Category: Uncategorized

Stressing the Foundations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is essay number 201!!!  

At What Price?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Lessons Already Learned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

The News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Happy Anniversary, Mr. Mueller

If you missed yesterday, you missed a lot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The President Trump Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Money Can Buy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s what money can buy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lester Kahrig

Lester passed away this week.  He was in his nineties.  I got to know Lester as a fellow employee; I was coaching and Lester was our frequent bus driver for team trips.  He took us all over the Midwest, staying with us on overnight trips. I think he enjoyed being in the hotel, amused as my coaches and I wrangled the kids into their rooms for the night.

When we stopped at my parents’ house in Cincinnati after a cross country meet, Lester managed to back the school bus down their long driveway, then manned the grill as we cooked for forty kids.  He never raised his voice, he never complained, he was forever a kind, caring friend both to me, and to the kids on the team.

Lester’s passion was his kindergartners.  His regular route was transporting those little ones to school and back, on what was often their first excursion away from parents.  Lester was gentle; he was their protector.  He loved those kids, and they knew it, and they loved him back in return.

The week after 911 was traumatic.  I spent four days struggling to explain to my high school classes what happened, why it happened, and what might come next.  On Friday night, I wrecked my car, totaling the Suburban.  I was shaken but uninjured.  Saturday morning I arrived early at the school; we were headed to Galion, Ohio for a cross country meet.  Lester was our driver.

As I got on the bus, Lester and I talked about the week.  We talked about what could happen to the kids we were driving, some of whom did end up serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.  He told me his story:  a seventeen year old boy from Eastern Ohio who went into the Army in World War II, invaded the Philippines, then caught malaria.  He spent the rest of the war in Hawaii, stacking bombs in the caves above Pearl Harbor.

I don’t know a whole lot about Lester’s life in between.  I did know his wife, she did beautiful paintings on saw blades.  I have one, a scene from a cross country meet, hanging in my home.  But what struck me most about Lester, was the contrast of the seventeen year old, wading ashore in invasion, who became so important a part of so many little lives.

Lester passed away this week.  He was one of the “Greatest Generation,” and was one of the finest men I’ve known.

 

 here’s the story of Lester’ here’s the story of Lester’s family from the local Monroe County Newspaper

Dirty Money

President Trump is constantly calling the Mueller Investigation a “Witch Hunt,” repeating over and over that there was “no collusion” and that it’s a waste of his time.  The Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, led by Chairman Mark Meadows and founding member Jim Jordan are demanding that the Mueller Investigation end, and that a Special Counsel be appointed to go back through the Hillary Clinton emails once again.  House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, with the “blessing” of retiring Speaker Paul Ryan; are demanding the scope and sequence documentation for the Investigation to make sure it has not gone “out of bounds.”  From past actions, Nunes will read the classified information, then run (not walk) to the White House to tell them what’s going on.

Yesterday, the normally reticent Vice President Pence called for an end to the Investigation. Articles of Impeachment have been drawn up for Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein, then leaked to the public. And of course, the Trump (FOX) Cable channels are echoing every cry to end the Investigation, castigating the Mueller team, and discounting any news that might indicate the Investigation has merit.

For the majority of Americans who want to see the Mueller team complete their work (Boston Globe) the right-wing political and media blitz calling for an end is like a constant dull throbbing.  Many despair that the results will ever be known, fearing that the growing swamp of Trumpism will somehow swallow the probe and its results.

But, over the last couple of weeks, the “Investigation” has fought back.  It might be a series of happy coincidences, it might be parallel strategies, or it might be a “conspiracy.”  Whatever the plan, there is some hope.

It started last week with two public appearances by Rod Rosenstein.  In one, a question and answer session, Rosenstein stated, “…the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted.”  He also called out those that wrote and leaked the Articles of Impeachment, saying they “…didn’t have the courage to associate themselves with the effort.”

In the second appearance, a law day speech to Maryland’s Montgomery County Bar Association, he laid out the case of a career Department of Justice employee, who would not be deterred or deflected from his search for the truth.  He made it clear that he would allow the Mueller Investigation to follow through, as long as he remained in charge.

Then the attorney for Porn Actress Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, came from a completely different direction.  Avenatti, who has become a regular on MSNBC and CNN, managed to connect the Daniels lawsuit to the Mueller Investigation.  He reported that Trump attorney Michael Cohen received payments of millions of dollars from multiple sources, including ATT and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and most importantly, a US company that is ultimately owned by Russian oligarch Victor Vekselberg.

With millions funneled to Cohen, including the Russian money, it comes closer to answering the question that Mueller critics keep raising:  after a year of investigation, is there a “there – there.”  Avenatti’s information, however he was able to get it, shows that there was a direct financial transfer from Russia to a Trump employee, in fact, his personal attorney.  It leads of course, to the obvious question, where did that money go?

Cohen  claims that he had to borrow money with a second mortgage on his home to pay off the $130000 owed Stormy Daniels.  He also has taken out a loan on his condo in Trump tower for $9 million.  He’s borrowing a lot of money for someone who has been paid multiple millions in the past twelve months for “influencing” the President.  If he doesn’t have that money, then who does?

Retired US Prosecutors have opined that the Avenatti information could hinder the Mueller probe, by warning possible witnesses that they may be questioned.  However, Mueller has already questioned ATT and Novartis (in November and December) and stopped Vekselberg for search and questioning at a New York airport in March.  In short, Mueller is months ahead of the public release of information.

