Category: Uncategorized

More Perfect

The proximate cause for the events in Charlottesville last weekend was the city’s decision to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from what was once “Lee Park,” now “Emancipation Park.” The leadership of newly empowered white/racist organizations used this as an excuse to assemble and make demands in the academic home of the University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson.

The history of the United States is full of good and evil. The vaunted ideals of the founding fathers in 1776, “…we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” were tempered by the reality of slavery. They recognized the contradictions, and were haunted by them. It is no accident that the preamble to the Constitution contains that awkward phrase, “…in order to form a more perfect union…”

 More Perfect: the phrase debated by every high school government class. It was the recognition by Madison of the contradictions of their situation. More Perfect: the concept that the United States, while based on the highest values, would have to continue to evolve to reach those values. More Perfect: setting the standard to achieve for America. Establishing the mission, the goal.

We have monuments to those founding fathers. The monuments reflect what they attained as they worked towards those goals. Those monuments are not to flaws, to bad decisions, to contradictions. They recognize that as humans are not perfect, neither were our founders, nor all those who followed. We recognize their dreams, goals and accomplishments, despite the flaws.

Washington’s home at Mt. Vernon is a clear example. A beautiful home on the banks of the Potomac, a clear escape from the wars and the politics. The key to the Bastille of French Revolution fame hangs above the stairway, a gift of liberty from Lafayette. And the slave quarters are around the side.

Slavery, “the serpent under the table,” was the issue that shaped our government. But it is simply re-writing history to say that this was a case of racists versus non-racists. Frankly, a vast majority of Americans of the time would be considered racist by today’s standards, including Abraham Lincoln. And that is the danger of applying the standards of today to the values of the past. By doing so, we deny the evolutionary impact of the events in history. We as a people and a culture have changed, and while we can regret some of our history, we cannot deny it, nor is it fair to alter it.

Having said that, the Lee statue in Emancipation Park was erected in the mid-1920’s, at a time after World War I when the United States recoiled from the world, and the power of the Ku Klux Klan was at its zenith. Only a year before, over 25,000 Klansmen in full regalia marched down the streets of Washington, DC. The Lee statue was less a memorial to the General, than a symbol for the empowered racists groups of that time.

In the same way, the historic battle flag of the Confederacy, the official flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, had been co-opted to represent the racist views of the White Supremacists and Ku Klux Klan. What originally was the rally point for those fighting for their friends, families, and state; has become the symbol of hate. We, as a society, should not uphold these symbols of hate, even if that was not their original intent.

Last month I walked the battlefield at Gettysburg. I saw the monuments and the graves of the many thousands who fought there, both North and South. The soldiers of both sides were fighting for what they believed was “their” country. While slavery caused the Civil War, to most of the soldiers battling at Gettysburg, it wasn’t about slaves, it was about country. Right or wrong, winner or loser, they still deserve to be honored there for the sacrifice.

We now have to distinguish between what represents history, and should be preserved, and what represents racism, and should be removed. It is important that we don’t erase history, and it is equally important that we don’t represent the old values that accepted racism. We have to also recognize what in our history has been co-opted into racist symbolism.

So we have a complex history. We have to do both, honor our history, and recognize our growth. We have to be proud that as difficult as it was, ultimately the United States freed slaves, and perhaps with even more difficulty, it is still working towards equality for all. We have to recognize the difference between the racism then and now, and history. We must still become More Perfect.

 

The Box is Open

I am sitting here, 2:46 pm on Saturday afternoon, August 11^th. I watch my computer and my television, and see the white supremacists in Charlottesville, and the protestors countering their views. A car plows into the counter-protestors, several are injured, perhaps killed. The box is open.

The box is open – the box of hate and violence. Our President has brought into the White House advisors who have pandered to this view. They have changed the language of the movement, “metropolitan bias” has replaced “Commie Jews.” But the Breitbart alumni, Miller and Bannon and Gorka, have made this terrible undercurrent of America acceptable again.

Some will say that this in no different than Black Lives Matter and President Obama. But of course that’s not true: Obama recognized why Black Lives Matter was important; he never justified violence. And of course, Black Lives Matter does have a point, that it does seem like their lives don’t have the same value to society as others.

The two movements are different because Black Lives Matter was not a movement of hate, but of respect. The White Supremacist movement, with the neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan doctrines that serves as its foundation, is  based on hatred of those that are different.

The box is open. The President has used this hate to help fuel his campaign, and election. He allows Bannon, Miller and Gorka to continue to represent him, and through him, the authority of the United States.

We don’t know who was driving the car that crashed into those folks, yet. We don’t know that it was a “white terrorist” attack. It really doesn’t matter. Trump opened up “the box” of racial hatred, and we are now reaping the whirlwind.

The President is about to speak. He didn’t say a word about a mosque attacked in Minnesota last week, and he has “tweeted” that this is “sad.” I expect his words will be “sad” too.

I’ll add more later…

The President is speaking.  It’s all about him.  “Children should be able to play” and “we are doing so well.” My administration is “restoring the sacred bonds of loyalty.”  Sacred bonds of loyalty – a term that harkens back to the basis of the “alt-right” philosophy of tribal loyalty, not particularly accepting of a multi-cultural society (1).

I know I long for President Obama to make sense of the senseless actions we have seen today.  I know – but I wish the current President would be a leader instead of a follower of those who he works for, oops, works for him.

1. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/03/27/chorus-violence-jack-donovan-and-organizing-power-male-supremacy

 

Five Generals and a Baby

James Mattis – Secretary of Defense, General, US Marines (4 Star). Final military command – US Central Command

John Kelly – Chief of Staff, General of US Marines (4 Star). Final military command – US Southern Command

Joseph Dunford – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General, US Marines (4 Star) – still in service – prior command, Commandant US Marine Corps

H.R. McMasters – National Security Advisor, Lt. General, US Army (3 Star). Still in service- prior command, Army Capabilities Integration Center

Michael Flynn – Fired National Security Advisor, Lt. General in US Army (3 Star) – final military command – Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

Donald J Trump – President of United States, attended New York Military Academy as high school.  Captain of A Company NYMA his senior year, was transferred to Admin Staff when hazing occurred under his command. 5 deferments from Vietnam Draft, never in US military

As the nuclear showdown between North Korea and the United States grows more intense, risking a war that could result in millions of casualties, two leaders are “nose to nose.” Trump and Kim are facing each other across the Pacific Ocean, determining the fate of the Pacific rim. It’s not Churchill and Hitler, it’s not Kennedy and Khruschev, it’s not even Bush and Hussein. Kim is a farcical character, a child dictator who would be funny except for the strength of the North Korean armed forces, ranked 23^rd in the world, with fully 25% of the population in military service. Oh, and he has nuclear weapons and 10,000 artillery tubes pointed a Seoul, South Korea, population over 20 million.

The problem is, Trump “ain’t no Jack Kennedy” either. He had decided to meet Kim’s bluster with braggadocio of his own, quoting video games as he promises “fire and fury” against North Korea. Trump has the most powerful military in the world, but so far has shown that he doesn’t believe Theodore Roosevelt was right: instead of “speak softly and carry a big stick,” Trump is yelling loudly.

Trump has shown, through his decidedly short political career, that he is enamored with the military. His trusted foreign policy advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn, was so important that Trump was willing to accept his lying to the Vice President and conducting private foreign policy as long as he could keep Flynn’s advice. With Flynn gone, former cadet captain Trump has surrounded himself with more generals. While we hope that these are the “best and the brightest” the military has to offer, it should be a concern that these leaders, all steeped in the traditions of US military service, may be the only voices he is hearing.

This is not to fault Mattis, Dunford, Kelly and McMasters. Not only are they the best of the best, they also are some of the “outliers” of military command. Mattis is known as the “Warrior Monk,” dedicated to his service, and willing to think “outside the box.” Dunford, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is a former subordinate of Mattis, and noted for his dedication. McMasters jump started his career by writing a book about the flaws in the military command system in Vietnam, and earned a PhD at University of North Carolina. And Kelly, a man who has made the ultimate sacrifice (he has a son buried in Arlington National Cemetery, an Afghanistan casualty,) is another noted for his intellectual approach, with master degree’s from the National Defense University and Georgetown.  While they are all brilliant military minds, they also have lived lives  filtered through military thought and process, which like any profession, creates a structured way of problem solving.

