Category: Uncategorized

In Case You Missed It – June 6th

The news this morning: Eagles football team didn’t show at the White House, but the ceremony went on anyway.  It did raise the question; does the President know the words to the National Anthem?  Paul Manafort contacted witnesses in his upcoming trial to make sure they got their story straight (he must not know that witness tampering goes in the “cloud” and stays in the “cloud”) and will probably be in jail before his trial begins. This increases the pressure on him to cut a deal with the Mueller team:  what does he know?  And of course, primary elections across the country, setting the stage for a possible Democratic Congress after November.  Does this mean impeachment?

Kelly Sadler, the White House staffer who made the comment that it didn’t matter what John McCain says because, “…he’ll be dead soon,” is out of the White House.  Whether she left because of the comment, or for some other reason is unknown.

It’s the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Robert Kennedy (I can still remember the shock of hearing that as I woke up to the “clock-radio”) and the seventy-fourth anniversary of the D-Day Invasion.  Bill Clinton discovered that the excuses about his sexual exploits that worked in the 1990’s don’t work in the “Me-Too” era.  He faltered in a “softball” interview with NBC’s Craig Melvin.  Clinton needs to “fade away.”

Speaking of “Me-Too,” remember the Stanford swimmer case, where the man was convicted of sexual assault (attacking an unconscious woman by a dumpster) but received a short six-month sentence where he served three?  The judge who issued that sentence was recalled from office yesterday.

But as the political news clogs the airways, there are changes quietly being made in the US government that will alter our world.  President Trump has asked Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to use his emergency authority (until now confined to natural disasters) to force energy utilities to use more expensive and polluting coal plants rather than natural gas.  Trump is trying to prop up the coal industry at the cost of both the environment and consumers.  Employment in the coal industry is at 53,000; up from a low of 49,000 two years ago.

Scott Pruitt, the embattled EPA Director, used his staff to search for used Trump Hotel mattresses as he looked for a new apartment.  He also used his aides to help his wife find a job with fast food giant Chick-Fila. The good news, as long as he keeps concentrating on this stuff, he won’t get to damage the environment.

Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Park region were taken off of the endangered species list a year ago. Bears had grown from a low of 136 in 1975 to around 700 in 2017.  The Wyoming wildlife commission just approved a hunt for as many as twenty-two bears, the first time in four decades.  This is how the bears got on the endangered list in the first place.

The ongoing crisis at the border has grown worse, with thousands of children being held in temporary shelters, including a closed Wal-Mart, while the Administration continues to remove children from parents who arrive, both legally and illegally, to ask for refuge in the United States.  The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has called on the US to end the practice:  US Ambassador Nikki Haley responded by attacking the Commission.

Vice President Pence is planning to go back to South America, working to ostracize Venezuela from the Organization of American States, and putting more pressure on the failing government there. The Vice President is getting out of the US and away from the political crisis.  He also sent his heartfelt concerns to the people of Guatemala, where a volcanic eruption has buried several villages.  Hundreds are missing.

But nothing is mentioned about Puerto Rico, where a Harvard study shows that thousands died (perhaps as many as 8,500) as a result of Hurricane Maria last year, not the sixty-four of the “official” count.  There are no Congressional investigations planned, and there is no increased influx of Federal funding coming.  Puerto Ricans, US citizens, are on their own. The infrastructure, no-where near repaired, is so fragile that even a minor storm could knock out the island again.

In another infrastructure crisis, the state of Michigan is ending its free bottled water program in Flint, Michigan.  The Governor says that testing shows lead levels below the Federal limits, so the bottled water isn’t needed.  Many residents point out that the lead pipes that created the problem are still there, and water should be provided until they are replaced.  But, Michigan is considering taxing a Nestle bottled water plant across the state.  The plant pumps 400 gallons a minute to fill 4.8 million bottles a day.  The cost for the water: $200/well annual fee.  Maybe a larger tax could be used to fix lead pipes.

In case you missed it, the US and China are arguing about small manmade islands that China is claiming in the South China Sea.  The Chinese have built these sea level reefs into military bases, including an airfield, in order to claim extending national sovereignty over the Sea almost to the Philippines.  The US refuses to recognize the Chinese claims, and has sent both US warships and B-52 Bombers to do right-of-passage exercises in the area.  As long as everyone keeps their fingers off the triggers, it will probably be OK.

And to bring it all back around to the Mueller investigation again, a candidate for the New York State Attorney General office is running on one main issue:  whatever happens in the Federal investigation, she will make sure the State of New York will prosecute the Trump family for their actions. Federal pardons don’t effect state charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pardon Me

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. – Constitutional Oath for the President

There are few powers as unlimited in the US Constitution as the Presidential power to pardon.  In the complex system of checks and balances established by the Constitutional Convention where each branch has an alternate authority over the other; there is no check against the power of pardon.

John Marshall, who as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court established the power of the judiciary in the United States, defined the pardon power in 1833:

A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate….  – John Marshall – US v Wilson

The Constitutional Convention recognized that no matter how structured and balanced the government was, there might be times when the “grace” of a pardon was necessary.  George Washington exercised this power during his Presidency, forgiving the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion.  Most of the Confederate Civil War veterans were pardoned after the Civil War.  Jimmy Carter pardoned many of those who dodged the draft during Vietnam.  And, while many disagreed with President Gerald Ford, his pardon of disgraced President Richard Nixon brought to an end three years of national turmoil.

These pardons had a high purpose, to reunite the nation after some critical event. President Ford described it well; he was trying to end, “…our long national nightmare.”

A second use of the pardon power was to “right a wrong, ”the “private” act that John Marshall described.   Some have been famous:  Eugene Debs the Socialist Presidential candidate of the 1920’s, Patty Hearst the kidnaped heiress turned terrorist.  Some have tried to rectify the wrongs of an earlier time: President Obama pardoned hundreds who were convicted of drug charges in the 1990’s and given lengthy sentences during the “war on drugs.”  And some have been related to the President; President Clinton pardoned his brother Roger who had already completed a jail sentence for cocaine possession and trafficking.  Roger was caught up in a sting that the President himself had authorized as Governor of Arkansas.

There is no check on the pardon power.  If a President is willing to face impeachment and removal from office by the Congress, then he might be able exercise the pardon power in any way he chooses.  At least, that’s the position the President Donald Trump has taken, as he claims to have the power to “pardon himself.”

However, there are two legal precepts that could alter Mr. Trump’s perception. The first is the legal precept that no one can judge their own case.  A pardon requires someone who can give the pardon and someone to accept it; a President pardoning himself is in fact judge and jury.  It is possible a court might be persuaded to void such a pardon.

The second is the legal concept of “corrupt purpose.”  If the President uses the pardon power to prevent testimony against himself, or if a President uses it to avoid personal prosecution, these actions have a corrupt purpose.  Federal jury instructions describe corrupt purpose as:

A person acts “corruptly” if he acts voluntarily and intentionally, with an improper motive of accomplishing either an unlawful result, or a lawful result by some unlawful method or means.

Avoiding or interfering with criminal prosecution is an unlawful result, so even the President’s lawful act of pardoning may be considered corrupt.

Would a court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, rule that a Presidential pardon “doesn’t count?”  If the President were to pardon, say, Paul Manafort, it is unlikely that the Court would stop it.  The President might be held accountable for a corrupt use of his power, either by impeachment and removal, or by criminal indictment after the term in office is complete, but the pardon itself would probably stand.  However, if the President were to try to pardon himself, this would create a crisis not foreseen in the halls of Philadelphia in 1787.

There certainly would be one price that any President that pardoned himself would face: sure impeachment and removal by the Congress.  President Trump should realize this from the response the Republicans in the House and Senate gave.  Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) maybe put it best:   “If I were President of the United States, and I had a lawyer that told me I could pardon myself, I think I would hire a new lawyer.”

 

 

 

Going Back to School

Twelve years of public school, four years of college, a semester of law school, three years to get a Masters, and twenty-six years of teaching history and government: throughout that time I learned and taught that the President of the United States was “immune” from prosecution while in office.

In high school I was more than fixated on the Watergate crisis: I watched the three committees hearings almost gavel to gavel, I read everything I could about it, I memorized the Nixon re-election campaign personnel charts.  The Special Prosecutor’s office of Archibald Cox and Leon Jarworski made it clear then, that they did not think they could charge a President.  In their major indictments, when the Attorney General, the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Treasury and others were brought to trial, there was an eighth “unnamed and unindicted co-conspirator.”  It was clear who this was:  President of the United States Richard M. Nixon.

The Watergate special prosecutors thought their only option was for the House to impeach the President, and the Senate to hold a  trial and remove him.  I thought it was gospel, or in the legal term:  black letter law.

This week the legal team for President Trump re-asserted the claim that the President, while serving, is outside of the reach of the legal system.  Mayor Giuliani went as far as to say that Trump could have shot (FBI Director) Comey in the Oval Office, and there would be nothing the courts could do. While Guiliani may have been tricked into the old “law school game” of taking a position to its most absurd end, this is where they stand.

