Category: Uncategorized

Headed Home

Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has given up.  He has chosen not to run for re-election to Congress from the 1^stDistrict of Wisconsin.  He’s going home to Janesville:  he’s had enough.

For the moment he will keep his Speakership, but a lame duck Speaker can do little to further legislation. Kevin McCarthy (California) and Steve Scalise (Lousiana), are the two leading contenders for party leadership maneuvering for his job.  Ryan knows that Republicans face a debacle in the fall election, polling shows that the Democrats may well gain the majority in the House.  The Republican leadership battle may be for Minority Leader, not Speaker.

Ryan has been a “rising star” for the Party since he was elected to Congress in 1999 at 29 years of age. He gained a committee chairmanship early, based on his special expertise in government spending, and chaired the Budget Committee from 2011 until he became Speaker in 2015.  In 2012, he was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States, running with Mitt Romney against Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

He has a “Boy Scout” image (though he was only briefly in the Scouts.)  His dedication to his family (wife Janna and three children) is legendary, he almost didn’t take the Speaker job because of the time commitment to travel and fund raising that would take him away from Janesville, where his family still resides.  He goes back to his family there almost every weekend.

So what happened to this “star” of the Republican Party?  Why has he left his party  and country at this most critical time in American history?  As third in line for the Presidency of the United States, with a looming Constitutional crisis, why has he taken himself “out of the game?”

Many site his distaste for President Trump.  Ryan’s “Boy Scout” image does not fit well with the President of Porn Stars, Playgirls, and Access Hollywood fame.  Others claim that Ryan’s ultimate goal was achieved by re-writing the tax code.  The tax cut bill passed, and so Ryan is done. And still others suggest that Ryan is disgusted with the compromises he has had to make, accepting a $1.6 trillion deficit in the last budget.  Ryan has always been a balanced budget proponent, now as Speaker he has led a huge increase in the United States’ debt.

Paul Ryan failed to use his Speakership to defend the key values of the Republican Party against the short-term transactional deals of President Trump.  He failed to stand for the values he claimed to believe in: from balanced budgets and reduced government spending on entitlements, to ethical behavior and equal rights for all citizens.  Again and again, from the Convention in Cleveland, to Charlottesville, to corruption in the EPA; Ryan had the opportunity to standup for what the Republican Party believes. He didn’t.

Why:  again and again why did Paul Ryan swallow his distaste and stand beside the President?  Was the “Trump Base” so dangerous to the Republican Party that they must be coddled at the cost of the “soul ” of the party?  Others in the Party took principled stands:  John Kasich, John McCain and Jeff Flake among them.  Why did Ryan make his “deal with the Devil,” a deal that clearly has cost him his title and career?

The answer does not fit the “Boy Scout” image.  Ryan’s party raced away from him to follow Trump, and instead of standing for “something,” this supposedly principled man chose to follow instead of lead.  He did so with the hope of gaining power, of using Trump to pursue his own agenda.  What he found was that Trump, a rookie politician, out politicked the Speaker, and got what Trump wanted.

And Ryan and the Republican Party compromised themselves by accepting the same kind of Russian money that has so compromised the Trump family.  While little has been said, millions from such figures as Oleg Deripaska (of Paul Manafort fame) found its way into Republican coffers (Dallas Morning News.)  Perhaps they have little choice but to accept what Trump does, they are under the same influences as him.

Ryan was the “heir apparent” for Republican leadership after the 2012 Presidential election, he continued on that path to power by accepting the Speakership when John Boehner left. He has failed the Party, and his country.  It isn’t because he didn’t prevent the takeover of the party by Donald Trump, he joins the many who were unable to see that coming and couldn’t prevent it. No, he failed by not standing for what he believed, and what he clearly thinks this nation needs.

He’s headed home to Janesville, a figure of failed promise.  America needed his leadership before, and needs it even more today.  But he’s taking his ball and going home.

 

 

 

 

Listening to Mark

Mark Zuckerberg, Chairman of Facebook, testified to a committee of the US Senate yesterday.  Everyone wanted a piece of it; it was actually a joint meeting of two Senate committees, and forty Senators were poised with questions.

Zuckerberg was articulate and prepared.  He answered the questions with practiced politeness, and only occasionally descended into Facebook “geek-speak.”  To those Senators who didn’t have much of a grasp of the technology, Zuckerberg was kind, not making them look stupid.  To those who knew a lot though, he generalized, refusing to get specific about the technical details of his product.

I’m not a huge fan of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), but he made a significant point yesterday.  In questioning Zuckerberg, he asked him who Facebook’s biggest competitor was.  Zuckerberg came back asking about what area of the industry Graham was talking about: person to person, video and picture, messaging, and the like.  Graham pursued the question:  who is your biggest competitor:  “…if someone didn’t want to use Facebook, what would they use?”

Zuckerberg didn’t answer the question, but the answer was clear. There is no one media application that can do what Facebook does.  If you don’t want to use Facebook, you can’t replace it.  Graham’s point:  Facebook has a monopoly of two billion users with no real competition.  In America, being pegged as a monopoly can have dangerous consequences.

You can’t blame Facebook, it’s an American success story. Two kids in a dorm room come up with a computer program, they grow it, expand it, find financing for it, move it from Cambridge, Massachusetts to Silicon Valley, and make billions of dollars. There avowed goal:  connect the people of the world.  They are a third of the way there.

But monopolies have their downside.  Since there is no competition there is little incentive to change a “business model” that works.  And with the current financial capacity of Facebook, the new and innovative ideas that come up are bought up and subsumed into the Facebook system.

In America we either break up monopolies, forcing them to become multiple competing companies (Old ATT became eight different corporations), or we regulate them, as we do with public utilities in Ohio.  Breaking monopolies up creates competition, giving consumers choices and encouraging innovation and reduced costs.  Regulation controls costs and how business is conducted, but does not necessarily encourage innovation.

Mark Zuckerberg is willing to become a participant in developing regulations for Facebook (he said so to Senator Klobuchar.)  It’s a smart move: if it’s regulated, it can remain a monopoly.  Zuckerberg has made it clear that he is in favor of regulating “advertising” on Facebook – what he is avoiding is touching the financial heart of the Facebook model: user data.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) made a significant point in his questioning.  His first question to Zuckerberg:  “Will you tell me which hotel you stayed in last night,” followed by “…tell me who you messaged this week.”  Zuckerberg answered “no” to both questions, underlining Durbin’s concern about the loss of personal information control that Facebook creates.

Data is the heart of Facebook, and the ability to sell data and data use is the Facebook business model.  Collecting user data is what they do.  And it’s the heart of the problem as well:  how can American’s protect themselves from data “profiling,” and from those profiles being used to subversively influence them.

As a monopoly, there is no competition forcing Facebook to change. If users don’t want to use Facebook, they certainly can choose to delete their accounts.  But they can’t find a similar service, and Facebook is THE major form of communication for millions or more.

Regulation is the answer.  And while the “regulators,” members of the US House and Senate, may not have the technical insights to understand how to control Facebook, they can find the folks who do.  Maybe Mark Zuckerberg specifically, and Silicon Valley in general, will participate to lend their technical understanding.

Facebook influences what we think, what we buy, and who we vote for.  The past two years have made it clear that, knowingly or not, the leaders of Facebook haven’t found a way to get control of their “platform.”  If the American “free enterprise” system doesn’t provide a choice, then it’s up to the government to provide those controls.

 

 

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

(thank you Superman)

Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer for the President of the United States, was served with search warrants yesterday.  His home, office, and hotel room (where he is staying while his home is renovated) were searched.  Records, computers, and cell phones were taken.

The searches were conducted by the FBI, acting under the jurisdiction of the United State Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), Geoffrey Berman. Berman was appointed to the position by President Trump, and was a former partner in the law firm that included Rudy Giuliani.  In order to “pierce the veil of lawyer/client privilege,” a US District Court Judge has to rule that there is substantial and convincing evidence that the lawyer and client were engaging in criminal or fraudulent activity.

In addition, the top leaders of the Justice Department, the head of the Criminal Division, the Deputy Attorney General (and potentially the Attorney General), had to sign off on the warrants.  While the information that led to the searches emanated from the Mueller investigation team, it did not meet the criteria of Mueller’s mandate as Special Counsel to investigate matters pertaining to Russia, and was handed off to Berman.  Just as the law said it should.

It’s a big deal.  Not surprisingly, President Trump was more than upset. Talking to the press at the beginning of a National Security meeting to determine what to do about the Syrian use of chemical weapons, he want on a long “rant” about the situation.

“So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man. And it’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt.”

Trump went onto talk about the Mueller investigation.  He stated again and again that there was “no collusion.”  He missed the fact that this wasn’t part of that investigation.  And then he commented:

“And it’s a disgrace. It’s, frankly, a real disgrace. It’s an attack on our country, in a true sense. It’s an attack on what we all stand for.”

This raises the question:  what does Donald Trump think the United States stands for?  He was sitting at a table, surrounded by the leadership of the American military, the Vice President at one side and his new National Security Advisor on the other.  The uniforms and stars surrounded him.

