugh may now be lying to the Congress and the American people about his actions.

It deserves “due process;” a thorough investigation into the charges.  Mr. Kavanaugh should be welcoming such a search if he is telling the truth, it would serve to exonerate him.  He deserves more than just a few “old men” questioning, and then reaching a pre-arranged conclusion.  But he is silent, not asking for an investigation, and his Republican backers are clearly avoiding it.

Who else deserves “due process?”  Dr. Blasey-Ford, who is the victim in the case.  She is almost certainly a victim regardless of whether Bret Kavanaugh committed these acts, because it is most likely that the acts did occur.  The number of sexual assault victims who “make it up” is less than ten percent.  And there seems little reason for Dr. Ford to enter this maelstrom of negative attacks other than a single compelling one:  she believes she’s telling the truth.

The victim should have some presumptions too.  She should have the presumption that her story may be true, and deserves more than just a “grilling” in front of a Senate Committee.  She deserves an investigation, one that the FBI could do in relatively short order.  She deserves her “due process,” and so do the American people, regardless of the political nature of the timing of the charge.

We currently have one Supreme Court Justice who we reasonably believe sexually harassed his staff. Justice Thomas, here twenty-seven years later, has never come out of the cloud Anita Hill placed on his term in office. And there WAS an FBI investigation, even though the hearings on Ms. Hill’s charges were still cut short. Should the Republican majority ram-rod Judge Kavanaugh through without “due process,” he too will be under a cloud. While I expect he wouldn’t say an investigation is “for his own good,” it might be.

What shouldn’t happen? Mr. Kavanaugh’s good friend Ed Whelan, former Scalia Clerk and President of the Ethics and Policy Center (a conservative think-tank) put forward another suspect, a high school friend of Kavanaugh’s, with diagrams of the house that match up to Dr. Ford’s story.  Mr. Whelan is allowed to investigate and reach conclusions accusing someone, but the FBI isn’t:  that’s not “due process.”

So the maneuvering continues.  Dr. Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with the Republican leadership, and it’s less than likely that there will be a “real” investigation of what actually happened. Mr. Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed, and the Republicans will pay a heavy price at the polls in November. Perhaps this will be the “last gasp” of the “old boys club.”  “#MeToo” is strong in this nation, the “old boys” are old and losing control. Dr. Ford will become one more symbol of their unwillingness to find the truth, of their “ends” of controlling the Supreme Court,  “justifying the means.”

They are willing to do almost anything to control the Court majority:  even a charade that the whole nation will see as faked.  Sure it’s politics; it’s everything that we hate about politics.  The price for it will be heavy, at the polls and someday in the Court itself.