Seeing that position, I went back to the actual “black letter law,” the Constitution of the United States.  The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 6 does create limited immunity for members of Congress:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The Constitutional convention considered the possibility that members of the government might be subject to the legal system.  In order to keep them from arrests that might be used to prevent them from attending sessions, they were given limited immunity.  It also protected them from legal liability for what they might say in debate.

The authors knew that the sessions of Congress would be limited (four or five months a year in the beginning) and carved out exceptions for major crimes. Members of Congress were clearly NOT above the law.

US Constitution Article 2, Section 4 speaks to the removal of the President:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This is the only place where possible criminal activity by the President is addressed.  So while the authors of the Constitution clearly thought about criminal immunity for members of Congress (Art.1, §6,) they did not mention it when it came to the President, other than grounds for impeachment.  The President then, clearly is NOT above the law.  The Constitution outlines the process of removing him from office, but it specifically does not grant him criminal immunity.

So where did the “immunity” idea came from?  Like all good controversies in US History, enter Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

After Burr shot Hamilton (giving drama to the ending of an amazing musical) he headed west across the Appalachians.  He got involved with a group plotting to break away from the United States, and in 1807 was brought to trial for treason.  Burr subpoenaed the President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, to testify on his behalf at the trial in Richmond.  Chief Justice John Marshall, sitting as a traveling federal judge, presided in the case.

Jefferson refused to appear, citing the pressing duties of the Presidency. Marshall did not enforce nor did he rule on the subpoena (but Burr was acquitted.)  So a precedent was sort of established relieving the President from appearing in court.  Presidents have cited Jefferson and Marshall ever since.

On the other hand, when Richard Nixon refused a subpoena to hand over evidence (tapes) to the Special Prosecutors, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 requiring release. Nixon might have refused (guaranteeing his impeachment.) Instead, he chose to comply, and was forced to resign within the month.

And when Bill Clinton said he was too busy to testify in a civil case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that that he couldn’t hide behind privilege.  He ultimately did testify, and lied, and was impeached (but not convicted or removed.)

So where is the “black letter law” granting the President immunity?  There isn’t any.  There is a series of norms and traditions that respects the President’s time, and treats him with special care.    Presidents deserve the respect that this implies, and Giuliani has a point when he stated that the President should be worried about North Korea not Bob Mueller.  But when it comes to the assertion that he is immune, there is no statute or Constitutional provision they can cite.

To history and government classes from 1978 to 2006, you have my apologies.  I can blame Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski, but I failed to find the nuance in his position.   And to everyone else:  this President has been nothing if not a “norm and tradition breaker.”   It is no wonder they are worried that this one might be broken.

 

Our Enemy, Canada

US Constitution, Article 1, §8

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

On December 7^th, 1941, the day that “will live in infamy,” the United States was attacked by Japan.  The next day, President Franklin Roosevelt went to the Congress and asked them to declare war.  It was the last time war was declared by the United States, even though we have fought five major wars since.

The Cold War changed all of that.  When we arrived in the era with the specter of nuclear destruction hovering over every facet of American life, there was no time for the niceties of Congressional judgment.  As a second grader, hiding in the hallway of an elementary school in primary target zone Detroit, I was prepared for a nuclear detonation:  head between my knees, hands over the back of my head, eyes firmly closed to the flash.  It could happen; less than an hour from start to finish.  Congress didn’t have a chance.

Congress, in recognition of the immediacy of war, began to divest its powers to the President.  While they retained “ultimate” authority, it was clear that the US government needed to be able to act quickly to defend itself.  It originally was the war making powers, but later devolved into the power to respond economically if a nation threatened our “security” through its trade practices.

There were two implications in this transfer of power. The first was that while Congress might give immediate decision making away, it retained the ability to reconsider. And second, that since the power was given by Congress, they could take it back.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the same year I was hiding in the hallway, allows the Secretary of Commerce to defend our “national security” industries by controlling tariffs.  Under the terms of this section, the Secretary declares that an industry, vital to our national security, needs to be protected.  He can then set a higher tariff (tax on imports) on competing goods from other countries.

Last week, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross declared that Canada, yes Canada, was a danger to US national security because of the competition of Canadian steel and aluminum with US products.  He instituted a 25% tariff on Canadian steel, and a 10% tariff on Canadian aluminum.

Since Franklin Roosevelt declared the “day of infamy;” for the purposes of national security Canadian steel and aluminum production was considered part of the US production.  It made sense, our “real” national security was tied to Canada; during the Cold War, it was a string of US radar bases, the DEW line (distant early warning) in Canada that kept us aware of the Soviet missile actions.  In World War II and every war since, Canadian troops have fought, as Prime Minister Trudeau stated, “…shoulder to shoulder” with US troops. They have been our truest ally.  But now they’re not.

This isn’t really about national security; it’s about leverage.  Secretary Ross is in negotiations with Canada and Mexico over NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement.)  President Trump spent his campaign railing against NAFTA (at least in part because it was negotiated by his opponent’s husband) and is set on making dramatic changes.  Canada and Mexico were willing to come to the table, but aren’t moving as quickly as Ross wants.

And the President claims that the US steel industry will have a rebirth, much like the coal industry.  It was a campaign promise, as unlikely as it is to occur.

So it’s about money and politics, not security.

The consequences are serious.  First we are in the process of alienating one of our firmest allies.  We have completely changed the rules of our relationship, without notice or seeming cause.  It has already strained our relationship, and real damage is not far away.

Second the costs of tariffs aren’t borne by the producers, but by the consumers.  In real terms, “We the People, of the United States,”  will pay the cost of these tariffs, through higher prices in construction and vehicles and beer cans and all the other products made with aluminum and steel.

And where is Congress?  A clear majority of both the House and Senate are opposed to these tariffs.  Will Congress take their Constitutional authority back? If they did, perhaps they might take a few more back as well, including their control of America going to war. But don’t hold your breath.  We are more likely to go to war…with Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

Trust but Verify

In the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan drove the Soviet Union to the nuclear bargaining table by outspending them on weapons.  The United States was spending 6% of its GDP  (gross domestic product) on defense, to match it, the Soviets were forced to spend almost 20% of theirs.  Those of the right age will remember the “Star Wars” defense, a satellite in space that could launch rockets at enemy missiles and destroy them above the atmosphere. The US never completed “Star Wars” to our knowledge, but the effort forced the Soviets to spend their rubles to keep up.   It was an untenable position that drove them to negotiate.  It ultimately was a major cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the negotiations, which resulted in the INF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) treaty and the groundwork for START  (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) many Americans were fearful that the Soviets could not be trusted: that they would sign the treaties but secretly continue to develop the banned weapons.  To these concerns, Reagan responded with an old Russian proverb, “Doveryai, no proveryai,”  trust but verify.

From the many essays in “Trump World” it should be clear that I am not a Donald Trump fan.  But I am an American, and however I feel about our current President I would like to see him succeed in his dealings with North Korea.  To him I say “doveryai, no proveryai.”  The North Koreans have a long history of faithless bargaining, agreeing to many things at the table, but continuing in secret with the development of their nuclear and ballistic missile programs.  Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all hoped for a truthful North Korean response, and have all been let down.

It isn’t that they didn’t know.  And it isn’t that they didn’t plan for North Korean subterfuge.  They made these treaties in the hope that North Korea would follow through and normalize their relations with the world, but in full knowledge that it was a hope and not a surety.  Clinton, Bush and Obama all believed in “Doveryai, no proveryai.”

And now, through what feels like a series of seat of your pants maneuvers, the “Great Deal-maker” is planning to sit at the table with the “Supreme Leader” of North Korea. Perhaps it was the “big stick” strategy that the President has employed, threatening “fire and fury” if the North Koreans won’t give up their nuclear capabilities.  Perhaps it is that North Korea has reach a point where they no longer need to test their nuclear tipped ballistic missiles, and can easily give up their testing facilities without losing their arsenal.

Or perhaps, just maybe, the Supreme Leader, spending 22% of his nation’s GDP on defense, has decided it’s time to allow his people to stop starving and to share in the economic development that his neighbors have enjoyed.  Perhaps, by Trump allowing Kim to sit at the “big boy table” of world diplomacy; Kim will be willing to bring his country into the economic world where all of the nations around him:  Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan; are enjoying great prosperity and a high standard of living for all their people.

President Trump has allowed expectations to rise exponentially.  He has violated the rules of diplomacy, giving North Korea the prize of a summit with the leader of the free world, without a price.  Trump needs this summit, and he needs it to succeed.  He sees this as a way to prevent a Democrat takeover of Congress in the fall, and he may really see it as an advance in world peace.  I hope he earns a Nobel Prize, not by having the meeting, but by making real progress in denuclearizing the peninsula.

So to the Trump negotiating team: “Doveryai, no proveryai.”  Don’t get in too much of a hurry, estimates are that it would take fifteen years to establish a verification program in North Korea that would really know whether they are disarming or not.  Doveryai, no proveryai:  we didn’t believe the facts of UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency in 2002, and we invaded Iraq on false information.  Some of the folks who pushed for that invasion are members of your team, including the National Security Advisor.  Don’t get pushed into failure in negotiations, in order to hurry along and start a war.