President Trump confuses the Presidency with the country, just as he confuses the flag with the military.  The United States is a nation of laws, ones that he as President has taken an oath to uphold.  The law holds that the confidentiality of a lawyer and his client is one of the few legal secrets.  It takes an incredibly high standard to even begin to breech it, and even when evidence is gathered, a separate team of lawyers go through it first to guarantee all legal communications remain confidential.  This is a different team than the one doing the investigation..

Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution:  one of only two parts of the Presidential oath (the other – faithfully execute the office of President.)  The Constitution is the law, and  the careful actions of the Department of Justice were lawful.  But President Trump assaulted the law yesterday, claiming that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, biased, unfair, and conflicted.

His only legal defense is to claim “no collusion;” four times over.  But his real defense is to attack the integrity of those investigating him, over and over again.  He demands that this is a Democrat versus Republican fight to the death, and that even the long defeated Hillary Clinton is still involved:

“Democrats all — or just about all — either Democrats or a couple of Republicans that worked for President Obama, they’re not looking at the other side; they’re not looking at the Hillary Clinton — the horrible things that she did and all of the crimes that were committed. They’re not looking at all of the things that happened that everybody is very angry about, I can tell you, from the Republican side, and I think even the independent side. They only keep looking at us.”

To him, it’s all about taking sides.  And that’s what he projected in his rant, letting his base know that THEY are being attacked when HE is being attacked.  When he say s “everybody is very angry” that’s the everybody he means.

There is no reason the President should be happy about the investigation.  It represents a serious threat to him, and certainly a constant distraction.  But the President of the United States has an obligation, swore an oath, to defend the Constitution.  That document set out the standards that no one is above the law, and that we have a system of courts to insure and administer justice.

Like Superman’s cape, President Trump is wrapping himself in the flag and the military; using them as props behind his statements that erode American values.  Truth, Justice, and the American Way:  that’s what Superman, and the President, should stand for.  President Trump’s rant to the nation yesterday showed once again that his allegiance is to himself over his duty and country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While We Were Distracted

The United States is buried in “Russiagate.”  There no longer is a question that Russia attacked our election in 2016, and, according to a new study released by THE Ohio State University (yes, I live near Columbus) Russian actions on social media altered the election (WCMH – Channel 4.)  This doesn’t include collusion, conspiracy, and actual attacks on the voting process – all still being investigated.

The Mueller investigation has grown quiet again:  we are waiting for the “other shoe to drop.”  However, if someone has direct knowledge of Paul Manafort, Trump finances, or other aspects of the investigation, they need to be wary of airports.  The FBI is lurking, Mueller is looking for answers, and airports seem to be the place where potential witnesses/suspects are grabbed.

President Trump continues to distract America from the investigation.  It seems strange that the President may prefer being sued by a porn star, rather than questions about the Russiagate investigation.  By the way, a report just out states that the Trump Organization (Trump’s business) billed the Trump Campaign (the Presidential campaign) $129,999.72 a week after Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels (Inquisitr.)  Odd coincidence:  somebody owes Cohen $.28.

If the campaign paid hush money to Daniels, and didn’t report it, that’s illegal.  If the Organization (or Cohen) made an “in kind” contribution to the campaign to keep Daniel’s quiet – that’s illegal.  And since Trump now says he didn’t know about a contract with Daniels, then Cohen may lose his law license (for making a contract for Trump without Trump’s knowledge.) Even if you think Trump knew about the contract, it sure seems he’s willing to throw Cohen’s career under the bus. No wonder he can’t find lawyers.

In Syria, Assad, backed by Russia, continues to use chemical warfare against his own people.  This weekend’s barrel bomb dropped on civilians is only the most recent example, and while the US may react to that in some way (maybe a missile attack on airport runways again) it doesn’t change the multiple times we’ve turned our back to the problem.  Certainly President Trump’s statement in Cleveland last week that we were going to pull out of Syria may have given some license to Assad.

In Europe, Hungary elected a right-wing prime minister, Victor Orban, and gave him a super-majority in the Parliament.  Nationalists throughout Europe are rejoicing, as anti-immigrant, anti-European Union and pro-Russian candidates become ascendant.  How much help Russian social media intervention gave we aren’t sure: what is clear is that the vacuum created by the absence of a strong United States is being filled.

We have picked a trade war with China, but haven’t negotiated new trade deals with anyone else in Asia.  The argument made for pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was that we could negotiate better deals individually with countries rather than as a group; it now looks like we have abandoned Asia to the Chinese.  The new “President for life” of China, Xi, is acting as if we have.

In the Middle East, in Europe, in Asia; the lack of American presence has opened doors to China and Russia. The relative peace created by the “Pax Americana” after the Cold War concluded is ending, because the US has pulled away from engagement.

And the Trump administration has made it clear that we now “side” with Russia.  When Russians used chemical weapons to try to assassinate former spies in the United Kingdom, we joined most of Europe by expelling sixty Russian diplomats.  However, we now hear that they sixty will be replaced by sixty more, more of a substitution than an expulsion.

Russian mercenaries (so-called – it’s hard to imagine they weren’t under the control of Putin) attacked US forces in Syria.  The US forces defended themselves, suffering no casualties and leaving close to three hundred Russians dead.  One would think that’s a reason for public comment, but not a word was spoken.

With no Secretary of State, National Security Advisor McMasters seemed to be the one moderating force in the White House keeping America involved.  He departed on Friday; next up, John Bolton, who hasn’t met a war he didn’t like.  No one on the Republican side of the Congress says a word – Bob Corker where are you?

Russiagate has silenced them.  And Russiagate is consuming the American attention.  But as we wait for the next Mueller move, or the next woman to sue the President, the world goes on.  “Going to Hell in a hand-basket” is more like it.

For Dems, It’s Difficult

Free Trade: it’s the idea that the world’s trade should be unfettered by borders and nations. Free traders believe that ultimately American industry will win out, despite higher wages and costs, because we are more inventive and efficient. It’s been a Republican core value since Dwight Eisenhower beat Bob Taft for the 1952 Presidential nomination – that’s a long time (Washington Post.)

The opposite of free trade is protectionism: the idea that American industry can’t maintain the standards of higher wages and benefits, without putting barriers to competition from other countries. Tariffs – taxes on imports – have been put forward for years as a way to protect American heavy industry, particularly steel and aluminum. The supporters of protectionism have been those that supported the “workers,” particularly the unionized workers who faced foreign competition. In other words, the supporters were the Democrats.

So now President Trump has threatened $60 billion worth of tariffs on goods from China, with an additional $100 billion in the works. China is responding by targeting equal tariffs against American goods. Where are Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the “establishment” Republicans? Nowhere to be found as they remain silent to the President’s plans. But Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a Democrat representing the old steel workers of Youngstown and Cleveland is quietly supporting the President’s move. Life is complicated.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue. Protectionists argue that the Chinese government has “put their thumb on the scale” by helping to finance industries competing with the US, by paying workers low wages with little benefits, and by allowing rampant theft of intellectual property (read that: computer programs, videos, music, patented processes.)   That’s all true.

The problem with tariffs is that it doesn’t stop the import of goods, it simply raises the cost of those goods to the consumer. By raising the cost, it makes more costly American goods competitive in price. So what tariffs ultimately do is raise the price of goods, passing the increased costs onto the consumer. The United States is one of the greatest consumer nations in the world, so clearly our costs will go up.

That’s cost for things like: John Deere equipment (steel), Budweiser Beer (aluminum for cans) and flat screen TV’s; all likely to go up significantly (1300 proposed products, New York Times.) Whether that serves the Democratic purpose of re-invigorating the US steel industry, with all of the capital costs restarting steel plants entails, remains to be seen. What is for sure: the cost of buying lots of things is going up.

In addition, the Chinese are returning the favor. Tariffs on soybeans, Kentucky whiskey, American cars, trucks and motorcycles; all are likely to reduce the amount of those goods that are sold to China, putting their industries in a bind. These tariffs are nicely politically targeted:  Kentucky Whiskey (McConnell) and Harley-Davidson (Wisconsin, Ryan) as well as soybeans (Iowa farmers) and tobacco (North Carolina.) To an Iowa farmer, living on a small margin, selling fewer soybeans and spending more for the equipment to grow them means the difference between making it or not.

There is little argument that China hasn’t “cheated” in trade. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross stated that “…every war ends in negotiations.” If the US and China wage a war over these tariffs, it is in the interest of both sides to ultimately negotiate new deals that ends the pain.

In the meantime though, Republicans look at a two-fold problem. First, they are ideologically at odds with their own President, but recognize that the President’s base supports his plan. Second, it’s hard to campaign on the value of the “tax cut” when the money gained will quickly be eaten by higher costs of living.

And for Democrats: criticize Trump everywhere you want, but keep quiet on tariffs. The base that Trump is trying to reach was once your voters, a key to getting them back is the belief that the “rust belt” industries will return. That takes quite a bit of cynicism though, because the idea that steel will roll out of Youngstown and tires out of Akron again remains unlikely.

Hillary Clinton, whatever you think of her, had the courage to go to West Virginia and talk about the end of coal mining.   It didn’t do her any good politically, but it was real.