Rosenstein has made it clear that he will fight to continue the Mueller investigation.  Avenatti has presented information that shows that there is a financial connection from Russia to the Trump organization.  He is willing to use his position to publicly “out” Trump finances.  While the “stop the investigation” drumbeat may continue, it’s clear that the “no collusion” claim is untrue.  As it grows nearer to the “top,” the cries to end the Investigation will grow more shrill.  But now there is a public “there-there,” and it will be that much harder to stop.   How far and high it will reach, we don’t know yet – but Mueller does.

What WE’ve Done

In the days after 9/11, as the rubble in Manhattan smoked and the nation was in shock, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on “Meet the Press.”  Cheney was grim, and when moderator Tim Russert asked about the role of US intelligence in battling terrorism, he said the following:

 You need to have on the payroll some very unsavory characters if, in fact, you’re going to be able to learn all that needs to be learned in order to forestall these kinds of activities. It is a mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there, and we have to operate in that arena. I’m convinced we can do it; we can do it successfully. But we need to make certain that we have not tied the hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities in terms of accomplishing their mission.

It was the first notice that the policy of the United States was changing.  Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, led an effort for a “no holds barred” approach to terrorists.  “Black sites” were established by the CIA to hold and interrogate captured terrorists, kept outside of the United States for the specific purpose of avoiding the jurisdiction of US Courts.  Guantanamo Naval Base was chosen as the “prison camp” for the same reason: avoiding US Court jurisdiction, and therefore the rights and protections of the Constitution.

In August of 2002 the “dirty business” was codified by a Justice Department finding on torture. The finding, authored by John Loo (now a law professor at University of California, Berkley) drew a distinction between “enhanced interrogation techniques” and torture as defined by the Geneva Convention.  Loo argued that there was a difference between the “feeling” of extreme suffering and fear of death, and “actual” extreme suffering and fear of death.  The finding was signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee (now a Federal Appeals Court Judge.)

This then made waterboarding, feeding by “rectal infusion,” solitary confinement and long term forced nudity “legal.”  In a specific case where a terrorist was known to have a fear of insects, the Justice Department:

 “…advised the CIA that they could place the detainee in a box with an insect but that the CIA must ‘inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain.’”

The CIA conducted these “sessions” at the black sites.  They also brought “contractors” in who had fewer restrictions, leading to the abuses at the Iraqi prison Abu Gharib where “enhanced interrogation” led to rape, sodomy and murder.  Eleven soldiers were court martialed and sent to military prison and the commander demoted from general to colonel.  No other senior officers or civilians in the Defense Department were held accountable, though it certainly played a part in Rumsfeld’s ultimate resignation.

Gina Haspel, a career clandestine CIA operative has been nominated to lead the agency.  She has almost unanimous support of former CIA employees, and has had a distinguished career, rising through the ranks from a reports officer to station chief, clandestine site supervisor, Director of Clandestine Services, and Deputy Director of the CIA.  She is widely regarded as incredibly competent.

It was during her oversight of the clandestine site in Thailand that she supervised the “enhanced interrogation” of terrorists.  It was as Deputy Director of Clandestine Services that she signed an order authorizing the destruction of videotapes of those interrogations, tapes already subpoenaed by Congress and that showed hundreds of hours of torture.  She did both of these actions on the orders of her superior officers at the CIA.

Haspel’s nomination is controversial.  While she followed the orders of her superiors, Senators now are asking why she didn’t speak out against the torture that was going on under her command.  They also are demanding why she was complicit in the destruction of the evidence of that torture.  It’s appropriate for the Senators to ask these questions, but they are avoiding the bigger issue.

While Haspel’s nomination is in front of us, it isn’t fair to use her as the vehicle to confront this national shame.  The “Nuremberg Defense,” (only following orders) is not acceptable, but it also is not acceptable to attack the “little fish” while letting the leaders go free.  Torture is wrong now, it was wrong then, and it doesn’t work (ask John McCain.)

WE, the United States, have never held the “leaders” of the enhanced interrogation plan accountable.  WE have convicted soldiers, and demoted officers; but Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, then CIA Director George Tenet and President George W Bush have avoided responsibility.  And WE, Americans, are of mixed view as well.  WE have not really confronted that in our moment of peril, WE were willing to allow these actions.  Cheney made it clear from the week of the attack that WE would do anything.  WE did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bomb Iran

Three years ago, John Bolton, now President Trump’s National Security Advisor, authored a New York Times Op-Ed with the title: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”  In it he made a case for using military force against an Iranian nuclear program.  He stated:

An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

Yesterday, Ambassador Bolton got his first big success in the Trump Administration as the President withdrew the United States from the “Iran Nuclear Deal.” {While the deal is not a treaty, it is a technical agreement that the United States would remove sanctions on Iran in return for Iran stopping nuclear weapons development and allowing inspections. Rather than Bolton’s three to five-year set-back, it froze nuclear development with a ten year window.  The US withdrawal reneges on the agreement, and re-imposes sanctions.}

The Iran deal was the signature foreign policy success for the Obama Administration (and therefore a key target for Trump) and was negotiated with multi-lateral cooperation by many nations; the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China among them. Critically, it did NOT address Iranian support of terrorism in the Middle East, nor did it deal with Iranian territorial aspirations in Iraq.  It fixed on what was considered the most important issue:  preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  It provided a ten-year window for further negotiations, and continual inspections even after the agreement expired.

But President Trump changed that yesterday.  And while the other nations who were part of the deal vow to continue, the United States sanctions will make it near impossible for them to afford the economic cost.  So the Iran nuclear deal is probably over, and we are looking at a different Middle East today than we did yesterday.