And to the American people: “Doveryai, no proveryai.”  We know how badly the President wants and needs this effort to succeed.  While we wish him luck, we also know that he is the master of “relative truth” and “fake news.”  Whatever the perceived or published outcome of a Singapore summit, we must trust but verify too.

 

Ain’t That America?

Pink Houses by John Mellencamp

A mother leaves Honduras. The violence is too great; she fears that her twelve-year old boy will be forced into the gangs; she fears even more what might happen to her fourteen year old daughter.  She decides to take the dangerous trip through Mexico; open trucks, packed railroad cars, dusty roads, bribes and smugglers.  Her goal is to reach the Estados Unidos, the United States, a nation that offers opportunity for her, and safety for her children.

She arrives at the border, and asks for refugee status.  It’s legal to ask to cross the border, and it’s legal to ask for refugee status or asylum. Even if the crossing is considered “illegal” it is a misdemeanor offense.  Like any misdemeanor, it may mean a couple of days in jail, and then a hearing to determine status.

But what of the kids who came with mom?  In the past, they would be kept with their mother, held together, and released with her to await the status hearing.  However, under the new REGULATIONS written by the current Administration (not THE LAW as suggested by some Administration officials) those children are taken away from the parent for the duration of the time the status is in question.  This might be months, or even longer.  The children are placed into US custody, held in detention centers, often thousands of miles from their parents, and ultimately put with foster families.

So this mother from Honduras will lose her children for an extended period of time, regardless of whether she actually committed a crime or not.  She may not even know where her children are taken, and the children may not be able to contact their mother or even their sibling.  This happens with older children, and it also happens with children as young as one.

Is this America?  Is this what America is about, ripping children from their parents at the moment when, for the first time perhaps in years, they are actually safe?  Regardless of your view of the immigration laws, or building walls:  is this what your America is about?

And this is not an accident, or an unintended consequence of law enforcement.  This is an intentional policy of the Department of Homeland Security, a “deterrent” to those who are trying to escape to the Estados Unidos to gain safety and freedom.  Secretaries Session and Nielsen, and Chief of Staff Kelly, have made it clear that they intend to make the price of entry into the United States without a visa, the loss of your child.

“… Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus

We all read the poem in middle school, inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty.  We all learned the stories of the immigrants at Ellis Island, who came to start a new life in America.  WE – the government that represents you and me; now opens “the golden door” and then takes the children away.  And we do it not for the safety of the children, not out of legal necessity; we do it send a message to potential refugees.  We are saying don’t come to the Estados Unidos, we will take your children away.

It was in 1999 that the US was last faced with the government publicly determining the fate of a child. Elian Gonzalez was five.  His mother and several others were escaping from Cuba in a rubber boat.  The boat capsized and Elian was found clinging to an inner tube off the Florida coast. He was the only survivor.

Elian was turned over to relatives in Miami, but his father back in Cuba demanded custody.  After months of court battles, both in Florida and Federal courts, it was determined that he would be returned to Cuba.  While in the cold legal world of the courtroom this may have been the correct decision, the picture of the terrified five year old facing the armed might of the US government was burned into our collective memory.

It was Cuba, a nation we have determined is a “bad” place.  At that time, we had a “feet dry” policy:  if you could get from Cuba and have “feet dry” on US soil, you were admitted to the country.  The US wanted to show that folks were fleeing Communism, it was in “our interest” to show folks in rubber boats desperately crossing the Florida Straits.

But we’ve deemed it’s not in our interest to have folks flee the gang violence of Honduras.  It’s not in our interest for them to risk the smugglers, the “human traffickers,” and the perils of a thousand mile trek in the open, to reach our “golden door.”  So we punish them for trying.  We take away their children.

Ain’t that America?

Trump International Hotel, Pyongyang

This is a work of fiction.  But today it’s burgers, tomorrow, who knows?  If it were true, would anyone be surprised?

Breaking News – Today – Potomac Falls, Virginia (Trump National Golf Club)

President Donald Trump made a surprise announcement about negotiations with North Korea from the ninth tee of his Trump National Golf Course.  The President revealed plans to build a Trump branded international hotel in Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea.  Mr. Trump spoke glowingly of the multi-national financing, including large investments by Chinese and Russian banks.

“We have gotten the biggest players in Korea to put their money into North Korea instead of their troops. My friends Presidents Xi of China and Putin of Russia have joined in making this happen.  We will all have enough invested in the project to make it worth avoiding a nuclear war.  It’s a great deal!!”

The North Koreans, who have been desperately looking for a way to end economic sanctions, spoke exuberantly about the new construction.  The spokesman for the Supreme Leader stated:

“The Supreme Leader Kim is very pleased that President Trump, his dear friend, finally has recognized the economic and tourist values of one of the world’s great cities, Pyongyang.  In return for his investment, the Peoples’ Republic will end nuclear testing at the facility we recently destroyed, and will give our used nuclear weapons to the United Nations.”

The Presidential announcement follows a frantic series of negotiations among the various powers. China gained a series of economic incentives from the United States, most notably the removal of sanctions against ZTE, the giant mobile phone company.  And while the incentives that produced Russian involvement in the deal have not been revealed, the Russian banks do have a big interest in the success of the President’s initiative, freeing up investment money frozen by US sanctions.

Analysis of the agreement is still incomplete.  The North Koreans, in addition to getting a break from the long-term economic sanctions, also now have a “hostage.”  The United States would be less likely to attack Pyongyang if a large US economic investment, particularly one bearing the President’s name, is located there.  Chinese and Russian financial involvement would also increase the stakes of any military action.

It is unclear whether the North Koreans have actually agreed to “de-nuclearize” the Korean peninsula. Their statements don’t seem to include the ballistic missile development program, nor unused nuclear weapons or materials.

Democrats claimed that this is just another case of the President mixing his personal finances with the office of the President.  Richard Painter, former legal counsel to President George W Bush and now a registered Minnesota Democrat, stated,

“…this is just another instance of Trump violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, using the office of the Presidency to make a personal profit.  Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceedings.”

Trump press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was able to make a brief statement after the President teed off with friend, Newsmax publisher Chris Ruddy, slicing his shot down the fairway into the rough.  Sanders stated that the Trump Organization was fully behind this effort, and that Donald Trump Jr. would immediately leave for Pyongyang to start the process.  When asked by media if Trump Jr.’s departure was timed to avoid potential indictment by the Mueller investigation, Sanders replied:

“While the media is constantly obsessing on the Mueller investigation, now known as Spygate because the FBI put a spy in the Trump campaign, President Trump and the White House are more interested in working for world peace, continuing to rebuild the American economy after the Obama disaster, and freeing Americans from regulation.  Donald Trump Jr. is willing to sacrifice his time by going to North Korea and building for peace, and any attempt by the Mueller investigation to reach him is simply another attempt by Democrats to obstruct the President.”

 

 

Fools?

You may fool all the people some of the time;  

You can even fool some of the people all the time;

But you can’t fool all of the people all the time

(attributed to Abraham Lincoln, 1858)

I live in Pataskala, Ohio.  It’s a suburban town, twenty miles east of downtown Columbus.  When I moved here in 1978, it was just changing from farm town to bedroom community.  The grain elevator still stands but hasn’t been used for years.  The railroad tracks still run through town, but the sidings used to load farm products have been torn up; the loading area is now a Veterans memorial.  McDonalds, Subway, Tim Horton’s and Taco Bell line Broad Street where the farm equipment used to be stored.

Gas prices today are $2.87/gallon, up fifty cents from last year. In Pataskala that’s a big deal, since there is no public transportation, the buses to Columbus stopped running in the 1980’s.  Everyone has to drive to go anywhere; dramatic rises in gas prices hit fast and hard.

Health insurance has increased by five percent since last year.  Unemployment is down, from 5.1% to 4.3%, but the average wage hasn’t changed.  The “tax cut cut” has incrementally increased some paychecks, but the continuing price increases have more than offset that savings. And most folks here in Pataskala are working hard, overtime, extra, with second jobs; all to make ends meet.

They see that “Fortune 500” companies are saying that pay increases are over.  They read about the Harley Davidson plant in Kansas City, cutting back and laying off workers.  They know the Carrier Plant in Indiana that became a Trump campaign prop, is losing the jobs he promised.  They hear the President call for a 25% tariff on cars made in Mexico, and taxes on steel and products from China and elsewhere in the world.  They understand that those costs will end up as their burden.

And those same folks are seeing an America they don’t like.  They aren’t Americans that rip children from their mother’s arms, regardless of their immigration status.  They don’t see an America that is cruel, to the poor or disabled or addicted.  These are the same kind of Americans that brought those boats to Houston to help save families from the flood, without regard for the differences.  They are Americans that supports their neighbors, their schools, and their towns without a whole lot of regard for race, gender, or all of the other labels.