Troops to the Border

President Trump is sending troops to the border.   It sounds like the beginning of World War I, when mobilizing troops to the border was the trigger for starting a worldwide conflagration. It isn’t.

Troops to the border creates visions of tanks rolled up along the hills, and planes flying low over the Rio Grande, searching for those elusive “caravans” pulling up along the Mexican side and unloading their cargo of humans. At least, it’s patrols of Army units, searching the border, looking for “illegals,” rounding up those that are slipping through the Customs and Border Patrol efforts. It’s not.

President Trump is doing the same thing that Presidents Bush and Obama did. He’s asking the Governors of the border states to send THEIR National Guard troops to the border area. Those National Guard troops are legally allowed to assist in “policing actions,” something the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy are prohibited from doing in most situations (the Posse Comitatus Act.) Just as the National Guard is called out for hurricanes, floods and riots, they can be called out to help at the border.

And what can they do? We don’t have a “shooting border;” it’s not a “death zone” like the old East German border. Even if and when we build “the wall” for President Trump, it won’t be the “Berlin Wall.” Crossing the border illegally is NOT a death penalty offense, it’s closer to getting a parking ticket than “the needle.” The penalty for crossing the border illegally: getting sent back across the border.

And, by the way, illegal crossings at the border are estimated to be at the lowest level in forty-six years (National Public Radio.) The President is responding NOT to a national crisis of some sort, but to a Fox and Friends report of a Buzzfeed story about thousands coming to the US from Central America in a caravan. Whether those folks were really all coming to the US is in question: some will stay in Mexico, some will LEGALLY ask for asylum in the US, and some will undoubtedly try to cross illegally.

The National Guard, totaling around 2000 troops (Bush sent 6000),  will be used in supporting roles, backing up the Customs and Border Patrol. Logistics, building barriers, and helping with intelligence (especially aerial drones) are some of the areas where the Guard would be helpful. It will be expensive, and the states won’t want to cover the cost. Some states, notably California, may not send their troops. So if border crossings are at a low, what’s the crisis?

It’s not just because Trump saw it on Fox. It’s really about the 2018 election. Early election results show that the Democrats are turning the tables from 2016. The latest was a statewide judicial race in Wisconsin, for the first time in twenty years a Democrat won the judicial seat, this time by a twelve point margin. The “Trump majority” of 2016 is being flipped, and Trump needs to consolidate his base in order to try to maintain a majority of the House of Representatives.

Maintaining a majority in the House may be about staying in the White House for Trump. With the Mueller investigation (already the Washington Post is reporting the Mueller strategy of generating reports on Trump’s actions) getting nearer to a conclusion, it is clear that the House will be asked to consider impeachment charges against the President. To Trump, whether Paul Ryan and the Republicans are in charge, or Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, will likely mean the difference between impeachment or not.

So “troops to the border” means National Guard supporting the Customs and Border Patrol, just like they did before. But it sure sounds like much more, and that’s what the President wants his base to hear.

Quick Hits

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt can’t seem to get out of trouble. It started with “the cone of silence” (you’ve got to be old enough to remember Get Smart for that one), a secure communications booth built into his office (there was one upstairs) for hundred’s of thousands of dollars, then expensive flights all over the country, travelling first class.

two of his aides were given huge raises over the objections of the White House, and Pruitt has been accepting a “sweetheart” deal from a lobbyist to live in a DC condo for $50 a day (you might get a bed on Air Bnb on Capitol Hill for twice that.) Isn’t it odd that the owner lobbies for the LNG (liquid natural gas) industry, and Pruitt made a trip to Algeria to push their purchase of LNG. That’s not in the EPA’s authority.  And now, his security team has used “lights and sirens” to get him to a dinner appointment at a posh French restaurant.   It seems he’s gone from the shoe-in replacement for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to a man waiting for a tweet saying he’s fired.

His time will come, but it won’t happen until President Trump needs to distract from some other crisis that’s making him look bad. Whether it’s Robert Mueller or Stormy Daniels, when the next one comes up, Pruitt should pack his bags and get his own first class flight back to Tulsa. Trump will send him home.

 

A Subject Not a Target

The Washington Post broke the news Tuesday night: the Mueller team told President Trump’s lawyers last month that Trump was not the target of an investigation, but the subject of one. These are “terms of art” in the prosecution world. A target is a person who can reasonably expect to be indicted, or in layman’s terms, charged against them are likely to be filed. A subject is someone that prosecutors are checking out, but have not reached that conclusion.

While some Trump supporters are cheered by the news, the reality is that this is a legal distinction with little difference. President Trump is being investigated, and Special Counsel Mueller’s team is looking into his actions on multiple fronts. There is an investigation into his actions conspiring with Russia to influence the election (what has been categorized as collusion.) There is an investigation into the President’s finances, particularly as it relates to Russian influence. And there is an investigation into the President acting to obstruct justice by trying to stop the Mueller investigation.

So why a “subject” but not a “target?” First, the Mueller team may not have enough evidence to reach the “probable cause” level. Probable cause means that, taking the evidence at its face value, a crime has been committed. It requires probable cause to ask for an indictment (press charges). Certainly the pressure that the Mueller team continues to put on Paul Manafort might signal that Mueller needs more on the President.

But there is likely a more complicated answer. Most commentators believe that Mueller already has a “probable cause” case against the President for obstruction of justice. Given that, why would he signal that the President was not a target?

Can a serving President of the United States be subject to criminal indictment and prosecution? The Constitution does not give a clear-cut answer to the question. Article 1, Section 3 states the following:

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

So this leaves the question up to interpretation, since the Constitution states that the President can be subject to law after impeachment and conviction, does that mean that he cannot be charged BEFORE impeachment has occurred.

There are differing opinions about this (New York Times) but there is one serious impediment to the Mueller team taking this kind of action. During the Watergate crisis, the Department of Justice developed internal policy stating that the President could not be indicted. While this is NOT law, it is a policy of the Department.

Robert Mueller serves as Special Counsel under a wide-ranging charge, supervised by Rod Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General for this investigation. One of the few ways that Mueller can be removed (as the charge is written) is by violating Department of Justice policy. If Mueller went ahead and indicted the President, it could lead the way to his being removed as Special Counsel, causing a disruption in the investigation.

So how did the Watergate investigators get around this particular policy? First, President Nixon resigned from office prior to his certain impeachment by the House of Representatives. In the Watergate indictments, there were multiple defendants charged, and one “unindicted co-conspirator.” While the co-conspirator went unnamed, it was clearly Richard Nixon. After he resigned, according to Article 1, Section 3; Nixon was subject to indictment, and the Watergate prosecutors moved to begin that process. It was the blanket pardon issued by President Gerald Ford, forgiving Nixon for anything he might have done, that stopped the matter.

Mueller will continue to pursue his investigation, and given his reputation, will follow all the evidence to the end. Mueller has already indicted several persons, including the former National Security Advisor, and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Trump 2016 campaign. Mueller will also issue a “report” on his investigation, a report that would serve as the basis for a Congressional impeachment hearing.

That the President will be indicted seems unlikely. What is likely, is that the Mueller investigation will send their results to the House of Representatives. The current House is not likely to impeach the President, and the current Senate less likely to convict. So the real fate of Donald Trump may rest on the results of the 2018 Congressional elections. Should Democrats win the House, then impeachment is likely. Should Democrats control the Senate, it still would require a two-thirds vote (67) of the Senate to convict and remove Trump from office.

We have a long way to go.

 

 

I’m Not the Customer?

Please don’t talk about Facebook images of cats and kids. That’s not what the Facebook “crisis” is about, and it diminishes the political and cultural importance of “the platform” (even though cats and kids are also a part of the plan.)

What an existential dream: to connect everyone in the world, letting them communicate, send pictures, even show live videos to each other. Borders are non-existent, language barriers overcome, even governmental differences in law and freedom leveled. It was what we all hoped that Facebook could be, and we marveled at the brilliance and technology that allowed us to easily participate in this world experiment.

We thought we were the customer. We thought that Facebook was serving us, both individually and as a world culture. And certainly this was what Facebook encouraged us to see, a benevolent technological force serving all.

But of course, that wasn’t true. Mark Zuckerberg developed Facebook, placed it step by step into the nervous system of our culture, and worked to gain a profit. But the profit wasn’t in a fee for membership, that wouldn’t generate enough income and would limit participation. So what was the “product” to be sold, to generate income, ultimately billions of dollars?

What were people willing to give up (knowingly or not) in order to participate in the “great Facebook experiment?” If they weren’t being charged a fee, then were they getting “something for nothing.” Of course, that wasn’t true, there’s always a cost: the information that the participants gave to Facebook. It was personal data, it was movie choices, song choices, color and birthday choices, and the massive amount of commercial data. What advertisement did you click on (ultimately linking your web browsing to Facebook) and what political “trends” did you follow.

What could Facebook sell? They could trade everything they knew about you, and they could trade it to people that want to sell or convince you of something. They developed micro-targeted advertising, telling companies that they could identify their potential customers by using the incredible wealth of personal information they willingly gave to Facebook. Facebook employees were “embedded” in the buyer’s offices, to help them direct their advertising campaigns.