These are the men advising President Trump, and while Mattis and Kelly are technically now civilians, this is exactly the kind of concern George Washington had when he turned down the Presidency of the United States at the end of the Revolutionary War.  He was afraid that as the conquering general, leader of the American Army, he would begin a national tradition of following “the man on the white horse.”

During the Kennedy Administration, one of the hardest lessons that former  Naval Lt. John F. Kennedy had to learn was not to completely trust “the Generals.” This first became apparent early in his Presidency. The Bay of Pigs was the US sponsored insurgent invasion of Cuba. Part of the decision making process going into the operation was the agreement that US forces would not be directly involved. The flawed plans failed almost immediately, and the attack collapsed on the beach. As the invasion failed the Joint Chiefs of Staff demanded that the US Air Force bring in air cover to protect the beachhead. Kennedy faced his Generals demanding action, and the reality that a US invasion of Cuba (as US involvement would certainly be seen) could trigger a Soviet response in Germany, perhaps triggering World War III.

Kennedy left the invasion force alone, and they were killed or captured on the beach. He grew to take a critical view of the military, resulting in his willingness to look beyond military options during the Cuban missile crisis two years later. In that, he avoided a nuclear war with the Soviets.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis it was UN ambassador, former Governor of Illinois and two-time Democratic candidate for President Adlai Stevenson who stood up to the generals. When a pre-emptive attack on Cuba was the leading strategy in discussion, Stevenson said to the World War II veteran President, “now I know how Tojo felt before Pearl Harbor.” The statement resonated with Kennedy, and he began to search for other options to avoid all-out war.

As Trump continues to ratchet up the tension with North Korea, now threatening even greater destruction if the North Koreans should attempt to strike Guam, where are the non-military voices proposing solutions? Tillerson and Haley don’t seen to have any influence in Trump World, while Bannon, Gorka and Miller have  even more warped views.

We can only hope that either the Generals themselves, or calmer voices that we don’t know about, are suggesting alternatives to Trump. Otherwise this governing “baby” is only getting advice filtered through lives of military thought and process.

 

 

 

 

The State We’re In

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Mr. Trump told reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where he is spending much of the month on a working vacation. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”[1] 8/8/17

Yesterday the Washington Post led with a “leaked” Defense Intelligence Agency report that North Korea is “…now making missile-ready nuclear weapons…”[2] This report led to wall-to-wall cable news coverage of the “North Korean Crisis” and President Trump’s statement (above) threatening “fire and fury.” It also led the North Koreans to specifically threaten the US territory of Guam in the Pacific.[3]

It takes five major steps to build a functioning nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. First is to build a nuclear bomb. Second is to build a missile capable of flying over 5000 miles. Third is making the bomb small enough to fit on the top of the missile. Fourth is the guidance system to target the missile, and fifth is to have the missile and warhead survive re-entry into the atmosphere. If the “leaked” information in the Washington Post is accurate, then the North Koreans have managed steps one through three, with four and five to go.

We are in a crisis.

We are staring at military options which all result in incredibly high casualties (see earlier post on Trump World, All Options on the Table),  and we are focused on what the Trump Administration may do. This is the ultimate Presidential power, the decision to commit the United States to a path towards a war on a scale not seen since World War II. While Congress has “the power” to declare war, in this age of instant response to ballistic missiles, they may never get the chance. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, the war will actually have begun!

Or are we?

President Trump has known for weeks about this intelligence assessment. The bellicose statements about “fire and fury” didn’t come out until the press got the leak. And this kind of assessment isn’t new, it was five years ago that the same kind of intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (headed by General Michael Flynn) reported:

A new assessment by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that North Korea has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile. The assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has been distributed to senior administration officials and members of Congress, cautions that the weapon’s “reliability will be low…” [4] 4/11/13

It was quickly discounted by other members of the US intelligence community.

We also don’t know how close North Korea is to achieving steps four and five, which means there may be years before they have an actual ICBM capacity.  But Presidential aides are saying “it’s the Cuban Missile Crisis.” So, why is this the time, why is the crisis today?

For the first time in months, there is little discussion about “Russia.” The story that would have led the news is about House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. He was supposedly recused from the Russian investigation after his clumsy attempt to distract it last spring, but instead sent two committee staffers on a mission to London to talk to Christopher Steele of the famous “Steele Dossier.” Neither Committee Democrats, nor Republicans, nor the temporary Chairman of the committee Mike Conaway were informed.[5]

After the revelation that Special Counsel Mueller empaneled a Grand Jury in Washington, D.C last week, with the continuing “twitter” rumors on impending indictments both from Mueller and New York Attorney General Schniederman, and with the failing support of President Trump in national polls, the question needs to be asked:  is this necessary?

We know the long-term crisis with North Korea is real, what we don’t know is if it is immediate, or is the heat being artificially generated?

Would the Trump Administration “gin-up” a world crisis to change the subject? How far would they go to show “Presidential Determination?” They’ve gone to great lengths to change the subject before, is this the ultimate distraction?  With the lack of trust in both the intent and the ability of the President, these are the questions.  This is the state we’re in.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions-nuclear-missile-united-nations.html

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.a79bf6a27d4f

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/09/why-north-korea-threatened-guam-the-tiny-u-s-territory-with-big-military-power/?utm_term=.5c75c79dc39b

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-may-have-nuclear-missile-capability-us-agency-says.html?pagewanted=all

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/07/donald-trump-russia-dossier-christopher-steele-devin-nunes

 

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

(out of the weeds and into the branches of the Russian investigation)

Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is demanding that Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee.   Fusion GPS is an “intelligence gathering” company founded by  Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter.  It was used by legal firms, political campaigns and corporations to find out information about opponents.

According to The Guardian, unnamed Republican sources opposed to Trump in the 2016 primaries hired Fusion to do opposition research. As it became clear that Trump would win the Republican nomination, an unnamed Democratic client took over payment for the project.

When the news that the Democratic National Committee had been hacked was revealed prior to the Democratic Convention, Fusion GPS hired Orbis Business Intelligence, a British firm, to look into possible Russian connections to the Trump campaign. Former British Intelligence Agent Christopher Steele used his Russian connections to create a “Dossier” of information involving Trump and Russian connections.

The famous “Steele Dossier” contained multiple charges that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian Intelligence in interfering with the 2016 Presidential election. It detailed connections between Trump operatives and Russian Intelligence. In addition it outlined “kompromat,” or compromising/blackmail information held by Russian Intelligence in regards to both Trump’s finances and his personal sexual behavior.

Through the fall of 2016, and even after the election, Steele continued to add to the Dossier. Though the Dossier was private, details began to come out prior to the election in the publication Mother Jones.  In addition, Steele passed the information onto British Intelligence, and the FBI. The entire dossier was finally published in January, prior to the inauguration of President Trump.

The FBI started their investigation of Trump Campaign activities in the summer of 2016. They were interested in the Steele Dossier, and negotiated with Steele to continue his investigations. These interactions seemed to stop when the Dossier became public.

Further journalists’ investigations have substantiated many of the allegations in the Dossier, though parts, particularly about Trump’s personal behaviors, have not been confirmed.

Which brings us back to why Senator Grassley is trying to turn his Senate investigation from the Trump campaign to Fusion GPS and the Dossier.

Fusion GPS also worked for a law firm representing Prevezon Holdings. Prevezon Holdings, a Russian investment company, is accused of getting its assets from money stolen from American investor Bill Browder during the early 2000’s. Browder’s lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, went to the Russian government to report this stolen money, and instead was jailed himself and ultimately murdered. The US Congress passed the Magnitsky Act in his name, a law sanctioning individuals in Russia who participated in the theft of the funds from Browder or the imprisonment and death of Magnitsky. These sanctions have infuriated the Russian government and President Putin, who potentially has a financial as well as political stake in the sanctions.

Fusion GPS did intelligence gathering work for the law firm of Baker Hostetler as they defended Prevezon against the US Attorney’s lawsuit. Fusion’s work included negative information against both Browder and Magnitsky. Senator Grassley is trying use this to build a connection between the Russian Government and Fusion GPS, and therefore the Steele Dossier.