Pataskala was “Trump Country.”  The city voted 60% for Trump, and 33% for Clinton.  And while there are still many that support the President, after the election most went back to work and worried more about kids, homes, and jobs.   They stopped worrying about what went on in Washington.  They still are hard at work; but they recognize that the changes that were promised, from “draining the swamp” to the “booming economy” doesn’t include them.  They won’t admit it publicly, and they might not even say so in polling.  But they know what’s going on.

Chet Huntley, the NBC news anchor from the 1960’s  (“Goodnight Chet, Goodnight David, and Goodnight from NBC News”) in his farewell from the Nightly News said, “…This land contains an incredible quality and quantity of good common sense…” He was talking about places like Pataskala, Ohio, where folks might for a while be misled by the promises and schemes of politicians, but quickly will return to the “good common sense” that is the bedrock of their lives.

That common sense will also apply to whatever Robert Mueller reveals at the conclusion of his investigation.   Common sense:  if what the President did is “clear-cut wrong” then they will recognize it.  All of the words and maneuvers of today won’t mean much. Common sense will.

There is a kind of panic growing in the opposition to President Trump. That feeling is fueled by the “asymmetric” attack on Special Counsel Mueller; all they hear is the attacks without answers.  Mueller and his team are keeping their “heads down” and doing their job.  When it’s time for them to indict and try, they will make their case.  The Mueller team knows that common sense will win out.

So for those who feel panicked; who worry that “the truth” will be “relative” when it arrives (thanks to Mr. Giuliani), know this:  whether Lincoln really said it or not, you really,  “can’t fool all the people, all the time.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorial Day

I don’t remember growing up with any specific “Memorial Day” activities.  My parents were both veterans; unusual for the World War II, “Greatest” generation.  My Dad was a Warrant Officer, part of the Army finance operations.  My Mom, a British citizen (she never gave it up) was an agent of the Special Operations Executive.

Memorial Day was many days during the year, with parties in the “living room,” bourbon, scotch, and whiskey in tumblers and cigarettes in the boxes on the table.  The conversation often turned to what they did during the war. It allowed me to grow up with a special awareness of the impact of World War II; after all, I wouldn’t have been here without it.

My Mom and Dad met in London, a blind date at the Queen’s Brasserie restaurant. (As a child I wasn’t really sure what the Queen’s Brassiere was all about.) He was from Cincinnati, stationed in England waiting for the invasion, she was home in England, back from being behind enemy lines making preparations to invade.  According to them, they fell madly in love at the first dinner and walked the blacked out streets as the bombs fell.

There wedding was scheduled for June 6, 1944.  In early March they were both notified that they would be unavailable for that date (it turned out to be D-Day) and the wedding was moved up to March 27^th. Soon after, Dad went to a secure base outside of Southampton to wait, and Mom went back over to France to coordinate with the Maquis.

They both managed to survive the ordeal of the last year of the war.  They came home, back to Cincinnati, with drive and determination to start a family and make their life strong and successful.  Their friends did as well.  Art ended up serving in both World War II and Korea.  Buddy commanded segregated troops before the invasion.  Walter was a prisoner of war.  We grew up with their stories.

It was never a question about honoring their service.  They knew they had saved the world from Fascism, and we recognized their sacrifices. They had missing friends; the stories of those who didn’t come home.  My Mom’s fiancé (before my Dad) was one of those.

As I grew up in the throes of the Vietnam War (I was a couple of years too young to go) it was a difficult contrast:  the sacrifices my parents made to “save the world” versus the sacrifices my older friends were being asked to make in Southeast Asia.  And even a more challenging distinction:  being against the war without being against those who fought it.  Memorial Day was difficult. America didn’t get that part right then, and we still owe those folks now.

Later, as a teacher and coach, I had the privilege and fear of watching many of my students go to serve. They were in Lebanon when the barracks were bombed, Iraq when the scuds were launched; they served as special operators in Iraq and snipers in Afghanistan.  Today they serve on Navy ships, fly Air Force planes, drive Army tanks and proudly wear Marine dress blues.  They take the lessons of our classroom, and maybe more significantly, the family of our team; and use those early experiences to help keep our country safe.

So it’s Memorial Day. Today, and most days, I think about the sacrifices of those who have passed, both from  the Greatest Generation and my friends who served in more recent times.  As the rabid politics of our time cloud the field, there is still one thing that is clear:  remember and honor those who serve.  They’ve earned it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day in Court

Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s attorneys, told The Associated Press on Friday that the White House hopes to get a readout of the information next week, particularly about the use of a longtime government informant who approached members of Trump’s campaign in a possible bid to glean intelligence on Russian efforts to sway the election. Trump has made unproven claims of FBI misconduct and political bias and has denounced the asset as “a spy.” Chicago Tribune – 5/24/18

{Full disclosure:  I am not a lawyer.  I am a retired government teacher, who for many years spent months of class time teaching students the criminal legal process}

The essence of the American system of justice is an opportunity for fairness.  Each side of a legal battle, at the appropriate time, gets to respond to the other.  Each side is also given the opportunity to gain a judicial ruling about the legality of the process.  It’s a carefully developed system, based on American and English law dating hundreds of years.

In a criminal case, the government, represented by the police and the prosecutor, build a case based on the evidence they can gather.  That evidence might include the results of questioning, search warrants, and other information.  The process of gathering this is carefully defined by the law, and police and prosecutors are required to prove to a judge the probable cause for warrants, and that warnings were given before questioning.

After the information is gathered, the prosecutor presents the evidence to a Grand Jury.  This group of twenty-four citizens is chosen from the area where the case occurred.  They listen to the evidence, and to the prosecutor’s explanation of the law.  They then conclude whether it is likely a crime has been committed, and if so, issue an indictment.

Once the indictment is issued, the defendant (the person indicted) has the opportunity to view the evidence, and raise questions about the legality of the process used to gather that evidence.   They also can raise questions about the legality of the charges.  Those questions are decided by a judge before a trial begins, a trial where a second jury of citizens, a petit jury of twelve, determines whether the evidence proving facts in a case reach a higher level of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, or about 90%.)

If the jury determines that the evidence proves the case for the prosecution, they can return a verdict of guilty.  If not, then the verdict returned is not guilty.  It requires all twelve jurors to agree.

Every citizen, from the list of those indicted for drug crimes in the Newark, Ohio newspaper, to Harvey Weinstein on every television in the nation, is guaranteed this due process of law.  Equality in the eyes of the law is a bedrock principle of this nation.  From the symbol of the “scales of justice,” weighing the evidence fairly, to the statues of “Lady Justice,” eyes firmly bound closed so she can rule without favor; trust in America’s justice system is based on fairness.

If those with authority could intervene to prevent investigations from starting, or prevent conclusions, then all of the principles we hold would be violated. Harvey Weinstein has been accused of using his political connections and donations to avoid prosecution, and it has taken the “eyes of the world” on his actions to bring him to justice.  In the same way, William Lager, founder of the now defunct Education Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) schools in Ohio, used his political connections to try to stave off investigation.  He managed to take $60 million in state funds, and only now faces possible charges.

Rudy Giuliani, lawyer for President Trump, believes that the President, the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, should have the right to see the evidence before the Grand Jury or indictment.  He believes the President should be able to make a “ruling” on whether the grounds for investigation were legal, before a court can hear the case.  He believes the President has the “unitary authority” to intervene on his own behalf to stop the investigation.

To use a legal term, this is a “prima facie” case of undue influence. If the President has committed no crimes, let the process play out (as Senator McConnell and House Speaker Ryan call for) and take the argument to court.  To interfere in the legal process, as Giuliani demands, is the act of a guilty man, unwilling to face the light of day a courtroom would provide.

I’m sure Harvey Weinstein and William Lager and those poor drug criminals in Newark would like the same power.  But justice is balanced, and justice is blind.  They must wait for their day in court, and so should the President.

 

 

 

Love It Or Leave It

I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. – Donald J Trump 5/24/18

What is American patriotism?  According to our President, patriotism is showing respect for the flag:  “standing proudly.”  What does the flag represent?  According to our President, it represents the military; so to  disrespect the flag, is in fact disrespecting those who serve us in the military.

The Department of Defense paid the National Football League over $5 million between 2011 and 2014 (PBS) and a total of $53 million to various sports to honor “service men and women and veterans.”   It was a good deal for both sides:  the NFL was able to brand itself as supporting “the troops,” and the Defense Department got a great recruiting tool, hitting their key demographic.  The agreement was first reached in 2009, and it was at that time that NFL players were required to stand on the sidelines for the National Anthem.

The NFL has made itself “patriotic” for the right price; with giant flags, B-1 Bomber flyovers, and returning soldiers family reunions. On the other hand, a true hero, Arizona Cardinal linebacker Pat Tillman, left football after 9-11 to join the Army.  He was killed in Afghanistan, and the NFL (rightly) continues to honor his service. So there’s a mix in the NFL, of true patriotism and marketing.