And it wasn’t just car parts, clothes, and music vendors. It was political entities that weren’t trying to make money, but gain a vote. They were selling their ideas and beliefs, working to convince you to believe in them. And, as we now know, it was other nations pushing their propaganda, and working to persuade or inflame you with real or fake events and ideas.

It was all for sale. And the sale price was based on volume: how many “clicks” would your particular “post” gain. And Facebook discovered what probably makes common sense: controversy and divisiveness stirs users up more than joy and unity. Sowing the seeds of “Facebook craziness” gets everyone in the argument. If you’re not sure what that’s about, check out the hundred plus comments on any post about guns these days.

So, make things crazy, let the “bomb throwers” loose, and more people get in, the volume of clicks go up, and Facebook can raise their rates.

And most insidiously, Facebook would let “others” experiment on us. That little fun “quiz” that you took, determining whether you are “emotional or stoic” not only went into the pile of your data, it gave up all of your friends’ data to the buyer as well. Facebook put that data out seemingly without restrictions – passively allowing the creation of “psychographic polling” claiming to be able to identify and motivate targeted voters.

Facebook offered their customers tons of data – about us. Somewhere in the “user agreement” we gave them permission to do it. So we did pay for Facebook use, in a new currency called “data.” And Facebook recognized the dangers and justified it. Two years ago, long before the election of 2016, a man murdered another man on Facebook Live. It was shocking and outrageous. A leaked Facebook internal memo of the time stated:

“Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good.”

Does Facebook believe in connecting people because it fulfills the existential dream, or the prospect of unlimited profit?

Should we abandon Facebook? Should we view Facebook as the real version of the “Skynet” (the malevolent computer system that took over the world in the movie “Terminator”) and step back? Or do we continue along the path, accepting that Zuckerberg is not working just for the “good” of mankind, and knowing that the “buyer must beware.”

Clearly we need to regulate this new, most valuable commodity, data (Zuckerberg would have us regulate advertising, but leave “his” data alone.) In order to gain the transparency that Facebook (and other platforms) have failed to achieve, intentionally or accidentally, we need a non-industry effort to gain control of the use of our data. It will be difficult because so much of what happens is proprietary to the platform, and in what to most of us is a “black box”.

But the existential dream shouldn’t be lost. The good of Facebook, opening the world and communication to all; is worth dealing with the problems. And, frankly, if Facebook was “shut down” someone else would find a way to modify the algorithms and continue the experiment. So let’s find a way to keep the good, moderate the bad, and work our way into a new world.

Hopefully it won’t take a “cyborg” returning from the future to protect us!!

“I’ll be Back!!”

A Well Regulated Militia

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed – Second Amendment

I am a retired history teacher. I spent a career talking about the United States Constitution, from its advent to its current interpretation. With all of the controversy about the role of guns in American society, I decided to go back to my “roots” and re-read the decision of the US Supreme Court in 2008, The District of Columbia v Heller.

This was the last case argued over what the twenty-six words in the Second Amendment to the Constitution mean. It also changed over sixty years of Court decisions. It featured the giant of the Federalist Society and the doctrine of Original Interpretation, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in a five to four decision. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Kennedy joined in the majority.

Writing the dissent was Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. It was near the end of Stevens’ long service on the Court; he retired two years later. The dissent is why I went back to the Heller case, as Stevens, now 98 years old, wrote an editorial in the New York Times last week calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. This has raised the stakes of the current gun debate, lending some credence to the NRA’s claim that “…they are trying to take away our guns.”

Scalia was the leading Supreme Court product of the Federalist Society, a conservative movement in US law schools started in the early 1980’s. The Society believes that the only correct interpretation of the Constitution is the original intent of the words of the founding fathers. This group has been the source of Conservative Republican appointments, including Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch. Scalia looked not only to the founding fathers (James Madison actually worded the Amendment) but to the English Common Law that predated our statutory law.

Scalia interpreted the Amendment as forming two distinct parts: the establishment of militias by the states, and the individual right to bear weapons for the purpose of hunting and personal self-defense. This was a novel interpretation of the Amendment; in the past the first section, “a well regulated militia,” was seen as modifying the second clause. Scalia and the other Society Justices saw the second clause as free standing.

This overturned the significant precedence of earlier decisions that saw the government as having a clear ability to regulate weapons, based on the first clause, the “well regulated militia.”  The outcome of the decision placed  limitations on the local and state government’s ability to control weapons, and also put decisions on future actions on a “case by case” basis, without a clear standard that could be applied to every situation. Could, if there was the political will, the national government ban “assault style weapons?” That law, clearly allowed until the Heller case, now would have to be re-argued to the Supreme Court.   What the Court’s decision  would be is unclear.

Justice Steven’s dissent matched the precedence of earlier Court decisions, but it also went back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Stevens explained that the core issue of the Second Amendment was the fear of a national standing army. The American Revolution was fought in part over the constant presence and cost of keeping a British Army in the colonies. The Declaration of Independence spoke of the abuses of those troops, and the Third Amendment spoke directly to the struggles with a standing Army:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. – Third Amendment

Stevens wrote that the fear of a standing army led to the need for local militias, or civilians who were organized into military units to respond quickly. A limited standing army would be unable to protect against attacks in a far-flung frontier; “…well regulated militias…” were needed. And to be ready to respond, those militiamen needed to be able to “…keep and bear arms…”

Fear of a standing army: a statement that goes directly to the fears of many who demand the right to possess semi-automatic weapons with high velocity rounds in high capacity magazines today. It isn’t about hunting, in fact, James Madison had the right to bear arms for hunting and self protection as one of his choices in writing the amendment. He didn’t include it.

Today it is accepted that the “well regulated militia” is the individual state’s national guard. As far back as 1886 in Presser v Illinois, the Supreme Court ruled that private militias are not “well regulated militias” as defined by the Amendment. The state National Guard serves the purpose of a quick mobilizing local force while not acting as a national standing army. We do have a standing Army (and Air Force, and Marines, and Navy); but they are prevented from acting in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. This law, written to put an end to the Union occupation of the South after the Civil War, prevents the military from engaging in policing duties in most cases.

Stevens in his dissent, saw the Scalia decision as opening the door to greater gun availability in the United States. His dissent outlined how the US could  gain control of guns, but as a dissent, had no legal authority. So now, ten years later, Stevens sees the only way to overturn Heller is to repeal the amendment itself.

Stevens is retired, replaced by Justice Kagan. Souter retired as well, replaced by Justice Sotomajor. The court still has a five to four conservative majority: the biggest prize of the 2016 election was the appointment of Gorsuch, a conservative, and the potential right to appoint the next justice should a position become available.

What will happen with guns in the United States is about what the Congress and individual state legislatures will do, but it is limited by what the Supreme Court will allow.  It all depends on the meaning of those twenty-six words.

 

 

The Voice of Sinclair

Sinclair Broadcasting owns television stations. Growing up in my family, with Dad running a television station in Dayton, Ohio (WLW-D now WDTN) we learned at a young age that just because a station broadcast NBC, ABC or CBS (the only choices in those days) didn’t mean that the network owned them. The station was a network “affiliate,” a deal was made for the station to run the network’s programming in order to get some advertising time during the network’s time.

But the owner of the station was the company that hired or fired employees, set the rules, and owned the buildings. In my father’s days he worked for three; Crosley, then Avco, and finally Multimedia. Dad was in Dayton for eight years, and the station went through three owners.

Sinclair Broadcasting owns one hundred seventy three stations in the United State today, in eighty markets. In the central Ohio market, they own WSYX (channel six), and they also have a management contract to run WTTE (channel twenty-eight.) They are currently asking the Federal Communication Commission if they can buy another fifty stations, ultimately reaching seventy-five percent of the United States. The FCC, the same group that ended “net neutrality” a couple of months ago so that internet providers could find more ways to profit from internet speed, is controlled by Republicans, so Sinclair’s politically conservative view will get a sympathetic hearing.

There is a valid argument that the FCC should prevent any one media source from so dominating the market. In the past, there were rules in place to prevent such massive saturation, and those rules served us well. Today, broadcasters are acting on the rules as they exist, and it’s hard to blame Sinclair for expanding their business.

This past weekend, Sinclair Broadcasting had many of its local “news anchors” read the same script, decrying “fake news” and “bias in the media.” Sinclair owns the stations, Sinclair employ the news anchors; those anchors did as they were told.

The Sinclair Statement

Sinclair is a private corporation, and has every right to have an editorial voice on the stations they own. Even back in the 1960’s, my father the station manager would occasionally read an editorial representing the corporation’s views (and we kids would gladly critique how he did on TV.) When USA Today, a newspaper marketed throughout the country, writes an editorial it goes out to the nation. So do they “national” newspapers like the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame) the New York Times and the Washington Post. It’s on the editorial page.

And Sinclair has a corporate spokesman that they use as part of their newscast. Boris Epshteyn, a former spokesman for the Trump campaign, now does editorial segments that are shown on the Sinclair stations. So what’s the big deal about Sinclair sending a script for their local news anchors to read.