The US resumption of sanctions will certainly have widespread consequences.  Internally, US businesses with open contracts in Iran (notably Boeing) will be cut off.  Internationally, sanctions will force our allies to choose between dealing with Iran or dealing with us.  Perhaps they will succumb to US pressure, or, just as the Chinese responded to new tariffs, they will simply choose to find other supplies.  China is buying Mexican soybeans, leaving US farmers out.

It is likely that Iran will begin to work on nuclear weapons, and will achieve nuclear “breakout” within a couple of years.  John Bolton and friends will then say, “I told you so” to their critics, though their actions opened the door to Iran’s effort.   Israel, and other Middle East powers, notably Saudi Arabia, will feel the military necessity to try to stop the Iranians, and we will see Bolton’s bombs falling soon.  The Middle East will be drawn to an all-consuming conflict, one that will inexorably draw United States to war.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only supports Trump’s decision, but was complicit in releasing “new information” (though it was known for years) to back Trump’s claim that the Iranians were cheating.  US officials, including Mattis at Defense and Pompeo at State, said that Iran was not.  Netanyahu sees Iran as the ultimate threat to Israel’s existence, and is more than willing to take military action to stop Iran’s nuclear progress.  While Israel can bomb alone, to get more comprehensive change they would require US assistance. Netanyahu would, along with Bolton, like to see regime change in Iran, in order to protect Israel’s long-term interests. However, the US has had little luck with regime change:  the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of good intentions gone wrong.

Should this happen, a regional war might not be the only consequence.  War in the Middle East would inevitably cause an energy crisis in the rest of the world, with petroleum supplies threatened and prices skyrocketing. And the other “major powers” of the world would maneuver to isolate the United States.  This might well put Russia and China on the Iranian side (Russia is cooperating with Iran now in Syria and China has helped Iranian missile technology in the past) creating a threat of escalation to a world war.

But the United States, who yesterday had the choice of using the next few years to negotiate a more comprehensive deal with Iran, now is left out.  President Trump, whose reputation is based on being the “great negotiator,” is gambling that the world will be forced to accept US sanctions, and will be able to drive Iran back to the table for a “better” deal.  The US, who two years ago was the world leader in striving for peace, has now lit the fuse to war, and is daring the world to respond.

 

 

 

 

The “Wiseguys” of Trump Tower

In the lingo of the “mafia,” a “wiseguy” is a member of a mafia crime family

James Comey in his recent book describes what President Trump reminds him:

“…flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the Mob. The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.”

Comey critics condemned the statement as hyperbole and exaggeration.  But in the past few weeks, evidence has emerged of actions by the Trump “team” that is more like the Mario Puzo’s “Godfather” than the business or political operation they claimed to be.

The first piece of evidence is part of the Stormy Daniels’ story.  Daniel’s, an adult film star, claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump in the 2006.  In 2011 a man approached Daniels in a parking lot.  Daniels states:

“(he told me) ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.’ And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl. It’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.”

Daniels’ infant daughter was in the back seat of the car.  Later, Michael Cohen, acting on behalf of then candidate Trump, offered Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about the affair.  Daniels, on advice from her then-counsel (who may have been in league with Cohen) accepted the deal.

The second piece of evidence deals with the bizarre doctor that served as Trump’s physician for the past thirty years.  Dr. Harold Bornstein, known for writing the “note” for Trump saying he would be the healthiest President to take office (Bornstein later admitted that Trump himself dictated what to write) claims that his office was “raided” by Trump operatives.

The raid was led by then Trump bodyguard (and at the time Director of Oval Office Operations, whatever that meant) Keith Schiller. Joining him was a Trump Organization lawyer and a third unknown individual, who came into Bornstein’s offices, demanding and seizing all of the Trump files.  In addition, they demanded that all Trump memorabilia, including pictures, be removed from the office.

The third piece of evidence is more insidious and concerning.  “Black Cube” is a private intelligence firm in Tel Aviv made up of former Israeli intelligence agents.  It gained unwanted recognition when it was publicized that film producer Harvey Weinstein hired them to get information to discredit the women accusing him of sexual assault and abuse.

According to multiple sources, Black Cube was hired to investigate two former Obama aides who were involved in the Iran Treaty negotiations.  The idea was to find ways to discredit the aides, in order to make it easier for Trump to discredit and withdraw from the Iran nuclear treaty. In both cases, Black Cube attempted to gain inside information by sophisticated “phishing” email attacks, as well as direct contacts where they pretended to be journalists.

Michael Cohen has stated that, “…he’d take a bullet for him (Trump).”  Trump himself has made it clear that the first priority is loyalty to himself.  The Trump organization has acted more like a criminal family than a corporation, threatening, refusing to pay bills, and ultimately using their size to bully competitors and contractors.

Robert Mueller continues his investigation of the Trump group and the Russian connections. Russia too is run like a gangster family, with Putin acting as the “Godfather” of the national regime. Perhaps this is the way to view both that makes the most sense.  Instead of thinking politics, think criminal.

Cohen, Stone, Don Junior, Eric and the rest:  they are the “wiseguys” of Trump Tower.

 

The Impeachment Machine

Let’s warmup the impeachment machinery.  There’s going to be plenty of use for it, and even the Radical Republicans of the Freedom Caucus are getting ready.  So let’s warmup on an easy case, one that everyone agrees makes sense.  In fact, this case makes so much sense that it’s hard to understand why the President hasn’t exercised his “executive authority” to fire the guy.  But the President has his own reasons for keeping him, so Congress should fire things up!

It starts with the House Judiciary Committee.  Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia is the leader, and several of the Freedom Caucus members are on the majority side, including Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, and Ohio’s own Jim Jordan.  They have continually argued against corruption in government, and they were some of the first in line to “drain the swamp.”  Here’s their chance!