Flag ceremonies and the National Anthem have also been an historic event for political and religious protests.  From the 1968 Mexico Olympics (the raised fists of Tommie Smith and John Carlos) to the kids who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in high school during the Vietnam War, to the religious groups that see honoring the flag as worshiping a false idol;  flag ceremonies have been used to make a point.

The United States has always honored the freedom of speech of those who chose flag ceremonies as a place of silent protest.  By allowing these kinds of demonstrations, we honor the true values of the US; freedom for diversity of opinion.  The fact folks can protest during flag ceremonies is what makes America a different (and better) place.  Protestors hope, in their own way, to improve America.  They are Americans representing their view of America, not folks who should be exiled, as the President suggests.

So personnel in the NFL have to make choices.  As employees of NFL teams, they are reasonably required to participate in the marketing schemes and strategies of their team.  They wear uniforms, pink towels and socks, and customized shoes.  They receive a generous salary for their cooperation (and certainly for taking the risks that pro football entails, perhaps a topic for a different essay.)

The question then, is do they check their Constitutional rights at the door as well?  Can NFL players be required to “stand proudly” during the National Anthem, rather than kneel respectfully, as the Kaepernick protest movement has done?  The NFL has tried to give them an out, they can stay in the locker room (as was done by most NFL teams prior to 2009) during the anthem, then come onto the field.  Is that enough?

The National Basketball Association has reached a different agreement with their players.  While they do either stand or go in the locker room for the anthem, they are allowed to make political and social comments through messages on “shooting shirts” and shoes.  The difference:  the NBA found a way to cooperate with its players.  They have agreed to the National Anthem rules, in return for other means of expressing their views.

The NFL owners have chosen to arbitrarily make this rule, without agreement with the players or other personnel.  Many Americans would agree that it is in fact Un-American to deny someone their right to express themselves on issues of great concern. So it’s not as simple as standing or kneeling.  It’s about another great American tradition:  bargaining with employees to reach solutions to problems.

Patriotism isn’t always black and white; or red, white and blue. America is complicated; a nation of diverse opinions, ethnicities, and religious beliefs.  The simple “…stand proudly…” does not address any of those complexities, it simply tries to force compliance.  This isn’t and hasn’t been, what the United States is about.  So let’s honor the country and the flag by honoring what it really stands for:  a  complex nation of many views and opinions.   That is what America is really all about.

 

Oh Israel!

I was writing an essay the other day about the United States moving its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Throughout my life, I have considered myself a strong supporter of Israel, who believed that the foundation of a Jewish homeland was right and historically based. Israel was founded on the moral “high ground” of the Holocaust; a repayment from the nations of the world for the atrocities of the Nazis.

But now, I question my own views on Israel.

When Israel was founded in 1948, the surrounding Arab nations ordered the Palestinians (the Muslim people living in the area that would eventually become Israel) to refuse to cooperate with the Jewish government.  When the Israelis asked them to cooperate or leave, the Arab nations around Israel encouraged the Palestinian diaspora, built temporary refugee camps on the border, and assured the Palestinians that they would soon defeat Israel and move them back to their homes.

Wars were fought in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973; all with the Arab goal of destroying Israel.  Caught in the middle of these wars, often literally, were the exiled people of Palestine, used as pawns (by both sides) in the geopolitical game.  In 1967, Israel captured much of the land where the refugee camps, then almost twenty years old, were located, and by holding that land (Gaza and the West Bank of the Jordan) internalized the Palestinian problem.

It has been seventy years since the Palestinians were placed in refugee camps.  Three generations have grown up, with little hope for a life outside. Terrorism has found a breeding ground. And while terrorist acts are abhorrent, terrorism itself grows from a reality that has no hope for change.  To change terrorism, change the environment that produces it.  Without making those changes, right or wrong, terrorism will thrive.

And so it has been in the Palestinian areas.

So Israel is faced with an intractable situation.  Within its control are huge numbers of Palestinians, raised in the West Bank or stuffed into the Gaza strip.  Israel has blocked their ability to gain employment outside of the controlled areas, citing legitimate security concerns.  They have built a “wall” to separate Israeli from Palestinian.  And Israel has responded to terrorism with tough and sometimes inhumane actions.  Each of those actions becomes fuel for more terrorism, and the cycle goes unbroken.

I always believed that Israel, with encouragement from its greatest ally the United States, would act in a moral way to try to resolve the Palestinian question.  The actions of the current Israeli government now lead me to question that belief.

There were shootings at the Gaza border last week:  over sixty Palestinians were killed, thousands wounded.  Women and children were among the casualties.  There is no question that the young were placed in the front of the line, intentionally made targets by the leaders of Hamas, the terrorist organization that also governs Palestinian Gaza.  They are terrorists, I don’t expect them to act in a “moral” manner; clearly the videos of the dead and wounded helped their cause. Their placement of children at the front of the line isn’t that different from the actions of the US Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s – the difference is that the Civil Rights movement was coming from a moral position of non-violence, unlike Hamas.

 But I do question why the Israeli government chose this response, when there were less lethal and just as effective alternate options.  By firing their guns and creating a whole new set of martyrs, the Israelis chose their own form of “terrorism” to answer the Hamas challenge. They gave up morality, and allowed Jewish soldiers to kill children; and gave Hamas what they needed to convince the next generation.  The United States not only acceded to these actions, but participated in a “celebration” a mere sixty miles away in Jerusalem.  The vision:  as Palestinian children died in the sand, the President’s daughter and son-in-law, the Secretary of the Treasury, and other notable Americans smiled and applauded.  We lost the moral high ground as well.

Israel cannot “absorb” the Palestinians into their nation without losing their national identity. I understand that, and respect that their nation was founded as a Jewish homeland and they fought for the right to maintain it.  This is different than the United States, founded as a refuge for those who left their homelands, where we should be respecting OUR identity by showing compassion and respect for immigrants.

If Israel cannot absorb the Palestinians, and they will literally “lose their soul” trying to control them as they did in Gaza, then it is incumbent on them to find a different solution.  A two-state solution has been on the table since the 1970’s; but Israelis rightly fear a terrorist nation on their border.  But instead of recognizing that terror begats more terror, the Israelis, with the affirmative support of the United States, continue on a course leading to no solution other than death and violence.  That course, we, the United States, should not condone or support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stressing the Foundations

The editorials scream out: “Republicans are making the case for Trump, Democrats remain silent!!”  The “internet soothsayers” claim that by the time the Mueller investigation releases its report, the Trump “machine” will have made it irrelevant.  And the “beat goes on;” the very real and strategic plan to build an alternative story to the Mueller investigation, where spies were sent into the Trump campaign, and the “deepstate” sought to stop his candidacy.

There is a well known political strategy:  define your opponent before they have the opportunity to define you.  Those who live in Ohio are familiar with it.  In the Senate election of 2016, Republican Rob Portman spent millions in the summer, defining his Democratic opponent Ted Strickland as the Governor who, “left eighty-nine cents in the state’s rainy day fund.”  It worked, and Strickland never made a serious challenge.  Currently, Sherrod Brown is trying to do the same to opponent Jim Ranacci, defining him as a full-time lobbyist even while serving as a Congressman.

So the Trump strategy is to define the investigation against him as illegitimate.  He is doing so without denigrating Robert Mueller himself (an impossible task, Mueller is truly beyond bulletproof.)  They are trying to invalidate the sources of the investigation.  They state the investigation is based on the Steele Dossier, and since Democrats paid for the Dossier it is a political but not legal basis for investigation.

They also claim that the FBI placed “paid informants” in the campaign, with the overtone that they served as “agent provocateurs” who encouraged illegal actions.  That makes the any subsequent charges illegally gained, the “fruit of a poisonous tree,” and therefore banned.  And they have reduced the Trump campaign members who may have violated laws as “volunteers” (Carter Page) and “coffee boys” (George Papadoupolos.) Even Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort wasn’t very important, “… and was only around for a little while.”

They claim that a “cabal” of FBI agents on the National Security team were trying to stop the Trump candidacy.  They present as evidence the text messages between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok and Department of Justice attorney Lisa Page.  Strzok sent a series of messages that were anti-Trump (and anti-Clinton and anti-Bernie) that were released by the Department of Justice to the House Oversight Committee.  The Republicans on the committee seized on this as evidence of the “deepstate conspiracy.”

They make a “fairness” argument; that the Democrats were doing things just as bad, starting with the Clinton email scandal.  This is a continuation of the Trump campaign theme, highlighting the emails, the Comey announcements, and the hacked messages released by the Russians. And, they don’t miss an opportunity to make the FBI or the other US intelligence agencies look bad.  If they are “bad” and “incompetent” then clearly the results of their investigations will be just as bad and incompetent.

They have found “Democrats” to come out in support of the President and in opposition to the Mueller investigation.  Two of the most recent, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, and former Clinton pollster Mark Penn, have called for the investigation to end.