If he can implicate the Steele Dossier as a “disinformation” campaign by Russian Intelligence instead of an explanation of Trump collusion with Russian Intelligence, then it would demonstrate that a portion of the “Russian Connection” was a Russian attack AGAINST Trump.  It would raise factual issues with every part of the Dossier.

In American law there is a precept: nothing can be gained from the fruit of the poisonous tree. What it means is that evidence that is tainted  invalidates the entire chain of evidence that comes from it.  Examples in  regular criminal law are evidence that is attained illegally without warrant, or that could have been altered after it was attained.

Grassley is trying to demonstrate that the Steele Dossier is the fruit of the poisonous tree. His theory: that Russian Intelligence used Steele (knowingly or not) to put disinformation about Trump and his campaign into the American press, and therefore started the “Russian” investigation. If Grassley can raise enough questions about the Dossier’s validity, then Trump defenders will use it as a weapon to try to halt all investigations.

Those pressing for further investigation will argue that regardless of the Dossier, the FBI opened a counter-intelligence investigation before the it was created, and that there is a great deal of evidence that was developed outside and without reference to Steele. They will suggest that even IF the Steele Dossier is a poisonous tree, there is a whole orchard of information beyond it.

 

Cast of Characters

Charles Grassley – Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Fusion GPS – Intelligence gathering company operating in US

Glenn Simpson – former Wall Street Journal Reporter – founded Fusion GPS

Orbis Business Intelligence – Intelligence gathering company operating in UK

Christopher Steele – Former British Intelligence Agent with Russian connnections

Steele Dossier – https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Prevazon Holdings – Russian company accused of looting Heritage Capital Management

Heritage Capital Management – Russian financial company owned by American Bill Browder

Sergei Magnitsky – Russian lawyer hired by Browder to investigate financial theft from his company – after reporting theft to Russian authorities – was jailed and murdered

Magnitsky Act – Law passed by US Congress sanctioning individual Russians involved in theft from Heritage and jailing and death of Magnitsky

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Voters Aren’t Stupid

As a lifelong liberal, Democrat, and political junkie; one of the most perplexing problems I have is describing why Donald Trump ever received, and continues to get, such deep support. Deep in the sense that while current polling shows him at 33% approval rating, that third is deep, strong, and committed to his cause.

How did a billionaire from New York City get millions of working class, mostly white, often rural or suburban voters to not only vote for him, but believe in him deeply? Watching the Huntington, West Virginia rally last night it is absolutely clear his support is intact. While the chants of “lock her up” seem outdated, the sheer emotional connection is apparent. Maybe I’m showing my “cosmopolitan bias” (still haven’t quite figured out what that means), but how do t-shirts and MAGA hat folks relate to a guy whose idea of casual dress is a golf shirt and slacks?

Here’s why many from the “Resistance” think Trump voters are stupid.

First: Trump supporters are all biased against the first black President, and the election results are payback. That may be true for a few, but it doesn’t explain the phenomena of the Obama/Trump crossover voter, which carried the election in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Second: they live in an “alternative universe,” where Fox News, Sinclair, and Clear Channel Broadcast groups control the “facts” and the rest is dismissed as “fake news.” Again this may be true for some (having watch Hannity on Fox last night, it is hard to imagine that the same set of facts can be twisted into such a different outcome.) I believe most Americans are discerning enough to filter whatever they hear, either from Fox, MSNBC or elsewhere. We ALL know a “sales pitch” when we hear it, whether it’s Hannity or Joe Scarborough.

Third, Donald Trump has sold them a “pig in a poke” (so in case that doesn’t make sense, a pig in a poke is a pig in a bag, if you buy it you don’t know what the pig looks like.) It means that the true “Trumper” believes that everything, from “the Wall” to the “Muslim Ban” to “Clean Coal” is going to happen, and Trump will make it so.

I think most Trump supporters understand that Trump is a salesman, just like other politicians. They are hoping that he CAN achieve some of his promises, and that they are well aware that a billionaire from New York City really doesn’t relate to them. What they do want is change, a nation where things are better for them. They feel that the both political parties have abandoned them for others, and that this is the only reasonable alternative.

I also think that many Trump supporters believe that ALL elections are stolen, won by cheaters, and that the Russian involvement is just another form of cheating. Like taxes, professional wrestling, and The Apprentice, it isn’t about the cheating, it’s about the outcome. With that view, it’s easier to see why there’s outrage about trying to change the election results, especially when it’s Trump’s “team,” the Republicans, that are letting the investigations happen. Trump won “fair and square.” Even more outrageous: that at this “late date,” investigators are looking at Trump’s finances for the past twenty years or more. Again, if he outwitted the law then, it’s “no fair” to go back now.

So what will change?

For some true believers, nothing will change their minds. Nixon on the day he resigned had a 29% approval rating. If Trump leaves office before the end of his term, there will be a significant chunk of Americans who will feel cheated, and will believe the system took “their President” from them.

Many Trump supporters will continue to look for a candidate or party that really represents their needs and views. Trump tapped into that, and Obama did too in 2008, but neither party has found a consistent message that works.

Most Trump voters aren’t stupid. They voted for their perceived needs, and they are hoping for the best from what seems like a rigged system. Regardless of the outcome of the current Constitutional crisis, that perception won’t change.

 

 

 

 

 

A Liberal Lament

This week: the President lies about phone calls from Mexico and the Boy Scouts; the White House and Fox News conspired to generate fake news; and more firings. But real changes, ugly changes, are going on in the background; changes that strike at the core of the Liberal/Progressive progress of the past several decades.  There are three items that might have missed your attention.

First, the Department of Justice is looking into opening an investigation of discrimination against whites and Asians in college admissions.[1] After over forty years of programs to diversify the student populations of colleges to be more inclusive of race, gender, and other identifiers; the DoJ is now looking at whether white kids are being given enough opportunities. Asians seem to be “thrown in” the mix in order to make this look less racist, but the clear target is to “fix” the problem for white kids.

This is a “dog whistle” issue for the alt-right who consider affirmative action programs taking race, gender, and national origin into consideration as “unfair” to whites.   This is despite statistics showing 80% of admissions to the most prestigious and competitive colleges in the country are by white students.[2] That the Department of Justice, for many years the protector of civil rights in the United States, is taking this diametrically opposite direction is of tremendous concern.

The second item seemed like a sideshow, as White House Advisor Stephen Miller re-emerged into the public eye. Miller was hidden away by the White House after his February press outing, where he stated the President’s authority, “…will not be questioned.”[3] Miller appeared in yesterday’s press conference, where he presented a new legal immigration program. The proposal cuts legal immigration in half, and emphasizes English speaking and financial independence for new immigrants. Miller slanted this as a “jobs program for Americans,” though statistics by non-biased sources show that few current citizens would benefit from such a law.[4]

This has also been a “pet issue” of the alt-right, who believe that immigrants are “taking over” American jobs. Right wing “studies” challenge the mainstream, purporting to show immigrants pushing “Americans” out of the way.[5]

In addition, the proposal has a “Northern European” feel to it, with the English language requirement lending strength to that argument. When Miller was challenged about that, he struck back by insulting the journalist and accusing him (a son of Cuban immigrants) as having a “cosmopolitan bias,” whatever that means. Miller even went so far as to argue an alternative history, stating that the Statue of Liberty wasn’t about immigration, but was created as a symbol of the example that the United States could be to the world.

Miller followed other alt-right revisionists by stating that the Emma Lazarus poem (A New Colossus) was simply a belated addition to the statue in an attempt to alter its true meaning.[6] This argument may seem like an historic dalliance, but it is a symbolic reference to the true differences between right and left today. Is the world role of the United States a symbolic one, where the US is the “Athenian Democracy” that others should strive to imitate, but not join? Then the Statue of Liberty stands as a light at the doorway, but it is a safety light protecting those inside from the world. Alarms should go off should the world try to “enter.” The Trump/Bannon strategy of “America First” is the current rendition of this view.

Or is the world role of the United States one where we take a share of the problems of the world, and includes the less fortunate into the American dream? This is the world of the Emma Lazarus poem, “…give me your huddled masses yearning to be free.” The light at the doorway invites the world to come to this better place, and join in the American experiment. This represents the worldview of the Obama administration: working together with the world.