No, it’s not President Trump.  Maybe later, if Democrats gain control of the House and the Mueller investigation shows direct conspiracy between Trump and the Russians. But it’s not time, not yet. And it’s not Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General either, though he seems to be the current target of the Freedom Caucus, and their compromised friend, Devin Nunes,  disreputable Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

There is a consensus candidate for impeachment, that almost everyone can get behind.  Since Trump won’t fire him – let’s impeach and remove Scott Pruitt, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Talk about draining a polluted swamp.  Pruitt has been the subject of weekly stories about his own personal corruption and aggrandizement.  Here are just some of the charges floating around.

• Even before he was confirmed as EPA Director, Pruitt was accused of taking direct funds from the Petroleum industry as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Not only did he accept political funding, but he directly used their language for proposed laws, and got a sweetheart deal for an expensive home.
• Once he arrived in Washington, Pruitt “rented” a trendy Capitol Hill townhouse from a lobbyist for the natural gas industry. His cost, $50/night, and only for the nights he stayed there.  Since Pruitt was often travelling (see below) he had the perfect hotel room.  By the way, getting a hotel room in DC for $50/night would mean staying in a place that the EPA would deem a Superfund Cleanup site.
• On assuming the Directorship, Pruitt demanded 24/7 security. This was a big change from the past – past Directors got protection from their residence to the EPA and back.  Pruitt wanted full time, full location security protection, causing a huge increase in personnel and obviously raising the cost.  He also wanted a bulletproof desk, and car, and lights and sirens (he tried to use them to get to a dinner reservation on time.)
• Pruitt had installed in his office a $43000 soundproof phone booth (not a secure communications site – or SCIF – which was upstairs) in order to have “private” conversations.
• Pruitt flew first class (against government regulations) and used charter and military aircraft. In the first four months his travel cost over $100,000.  His security detail cost even more, as he had full security protection for visits to Disneyland and a football bowl game.
• Pruitt gave subordinates huge raises, after the White House denied permission to give them. He redirected money from the Clean Water Act.
• Pruitt exiled or fired EPA administrators who criticized his actions.
• Pruitt travelled to Algeria to lobby for Natural Gas, an odd position for the EPA Director. The natural gas lobbyist was the owner of his townhouse.

With all of this, why doesn’t the President just fire him?  After all, he’s seems to be able to fire others at a “tweet,” just ask the huge list of former administration officials.  But, there are a couple of compelling reasons for Trump to keep him.

Pruitt is the “man off the bench” to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions if Trump decides to fire Sessions.  Pruitt, a former state Attorney General, could step in and as a loyal Trumpster; fire Rosenstein, Mueller or whoever else is in the way. In addition, Pruitt’s EPA is deregulating the energy industry, making things good for the petroleum industry (which means the Koch brothers and their huge political fund) as well as encouraging “clean” coal, whatever that means.

So Trump will keep Pruitt. But, if Republicans in Congress, and particularly the “holier than thou” Freedom Caucus, wanted to show that they could “drain the swamp” as promised; Pruitt is the obvious choice.  So crank up the machine:  Impeach Pruitt.

 

 

 

 

Pathways of Resistance

Donald Trump has been President for 1 year, 105 days, 22 hours, 55 minutes and 33 seconds at the moment I’m writing (there’s a webpage for that, surprise!)  From that moment of his inauguration, folks who couldn’t believe he was elected President have been saying:  what can I do to resist the changes he is making to our country?  How can I help to protect:

• the environment
• healthcare
• voting rights
• Dreamers
• Women’s Rights (including reproductive rights)
• Middle Class incomes
• Education
• Gun control
• Our children from going to war.

America has always had a tradition of loyal opposition.  In the past few years, as our politics have grown more divisive, it has become more difficult to see the “loyalty” in the actions of the opponents.  Everyone claims to be fighting for the “America” they believe in, but we seem to have an increasingly different view of what that nation looks and acts like.  Historically we’ve been here before, most notably in in 1850’s prior to the Civil War, but also in 1800, the mid-1820’s, the late 1880’s, early 1920’s, and the 1960’s – opposition and resistance are not new nor uncommon and it doesn’t always end in war.  Sometimes, it has brought wars to an end.

So in our current climate, what can be done to “Resist?”

First of all, the primary duty of all Americans, vote.  Past elections show that the more negative a campaign gets, the fewer people come to the polls.  Negative campaigns are designed to drive down the opponents’ votes, and clearly the 2016 election was impacted by the negative ads on both sides.  If this year’s primary is any indication, the general election of 2018 (at least here in Ohio) will be one of the “dirtiest” in history.  Low voter turnout inevitably favors Republicans, don’t let the trickery of campaign advertising keep you from voting.

Keep in mind it’s not just advertising on television, radio, or newspapers (for those who still read them.) It’s ads in social media, it’s biased or faked news articles, it’s the re-tweeted or shared post that makes outlandish claims.  All of these become a part of the decision making process, but, more importantly they create a climate where voters choose not to cast a vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but to sit out the whole process.  Don’t be “conned” that it doesn’t matter who you vote for:  if the election of 2016 taught us anything, it’s that every vote counts, even if it’s a “lesser evil” choice.

In keeping with advertising and social media, the second duty is to ascertain what is fact and what is propaganda.  In our ‘post-truth” society, reaching some common truths about issues is becoming more difficult.  Actual research may be required.  As part of finding the truth, resistance means bringing that truth to the public, to your friends and family, even to those who you know disagree with you politically.  It doesn’t have to be in an obnoxious way, but ultimately “fake news” continues because we passively accept it.  If every fake item is called out, then it will be more difficult for it to become “real.”