The difference is the blending of factual news and editorial opinion. We have an expectation, especially of local news reporters, that they will give us the facts about the stories they report, without their own opinions. And while that distinction is more difficult to make on the national level, the news reporters of NBC, CBS and ABC (and NPR) are still generally reporting “the facts.” This is not as true of “cable news” of course, where it sometimes is difficult to determine bias, from CNN to MSNBC, and, Fox News.

But we expect the local news to gives us the facts (in fact, the National Association of Broadcasters is running an advertising campaign based on that expectation.) And when our trusted local reporter reads an editorial script provided by the national owner, it blurs the lines. Is this “facts” as in news, or is this “opinion” as in not news (or as the President might decry – fake news?)

We are a nation of “buckets.” Folks listen or read or see the news from the sources that agree with their existing political opinion. It might be why MSNBC is locked onto our televisions (on now as I type.) It’s also why I sometimes find the need to get out of my comfort zone, and watch Fox News for a while (but not for long.) But local television: Colleen and Mike, Stacia and Bob, and Jerry and Yolanda; we depend on them for facts about traffic, city government, fires, and all the events of local importance. When they get stuffed into political buckets, we lose an important source of information.

Sinclair can editorialize, but they should keep the lines clear.

 

Don Dahlman (1980) VP Multimedia Broadcasting

I am a Liberal

I recently got embroiled in a Facebook discussion about guns. One of the participants wasn’t interested in the “pros and cons.” His goal: insult anyone who disagreed with his position. That’s the definition of a “troll,” and even those who disagreed with my positions called him out for it.

He called me a lot of names, but he seemed to think that the ultimate insult was “liberal.” I think I surprised him when I agreed – I am a Liberal.

I am a Liberal. What does that mean?

That it is the role of society to help those who cannot help themselves. We need to raise-up everyone in our society, and those that are more fortunate need to help those that are less fortunate.

Liberals believe that there are basic human rights for EVERY human, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, political philosophy, sexual identity, national status or other ways we can find to divide each other. This includes: safety, nourishment, clothing, shelter, education, health care, and opportunities to fulfill their dreams. Sounds a lot like the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence doesn’t it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are not optional, and they aren’t based on someone “earning” these rights. By virtue of their humanity, everyone should have them. As a Liberal, I believe it is the duty of our society (through our government) to make sure that ALL the members have the opportunity to those rights. For those who are less fortunate, the government should intervene to help them. By the way, isn’t that what government is supposed to do; those who don’t need government help are going to get along anyway. A government that serves those who don’t need help, sounds like the Russian kleptocracy of Vladimir Putin (and a good reason not to find ways to cooperate with Russia.)

Liberalism sounds a lot like the Constitution too, doesn’t it?

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Liberalism is a founding principal of the United States, imbedded in the words and faith of the founding fathers. As a Liberal I believe it is the destiny of the United States to fulfill the dreams of our founders by raising-up all of our society. We are not only the “city on the hill” example of the Bible and Ronald Reagan, but the “golden door” of Emma Lazarus. We are on a mission: to act as an example to the world, to help the world attain these same goals, and to welcome immigrants through the “golden door” and into our democracy.

Liberalism is the opposite of selfishness. And it is also the opposite of Communism, where the ultimate authority is the state. Liberals see the state as guaranteeing people attain their basic human rights, and enabling them to pursue their dreams. The state is not the ultimate authority (the people are) but it is the ultimate tool for individuals to reach their goals.

And finally, it is government’s job to intervene to fix societal problems. School shootings, inner city violence, rural hunger, global warming: all of these problems can and should be addressed by the government.

That’s what Liberalism is about. It shouldn’t be any surprise then, that Liberals “take a side” on the ongoing political issues of today.

We believe there is global warming, that humans are impacting on it, and that humans need to fix it.

We believe that our society of “gun culture” has created a dangerous environment, one that cannot be solved by adding MORE guns. We need to reach solutions that take military style weapons out of the hands of civilians, and we need to address the problems that cause gun use in the inner city.

We believe that education needs to be accessible (not just available) to every child. We believe that education is a path towards “…the pursuit of happiness” of the Declaration. People cannot “pursue happiness” if the cost of education puts them deeply in debt, therefore we need to find a way to pay for it. The returns on that investment would ultimately exceed the costs.

We believe that health care should not be an option, but a right. Our government should guarantee that health care is based on need, not ability to pay.

We believe that regardless of how people got to America, now they are here we have an obligation to their basic rights. This does not mean that we become a nation of open borders, but that we recognize that the United States is complicit in the reasons for illegal immigration and needs to take responsibility for the outcomes.

And finally, we believe that every American should be able to “pursue happiness” in their own way. Our nation should not be in the business of determining gender or identity. That is for individuals to determine.

When I wrote the introduction to “Trump World” over a year ago I said the following:

 In this age of “identification”, you can put my ideology in the Liberal column (I hate the new-speak “Progressive”) and politically in the Democratic party. Now you’ve got me categorized, it might be time to “turn me off”.   That’s what we do in this new political world: “turn off” any ideas that might conflict with our own: ideas that might pierce our little bubble. (Astronomy and the Trump Administration )

 That’s our political world today. But another reason for writing “Trump World” was to try to reach across the ideological barriers, and find common ground. By defining what I believe, I hope that those who see the term “liberal” as an insult can find common cause in liberal values.

 

 

 

The Right to an Attorney

The Supreme Court Case, Miranda v Arizona, guaranteed a defendant the “right” to an attorney. The famous Miranda Warning is on every cop show on TV, so much so that many have it memorized:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court. With these rights in mind, are you still willing to talk with me about the charges against you?”

The American Constitution and legal tradition is one of judicial fairness.   Fairness is maintained by balancing attorneys both for the government (the prosecution) and for the defendant. The phrase: “every defendant is entitled to an adequate defense” is also a part of our legal tradition. Even the most heinous crimes, from the Boston Bomber to the Parkland shooter, are provided with good and often highly expert attorneys to argue their case.

In the rarified world of Presidential “crime” there are only a few attorneys with great experience. David Boies and Ted Olson are two of those high-powered counselors.  They were on the opposing sides of the Bush v Gore case, the only contested Presidential election to go to the Supreme Court. Greg Craig and Robert Bennett were Clinton’s lawyers during his impeachment proceedings. Craig also represented Jonathan Edwards in the former Vice Presidential candidate’s campaign finance trial. These lawyers and a few others are the “A” team of Presidential defense.

None of them are working for President Trump. And that’s too bad.

No really, it’s too bad. Trump doesn’t even have a ‘C’ team. His only lawyer of “stature,” Ty Cobb, is actually representing the office of the President, not Trump himself. His lead lawyer, John Dowd, never had the stature of the traditional Presidential attorneys (hard to attain that while flipping off TV cameras and swearing at reporters.)  And he quit.

Meanwhile, it truly is an ‘A’ team of prosecutors under the Mueller umbrella. The top prosecutors in the nation, with varying areas of expertise, are primed and ready to take on the President. Trump needs to “up his game.”

There are several reasons attorneys choose not to work for Trump. Some are truly conflicted, already representing clients involved in the Russiagate scandal. One of the “big league,” Abbie Lowell, is representing Jared Kushner, and is thus barred from representing Trump. Even the ‘C’ lawyers Trump wanted to hire, Joe DiGenova and his wife, were conflicted by representing Mark Carallo, the former spokesman for Trump’s legal team who may be involved in obstruction of justice.

Some are concerned that representing Trump will damage their firm. Other clients, particularly corporate clients, don’t want their lawyers connected with Trump. And some think that a connection with Trump will damage their reputation.

And finally, Trump has a reputation for not paying for services. This is a case that will require millions of dollars; no firm is looking to do it for nothing.

So Trump’s main lawyer at the moment is Jay Sekulow. Sekulow’s area of expertise is religious and Constitutional law, and while he defended the US Treasury in tax court, he has no criminal law experience. The team has also added Andrew Ekonomou, a former acting US Attorney, has worked on criminal and racketeering cases in Georgia. In 2000 at age fifty, he went back to Emory University to earn a PhD in medieval history.

Trump spent a great deal of time crying “foul” during the 2016 election campaign. He claimed he wasn’t treated fairly by the media, and that the election was rigged. He knows how to be a “victim,” and he has proven to be able to sell that to his base.

The difference between the “Trump Team” and the “Mueller Team” is obvious. The fact that “big league” attorneys won’t work for Trump is his fault (and personally satisfying) but it sets up a whole future scenario with Trump as the “victim” of those “smart Mueller guys.”

With the crisis that looms with the end of the Mueller investigation, Trump has already laid out his strategy of undercutting Mueller. “They are all Democrats,” “it’s an illegal investigation,” and “we weren’t experienced in national campaigns” all are excuses for losing to Mueller. They don’t need another: “no one would work for us.”

Trump has the right to an attorney. Like it or not, he needs a good one.

This for My “Gun Toting Friends”

I’ve noticed that Facebook is making me crazy. Many of my friends, often former students, are true believers in the Second Amendment. They have semi-automatic weapons, and they believe they have a right to them. I don’t agree with that, and I’m happy to argue the point with them.