It doesn’t help the alt-right that Lazarus was Jewish, and a socialist as well.

The third issue that has slid under the table this week deals with gender. While the tweet about transgender and the military has been ignored by the military itself, the Department of Justice has made another regression as it now takes the legal stand that work place laws against discrimination do not include sexual orientation, a reversal of the Obama era.[7]

So while we get fascinated with the slow motion explosion of the Trump Administration, don’t lose sight of the fact that they really are trying to changes things, and make “America Great Again” for the alt-right. Liberals should lament.

 

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html

[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/report-racial-divide-still-exists-on-college-admis/

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-audacious-controversial-declaration-trumps-national-security-actions-will-not-be-questioned/?utm_term=.c996d71fe25b

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/immigrants-arent-taking-americans-jobs-new-study-finds.html

[5] https://cis.org/Memorandum/Jobs-Americans-Wont-Do-Detailed-Look-Immigrant-Employment-Occupation

[6] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/02/trump-advisor-miller-schools-acosta-statue-of-liberty-poem-on-huddled-masses-added-later/

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html

All Options On the Table

In the weeds about North Korea

It’s not that the controversy which surrounds the Trump Administration isn’t important: on this day after General Kelly became Chief of Staff, the “Mooch” left the building, and the word leaked out that the President wrote the Donald Jr. statement which lied about “the meeting,” it’s hard to focus beyond it. But the world keeps turning regardless of the US political turmoil, and the void created by America’s internal focus becomes more apparent.

The Trump Administration argues that it can do more than one thing at a time. Let’s hope so.

North Korea tested it’s most advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) last week, and data shows that it has a range that includes Chicago, Columbus, and perhaps even the east coast (a side note: as a resident of the Midwest, the news broadcaster’s pronouncements that “even the east coast might be in range” is little comfort when my home is clearly within the cone of destruction.) While there are several caveats: the North Koreans don’t have a small enough warhead to fit on the missile yet, we aren’t sure of their targeting abilities, and there are questions about the missile surviving re-entry; all of those problems are relatively easy to solve.

The United States stands by its long held view that North Korea will NOT be allowed to have a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the US. As that point draws near (estimates show that the complete missile package may be done as soon as six months from now) the US is faced with a nuclear crisis. It is the classic dilemma. Do you pre-emptively strike an opponent prior to their developing a nuclear weapon, launching a non-nuclear first strike and triggering a conventional war? Or, do you wait until the nuclear weapon is developed, and then use a threat of nuclear retaliation to prevent the weapon’s use? Or do you use non-military threats, sanctions, boycotts and pressures to either hinder the weapon’s development or use?

Pre-emptive strike is a tempting strategy, as it is the only one that takes a nuclear strike on the United States completely off of the board. They can’t strike the US without the capability of doing so. However, there are several problems with this.

First, a US pre-emptive strike would inevitably trigger a North Korean response against both US troops (30,000 in South Korea alone, with another 39,000 nearby in Japan) and South Korea. [1] Such an attack would be devastating, as 12 million South Koreans are within range of North Korean artillery (30 miles) arrayed just beyond the demilitarized zone.[2] Assuming other countries don’t join with North Korean (China, Russia, others) the outcome of the next Korean War would inevitably favor the United States, but the losses in such a war (in all probability much greater than the 1.2 million Koreans and 36,000 Americans killed or missing in the first Korean War[3]) would make this a conflict the United States should be unwilling to start.

Second, a pre-emptive strike is based on the assumption that the North Koreans have not yet developed combat ready nuclear weapons, or that we could neutralize those weapons prior to use. A nuclear artillery shell, fired from North Korea into the South Korean capital Seoul would have millions of casualties, and would likely happen immediately at the onset of war.

Put simply, a pre-emptive strike on North Korea would start a major war, greater in scope than any conflict since World War II. It would likely result in the destruction of North Korea, and also the destruction of South Korea, and parts of Japan as well.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the theory that got the world through the Cold War Era. The nuclear powers, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union, had the indestructible ability to destroy each other with a “second strike,” regardless of who attacked first, and therefore were able to step back from using the ultimate weapons.

This theory could apply to North Korea, even though they would not have the indestructible ability to destroy the US.  They could potentially hit the US with a nuclear strike.  This second approach to the North Korean problem would presume (always dangerous) that North Korea is unwilling to face nuclear destruction, and therefore would not use nuclear weapons in a “first strike.”

In addition, the US military has developed both the THADD missile defense system (short and intermediate ballistic missiles) and the GMD (ground based mid-course defense for ICBM’s) to interdict North Korean attacks. While both have been tested successfully, no missile defense system is 100% effective: a missile could get through, with devastating nuclear consequences[4].

The problem with this strategy is that it also depends the “unwillingness” of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, to risk nuclear annihilation. And while logic would be on the side of staying alive, one only has to look to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who went to war, lost, was deposed and finally executed; all to protect the weapons of mass destruction that he didn’t have rather than admit he didn’t have them.

The third strategy would be that the United States should do what it could using economic and international pressure to try to keep North Korea in check, while planning for an eventuality of North Korean nuclear weaponry. This plan would be perhaps similar to the Iran Nuclear Agreement, which does not prevent their nuclear development, but does delay it for several years, with the final outcome to be determined.

In order get international and economic pressure, the United States will need to build a coalition of nations, just as the Obama Administration did with the Iran deal. For the US to “go it alone” with North Korea not only takes everyone else off the hook, allowing US policy to be hamstrung by North Korean actions, but it also guarantees a more dangerous position. The US is “poking the bear” of North Korea, flying B-1 Bomber missions nearby and threatening to keep “all options on the table.” We should be gathering other nations, including China and even Russia, to put real pressure on Kim.

While it seems reasonable and intuitive to say that North Korea should not be allowed to get nuclear weapons that can reach the United States, the costs associated with truly preventing this outcome are not acceptable. Given that, it will be a mixture of Mutual Assured Destruction and international pressure that must be American policy. Let’s hope the generals of the Trump Administration stop waving our weapons, and start building a coalition.

 

 

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/us-military-japan-north-korea-asia-590278

[2] http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/27/world/fg-norkor27

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-facts/index.html

[4] http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-defense-capabilities-handle-threat-north-korean-missile/story?id=48433772

Seeing Through the Smoke

White House Special Advisor Jared Kushner testified to the House Intelligence Committee last week regarding his role in the “Russian connection.” According to Adam Schiff, the California Democrat and ranking minority member of the Committee, “(Republican) Mr. Gowdy took the role as a second attorney for Mr. Kushner…” [1] Gowdy not only soft-pedaled his own questions, but prevented Democrats from asking tough questions and advised Kushner on what to answer.

This is the same Republican Trey Gowdy who took great pride in the interrogation of Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearings, and continues to this day to call for further investigation of the Clinton emails. He clearly has determined that his role is to deflect attention away from “Russia” and bring back the old tales of the past two years – the flaws of Hillary Clinton. Benghazi cost Congress over $5 million,[2] and estimates adding in the FBI’s email investigation drives the cost to over $20 million.[3]

Over the next several weeks, expect to hear from or about former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power, and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. This is all a part of the same smokescreen: let’s talk about the “good old Obama days” as a way of distracting from the reality of the Trump/Russian issue.

There is also a different screening operation going on, but this time aided by the “mainstream media” that the President has so often accused of “fake news.” The premise of this insidious argument: that the Russian “collusion” was in fact a plan by Russian Intelligence simply to create chaos. Russian agents DID make the contacts with the Trump campaign and administration that are slowly coming to light, but they did so NOT to arrange for campaign coordination, but simply to create the appearance of that conspiracy. Meanwhile the Russians DID manipulate the campaign, but the “Trump connections” are in fact simply to create more chaos in the American political system. There’s smoke but no fire, because the whole idea was to create smoke.[4]

This concept plays the Trump campaign/administration as unwitting participants in the Russian operation. They are not cooperators, colluders or conspirators; they are fools who fell for it. That makes them naïve, perhaps stupid, but probably not felons.

The third smokescreen is the ongoing chaos that IS the Trump Administration. With the firing of Preibus, the hiring of General Kelly (don’t we all trust a Marine Four-Star?) and the (temporary?) ascendency of Scaramucci to power, foul-mouth and all; it’s hard to keep focused on what’s going on.