For example, currently Facebook is trending with the claims by opponents of the Iran Nuclear Treaty that Iran lied during the negotiations, and that the American diplomats, notably John Kerry, were fooled.  The primary source for this information is a speech by Benjiman Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel.  Netanyahu dredged up old intelligence from several years ago about the Iranian nuclear program, information that was well known to the negotiators at the time.  It has been presented as a treaty violation, but in reality, it outlined actions that Iran gave up as part of the treaty.

So resist by knowing what is true and what is “fake,” then refuse to accept the premise of the fake. Speak truth, even when it has to be whispered softly to friends who believe the falsity.  Give them doubts;  then let those doubts increase as they see a President who willingly lies to America.

Third: participate in the most American of activities, protest.  It can change things, from civil rights to Vietnam, from the labor movement to abolitionism to women’s suffrage to the most recent marches of the Parkland kids. Step out into the world, make a sign, walk and chant and don’t be afraid to change the world.  There will be political campaigns in the fall to help, and there are continual actions going on (particularly in Columbus  – here’s a web calendar of events, Resistance Calendar.)  If marching isn’t for you, then make your voice heard by writing about what issue concerns you most and putting it out on social media, or as a letter to Congress, or to the news media.  Or, write a blog (here’s mine – Trump World). Find a way to publicly express your view:  here’s what my artist sister and her friends did (Outrage – Artists Respond to Trump  and Impeach.)

Fourth:  the Mueller investigation is critical.  Should the President take the ultimate action of trying to obstruct it by firing Robert Mueller, Congress must be pressured into reacting.  The “plan” is already in place – find a march and join in if things get that far (Find a March.)

You may worry that you will lose your “friends” who disagree with you politically.  While this has happened to me, I’ve found that most of my friends respect my views, even if we don’t agree.  As polarized as our politics have become, most Americans are willing to accept that others may have differing beliefs, and still be “good” people. And, most Americans recognize that legitimate protest is our tradition, one that should be cherished even if we disagree.  This time it’s “our side,” who knows what the next time will be.  Find a way – and resist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rosenstein’s Dilemma

Rod Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, second in command in the Justice Department.  Born in Philadelphia, Summa Cum Laude at Wharton School of Economics and Cum Laude at Harvard Law; he has spent his entire career in service of his country with the Justice Department.  His previous job was as US Attorney for Maryland, where he was chosen by Republican George W Bush, and continued under Democrat Barack Obama.

Rosenstein became Deputy Attorney General by appointment from President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Due to his involvement in the Trump Campaign, Sessions recused himself from the Russia Investigation, leaving Rosenstein as the supervisor.  Rosenstein appointed his old boss, former FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct the probe.

Rosenstein has the obligation to serve three masters in his current assignment.  The first, as a member of the executive branch of the government, is the President of the United States.  While the Department of Justice has a long tradition of maintaining independence, ultimately they are a part of the Executive.  The President hired Rosenstein, he can fire him as well.

The second is his Constitutional duty to accept oversight from the legislative branch, the Congress. Congress has the authority to oversee the actions of executive agencies, and also has the power to control funding for those agencies.  Congress can, and should, know what actions are being taken, and have the obligation to ask questions and get answers.

The third is to the Constitution and law itself.  Rosenstein, as a career Department of Justice employee, has spent his whole career following the law.  He sees as his duty to prosecute those who break the law, and to make sure that no one is above the law.  As part of that duty, he cannot allow obstruction of an ongoing criminal investigation.

His dilemma:  the Mueller investigation is clearly centering on the actions of his ultimate boss, the President of the United States, Donald Trump.  Trump has to ability to fire Rosenstein (and appoint someone who would subsequently stop or fire Mueller) so Rosenstein’s job and career are in peril.  In addition, some Republican Congressmen, notably members of the “Freedom Caucus,” led by Chairmen Gowdy, Goodlatte and Nunes; are demanding un-redacted versions of the “scope and sequence” documents for the Mueller probe.  These documents are the roadmap for the investigation, and should they leak to possible subjects/targets, would make investigating much more difficult.

While the three Chairmen claim they are acting in their oversight role, it has already been demonstrated that classified information given to them has been used for political gain (see the House Intelligence Committee FISA report) rather than oversight of the Department.

In essence, the Chairmen are acting as “investigators” for the Trump defense team, trying to glean details so that the President can defend himself as the named “subject” of the Russia Investigation.

So Rosenstein faces the supreme dilemma:  which of the three masters has the highest call?  In statements made this past week, he made it clear where he stands.

On Monday, President Trump issued a Law Day Proclamation. The President said, “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty.” The point is that we do not achieve justice by polling the opinion of any person or group. We achieve justice through a process that seeks objective truth based upon credible and admissible evidence.

Rosenstein’s remarks (definitely worth reading in full) make it clear.  He said, “…when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation.”  The privilege of spending a career in the Justice Department obliges him to follow his highest loyalty, to the Law and the Constitution. This requires him to perform the “unpleasant duty” of refusing the requests of the Congressmen.

The Freedom Caucus may try to impeach Rosenstein for this refusal.  While one would hope Speaker Ryan would step into such a situation, his pending retirement may have emasculated him (or he retired because he already was.)  Clearly there is no majority in the House, far less a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict.  Rosenstein won’t lose his job by Congressional action.  And should President Trump use that as his excuse to remove Rosenstein, it will ignite a Constitutional crisis.

If we are a nation of laws, then obstruction of those laws is in itself a crime.  Rosenstein will not be a participant in obstruction, and Congress should not become a tool of obstruction either.