But it’s not about civil discourse anymore. It’s about energizing your side by putting up Facebook posts that attacks the other side. Some are funny, especially the one that posts a picture of a car jack laid on its side, and says, “post this picture of an AR-15 to make you gun control friends crazy.” I bet it works.

But there’s a lot more that just don’t make sense to me. The kids of Parkland High School, radicalized by the experience of having their friends die, have stepped into the spotlight. They are mobilizing students, and adults, across the country; and they are calling for a ban on assault weapons. Their experience gives them the right to have an opinion.

But there are many, many posts that denigrates their right to an opinion, they are “just kids,” and even question their validity (one post claims that one of the kids is a “crisis actor” that goes from national crisis to crisis to push a pro gun control view.) As a social studies teacher, it was always one of my goals to teach my students how to argue for their view. As a teacher, back in the day, I would take whatever side needed help in our classroom discussions. The one rule: you can’t argue the person, just the facts and opinions. When you drop to the “you’re stupid” argument – you’ve lost!

Now as a retired teacher, I have put my political and social views out for public view. I must have been pretty good at hiding my real opinions, because lots of folks are surprised at what I believe. But sometimes I want to go back to that classroom, and remind folks that if you can’t argue facts and opinions, you must not have a very strong argument.

I know that guns are a powerful issue in our country. I know when “my side” says, “we aren’t going to stop hunters,” they miss the point. Many gun advocates hold that having guns is a means of defending their democracy. It ain’t about deer, it’s about our society. That’s a discussion we all need to have. We (my side) can’t just laugh them off as “black helicopter” folks, we must understand that their views are real, and the feeling, legitimate.

But attacking the kids at Parkland, or those that fear government crackdown, or anyone who has the courage to step out and voice their views, is just a form of bullying. We live in the same country, we need to be able to talk through the issue. That’s the first step to reaching some consensus in our world.

It’s About Counting

While all of the other issues fill the news, from Stormy Daniels to Russian expulsions; Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has quietly made a decision to help maintain Republican power. It consists of a simple question on the 2020 Census: are you and members of your household US citizens?

It seems like an obvious question to ask on the census. The Department of Justice requested that the Commerce Department (who actually conducts the census)  add the question in order to gain information, supposedly to enforce the Voting Rights Act, guaranteeing minority voting rights. But the inclusion of this question is likely to have an insidious impact on the census, changing the actual count.

The Constitutional goal of the census (Article 1, Section 2, Part 3) is to get a count of the number of people in a state, for the purpose of dividing Congressional representation. The count is NOT a count of voters or citizens, and in fact, the original Constitution contained the famous 3/5’s clause (3/5’s of all other people – referring to slaves) as part of the count. Clearly slaves weren’t considered citizens or voting for representatives, but they were counted (at least in fraction) for the purpose of Representation.

So the census is supposed to count everyone, including those living in the United States illegally. When the census questionnaire is passed out (or when census takers go door-to-door) households are required to answer it, but are assured that the results will be confidential. So why would a simple question about citizenship raise such concerns?

Citizenship status in the United States is a major question of our time. Heads of households, responsible for answering the census questionnaire, might have in their homes folks who have overstayed their visas and are in the US illegally, or might have DACA eligible folks, or might have perfectly legal Americans in their home who are worried about the actions of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) rounding up “illegals.” By answering the question on the census, they will feel that they are providing information that could target them for “enforcement.”

So they dodge the census, and avoid being counted (this has already been shown in “test census” questionnaires.) This reduces the number counted in that state, and could change the representation to the US House of Representatives.

The Republican Party has intentionally pursued a policy of suppressing Democratic voting since 2008. It has been an extremely effective plan, including demanding photo identification to vote, “purging” voting roles of voters who fail to vote in every election, making voting more difficult in heavily Democratic voting districts, and gerrymandering Districts to maximize Republican representation. While each of these actions are legal, they have had the net effect of “rigging the game” for Republicans.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are good examples of this. Donald Trump got 54% of the popular vote to Hillary Clinton’s 44% in 2016, a clear Republican victory. However, in Ohio State House of Representative, Republicans won 66% of the seats, far exceeding even the popular Trump campaign. In Pennsylvania, Trump eked out a victory 48.1% to 47.5%, but 67% of the State House seats went to Republicans.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are in the process of disentangling the gerrymandered Districts. Pennsylvania’s courts are forcing the issue there, while Ohio is working through the legislative process to make Districts more representative of the views of their citizens. But the national Republican Party is continuing to follow “the plan” by putting a question on the census which by design will reduce the number of minority Americans who will be counted. In other words, reduce the “population” of likely Democratic areas, thus increasing the relative power of Republican districts.

In the final analysis, the Republican strategy is short sighted. While these tactics may maintain their power for a little longer, in the end, America is becoming a more “minority” nation. If Republicans don’t recognize that change, they ultimately will find themselves with the Federalists and Whigs, relegated to the historic trivia bin.

But in the meantime, every resident should be counted. The census should not be a place for partisan targeting, it should be the one place where we can find out accurately what is happening in America. It’s what the founding fathers, with all of their flaws, wanted, and it’s what America needs today. Secretary Ross should drop the question.

 

Don’t Change the Subject

Saturday, March 24^th 2018, we saw what youth can do. Hundreds of thousands marched in Washington, and millions more marched across the country. They marched for change and for making their lives and ours, better. They are high school kids and they marched to claim possession of the power to end an American problem, a problem that older generations failed to solve.

Their speeches were articulate and moving. Even in a little rally at the county courthouse in Newark, Ohio, the high school students made their views clear, and asked for simple common sense.   They also spoke from their heart, from the fear of a generation taught to bar the door, huddle in the corner, and throw rocks and soup cans against a semi-automatic rifle.

They have made it clear: America should not be a land where mass shootings are commonplace. They see a the way to solve the problem, remove the weapons of war that have strangely been accepted into our society by the older generations. Yes, better mental health care; yes, better background checks; but the real solution is in the guns.

Don’t change the subject. Adults who see the power of the movement are drawn to deflect it for their own needs. Well meaning adults, even teachers. who want to see less bullying in schools, who want to see kindness in place of cruelty, are trying to co-opt the energy of the “revolution.” These adults are acting as a buffer for the NRA, distracting from the raw agenda that frightens the lobbyists. Don’t let them change the subject.

Politicians see a mass of energy, votes, and workers. They may share many of the “revolution’s” views, but they see a path to election through the kids. They want that energy behind them, so they race to lead the students. These kids don’t want or need to be lead. They are not interested in the traditions of transactional politics. Agree, don’t agree, to them it’s how do they get America to change. Politicians: don’t change the subject.

There certainly are adults who are “enabling” these students. As one of the student leaders said, “…I’m seventeen, I can’t make a hotel reservation.” Those adults are doing a great job of coaching, letting the students determine the course, and then helping them find the tools to get to their goals. There are parents and teachers and school administrators behind these kids, but they have found the way to let kids lead. They haven’t changed the subject, and they have kept the movement in the students’ hands.

And the students have expanded their movement to include not just victims of mass shootings. One of the most powerful speeches in Washington yesterday was by a young woman from South-Central Los Angeles. She spoke of the loss of her brother to gun violence, she learned to “duck” gunfire before she could read. We heard from black students from Chicago, where gun and police violence are part of their everyday lives. This is more than just the students who survived Parkland, it’s about kids who survive gun violence everyday.

The National Rifle Association will try to make this about “privileged Parkland kids.” They’ll try to pit rural versus urban kids, and they’ll try to convince America that there are only two choices: semi-automatic weapons or taking away the Second Amendment and all guns. These kids recognize that the subject is much more complicated, they aren’t falling for the NRA bait. Don’t let the NRA change the subject.

How can we enable these students without co-opting their movement? They are really asking for one thing:  that our vote becomes our tool for change. We must demand of our candidates that they accept a solution to end gun violence. If they do, then they get our vote, if they don’t, then we vote them out. That’s how we can support this “revolution.” And, we can’t let others change the subject.

 

As Seen on TV!!!

I take a few days off to travel across the country, and look what happens. Sure, there’s the Porn Star, the Playgirl, and the Apprentice contestant; all suing the President for one sex related thing or another. And, of course, there’s the lawsuit filed by several states claiming that the President is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by profiting from the office of the Presidency. And then there was the congradulatory (sic) phone call to Vladimir Putin, praising him for rigging the Russian election and killing off his opponents. Oh, and forgetting to mention that Putin used nerve gas to try to kill a former spy in the United Kingdom. And then there’s the $60 Billion trade war with China, and a 700 point drop in the Dow Jones Average.

It’s hard to imagine a worse week for President Trump.

But here we are. Thursday was another crazy day in Trump World. John Dowd, the President’s lead attorney for the Russiagate investigation, resigned. His replacement, already hired in the reverse world of Trump, is Fox Television personality and analyst Joe DiGenova. DiGenova, whose recent law practice consists of going on Fox and claiming that the FBI was plotting against Trump, meets the requirements for the President’s new strategy towards the Mueller investigation.

It seems that Dowd, and his compatriot Ty Cobb, were presenting a defense based on “facts” they believed showed that Trump was innocent of any charges of conspiracy (collusion) with the Russians. Their “innocence strategy” included being cooperative with the investigators, and waiting for Mueller to prove the President’s position.