This will get worse before it gets better. As the investigations (Senate, House, Mueller, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman) grow more intense, the counter-reaction will grow greater as well. It will be hard to stay focused, and it will make the US government seem to be even more disrupted. Whether there was a conspiracy or not, if Richard Engel of MSNBC is right, the Russians have achieved their goal: chaos.

[1] Gowdy Protects Kushner

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/07/26/top-intel-democrat-just-accused-trey-gowdy-protecting-kushner-private-house-hearing/

[2] NPR Cost of Benghazi Investigation

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/benghazi-committee-tops-5-million-in-spending/

[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investigating-clinton-many-millions-were-211500881.html

[4] MSNBC – Richard Engel Reports

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/russian-goal-of-us-chaos-already-accomplished-1012666435586

 

To Re-Cap

We are six months into the Trump Administration. Late last night, the Affordable Care Act dodged a bullet by two votes (thanks to Murkowski, Collins, McCain and the Senate Democrats). Now hopefully they can find a way to actually govern instead of posturing.

We are deep into the investigation of the Trump Campaign’s connection to the Russian State – so deep that the Trump Administration is willing to do almost anything to change the subject – from calling for a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton and James Comey[1] to talking dirty to the Boy Scouts and the New Yorker[2].

It’s time to recap. What do we know, what do we think, and what do we hope?

We know that the Trump Campaign received significant and potentially outcome changing help from the Russian government in the form of social media manipulation and control, and the theft and release of Trump’s opponents’ electronic communications.  We know that the manipulation and hacks were not only widespread, but also targeted and sophisticated. We know that 17 US Intelligence agencies have “high confidence” that there were Russian Intelligence operations[3]. We know that President Trump still publically and consistently questions this intelligence finding.

We also know that the Russian Intelligence agencies probed the actual electoral databases of at least twenty-one states (and possibly more) in the 2016 election cycle, and breeched at least three, in Florida, North Carolina and Illinois[4].

We know that in the writing of the party platform at the Republican convention, the section calling for arming Ukraine with “lethal defense weapons” against Russia was watered down at the behest of the Trump campaign, to read “providing appropriate assistance.[5]”

We know that members of the Trump Campaign were in contact with representatives of the Russian government throughout the summer and fall of 2016. This includes the famous meeting in Trump Tower on June 9^th, with Donald Trump Jr., Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and several Russians with links to the Russian government; and also multiple meetings by Advisor Michael Flynn, Senator (now Attorney General) Jeff Sessions, and advisor Carter Page.

We know that members of the Trump Campaign was openly looking for “negative information” about Hillary Clinton, and demonstrated willingness to accept information from Russian government sources (as seen in emails by Donald Trump Jr.)

We know that campaign advisor Roger Stone bragged about contact with Julian Assange of Wikileaks and “Guccifer 2.0” during the campaign, even to go so far as predicting when the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta would be “dropped.” Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 were the websites where the hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign were released[6].

We know that there was a computer email server, registered to the Trump organization and in Trump Tower, which was in consistent and near exclusive communication with a server owned by Alfa Bank, a Russian bank that has close ties to the Putin regime. Analysis of those servers show activity increases corresponding to important events during the campaign. Both Alfa Bank and the Trump organization deny that there was a linkage and that they had any business connections, though metadata logs demonstrate a consistent pattern[7].

We know that Jared Kushner apparently was looking for ways to avoid US Intelligence surveillance after the election, asking the Russian Embassy if there was a way to establish secure communications through their facilities.

We know that President Trump has shown a consistent pattern of “being nice” to Vladimir Putin, and being unwilling to press against Russian aggressions.

We know that the Trump team, from Michael Flynn to Jeff Sessions to Jared Kushner; have a remarkably unclear memory of meetings they had with Russians and members of the Russian government.  We know that Kushner in particular has had to revise his SF 86 Security Clearance multiple times, and all seems to only admit to meetings when the evidence is put in front of them.

We also know that the Trump Administration has shown an apparent and ongoing desire to obstruct and stop the “Russia Investigation.” This was first demonstrated by the firing of FBI Director Comey, and continues with pressure from the President (via Tweets) on Attorney General Sessions to either quit of “un-recuse” himself so that he can protect Trump.[8] The Trump team also is raising questions about Special Counsel Mueller and his team, questioning whether they have “conflicts of interest,” and recently have begun attacks on Acting FBI Director McCabe, the default overseer of the investigation should Mueller’s team be fired.[9]

What we don’t have – direct evidence that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian intelligence during the campaign. We know that they were willing to do so (at least Donald Trump Jr. was) but we don’t have evidence that they did – yet. We don’t have direct linkage of President Trump with Russian connections, though his micro-management style of his organization suggests he would know about what his subordinates did.

We don’t know yet, what the financial information about the Trump organization may bring. We know that Trump was known for playing “fast and loose” in the New York real estate market. One of the administration’s strongest protests is that the Mueller investigation should NOT be looking outside of the 2016 Presidential campaign. As Mueller was rumored to be asking for tax returns, all of a sudden Trump raised the heat on the Special Counsel.

We don’t have direct information about the “kompromat,” the potentially damaging information Russian Intelligence might have on the President. This might range from the amount of Russian money that has been invested into the Trump Organization (one potential reason for Trump’s unwillingness to reveal his taxes) to actual money laundering by Russian organized crime through Trump properties, to more salacious and immoral suggestions including sex trafficking.

What we can hope? That sooner rather than later, the Mueller investigation will begin to reveal what it has found. This is not just because it could be the beginning of the end of the Trump Administration, but, just as Watergate did over forty years ago, the scandal has gripped the nation, and paralyzed any other actions that the government might take. We can’t move on, with or without Trump, until we know.

Will it happen soon? Don’t hold your breath.

[1] WAPO – House Judiciary Committee Votes to probe Comey and Clinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/07/26/house-judiciary-committee-votes-to-probe-comey-and-clintons-2016-campaign/?utm_term=.4419ae91f7c2

[2] New Yorker – Scaramucci Rant

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

[3] Time – Inside Russia’s Socia Medial War on America

http://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/

[4] Bloomberg – Russian Breach of 39 States

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

[5] Business Insider – Republican Platform Changes on Ukraine

http://www.businessinsider.com/jd-gordon-trump-adviser-ukraine-rnc-2017-3

[6] CNN – Stone and Wikileaks

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/index.html

[7] Slate – Trump Server Communicating with Russia

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

[8] Vanity Fair – Sessions

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/why-jeff-sessions-can-tell-trump-to-kiss-his-ring

[9] NYT – Session and McCabe

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/jeff-sessions-trump-mccabe.html

 

The End of Reconstruction

It started with a political deal in 1876. The Democratic candidate, Governor Samuel Tilden of New York apparently won the election for President over Republican Rutherford Hayes, Governor of Ohio. Tilden won the popular vote by 50.9%, with 4,288,546 votes to Hayes’ 4,034,311. The apparent electoral vote total was 184 for Tilden and 165 to Hayes. At the time, 185 was the number needed for majority. There were two sets of votes sent from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and one disputed vote from Oregon, making a total of twenty votes in question.

Who was right, who was wrong no longer was the point. There was a deal to be made between the Southern Democrats and the Republicans that controlled Congress. The Southern Democrats agreed to cede all 20 votes, making Hayes the President, in return for the end of the military occupation of the South (from the Civil War) and political control of those states. The deal was made – and Tilden was left behind.

It was the end of Reconstruction, and the end of the Radical Republican dream of racial equality enshrined in the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution. Soon new laws were introduced in the South, the “Jim Crow Laws,” which guaranteed separation of the races and there was a steady movement towards discriminatory laws in both the South and the North. It took close to a century to undo the damage done by this deal.

This morning, in a “tweet,” the President of the United States began the undoing of the advances made by the LGBTQ community in the past decade. It didn’t take a nefarious committee of the Congress, it didn’t take a national discussion: President Trump picked up his phone, and removed the right and opportunity for transgendered folks to serve in the military. What about the estimated 1320 to 6630 transgendered who are already serving? What about the fact that those folks have served openly, because there were told they could,  now facing discharge? What about the newly graduated transgendered from the national military academies? They’re out.