 

 

The Post Truth Era

James Comey was fired for his handling of the Hillary Clinton emails; or he was fired for failing to end the Russia investigation; or for not publicly stating the President was not a target; or failing to pledge loyalty to the President. Donald Trump didn’t know Stormy Daniels; didn’t pay Stormy Daniels; didn’t know Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels; paid Cohen back for paying Stormy Daniels.  The United States is going to build a wall on the Mexican border, we are building a wall on the Mexican border, we are repairing existing walls on the Mexican border.

We have entered a new era, when the “truth” ain’t true.  This isn’t only a Donald Trump phenomenon, this is a widespread occurrence, almost normal in daily life.  There is little that is universally accepted as true; every political, religious, and cultural faction has their own version of the truth.

We stop listening to those things we don’t believe are true.  We tune (or are tuned by our media) to see and hear our OWN TRUTH.  When an “opposing” truth slips in, we immediately see it as an outlier, not real, or in the President’s term, FAKE NEWS.   Our media sources will do this for you, selecting stories that you agree with and weeding out those that you don’t. It’s in the “algorithm.”

As someone with a political cross-section of friends, I still get to see some of the “other sides” truths.  One of my “annoying traits” (I suspect) is that when I see a clearly outlandish claim, I go to work to check it against fact (even if it’s not their truth.)  I never get thanks for that, more often, my sources of “truth” are attacked.  For example, George Washington NEVER SAID the following about the Second Amendment:

A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.

It’s out there on the internet, you can see it with a nice portrait of the first President on Facebook. But he never said it.  Several fact checking groups including Snopes agree, as well as the Mt. Vernon Historical Society.  But beware of questioning someone else’s truth.

Speaking of George Washington, he didn’t say, “I cannot tell a lie,” either.  A later biographer, Parson Weems, made that up along with the cherry tree.  But it doesn’t seem quite so long ago that there was a price to pay for telling a lie. Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  He said that to the public, and then again under deposition. He later said he believed oral sex wasn’t sexual relations, but the House of Representatives voted to impeach him for perjury, and he stood trial in the Senate (where he was NOT removed from office.)

Full disclosure:  THEN and now, I believe Clinton should not have been impeached.  I did and do believe he should have resigned for disgracing the office of the President, by taking advantage of an intern. If he had, Al Gore might have been President instead of George W Bush and the world would be a very different place. 

Agree or not with the actions taken, “back then” even the ultimate politician, Bill Clinton was held to some standard.

Today, it’s not so much. Today there is a media network devoted to one truth, Fox News, and there are other networks closer to what may be REAL truth, including my addiction, MSNBC.  But there is no common denominator, no common set of facts that can serve as a bridge from one view to another.  We are in a “post-truth era.”

So what happens in our new era?  When I was in high school, I read  George Orwell’s  “1984.”  In that book, the enemies of yesterday (Russia?) become the friends of tomorrow, and the Ministries of Truth, Love, Peace and Plenty told lies, hate, fought wars, and rationed goods.  Today we have an Environmental Protection Agency that has stopped protecting, a Justice Department that is struggling to be just, a Homeland Security Department that rounds up people, and a State Department that gave up diplomacy.  Words no longer have the same meaning.

Our view of politicians is so low that we no longer hold them to any standards.  If it was known that President Kennedy was having affairs in the White House, or that Woodrow Wilson’s stroke was so severe, would they have remained in office?  In 1988, Colorado Senator Gary Hart was running for President.  He challenged rumors that he was having an affair, almost saying “…catch me if you can.”  The press did, and Hart was done.  Today, he could have simply called them all liars, purveyors of Fake News, or paid Donna Rice off with a “do not disclose agreement.”

In a recent Ohio political campaign, a candidate wanted to make a point about his opponent.  In a commercial, he took a picture of the opponent shaking hands with President Trump and “Photoshopped” it so that the opponent was shaking hands with Hillary Clinton.  When he was called out for it, it was simply “creative campaigning,” another version of Fake News.  There was no apology, no retraction, no withdrawal from the campaign.

We get what we accept. While there are a lot of reasons that “good” people avoid politics (raising money for campaigns is one huge factor) another is that they are afraid to sully themselves in the field.  We get what we deserve if we don’t hold politicians, and certainly, the current President, to a higher standard.  The standard set by Speaker Ryan, “…don’t listen to what he says, watch what he does,” is unacceptable if we want something different and better than what we are getting now.

The real danger is the one prophesied in 1949 by Orwell in “1984.”  When we no longer value truth, when we no longer share a common knowledge of fact, then our government can do what it wants, whether it’s in our interest or not.  We will lose our democracy if we don’t find a common truth.  Big Brother will do more than watch.

 

 

 

The Button Strategy

The chants in Michigan went on for a while – “NOBEL, NOBEL, NOBEL!”  President Trump’s modest answer, “I’m just doing my job.”

Will Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in North Korea?  Probably not, but it’s hard not to give him some credit for the changes in Kim Jong-Un’s behavior.  Did Trump’s strategy, including the “Rocket Man” and “Bigger Button” tweets, push Kim to the negotiating table?

It might have.

When a madman tries to burn your neighborhood, with all of the homes threatened; the fact you don’t like you neighbor won’t stop you from working together to stop the madman.  South Korean President Moon Jae-in was well aware of the ultimate truth about the next Korean war.  The battles would be fought in the most highly populated parts of his country, millions of people would be killed, and the nation that has been an economic and political success story since 1953 would be utterly devastated.

Kim Jong-Un of North Korea is also aware of what a war with the United States would cause.  While there is much less economic infrastructure in North Korea to destroy and Kim is less concerned about civilian casualties, if the US waged war one of the primary goals would be the end of the Kim regime.  Look at Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Gaddafi in Libya to see Kim’s prospective fate.