And finally, they are using the interesting argument that whatever the President did before the election, either personally (the Stormy Daniels scandal) or in business, the election was the final adjudication, and those issues are no longer on the table. If and when the Mueller investigation raises questions about the Trump businesses or personal actions, they can cry “foul.”

Mueller, on the other hand, is running a legal investigation, not a political one.  The only information coming from the Mueller team is what is released in court documents:  he has not allowed any counter to the Trump strategy.  Mueller remains focused on the legal process, protecting the validity of his investigation by keeping it completely in control.  This is in marked contrast to the FBI investigation of the Clinton email server, where it became a public process with dramatic pronouncements from Director James Comey.

The Mueller plan: follow the investigation where it leads, and present the evidence found to the grand jury and courts.  Following legal precedent, Mueller knows he cannot indict the sitting President, so he will produce a report which will serve as an “indictment” to the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment purposes. He will let the evidence speak for itself.

It’s exactly what we would expect him to do.  The question: will the damage done by the Trump strategy make the impeachment process (a political one) a non-starter?  Or will the facts developed by Mueller overwhelm all of the stories and strategies.

We are facing a Constitutional crisis, where the foundations of our government will be tested.  Our system of three co-equal branches will be drawn into conflict, with the executive pitted against the legislative and judicial.  We will have to choose between the political messaging and the legal evidence.  We have been there before, and our Constitutional foundations have held strong.  So has the common sense of the American people.   In the next several months that common sense and those foundations will be stressed again.

“What’s good for General Motors is good for America”

It’s time to change perspective.  Take the view that America is an absolute meritocracy, designed to create opportunities for those who are capable and prepared to succeed.  If this is the ultimate goal, to encourage achievement and advancement and remove any impediments, then the Trump Presidency is a success.

The Trump Presidency has removed restrictions on business increasing profits and decreasing responsibilities.  This is certainly true when it comes to Scott Pruitt and his leadership of the EPA, where everything from coal mining restrictions to automobile emissions standards have been reduced.  The Trump FCC has allowed for greater monetization of the internet, with the abandonment of net neutrality.

And, of course, the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress have greatly increased the amount of capital available for investment and profit, by reducing the corporate income tax, and by increasing the amount of capital that can be protected by the wealthy from taxation.  This, according to them, has created a “booming” economy that we can see today, with less than four percent unemployment and increased business expansion. President Obama had nothing to do with this.

The President and his family are a great example of government getting out of the way of commercial success. From the Trump Hotel in Washington, to the $500 million Chinese investment in the Singapore project (part of which is Trump branded) to 666 Fifth Avenue, the Trump family has monetized the office of the Presidency  and found ways to profit their businesses.  Even Michael Cohen, the President’s personal attorney, as well as several other former Trump campaign operatives, have found ways to make millions of dollars peddling influence.

And, like a CEO of any company, the President has full authority of “his company,” our country. This Constitutional theory that scholars like Alan Dershowitz has promulgated of a “unitary Presidency,” places the President in full and total control of EVERY department in the executive branch, including making decisions, hiring, firing, and policy.  The current discussion of “norms” as the President deals with the Justice Department investigation into his Presidency, fails when compared to the absolute power of the Presidency itself over executive agencies. The only check on the President: Congress through lawmaking authority and impeachment/conviction.

So should the President decide the Mueller Investigation is over, he should fire Mueller and Rosenstein. If that is unjust, then it is up to the people’s representatives, Congress, to provide the remedy.  The concept that the President can’t control his own Justice Department is invalid under the “unitary President” principle.

Of course, the Constitution guarantees that the President is ultimately responsible for illegal acts that he may commit.   But, constitutionally it’s impeachment and conviction, or wait for the end of his term.   “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a Constitutional precept, but it is overridden by the Article II Executive privilege clause.

And for those who are concerned that the President could lead us into war, Congress has essentially given authority for war-making to the executive branch, through a series of laws. The last, passed after 9-11, allows the President to prosecute wars against terrorists and terrorism all over the world.  So as long as the President declares Iran or North Korea terrorist countries, he can wage war there.

So, from that perspective, all is right in the world.

As long as your not worried about the environment in the next twenty years; or, about the subverting of our democratic elections by foreign governments, or about the President benefitting financially from the Presidency, or whether we will end up at war with Iran or North Korea or both.

As long as your concern doesn’t include health care, or those who are less fortunate, or who by education, immigration status, race, gender identity, or other differences are denied the opportunity to participate in the meritocracy.

And, as long as you don’t like illegal immigrants, or polar bears.

Don’t worry – what’s good for Trump is good for America.

this is essay number 201!!!  

At What Price?

In late 2002 and early 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney pressed the case for a war with Iraq. His reasoning:  Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear weapon, and the security of the United States, and the world, could not tolerate a nuclear Iraq.  Cheney, and other members of the Bush administration including Secretary of State Colin Powell; presented a devastating case to prove that Iraq was close to having nuclear bombs.  It was clear and convincing; and it was false.

The evidence included Iraq acquiring “yellow cake” uranium from Nigeria.  Yellow cake uranium can be quickly processed into weapons grade uranium. Cheney and Powell used the acquisition of yellow cake by Iraq as prime evidence, with Powell sharing it in a high profile presentation to the United Nations.  Joseph Wilson, an American diplomat with career experience both in Africa and in Iraq, was sent to Nigeria to investigate.  He returned with a clear conclusion:  Iraq had NOT acquired yellow cake uranium.

This did not go along with Vice President Cheney’s program.  Wilson followed his conclusions up with an article in the New York Times, “What I didn’t Find in Africa.”  This was the first chink in the armor of the Bush rationale for the second Iraq War, a war the current President has stated shouldn’t have happened.

Cheney and his Vice Presidential Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, were “hardball” politicians.  When Colin Powell began to have doubts about the information he used to make the US case for invasion of Iraq at the United Nations, he was pushed out of the decision-making loop.  Powell ultimately resigned, and the more amenable National Security Advisor, Condolezza Rice became Secretary.  But what would they do about Wilson?

He had done some work for Democratic administrations.  But his real vulnerability was his wife, Valerie Plame.  She was a career CIA agent, but her career and identity were undercover.  How to get to Wilson?  “Out” his wife, and destroy her career.

A call was made to syndicated journalist Robert Novak (of the famous Evans and Novak pair that published for forty-five years) from a White House official.  While no one was ever convicted of the crime of revealing the covert agent, Scooter Libby was convicted of making false statements, obstructing justice, and perjury.  He was fined $250,000 and sentenced to thirty months in jail.  His sentence was later commuted by President Bush, and just recently he was fully pardoned by President Trump.

Novak claimed that while he was given Plame’s name as a CIA operative, he was not told that she was a “NOC” (an agent with Non-Official Cover.)  Novak never revealed his source other than saying “high White House offiicals.”

In the spring and summer of 2016, the FBI received information that members of the Trump campaign were reaching out to Russian intelligence.   While we don’t know all of the FBI’s sources of information, we do know how they gained information about two of the four campaign members. Foreign policy advisor Carter Page was being wiretapped under a FISA warrant.  While the wiretap order is still secret, it is known that Page had been involved with a Russian spy ring in New York in 2013.  Page was interviewed by the FBI at that time, and was never charged.  However, the information that Page was questioned found it way to Russian intelligence, raising questions about whether Page was still in contact with them. This served as one of the grounds for the investigation.

George Papadoupolos was also an advisor to the campaign.  In a drunken evening with the Australian Ambassador in London, Papadoupolos bragged about the Russians having Clinton and Democratic National Committee emails.  This is prior to the FBI, Clinton, or the DNC even knowing they’d been hacked, and months before the first emails were released on the web.  The Australian Ambassador notified the FBI about the comments, and two FBI agents were sent to interview him.  As part of the investigation, the FBI (and CIA) had a confidential informant make contact and gain more information from both Papadoupolos and Page.

In the current melee, with the FBI and Special Counsel Mueller investigating the Trump campaign and the President; some are making every effort to discredit their results. As part of the campaign, identifying information about the confidential informant has been leaked, enough information for some to name him, breaking his “cover.”

The FBI was investigating to see if a major US Presidential campaign was being infiltrated by Russian Intelligence.  They used national security investigative tools, including FISA warrants and National Security subpoenas to find out what, if any, impact Russian Intelligence was having.  The confidential informant was part of that investigation.

Had Russian been trying to infiltrate the Clinton campaign, there would be outrage.  Had they gained a foothold, and perhaps even cooperation by the Clinton campaign, there would have been “hell to pay.”  We would expect law enforcement to do what was needed to find out.  But because Trump has created a false narrative about an FBI “cabal” trying to de-legitimatize the Presidency, there is a portion of the American electorate who are allowing them to “get away” with possible Russian cooperation.

But more importantly, they are getting away with de-legitimatizing the FBI and other intelligence agencies, weakening public trust in their findings and their abilities.  And now, there is acceptance of “outing” covert agents; without concern about the other investigations that could be compromised. The damage done may well last far beyond this administration.