With all of the craziness that goes on in the Trump Administration (this morning: the health care votes in the Senate, the cyber-bullying of the Attorney General, the firing of White House staff by Scaramucci, John McCain, and on and on) we shouldn’t miss this. The President is rolling back the advancement of LGBTQ rights. He’s doing it not through a Presidential order, not through a press conference where questions can be asked: no – only through a “tweet” which allows for no questions.

From a more global perspective the Trump administration represents a real turning point in the progress of human rights in the United States. It’s the “voting commission” and the national restriction of voting rights, the Education Department’s change on transgendered policy, the call of the Vice President for the teaching of the science of “creationism” versus the “theory” of evolution in school, the willingness of the President to remove Medicaid from 20 million to 30 million people. It all represents a “roll back” of rights, much like the end of Reconstruction.

Let’s hope it doesn’t take a century to fix.

 

PBS – The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_election.html

Rand Study – Transgendered in the Military

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2016/06/30.html

Atlantic – Sec’y of Defense Carter – allows transgendered to serve

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/transgender-military/489584/

Pence and Creationism

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/

 

 

The Boy Scout Oath

On my Honor, I will do my Best,

To Do My Duty, to God and my Country, and

To Obey the Scout Law.

To Help other people at all times.

To Keep myself physically strong,

Mentally Awake,

And Morally Straight.

Honor, Duty, Helping Others and Yourself: those are the keys to the Scout Oath. The Boy Scouts was established in 1910 to use the outdoors as a way to teach these principles. As an organization it has struggled with the changes of America. As a Scout myself in the 1960’s, the contrast between those ideals and the activism of the “sixties” was striking and confusing. I remember an indoor event at Hara Arena in Dayton, Ohio, where my troop was building a signal tower from logs and rope. As we worked, we listened to another troop’s project, a rock band, play “American Band” by Grand Funk Railroad (“…we’re coming to your town, we’re going to party it down, we’re an American Band…”.) We were enjoying the show, but the adult leaders literally ran to the stage to stop the music: it wasn’t considered the “Scouting Way.”

The Scouting organization has tried to catch up ever since. It took Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, to move the Scouts to recognize LGBTQ rights for Scouts and leaders. As President of the Boy Scouts from 2014 to 2016, Gates, an Eagle Scout (the highest rank a boy can achieve in the organization) understood that either the Scouts needed to move forward with our society, or be isolated and wither away.

Scouting is still struggling, as inner city kids find it irrelevant, and suburban kids are organized into travel sports. Today over 2.7 million youth and 950,000 adults are involved, down from 1970’s high of 6.4 million. It still provides kids opportunities to camp, learn life skills and learn to work together, as well as strong set of moral ideals.

One of the great experiences of Scouting is the opportunity to travel to a National Jamboree, where Scouts from all over the country come together for a week of camping together, doing activities, and getting the opportunity to know each other. It is a time of fellowship and renewal of Scouting ideals. It is a great honor to be asked to speak to the 40,000 assembled Scouts at the Jamboree. Certainly a President of the United States should at least recognize the Scouting ideals when speaking to the kids. It is his opportunity to emphasize both to the Scouts and to the nation the good that still comes from Scouting, and the importance of Duty, Honor, God and Country.

Unfortunately, this President doesn’t get it. He took the honor the Boys Scout’s gave him and used it to further his own political agenda. His address to the Scouts included promoting his health care plan, talking about his electoral win, slamming “fake news,” and demanding loyalty from his own subordinates. He even decided that it was appropriate to use profanity, and imply off color jokes. He also made the gross mistake of assuming that all Boy Scouts supported him for President and wanted him to “Make America Great Again.”

There were plenty of people around Trump to tell him how to behave (since he obviously didn’t know.) Cabinet Secretaries Zinke, Perry, Sessions and Tillerson are all Eagle Scouts. As Eagles they well know the traditions and ideals of Scouting, and they know exactly what role the President of the United States should take. Clearly he either never asked, or didn’t care.

The fact that the Boys Scouts of America asked the President of the United States to address their Jamboree shouldn’t reflect badly on the Scouts. Unfortunately, Donald Trump showed exactly what kind of man he is. He didn’t bother to do what was appropriate for the setting: instead, wrapped up in his own narcissism, he ignored the traditions of Scouting and insulted the organization and the Scouts by his political rant. Some say this is the Scouts’ fault, but the fault is that of America: we elected him.

 

Full Disclosure: Marty Dahlman, Eagle Scout, 1970

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Going to the Mattresses

(So What Could Trump Do, Part II)

No, no, no! No more! Not this time, consiglieri. No more meetings, no more discussions, no more Sollozzo tricks. You give ’em one message: I want Sollozzo. If not, it’s all-out war: we go to the mattresses.

Sonny Corelone speaking to Tom Hagen in The Godfather

Sean Spicer is out as Director of Communications: Anthony Scarmucci is in. Marc Kasowicz is “taking a reduced role” as the President’s Attorney for the Russia Investigation: Ty Cobb is in. Attorney General Sessions has been “disloyal” to the President by recusing himself from the Russian investigation. The President’s legal team is “looking into” Special Counsel Mueller’s team for conflicts and for exceeding the “bounds” of the Special Counsel’s investigation. They also are researching what the President’s power to pardon entails.

It looks like the President is getting ready to “go to the mattresses.” Spicer, a long time part of the Republican establishment and friend of Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is leaving his White House position as Press Secretary and Director of Communications. His replacement is the ultimate “Trump loyalist”, Anthony Scarmucci, Wall Street entrepreneur. Scarmucci’s first words are: “I love the President. I am serving the President, the President’s agenda.” Priebus days may well be numbered as well.

Going to the mattresses: the President is getting ready to go to war over the Russia investigation. He’s not looking for expertise in issues, he’s really not interested in his ongoing issues agenda: he’s looking for loyalists who will stick with him through the fight that is about to begin. Let’s look into the crystal ball to see what may occur.

Trump would like to fire Sessions, not for disloyalty, but because Session’s recusal has rendered him unable to defend Trump. If Trump could fire Sessions, and appoint a new Attorney General who is clear of Russian connections, he would. Then he could order that Attorney General to fire Special Counsel Mueller. However, the US Senate would have to approve that appointment, and it seems unlikely that they would do so if the appointee wouldn’t commit to keeping Mueller.

So Sessions, stays in the job. Trump will wait until the Special Counsel investigation gets into the Trump business finances, then claim Mueller is out of bounds (and bring out any “dirt” his legal team has found.) Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, is ordered to fire Mueller, and refuses. The next in line, the Solicitor General and the Associate Attorney General, also refuse, and all three are fired. The next in order is Dana Boente, US Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, and late acting Attorney General. He becomes acting Deputy Attorney General, fires Mueller, then heads back to Alexandria.

The Mueller investigation returns to the FBI, and the Special Counsel’s team goes back into private practice. Now it’s up to the Department of Justice to bring charges brought by the FBI, a much less likely prospect.

Meanwhile the Congressional committees are up in arms, claiming that Trump is obstructing justice. Trump uses Twitter to rouse his base, trying to keep the Republicans in line. Maybe that works, maybe not. Meanwhile the committees try to lever Manafort, Flynn, Don Junior and Jared Kushner to testify: trading immunity for their incriminating statements. The President “double-jumps” the committees by granting all of them pardons, telling the American people; “…this is the only way to end the witch hunt and get on with Making America Great Again.” Again, maybe this works, maybe not. If both of these moves work though, the President is clear until the elections of 2018.

Come 2018, if Democrats gain a majority in the House, impeachment would definitely be in the air. Should the House pass a bill of impeachment, it goes to the Senate. Two-thirds must agree to remove the President. If Republicans stay “in-line” then Trump survives, if they determine that he must go, then he resigns (saving the country the “agony” of an impeachment trial, and probably with an agreement with Pence that he receives a Presidential pardon.)

This strategy achieves several objectives for the Trump team. First, it will take years, if ever, for the final act of Presidential removal to occur. It delays, fulfilling the daily goal of “survive til tomorrow.” And, if Trump is able to hold his base, he may well be able to hold just enough of the Republican members of Congress to run the table and stay until 2020.