It doesn’t seem to be happening; Mueller continues to rack up more facts that raise questions about Trump’s involvement, and his vulnerability to influence and blackmail. An “innocence defense” won’t work if the client isn’t innocent. DiGenova represents Trump’s change in strategy: now it won’t be about the “facts,” but about the biased investigators who are trying to “overthrow” the elected government. DiGenova’s employment means that things will get very ugly; it’s Trump’s move to go “to war” against the Mueller team.

It’s likely that Trump will soon move against Mueller, following the “Saturday Night Massacre” example of the Watergate years.

Hard to imagine, but that wasn’t the worst reality TV of the day. Over the past fourteen months, one of the quiet saving graces of the Trump administration was the presence of the “adults” in the room. Secretary of State Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Mattis, Chief of Staff Kelly, and National Security Advisor McMasters were considered the calming forces in the turmoil of Trump World. By Thursday, Tillerson and McMasters were gone (fired, by tweet or phone call.) Replacing Tillerson at State: Mike Pompeo from the CIA, a “hard liner” on issues like Iran and North Korea.

And, as seen on TV, the replacement for McMasters is a real bomb thrower. John Bolton, most recently a Fox Commentator (“we should pre-emptively bomb North Korea”) and chairman of a conservative political action committee (over $1 million from the Mercer’s of Trump-Bannon and Cambridge Analytica fame) is to take the National Security role. McMasters has been the calming voice in the White House, Bolton hasn’t ever found a war he didn’t like. When Trump starts thinking about using his “bigger button,” Bolton is likely to push it for him.

It’s Friday morning. Is Kelly next on the Trump “hit list?” Will Mattis stay? When (not if) will Mueller be fired? And what will Stormy Daniels say or show on “60 Minutes” Sunday evening? It would be a great TV drama, if it wasn’t real.

How long will this go on? The question is really one for Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell. Now that they have passed their omnibus budget (which Trump this morning threatened to veto) will they finally begin to pressure Trump to end the drama? Don’t bet on that outcome, they are in for the entire season of Trump World.

 

It’s been 37 days since the school shootings at Parkland High School.  Tomorrow (Saturday 3/24) students and their supporters across the country will march for change.  Their power and dedication is amazing:  and the children shall lead!!!

 

 

 

 

Stone’s Dream

Roger Stone was twenty-one when he was called in front of the Watergate prosecutors in 1973. He had been a “dirty trickster” in the Richard Nixon re-election campaign for the past two years. Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (ironically known as CREEP) had a secretly funded wing, led by lawyer Donald Segretti, to sabotage opposition campaigns.

Nasty letters, cancelled rallies, misdirected motorcades: dirty tricks to disrupt and distract. And sometimes, more serious attacks: the “Canuck Letter” written by the Nixon team took out the strongest Democrat, Maine Senator Ed Muskie. Nixon ended up running against a far weaker Senator George McGovern from South Dakota. It was one of the largest electoral landslides.

Stone, the youngest to testify in Watergate, to this day believes that the Nixon campaign didn’t do anything wrong. He has lived his life by the model of those Nixon tricksters, on the fringe of New York Republican politics, priding himself in his scams and false dealings. He became a protégé of Roy Cohn, the infamous lawyer from the McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s.

Stone has Richard Nixon’s face tattooed on his back. He’ll take his shirt off and show you. His dream is to re-write history.

Cohn introduced Stone to another client, Donald Trump.

Stone has been the informal political advisor to Trump for the past two decades. He claims that the Presidential run was his idea, and was an early member of the Trump campaign. He left the campaign early as well, but continued to work for Trump “from the outside.” In Roger Stone’s case, that’s probably on or over the edge of legality. Stone clearly was in contact with Julian Assange of Wikileaks about the leaked Democratic emails during the summer and fall of 2016.

The Watergate break-ins, the proximate cause of the Watergate scandal, took place in June of 1972. It was a petty bugging operation of the Democratic National Headquarters, and while the break-in itself was “small time,” it led to two major issues that brought down the Nixon Presidency. The first was the illegal use of campaign money, millions of dollars in cash in a closet, to fund the illegal operations. Those operations weren’t just campaign related, as Nixon also used his “Plumbers” to break into the offices of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist trying to find incriminating information on him (Ellsberg was the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers recently highlighted in the film “The Post”.)

The second issue became the case against the President himself. He directly participated in a major effort to obstruct justice by covering up the campaign and White House staff’s involvement in illegal activities. He tried to use the FBI and CIA to block investigations, he bribed people, and did everything he could to discredit the forces against him.

And, if Roger Stone is in part orchestrating the Trump response to Russiagate, he is following the Nixon playbook. Watergate failed to reach the level of court or Congressional investigation until the summer of 1973. Until then, the “crisis” was sustained by the press, notably Woodward and Bernstein of the Washington Post, but, then as now, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were involved, as well as other papers. CBS news, and particularly Daniel Schorr, were also part of continuing the story.

Nixon did his best to attack and discredit the press, using both his press secretary Ron Ziegler, and other administration officials. Vice President Spiro Agnew described the press this way:

“A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Stone has Trump on the same game plan, but this time with a powerful tool to bypass the media. Twitter has allowed Trump to speak unfiltered to the masses. The reporters aren’t “effete snobs,” they are now just all “fake news.” It’s actually been an effective strategy, especially with Fox News following the President’s lead. Ultimately though, like Watergate, the investigation has moved to the professionals. In Watergate it was Archibald Cox and his team, today it’s Robert Mueller.

Nixon fired Archibald Cox in the famous Saturday Night Massacre of October 1973. Stone believes that Nixon should have followed up the firing with a bonfire, burning the incriminating audio tapes on the White House lawn in order to “preserve executive privilege” over the information. Instead Congress appointed a new prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who continued the Court process to force the release of those tapes. When, in July of 1974 Nixon was forced to turn them over (Nixon v United States, US Supreme Court) the evidence clearly showed Nixon’s guilt and he was doomed.

Stone won’t let Trump make the same mistake. When the “hammer drops” on Mueller, Stone will make sure the investigation doesn’t continue. That means (or meant) Andrew McCabe out at FBI, and Chris Wray on notice that the Russia investigation is a career ender. It means Devin Nunes’ efforts to discredit any evidence showing Trump conspiracy with the Russians will actually have an impact; as cover for the “good” Republicans to use when they refuse to appoint another Special Counsel. Stone’s goal: no Leon Jaworski and no Supreme Court this time.

Stone is quietly communicating with the “Trump stalwarts” in the Congress, most notably Congressman Matt Goetz from Florida. As Trump loses more and more of his inner advisors, Stone remains at the other end of the phone late at night, helping the President maintain office.

Stone’s dream: this time they’ll get it right, and show the world how “hard ball” is played. This time, Nixon (whoops – Trump) won’t be forced from office. This time, and for all time, the men who dedicated themselves to Nixon/Trump will prevail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts of a Guilty Man

A may seem simplistic, but an innocent man tends to act innocent, and a guilty one guilty. Innocent folks are open, they are willing to cooperate, they are willing to discuss. If you need an example James Comey would certainly be one: he is open, he is willing to discuss, there is no subterfuge, even about the questionable decisions he made about the Clinton email investigation.

Oddly enough, another innocent (seeming) man is Sam Nunberg. As “manic” as his reactions to the Mueller subpoena seemed to be, he came across as an innocent guy, who wanted to defend his friend Roger Stone, and who was overwhelmed with the task of searching through three years of emails. His “manic” behavior, going from one interview to the next, made us question his mental health, but not his guilt. This contrasts to Carter Page, who also did a whole series of bizarre interviews. Page left us with the feeling that he was either nuts, or playing the “nut” role. I’m betting on the latter.

So let’s take the Trump side for a moment, and look at the defense strategy he has taken.

The first move was to immediately deny any and all charges of “collusion” (whatever that term means, the legal charge would be conspiracy.) He’s done that since January of 2017, when the Steele dossier was first revealed. Every step in the investigation since then has been followed with the claim of “…no collusion here…”

The next move was to discredit the investigators. When the Russia investigation began, it was led by the media. “FAKE NEWS” was the cry, and every detail was challenged. Michael Cohen (Trump’s private lawyer) immediately initiated a lawsuit against the first publisher of the Steele Dossier, Buzzfeed. Attacks against journalists began (and continue) from Jim Acosta at “Fake News CNN” to Michael Schmidt at the “failing New York Times,” to “sleepy eyed Chuck Todd that son of a bitch” at MSNBC.

Fake News, Fake News, Fake News, Fake News: over and over again, denying the truthfulness and the accuracy of the American media. And while many Americans have been able to get past the background noise, to those looking for a Trump defense, this was the first and foremost.

As the investigation moved to its legal phase, the attacks changed to include the investigators themselves. They claim that the FBI (the same agency that impacted the outcome of the 2016 election by revealing further Hillary Clinton email investigations) was corrupted against Trump. There were texts between a lead FBI agent and his “paramour” (gotta love that word – it characterizes the illicit nature of both participants) showing they hated Trump (and Clinton and Bernie Sanders – but we never get much on that.) They fire the leader of the agency, Comey, then attack his replacement, McCabe.