So while Moon and Kim are neighbors who don’t like each other, Trump served as the raging madman threatening them both.  Perhaps this pushed them both to the negotiating table.  But there are alternative reasons the two might have reached across the border.

Kim and North Korea represent the ultimate threat to South Korea.  President Moon has followed a well thought out strategy, first engaging Kim in participating in the Olympic Winter Games, then pursuing greater contacts culminating in their meeting at the “Peace House” on the demilitarized zone. If South and North Korea can develop economic commitments, they are less likely to try to destroy each other.

Kim has also followed a strategy, working to build a nuclear arsenal, now complete; and developing missile delivery systems that can threaten beyond the region to the world. He worked to make himself, “a member of the nuclear club” (US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan.) Now he (and therefore his country) is recognized as a major world player, and gets to meet man-to-man with the President of the United States.

It was easy for Kim to “give up” nuclear and missile testing:  the program is ready to go, “operational,” and there is no longer a need. He got what he wanted, now he wants to negotiate for economic benefits as an “equal.”  President Trump has accepted that equal standing, and is expected to agree to meet with Kim on Kim’s “turf,” back at the Demilitarized Zone.

Negotiation is better than war.  So whatever the mechanisms that brought North Korea to the table, it beats dropping missiles on Seoul, Tokyo, San Francisco, or Pyongyang.  Whether this was some well thought out strategy by Trump or simply the innate knowledge of one bully for another, the “madman US President” plan deserves credit for getting there.

What happens next is questionable.  The United States has negotiated with North Korea several times, each time the North has promised to stop nuclear progress.  They simply lied, and continued to build and develop their program.  Now that Kim has the “bomb” and a delivery system, it’s unlikely he’ll give them up for anything.  The United States is trying to negotiate for a “denuclearized” Korean peninsula.  It’s difficult to see a “carrot” that they can offer North Korea to give up their bombs. And of course, “the stick” would mean nuclear war.

And South Korea (not given a seat at the table with Kim and Trump yet) has the world’s fourteenth strongest economy. Much as West German success contrasted with East German privation, South Korea is thriving as North Koreans continue to literally starve. The South has a lot to offer the North.

There is a possibility for progress, though it may only come at the cost of accepting a nuclear North Korea.  South Korea may be willing to take that chance, but it’s unlikely the Trump Administration will accept any outcome short of nuclear neutering.

So we are a long way from the Nobel Peace Prize.  Likely, we are closer to nuclear war.

 

 

 

 

 

Three Dimensional Chess

(I took a little break last week, heading to North Carolina for Merlefest – a Bluegrass Festival – with three of my favorite people.  Back home now and a lot’s gone on – time to get back to work!)

This week the President’s team leaked a summary of notes taken in a meeting with the Mueller team. The topic:  will the President answer questions from Special Counsel Mueller. Further leaks reveal that when negotiations over the “interview” (shades of a movie about North Korea – maybe there are more similarities than we think) got tough, the Mueller team suggested they would subpoena the President.  This would be unprecedented.

John Dowd, then the lead counsel for the President and since resigned, stated: “This isn’t some game – you are screwing with the work of the President of the United States.”

 But in a sense, it is a game:  a game with the most serious consequences.  The subject of the investigation is ultimately the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who in reality, is accused of conspiring with the Russian Government to change the results of the 2016 election.  While the legal niceties suggest that the President is a “subject” not a “target” of this investigation, that distinction has more to do with the consequences of a criminal indictment of a sitting President than the actual evidentiary outcomes.

The opposition: currently Robert Mueller, Special Counsel of the Department of Justice, who has been charged with determining what happened between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government during the 2016 election.  Mueller is supervised by the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; put in that role by the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who was involved in the Trump campaign.

What could be the outcome of this game?  The Mueller team could issue a report, essentially an indictment, to the House of Representatives, stating that the actions of the President should result in criminal charges, and only the Constitution prevents him from being dragged “before the bar.”  Since the judicial system isn’t available, the Constitution calls on Congress to deal with a President who committed “…high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Mueller could call for the impeachment and removal of the President.

This is the ultimate consequence.

The leak of the possible questions originally looked like it came from the Mueller team.  As such it would be a first, as Mueller has been completely tight lipped about the progress of the work, communicating only in court through filings.  The only reason it seemed like a Mueller leak, is the questions were limited to directly Russia and election related issues.  There were no questions about Trump’s taxes, previous investments, or business affairs. The topics all were “within the lane” of the Russia investigation, and didn’t cross the “red lines” that Trump himself had stated might serve as grounds for firing Mueller.

But it was leaked by the President’s side.  While we don’t know the direct source, it has been established that these were questions developed by the President’s attorney Jay Sekulow from the topics of the Mueller meeting.  And while the leak didn’t seem to serve the President’s cause, it did provide two new items of information about the investigation.

First, the topics and questions implied that there was evidence that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was in direct contact with the Russian Government looking for aid to the Trump campaign.  This would be a direct sign of conspiracy (collusion is the President’s term, but it has no legal consequence.)

And second, the Mueller team was looking at the use of possible Presidential pardons to obstruct the investigation, particularly with General Mike Flynn.  This “dangling” of pardon in order to keep Flynn from cooperating with the Mueller team, was supposedly done by lead Presidential counsel John Dowd, who resigned from the White House team shortly after the March meeting with Mueller.

So if Mueller didn’t leak this information, and it seems to benefit the Mueller case, then what was the “President’s team” thinking by putting it out there?