The question will ultimately fall to the Republican leaders of the Congress.   If they see that the conservative agenda items they have been dreaming about since 2008 are no longer an option, they may decide to cut Trump lose and try again with a Pence Presidency. Or, and one would hope, if they see that there is evidence of Trump’s illegal acts, perhaps they will stand up and do what’s right for the country for the right reason. They will show the courage of being more than just loyal to the President or the party, but loyal to the Constitution and the United States of America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So What Could Trump Do?

Last night the President of the United States gave a rambling interview to the New York Times. He made several statements that raised questions about what he intends to do. He voiced displeasure with the actions of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who recused himself from involvement in investigations about the 2016 campaign. Trump said he wouldn’t have appointed him if he known. He also placed a “ red line” on the Special Counsel’s investigation, stating that Mueller should not get into the Trump family finances. In addition, he claimed that there are multiple conflicts of interest in the Special Counsel’s office, though he wouldn’t reveal what they were (maybe later, just like the “tapes” of the Comey conversations.)

This raises the question: what would the President be willing to do to stop the Russia Investigation, what could he do, and most significantly, what would the possible outcomes of those actions be?

As William Mueller continues his investigation, clearly looking beyond “just” Russian connections to the Trump campaign, Trump has two paths to remove him and attempt to end his investigation. The first would be to order the removal of Mueller. The President does not have the direct power to fire Mueller, what he can do is order the Attorney General to do it. Since Attorney General Sessions is recused (and here’s the problem Trump has) that power devolves to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (Trump had plenty to say about Rosenstein, the former Baltimore US Attorney, saying that “…there are very few Republicans in Baltimore, if any.”)

Should Rosenstein refuse to fire Mueller, Trump could fire him. That would move the authority to fire Mueller to the down the line in the Department of Justice; first to the Solicitor General, then the Associate Attorney General, and then US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in succession. This would be reminiscent of the “Saturday Night Massacre” of Watergate days, when Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the top two officers of the Justice Department refused to do it and were fired or resigned.

There is a second way that the President could end the Mueller investigation. The Special Counsel exists as a series of regulations within the Department of Justice. It is not a “law,” and since the President is ultimately in charge of the Department, he has the authority to alter or abolish those regulations. Therefore, President Trump could simply make the Special Counsel position disappear, thus ending that part of the investigation. While this gets the leaders of the Department out of the middle, it still might result in their resignation, and move the investigation back to the FBI.

Clearly firing or removing Mueller would be seen by many as the ultimate form of obstruction of justice. The investigation would continue through the FBI, and certainly one would hope that Congress (even Republicans) would take a dim view of that action, just as the Republicans did back in 1973. The Senate and House investigations would continue, and could lead to impeachment.

The President also has an unlimited power to “pardon” for Federal crimes. Pardoning is forgiving for crimes that may have been committed; once a pardon has been issued to a particular individual, all criminal action against the individual for those matters pardoned is ended. Despite “tweet chains” to the contrary, the ability of the President to pardon includes those who worked and campaigned with him even his family. There is no mechanism to restrict the pardoning power of the President during investigations.

So it is possible that President Trump could pardon Flynn, Manafort, and his children, for any crimes they may have committed involving Russia and the campaign. The biggest effect of such a pardon would be to remove the leverage that investigators, both Special Counsel and Congressional, have to gain testimony. Reaction to that action would be important, again, as the President depends on the Republicans in Congress to maintain their support. But, if the Congress moved to impeachment, there still is no precedent for “undoing” the pardons issued, and a great deal protecting the President’s power.

Presidential pardons have two restrictions: the President cannot pardon impeachments, and the President cannot pardon state offenses. So President Trump cannot prevent his own impeachment, and he cannot stop state or local investigations (such as the New York State Attorney General’s investigation into Trump finances.

Could President Trump pardon himself? It’s never happened. It certainly would be seen as an admission by some of guilt. If that didn’t trigger an impeachment process resulting in the removal of the President, nothing will. But all of that doesn’t mean he couldn’t do it. It certainly would put the country into a Constitutional crisis (if we aren’t in one already.) I would imagine that if President Trump did this, it would be soon followed by his resignation.

After reviewing the New York Times interview, President Trump presents himself as a man who will “go down fighting.” As the Special Counsel moves closer to the Trump finances and children, it would not be a surprise if he is fired. Since that only moves the investigations back to the FBI, the Presidential pardons would come next, with the President betting that his power base in the country would prevent the Republicans in Congress from moving towards impeachment. Ultimately it would still be the nation’s decision, with the final decision made in the Congressional elections in 2018.

New York Times – Trump Interview

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Order of Succession – Department of Justice

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/10/providing-order-succession-within-department-justice

Presidential Pardons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/25/AR2009012501774.html

 

Shanksville

It’s summer in America, and for us it now means loading up the camper and heading out on the road. This week it’s Pennsylvania, and while today will find us in Gettysburg (where I can transform into the history geek I’ve always been) yesterday it was Shanksville.

Shanksville has a population of 232. It is a rural village in the hills and dales of the Laurel Highlands of Southwestern Pennsylvania. It is coal and farming  and definitely Trump country. And if that name sounds vaguely familiar, it should. Sixteen years ago the quiet little village of Shanksville was ripped out of rural tranquility and placed front and center onto the world stage of terror.

It was in a old strip mined field of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that the fourth airliner hijacked on 9/11, United Flight 93, came hurtling into the ground at 543 miles per hour. It was bound for the Capitol Building in Washington, 19 minutes out, when the passengers decided that they were going to take control of history. They revolted on the plane, as passenger Todd Beamer was heard to say (on a airphone left connected) “Let’s Roll.” They tried to take control back, and ultimately brought the plane down.

It was an act of desperation, knowing from phone calls that the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers had already been hit, knowing that this was not a “hostage taking” exercise, knowing that they were in a flying bomb. It was an act of ultimate courage, willing to take the last chance, to at least choose their way of dying. It was forty passengers and crew versus four hijackers, and as the black box recording showed, the heroes succeeded in breeching the cockpit, as English and Arabic yells and curses mixed, and the hijackers, rather than be overcome, crashed the plane.

There are several memorials near Shanksville. The United States has created a Memorial and a Visitors Center near the crash site. The Memorial has low black limestone walls surrounding the debris field, and a high white memorial wall, names of the passengers and crew etched in stone, following the plane’s path of descent. In the center of the field, a boulder represents the covered impact zone, originally thirty feet deep, filled in as the final resting place for the fallen.

The Visitors Center gives a visual history of that day, from the clear blue skies that welcomed the children at the Shanksville school that morning, to the step by step realization that we were under attack, and finally the shocking assault from the sky. It is a National Monument to the heroic action of the forty, and it is an historical lesson so that the growing number of people who have no memory of 9/11 will learn. As Lincoln said, “…it is all together fitting and proper that we do this.”

Down the road is the Flight 93 Memorial Chapel. It isn’t mentioned at the National Memorial. It was an old church, turned into a grain barn, that after the crash a local priest determined to buy and create a space for those who wished to mourn, meditate, and remember. “Father Al” with help from the Hardys’ of 84 Lumber, remodeled the chapel in time for the first anniversary of the crash. It was where the families of the forty originally came. It is filled the not only with their memorabilia, but the gifts of thousands, from stained glass from a Jewish temple, to a US desert camo uniform from Iraq, to a United Airlines service cart. Outside, United’s own monument to the passengers and crew is placed. A memorial bell vintage 1861 is rung, loud enough to be heard at the crash site four miles away.

While the National Memorial represents the history and honor of the nation, the Chapel represents the heart and soul of the people of Shanksville. It is their ongoing gift to the families of the fallen, and also a memorial to their own loss of innocence.

With the political divide our nation is faced with today, where we can hardly stand each other across the chasm of differing beliefs, it is strengthening to realize that there still is an America where we can reach across our differences to unite. We can celebrate both the strength of the forty, and the strength of the folks in Shanksville in dealing with this tragedy. We can believe in America once again.

 

 

 

 

So Let’s Get this Straight

So let’s get this straight. After a week of “rolling revelations” from the Trump family, we finally have a sense of what went on leading up to the meeting June 16^th, 2016 in Trump Tower. Here’s the cast of characters (reads like the first chapter of War and Peace.) Links for more information are at the end of the article.