 

Lessons Already Learned

Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

{I was halfway through an essay on the “outing” of Americans who work undercover for our intelligence services.  You’ll see that one eventually; but then this happened}

It happened:  another seventeen year old white boy with guns; ten more kids and teachers dead, thirteen wounded.   It happened again.  And until we, as a Nation, do something different, we can only offer our “…heartfelt thoughts and prayers;” weak words with little meaning.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re ready to repeal the Second Amendment, or a card carrying NRA member, it is incumbent on all of us to DO SOMETHING!  There are areas we can all agree on, I think, without crossing the lines that drive us into paralysis.  So lets do those things, even though we know that one side or the other may be giving away “bargaining chips” in some later great debate about the weapons themselves.  If those bargaining chips can save some lives – then give ‘em up. Let’s get to work.

For example, there really isn’t an argument about background checks.  Only the most radical “black helicopter” folks are against a government-run system of determining whether someone is a criminal, or mentally ill, or under some other impediment that should prevent them from having a gun.

A full program might have stopped the Parkland shooter.  His record should have stopped him from having weapons anyway, but part of the problem is that there are no national standards, and no demonstration of national will for keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. And in the Parkland case, there was no responsible parent to intervene.

And like it or not, this has to be a national program, it can’t be state by state.  We learned that from the Tennessee Waffle House shooter, who was prohibited from having guns in Illinois and moved to Tennessee.  And we learned another thing from that shooting:  that when someone is the responsible party who owns weapons, they have to exercise that responsibility.  In the Tennessee case, the shooter’s father was given the weapons by the authorities; he gave them back to his son.

So Friday, in Santa Fe Texas outside of Houston, a boy took his Dad’s shotgun and pistol; made some fake explosives, and went to school.  He shot his way through a glass door and continued shooting classmates and teachers.  If we had responded to Tennessee, we might have made the father more responsible, and, maybe, prevented his son from getting the weapons.

No one expects their child to be a shooter.  No one expects their fourteen year old to steal the car and go for a joy ride.  But both of those things happen.  It’s up to the responsible adults to prevent both:  lock the car and keep the keys, and lock the weapons away.

We know from Columbine that schools must find ways to “know” their students.  It isn’t just happenstance, it has to be a concerted effort by school administrators to reach all kids.  It’s not about calling kids down to the guidance office and asking them if they might be “school shooters,” it’s about establishing ongoing relationships between kids and significant adults; teachers, administrators, counselors, custodians, coaches.  Kids themselves know when their friends are troubled, they need to trust to reach out to an adult. And it’s about establishing a “protocol” that recognizes when a kid is becoming disaffected, and how the school can intervene without making the situation worse.

And there are school security measures that might work.  While I don’t agree with the Texas Congressman: “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” school resource officers (police) are useful. They not only represent a response to an ongoing shooting incident, but play an important role in mediating between two very different worlds, schools and law enforcement.  And while we can’t and shouldn’t make schools look like airports with security checkpoints and scanners, we can take some reasonable actions to improve school security.

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick showed his ignorance of schools, fire codes, and student behavior when he said “…there are too many entrances and too many exits…”  and suggested there should be one way in and out. But they are ways to restrict and control access to schools that can reduce or help contain the risks of a possible shooter.

All of these things:  improved background checks with mental health additions, additional controls on the responsibility of gun ownership (or custody), emphasis by schools on developing relationships with all students,  school resource officers, improved school security; they all cost money.  They are all issues with some disagreements.  But they are all areas where there is a great deal of agreement, and the “land mines” of the Second Amendment and the structure and function of weapons are not involved.

Let’s start the process. Let’s get going on fixing what’s broke. Let’s use the lessons we’ve already learned.

 

 

The News

Many Americans are shocked by the attack on “the news.”  They grew up in a different era, one where we accepted that the “truth” was told to us, in thirty-minute segments, by the three nightly news shows.  Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC, Walter Cronkite on CBS, and Peter Jennings on ABC (the mid-1960’s) delivered the facts, and as our nation went through the twin crises of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, they brought us the world.  It went from black and white to color.

They all were in the tradition of the “original” television journalist, Edward R. Murrow.  Murrow made his reputation on the radio during World War II, “…this is London calling;” reporting to the world as bombs fell and the city burned.  He came home to CBS, and led investigative reporting with his program “See It Now.” In the heart of America’s last great catharsis of internal hate, the McCarthy Era, Murrow took on McCarthy, his broadcast contributed to the downfall of the Senator and the end of the era. Citizens trusted him.

During the 1960’s a different kind of  “news” programming began.  In the town of Dayton, Ohio, the local variety show (songs and soft interviews by Johnny Gilbert of “tell us what they won, Johnny” fame) was replaced by an interview show with a local host, Phil Donahue.  Phil’s show went from ten to eleven in the morning, aimed at the “house wife” still at home in that era.  The trademark of the show was the telephone on the desk.  Phil invited the community to call in with questions, “…is the caller there,” and the women of Dayton had the most interesting questions and comments.  Phil world say they made the show.

Phil dealt with controversial issues, and wasn’t afraid to project his own liberal beliefs. From Madeline Murray (the avowed atheist who’s case to end school prayer went to the Supreme Court) to Jerry Rubin (the profane anti-war activist who was part of the Chicago Seven) Phil brought the leading controversies into homes.  His show expanded from Dayton, to a Midwest network (Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Dayton) and ultimately to over 220 markets in the United States.

Full Disclosure:  I had the remarkable opportunity of growing up with the Donahue Show.  My father ran the television station, Dayton’s WLW-D, and was ultimately responsible for the show.  Dad later took the show into syndication, selling it across the nation, and became President of the syndication division of Multimedia Television.

It was an interesting contrast, the “business Republican” management of the station, and the mid-1960’s protest culture view of the show.  And while there were many internal controversies (including the show about the anatomically correct doll, “Little Baby Brother,” that caused so many calls that the Dayton phone exchange crashed) the biggest pressure was from upper management, who didn’t agree with the politics of the show.  But while they disagreed with the politics, they certainly agreed with the profits.

So a new version of “news programming” was born.  It no longer took the view that it only presented the “facts,” the moderator (Phil) was willing to take a side as well.  This kind of programming is very familiar to today’s audience:  from MSNBC to Fox, the evening lineup are all “news with an angle.”  The other huge difference is the era of three stations, brought into your television from “the air” ended.  Cable television brought the capability of hundreds of stations. Programming all of those stations required a “niche.”  Broadcast was splintered, it took a smaller percentage of viewers to make a show popular because there was so much to watch.

This led to “tailored news;” news designed to match the audience.  Today there are still the “big three” news broadcasts out there, with Lester Holt (NBC), Jeff Glor (CBS), and David Muir (ABC) holding down the jobs.  But they no longer have the audience, influence, or reverence that their predecessors through the 1990’s had. Folks now trend to the news that fits their views, from Fox to CNN.  It’s a way of hearing what they “want” to hear.

I’m sure that’s not what the small group meeting in our family room in Dayton Ohio in 1967 wanted.  At the time it was a different kind of show (still would be) and they were breaking ground.  While Phil was more liberal, one of the group ended up working for Rush Limbaugh, and my father was what was called a “Rockefeller Republican,” more liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal concerns.

They were excited about a new format, and a new way to get folks involved.  And so was the eleven year old serving the drinks!

Note:  Phil retired “The Phil Donahue Show” after twenty-nine years.  He later hosted a show on MSNBC, but management cancelled him – he was against the War in Iraq – and too liberal.

 

 

Happy Anniversary, Mr. Mueller

If you missed yesterday, you missed a lot.

Yesterday the President of the United States filed a required financial disclosure statement. Buried on page forty-four was a footnote that noted that between $100001 and $200000 was spent to pay a debt to Michael Cohen.  It was the Stormy Daniels payment, reported a year late.

It demonstrated that the President directly lied to the American people, over and over again.  He lied about his affair with Stormy Daniels, and he lied about his paying her hush money.  And he lied on last year’s statement, which if intentional, is a federal crime.

Last week, Michael Avenotti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, released a report on the banking income of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.  The report was taken from bank warnings to the Treasury Department that Cohen was making suspicious transactions (SAR’s for Suspicious Activity Reports.)  It showed over $4 million in income from sources ranging from AT&T to Novartis to a Russian oligarch owned American company. It also showed the expenditure for the payment of $130000 to Stormy Daniels.  It opened an entirely new investigation into the actions of Trump associates.

Yesterday, in a New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow, we found out that this information was leaked by a law enforcement official, who found that it was one of three Cohen reports on the SARS system used to track finances.  The official leaked it because the other two reports on SARS were missing, an unprecedented situation.  The official doesn’t know what happened to the missing two, but was concerned that the third would go missing too.

To be fair, it could be that the Mueller Investigation, or the Southern District of New York US Attorney, may have restricted access to those documents as part of their investigation. But the “whistleblower’s” distrust of the Treasury Department, controlled by Trump appointees, is a sign of our times.  Whoever the whistleblower is, he/she faces felony charges, fines, and jail.