President Trump, using his preferred means of mass communication, has called the investigation a “witch hunt” or stated that there was “no collusion” six times in the past day. The Presidential team, stating that Trump is a “subject” not a “target” of the investigation, asks why there are questions about Trump’s direct actions involving the campaign and Russia.  If he’s not a target, then why are they asking these questions?

It’s a call to their base, who already have concluded that the investigation is a “witch hunt” and that there was “no collusion.”  Fox News has made it very clear, and the set of “facts” the Trump base uses supports that claim.  So when the President refuses to be questioned, or perhaps even invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, his base will accept his actions as necessary and proper for a man being hounded by the “deep state” and “Clinton/Obama Democrats.”

In the meantime, the leaked topics will lend further fire to the radical Republican Freedom Caucus members, who already have drafted articles of impeachment – for Rod Rosenstein. If they can involve him in a hearing defending himself, they can then call for his removal from supervision of the Russia investigation.  The President doesn’t have to fire Rosenstein, an impeachment hearing will force his recusal.

Rosenstein himself has responded, calling out the Freedom Caucus for leaking the impeachment articles anonymously.  He has made it clear that as the Deputy Attorney General he will continue to “…protect and defend the Constitution” and follow the facts to their conclusion.

Paul Ryan, the lame-duck Speaker of the House, could put an end to the Freedom Caucus foolishness. But he probably won’t, as it might trigger an inside battle for the Speakership, a job Ryan wants to “gracefully leave” next January.  It’s about Ryan staying under the radar, and not taking a stand.

So what’s the next move in this game.

New Presidential attorney Rudy Guiliani, far more politician than legal scholar at this point, will try to manipulate the public perception of the investigation.  While for everyone else there are serious legal consequences to federal charges, to Guiliani’s client, the President, there are only political ones.  Impeachment is a political process in the Congress, and subject to the “whims” of the voters as much as the facts of the case.  Keeping the Trump base activated and voting keeps the pressure on Republican Congressmen, and ultimately Senators, to avoid impeachment and trial.

The leak also puts emphasis on impeachment, a goal for Republican campaign strategists.  They believe that if Democrats can be forced to run on the question of impeachment, it will energize the Trumpian base to come out and vote to defend their man.  Since he isn’t on the ballot, voting for the Republican candidate for the House or Senate is the next best thing, and keeps Trump from facing Congressional consequences.

Democrats recognize this strategy as well, and are trying to keep the investigation at arms length while they campaign on the impact of the tax cuts and other cultural issues.  They aren’t much help to Mueller, but would be should they gain control of one or both houses of Congress.

And the Mueller team: they will continue to do what they’ve always done, keep their heads down and proceed with the investigation.  Regardless of the political consequences, they will conclusively let the nation know what happened between Trump and the Russians, particularly in the 2016 election. And ultimately, it will be up to the people of the United States to provide the political will to go from there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trashing the White House

Andrew Jackson became the President of the United States in the election of 1828.  Jackson saw his election as a victory for the common man. In the 1824 election, Jackson received the most popular votes but failed to gain electoral victory.  The election went to the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams gained the Presidency through a series of political deals. Jackson held a grudge against the “powers that be” from that time on.

At Jackson’s inauguration, the White House was thrown open to the “common man.”  Kegs of beer were brought in, free food was available; men were crawling through the windows to celebrate their conquest of the establishment. They trashed the place.

Jackson used his philosophy of the common man to hire Federal employees. Jackson believed that any good citizen could do the job, therefore, the most important criteria for employment was their support for Jackson.  He cleared the Federal payroll for his supporters, and this became American tradition for the next fifty years. “The spoils system” began with his administration.

In the late nineteenth century, President’s recognized that there was a need for a professional class of government employees, and civil service was instituted in the US.  While there remains thousands of political appointments for each new administration, there is the constant of the civil service employees that serves as the backbone of the government.

Enter Donald Trump, choosing Andrew Jackson as his Presidential role model.

Like Jackson, Trump’s ultimate job qualification is loyalty to Trump.  While there are a myriad of examples of this, three recent incidents stand out. James Comey, who was specifically asked to pledge loyalty to Donald Trump, in a dinner which Comey took as an “interview” to keep the FBI directorship. Comey declined, and ultimately lost his position.

Vice President Pence needed a new National Security Advisor.  He asked that Jon Lerner, a top advisor to United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, be split between the UN and his office.  Trump blocked the move; Lerner worked for a pro-Rubio organization during the election, proving his “disloyalty” to Trump.  Pence was forced to choose someone else.

And this past week, Trump picked Admiral Ronny Jackson, White House physician, to head the Veterans Administration.  Jackson, a surgeon with battlefield experience, was the leader of the seventy-member White House medical team.  He was picked to lead the 400,000 employee VA, based on what ultimately seems to be his personal relationship with the President.  Now, as allegations fly about his past bad acts, Jackson has withdrawn from the nominating process, his reputation in tatters.

The allegations against Dr. Jackson were easily found, and a critical Navy Inspector General report was on file.  But Trump never had these things checked out, and literally threw “his friend” Jackson to the wolves.  To Trump, he was a doctor, he was a friend, and he looked good on TV.  That was all the qualifications that Jackson needed to gain the nomination.

The historic view of Andrew Jackson’s Presidency has changed in the past twenty years.  When I was in school in the 1960’s, Jackson was seen as a powerful President who led “the people” to the fore.  Today, Jackson is seen through his actions, including defying the Supreme Court and forcing the euphemistic “Indian Removal,” better known as the Trail of Tears, where hundreds of thousands of Native Americans were forced out of their homes and marched out of the way of American expansion. Thousands died in the process.

Trump has chosen that as his role model, and he probably is getting what he deserved.  Andrew Jackson opened the White House, and it got trashed. So did Trump.