They bring in Rod Rosenstein, then immediately begin to attack him (“a Democrat from Baltimore” – not true by the way.) Soon it’s a picture of an entire Department of Justice gone rogue, from Rosenstein through the FBI.

There is no real evidence that any of this is true, it’s all two plus two equal five stuff. But it doesn’t matter. Damage the investigators, and call into question the outcome of the investigation, even before the outcome has come out! These are the actions of someone who presumes guilt, not innocence.

And what about Robert Mueller himself? Other than the repetitious claim that his team is “Democrats” there has been little else said about the investigators. The FBI has borne the brunt of the charges; the lawyers and investigators working out of the Mueller offices have been immune so far. They are the final target – when Trump goes directly after Mueller, either through word or deed (attempting to fire him) we will know that the end is near.

When you step back from the details of the fray, insults, interviews, indictments and investigations; what you see is a long term pattern: actions of guilt. I don’t claim to know what Trump is guilty of, more likely financial failures than direct campaign violations (though everything is possible) but he sure is acting like a guilty man.

 

Crocodile Tears

Let’s get one thing straight. The Russians hacked the 2016 election. They may have altered actual votes. They definitely altered social media and magnified our differences (and continue to do so.) We have not “paid them back” for their actions.

But, the proximate cause of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss was the actions of the FBI. The polling results are clear. Before the famous “Comey Letter” of October 28^th, Clinton was surviving the storms of Wikileaks’ released emails. Trump was struggling with the impact of the “Access Hollywood” tape. Comey’s letter, reopening the investigation into the Clinton emails, flipped the polling. She never recovered.

It’s odd that President Trump has taken such hatred towards Comey, McCabe, Storzk and the rest of the FBI. I understand his resentment of Mueller; but those other guys are the REASON he got elected. Pay-backs are a bitch, I guess.

So “Dems,” let’s not cry “crocodile tears” for the “gallant heroes” of the FBI. James Comey, as much of a Boy Scout as he appears, is the reason we are living with Trump in the first place. Had he left his black and white Boy Scout world, he could have found a gray answer that didn’t require him to alter the US democratic process. If he had followed the black and white rules of his own Department of Justice, he would have kept his letter “shut.” He felt that there was a greater moral calling, and he changed history.

And Andrew McCabe today reigns as the role model for the modern FBI agent. Intelligent, ambitious, willing to deal with the nuances of intelligence work, McCabe made the decision to allow the “Weiner Computer” crisis to sit on his desk for three weeks. It was only at the last minute that he determined that something had to be done (the Comey letter.) This was perhaps to head off the internal politics of leaks from the New York FBI office, whose members were using Rudy Guiliani to get their information to Fox News.

Absolutely, Attorney General Jeff Sessions knifed McCabe in the back last night. Whether the internal investigation showed wrong-doing or not, clearly the “due process” that should be afforded to all employees was not followed. What should have been weeks if not months of deliberations, hearings, and discussions; got done in four hours.

Sessions likely did so in an effort to keep his own job. Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t really need an excuse to fire Sessions, but one would be nice. Sessions followed the clear dictates of his President (“…who will bring me the head of that wretched priest…”) making sure that McCabe can’t get full benefit of the twenty some years with the Bureau.

It’s petty. It’s vindictive. It’s everything we think about the Trump Administration, from firing by tweet to close advisors who become “volunteers who hardly helped.” And it probably damages the Bureau, putting agents on notice that theirs is a most political world. Mueller better back up his files.

But let’s not cry crocodile tears for McCabe, Comey and the rest. Whatever their intentions in October of 2016, when they revealed the Clinton investigation but hid the Trump investigation, they made their “big boy” decisions. They altered the course of American history. They stuck us with this President.

 

Musical Chairs

The game has begun. It started a few weeks ago, when the fallout from the lack of security clearances at the White House finally caught up with the Trump Administration. Robert Porter, the Staff Secretary, heard the music stop, and found that he had no place to sit without a security clearance. Allegations of abuse against two wives, already known to the White House Counsel (and presumably the Chief of Staff John Kelly as well) leaked out to the public. Mr. Porter needed to exit the game.

Next came White House Communication Director Hope Hicks. After her meeting with the Mueller Investigation, and then a House Committee hearing where she admitted to telling “white lies” for the President, it was time for her to lose a place.

Then the President’s body man, John McEntee was up. It seems he has a gambling problem.

But the bigger chairs were opening up too. Gary Cohn, Chief Economics Advisor ignored on tariff policy, it was time for him to go. And now Rex Tillerson, long abused Secretary of State, has been unceremoniously shown the door (through a tweet.) CIA Director Mike Pompeo was tapped to fill his place.

Last night, conservative columnist Bill Kristol posted the following:

This is RUMINT, but pretty credible RUMINT: Trump preparing to fire Sessions, name Pruitt Acting AG (which he can be since he already holds a Senate confirmed position), and Pruitt fires Mueller. And McMaster likely to be replaced by Bolton. Shulkin also on way out, FWIW.

RUMINT = Rumored Intelligence

FWIW – for what it’s worth.

Under the “Vacancy Reform Act of 1998” the President of the United States has multiple choices to fill a vacant position. One choice is to follow the Constitutional pattern: nominate someone for the job, then wait for Senate hearings and a confirmation vote. This fills the position “permanently.” In the meantime, the normal line of succession within the agency would be followed. For example: Trump fires Sessions, nominates someone else for the job, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein acts as Attorney General until the appointment is confirmed.

The second method is for the President to appoint an “acting” person to the position, then nominate someone else for the “permanent appointment.” The “acting” person must have already passed Senate muster for another job, may only serve 210 days, and cannot be the nominee for the position. In this scenario: Trump fires Sessions, orders Tom Pruitt from EPA to run both the EPA and be Acting Attorney General, then at the President’s leisure, nominates someone to the Attorney General job.

This has already been done with the Consumer and Finance Protection Bureau. Richard Cordray, now a candidate for Governor of Ohio, resigned as Director. Mick Mulvaney, Director of Office of Management and Budget, was further detailed as acting Director of CCFB (ostensibly to dismantle the agency, though Mulvaney denies it.)

The Mueller investigation seems to be tightening around the President and his family. With increasing evidence that the President was directly effected by US sanctions against Russia in 2014 and tried to bargain them away during the election, and damning information on the conflicts of interest Jared Kushner has between his actions as a Senior Counsel to the President and begging for investments in his New York real estate disasters; it actually seems inevitable that Trump would look for a way to lash back at the Mueller team. Here’s how it may go.

Step One

The Department of Justice has just wrapped up its investigation of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. A recommendation has been made that McCabe, who has less than a week until he can officially retire, be fired from he Bureau (thus preventing him from collecting his pension.) The final say on what happens to McCabe is in the hands of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Whatever Sessions does: fire McCabe or allow McCabe to keep his pension; could be the final grounds for dismissal that Trump is looking for.

Step Two

Trump fires Sessions (probably by an early morning tweet) and appoints Pruitt (former Attorney General of Oklahoma) to the job of Acting Attorney General. This puts the Mueller Investigation in a difficult position. Muller currently acts under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, after Sessions recused himself from all Russia related matters. Pruitt is not recused, and could take charge of the Mueller team. In that capacity, he could limit the scope of investigation and indictments, or fire Mueller himself.

Step Three

Even if Mueller is not fired, it is unlikely that he can bring indictments against a serving President. (Current Justice Department policy opposes this, if Mueller were to bring such an indictment, it would be possible grounds for dismissal.) Mueller can make recommendations and reports (including recommendations for impeachment to a Congressional committee) as well as bring charges, but the recommendations and reports are made to the (Acting) Attorney General, who then determines what happens to them (go public, for example) from there. Since Pruitt would be in charge, Mueller would have to submit to him, and Pruitt could withhold the entire report.

Step Four

All is not lost. If Mueller is fired, the investigations will revert back to the FBI, where Director Chris Wray would be in charge (the same place where this all started with Director Comey.) While the Attorney General would still have overall supervision of the FBI case, charges can still be brought. In addition, a Congressional Committee could subpoena a Mueller or FBI report, forcing it into the public. That of course, would require the Congressional Committee to be willing to do so, in short, be controlled by Democrats. This makes the outcome of the November elections even more important. There is also the unlikely possibility that the current Republican leaders of the House would see a Mueller firing as a “bridge too far” and act (but don’t hold your breath for that.)

And what about National Security Advisor HR McMasters (has too many details for the President), Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke (first class trips and expensive doors), the aforementioned Tom Pruitt (first class trips), HUD Secretary Ben Carson (expensive furniture and family on the payroll), and VA Secretary David Shulkin (took wife to European vacation on taxpayer money), and of course, the man who actually tries to ORGANIZE the President, Chief of Staff John Kelly?  And of course the clock must be ticking for  Jared and Ivanka Trump (too many to number.) Don’t be surprised by any or all of their departures, the music is about to end. The better question is, who will be “the replacements” to sign up for this game of “find  your chair, lose your reputation?”