It also came out yesterday, that Cohen asked a Qatari financier for $1 million payment as a conduit to Trump.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for Russian connections throughout the summer of 2016.  The investigation, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane,” was focused on four connections to the Russian government:  national security advisor Michael Flynn, campaign manager Paul Manafort, and foreign policy advisors George Papadoupolos and Carter Page.  The investigation, unlike the Clinton email investigation, was kept closely secret, with only five Justice Department officials briefed.

It was serious enough that the FBI sent two agents to London to interview the Australian Ambassador, a complex diplomatic arrangement.  They wanted to know about Papadoupolos bragging about the hacked Clinton emails, before they were released or even before it was known they’d been hacked. The investigation was so serious that the FBI used National Security subpoenas rather than traditional subpoenas, so they could keep the investigation secret.

Prior to the election, the FBI had evidence that the Trump campaign was cooperating with Russian intelligence.  No wonder the “infamous” FBI investigator Peter Strozk, who texted Justice Department lawyer Lisa Page, was concerned about a possible Trump victory in November. The investigation itself was kept silent, unlike the Clinton investigation, so much so that the New York Times reported in October 2016 that the FBI didn’t know of Russian connections to the Trump campaign (whoops.)

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee released 2500 pages of testimony by Donald Trump Jr.  While the phrase made famous by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “I don’t recall,” permeated the testimony, there was one “known – unknown.”  After the famous meeting in Trump Tower with Don Jr, Manafort, Kushner, Goldstone and four Russians; Don Jr. had a four-minute call from a blocked phone number. Junior denied knowing who he talked to or whether his father had a blocked number (though it is known that he did.)  Blocked numbers are “known-knowns:” the Mueller team knows who Don Jr. talked to.

Today is the first anniversary of the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.  It’s been a busy year, with nineteen indictments and clearly more on the way.  The Trump legal team, led by former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, is trying to make this week about,  “…ending the investigation, after $10 million spent there is no evidence of collusion…”

Yesterday there was more evidence of collusion, and evidence of Presidential deception, and evidence that the Justice Department has known it for a while.  While it’s completely understandable that the Trump Administration wants the investigation wrapped up, Robert Mueller is going to do this in his own time; the results likely will not be good for the President.  Happy anniversary Mr. Mueller!

The President Trump Model

“As you are all aware, he’s the best negotiator.”  – Sarah Huckabee Sanders – 5/16/18 

Last night, the “Big Button” strategy of US negotiations with North Korea took a hit.  The North Koreans fell back to their older model of negotiating, changing the prerequisites for talks at the last minute. The North Korean regime made it extremely clear that they were unhappy with current US/South Korean joint military exercises.  And, in response to National Security Advisor John Bolton’s comments on Sunday news shows, they also made it clear they would NOT give up their nuclear arsenal.

From the North Korean perspective it’s not so surprising that Bolton’s description of disarmament as the “Libya Model” doesn’t appeal to them.  Muamar Gadafhi, the dictatorial leader of Libya, allowed the NATO powers to remove chemical and nuclear weapons in return for reducing economic sanctions on his nation.  Within two years, Gadafhi was overthrown (with US assistance) and shot dead on the side of a road.

To be clear, the North Koreans have not cancelled the summit, scheduled on June 12 in Singapore. They did cancel today’s meeting with South Korea’s Prime Minister Moon, and are threatening the Singapore meeting. So what happens next?

President Trump has allowed expectations for this summit to grow sky high.  Chants of “NOBEL, NOBEL” for the Nobel Peace Prize were at his rallies, and he has said the “aw shucks – just doing my job” line when asked about the prize by the press.  He has even used the summit to push off his decision about whether to voluntarily testify to Special Counsel Mueller.  Both Trump and the North Koreans know he is fully vested in having the summit go through.

In a lawn interview in front of the White House, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that the North Korean move was “expected.”  She claims that there is a new model of negotiating, the “President Trump Model,” and that she anticipates that the summit will go through.  Trump himself has stated that if he doesn’t get what he wants at the summit, he will, respectfully, walk away from the table.

It is hard to imagine there is an incentive, short of all-out war, that would induce North Korea’s President Kim to give up his nuclear weapons.  Not only did those missiles give him the status to gain a summit with the President of the United States, but they also are the result of tremendous sacrifice by the North Korean people.  They have endured starvation and deprivation due to economic sanctions and the Kim regime’s willingness to sacrifice them at the nuclear altar.  Even the offer of a full US withdrawal from the Korean peninsula (something that would be regarded as the ultimate betrayal by our ally, South Korea) probably isn’t enough to get the North to give up the bomb.

Given that, what are we negotiating about?  The United States policy is that North Korea will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Now that they have them, what can we do? National Security Advisor Bolton would have us negotiate, fail, and then begin an economic sanctions process. Should that process fail, and it will; he would have us go to war.  His argument: better to fight North Korea at a time and place of our choosing, rather than risk an unexpected nuclear missile launch against the US or allies.  The conflict is that a war with North Korea, whether we choose it or not, will always now entail the risk of nuclear-tipped missile attack.

The alternative is to try to bring North Korea into the “community” of nations.  Talks with South Korea, an economic powerhouse, might help achieve that aim.  A stronger economic relationship between the two Koreas might give the North an incentive to hold their bombs, and build their nation.

Should the summit occur, it will be interesting if that view ever gets on the table.  If that is what the “President Trump Model” means, then by all means, good luck.  But it seems more likely that the summit is simply an exercise in persuasion for US citizens, to show that the Trump Administration tried to avoid war, and now it’s time to “gear up.”  John Bolton could then have his new Korean War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Money Can Buy

Fifty-eight Palestinians died yesterday.  Over 2700 were injured. They were protesting the United States move of the embassy from Tel Aviv, where it was located since the founding of Israel in 1948, to Jerusalem. While many Israelis celebrated the move with pomp and ceremony and speeches; Palestinians saw it as giving away their future capital.

Israel, of course, blamed the injuries and deaths on Hamas, the radical organization that was freely elected to control the Gaza area.  Gaza is just outside the Israeli border where Palestinians were pushed when Israel was founded.  Two million Palestinians are jammed into the 140 square mile area (the city of Columbus, Ohio; 217 square miles.)  They are not allowed to travel outside of Gaza, blockaded by the Israelis on one side and Egypt on the other.

Yesterday was Jerusalem Day in Israel, commemorating the 1967 war when Israel reunified the city, taking the old section from Jordanian forces.  Today Palestinians commemorate “The Day of Catastrophe” (Nakba Day,) the day in 1948 when Palestinians were driven out of what would become Israel.  The conflict between them is raw.

The death and injuries were eminently predictable.  So why did the US make this move at this time?

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has pushed this for many years.  It puts the United States firmly on the Israeli side, wiping out the “honest broker” position taken by the Obama Administration.  It puts into question whether there will ever be a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian crisis; certainly the “two state” solution that the US (and most Israelis) has supported is farther away than ever before. It puts Israel in the position of a Jewish democracy running a police state against the Palestinians.

The hope would be that this dramatic move would have been strategically thought out, with long discussions of the pros and cons, and input from our leading foreign policy authorities and allies. However, it seems that the driving force behind this move wasn’t the foreign policy intelligentsia, but instead, the billionaire owner of casinos, Sheldon Adelson.

Adelson, who owns much of Las Vegas and is ranked as the fourteenth richest man in the world ($42 billion) is a close friend of Netanyahu, and has long pressed for the move to Jerusalem.  According to President Trump, Adelson put $120 million into the Trump election effort, including a direct contribution to the campaign for $25 million.  He also was the largest single donor to the inauguration fund at $5 million.

Adelson is an American success story, a self made man who started his first business selling newspapers in Boston at sixteen.  He now owns the Venetian casinos around the world (Las Vegas, Singapore, Macao, Bethlehem PA) as well as several Israeli newspapers, in addition to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

He has been adamant on the need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital, and has had several meetings with President Trump, and others in the administration.  He has also been a driving force against the United States deal with Iran, shadowing the view of Netanyahu, and has pressed for the US to withdraw from the agreement.  A couple of weeks ago, the US did.

Adelson has represented the hardline Israeli position here in the US for years.  He has also become one of the key financiers of Republican politics (along with the Koch brothers and the Mercers.)   It has earned him a seat behind Vice President Pence at the Trump Inauguration, and honored-guest status at the Jerusalem ceremony.  It has also earned him the ear of the President, and a key appointment with John Bolton as National Security Advisor.

Most US foreign policy advisors, including most Republicans, were against the recognition of Jerusalem as the legal Israeli capital.  Jerusalem was the ultimate bargaining chip in a “two state” settlement, the final street by street negotiation that would recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinians, and allow Israel to get away from the draconian measures now required to keep them in check.

With the US recognition, Palestinians will be forced to continue what they did yesterday: protest and riot until Israeli soldiers are pushed to respond.  Palestinians can only hope that the images of the dead and wounded will gain world recognition and pressure on Israel.   In the end, the bodies of young Palestinians will be the price of the US decision.

It’s what money can buy.