Donald Trump Jr – eldest son of then Presidential candidate Donald Trump and a chief advisor to his father and the campaign.

Rob Goldstone – publicist for Russin/Azerbaijani Pop Star Emin Agalarov. Acquainted with Trump Jr since the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, which the Trumps owned.

Emin Agalarov – Russian-Azerbaijani Pop Star. Performed at the Miss Universe Pageant and has had continued his relationship with the Trumps. President Trump appeared in one of his pop videos.

Aras Agalarov –Azerbaijani-Russian construction billionaire, and close friend of Vladmir Putin. Agalarov not only has sponsored his son’s performing career, but also is a prime candidate for Trump construction deals in Russia. Trump Junior and Senior both know him from the Miss Universe pageant.

 Natalia Veselnitskaya – Russian attorney, and lobbyist in the United States against the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act is a series of US sanctions against individual Russians accused of committing “human rights abuses,” which included the death of Sergei Magnitsky in Russian prison. Putin hates the Magnitsky Act. She also was an attorney in the Prevezon case, where the Russian company that benefited from Magnitsky’s death laundered hundreds of millions of dollars through New York real estate. The Justice Department just settled the case for a $6 million penalty.

Rinat Akhmetshin – Dual American/Russian citizen, who served as a counter intelligence officer in Russian Army Intelligence before immigrating to the US. Akhmertshin is known as a “fixer” in Washington, an expert on finding negative information about companies or people. Akhmetshin has bragged about his ability to find emails that have been hacked.

Paul Manafort – Manager for the Trump campaign in the late spring and summer of 2016. Manafort also has documented connections with the Russian government, including political work in Ukraine to elect a pro-Russian president. Manafort ultimately left the Trump campaign when his foreign dealings were revealed.

Jared Kushner – Husband of Ivanka Trump, and a leading advisor to then candidate, now President Trump. Kushner also was deeply involved in real estate in New York City.

Yuri Chaika – Prosecutor-General of Russia. A close Putin ally (and law school classmate) met with Veselnitskaya (according to her) before she came to New York for the meetings with Trump Jr.

So here’s the story.

Goldstone sent an email to Donald Trump Jr. In the email he requested to set up a meeting with Trump Jr and a “representative of the Russian Government” (Veselnitskaya) having negative information about Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr’s reply: “I love it.”

Currently known to be in the meeting were: Trump Jr, Manafort, Kushner, Goldstone, Veselnitskaya, and Akhmetshin. At the writing of this, there are rumors of two more participants, perhaps Emir Agalarov and another member of the Trump family. Those are unconfirmed rumors.

Trump Jr states the meeting was less than thirty minutes. He claims that the discussion was not about Clinton and the DNC, but concentrated on the Magnitsky Act and Russia’s retaliation by banning US parents from adopting from Russia. Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin have stated that a folder was given to Trump Jr, but the Trumps have not acknowledged that.

So what’s the take on this so far? I’m not addicted to too many television shows, but one that keeps me completely occupied is NCIS. The lead character, Gibbs, has a series of rules to live by. His Rule 39: there is no such thing as a coincidence.

The leaders of the Trump Campaign met with a Russian lawyer known for her connections to the Russian government. With her was a US/Russian citizen known for his abilities to run negative campaigns and get hacked emails. It seems unreasonable that this was all a cover to talk about the Magnitsky Act.

So that’s where things stand today, at least this morning. As this story has gone, I’m sure it will be completely different this afternoon!!!

On a different note; Vice President Pence fired the first shot of the 2020 Presidential primaries last week, calling out Ohio Governor John Kasich on Medicaid in front of the National Governor’s conference. A detailed look at the information shows that Pence got it wrong – but that wasn’t the point anyway. Let the games begin!!!

CNN – overview of Trump Meeting

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/15/politics/russia-donald-trump-jr-meeting/index.htm

Natalia Veselnitskaya

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/natalia-veselnitskaya-trump-junior/533670/

Rinat Akhmetshin

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/europe/rinat-akhmetshin-donald-trump-jr-natalia-veselnitskaya.html

Magnitsky Act

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537247838/what-really-irritates-vladimir-putin-the-magnitsky-act

Prevezon Case

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-was-russian-money-laundering-case-dismissed-house-dems-2017-7

Yuri Chaika

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/russian-crown-prosecutor/533295/

Gibbs Rules

http://www.nciswikia.com

 

I’m not a lawyer, but…

The son of the Republican candidate for President, the campaign manager, and the son-in-law of the President chose to meet with a person they thought was a representative of the Russian government in order to get negative information about the Democratic candidate. They then denied that meeting for over a year, until the New York Times forced them to acknowledge it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html

It sounds incredibly shaky. It is completely unethical. Any normal politician would realize that it absolutely fails the risk/benefit analysis. Whatever they received in that meeting (and we only have Donald Junior’s word that there wasn’t anything) it wasn’t worth the very foreseeable outcome they are experiencing today. The question remains – was it a violation of Federal law?

Much as “never-Trumpers” and others would wish it, the actions by the three are not a “slam dunk,” “go directly to jail” event. However, there are several theories that would allow for Federal prosecution.

The first, and probably most far-fetched, is the Treason section of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Treason is closely defined as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States. While participating with a foreign adversary in undermining the electoral process would seem to be doing exactly that, it is unlikely that Courts would see the current US/Russia relationship as one of enemies at war. Having said that, if in the end it is shown that the Trump campaign helped direct the ongoing Russian attacks, it could end up as an included charge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-treason/2017/02/17/8b9eb3a8-f460-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.04219371583c

The second and likely charge, would be a violation of the Federal Campaign Laws. It is illegal for a campaign to accept money donated by a foreign citizen (or government.) The stretch in this charge, is that the Russians weren’t offering money, they were offering information. This would have to be regarded as an “in kind” contribution, an action that can be assigned a monetary value. If no other evidence is available beyond what has been published, then the charge would be “intent” to accept this contribution, and the charge would get pretty thin.

http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections

The third possibility would require a lot more evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in directing the Russian attacks. Those actions began with a felony crime, the hacking of the DNC emails. The Trump campaign would have conspired with the Russians in the commission and/or use of those stolen documents, and therefore been involved in a pattern of corrupt practices. This could result in a “RICO” charge, like those used against organized crime.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/rico-act.html

Finally, there is the “cover up.” While it is NOT illegal to lie to the media or the people, it IS illegal to lie under oath, to lie or misrepresent on Federal security documents, and/or to lie or misrepresent to Federal investigators. As occurred in the Watergate prosecutions, many of the charges in the Trump case may end up being the “cover up” rather than the base crimes.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf

What about the President himself? As President of the United States, he is immune from criminal prosecution (though there is discussion as to whether he can be indicted.) He can be civilly sued (that’s what caught up Bill Clinton, lying under oath in a deposition.)  There are only two processes for removing the President, impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by two thirds of the Senate; or temporary removal from office under the 25^th Amendment (a majority of the cabinet and the Vice President, and ultimately two thirds of the House and Senate.)

http://dahlman.online/index.php/2017/03/11/process/

We are (still) a long way from that.

 

 

 

An Ethical Dilemma

It was 1995 here in little Pataskala, Ohio. There was a local fight between a small faction that wanted to take over the school board, and the “good guys” allied against them (guess which side I was on!!) It was ugly, at board meetings, in the newspapers, and even with threats of lawsuits (and challenges to duels!)

I was a participant in the fray, both as a teacher/coach, and an officer in the local teachers’ union. I awoke one morning to find a manila envelope wedged in my front door. I opened and read damaging material about one of the “bad guys,”  incredibly personal and intimate. It would decimate him and destroy their “cause.”

Was it true, or not? Was it someone settling a personal grudge? Did it matter, if it achieved the political goal of “beating the bad guys?”

In any kind of political career you make ethical decisions; weighing right versus wrong against cost versus benefit. Some aren’t a big deal: do you put signs up in the road right-of-way (technically illegal).  Some are tougher:  do you “go negative” in a campaign with facts against your rival (and how far do you go.) Some are even worse, do you accept the support of someone who clearly will expect something in return. And then there’s the ultimate question: are you willing to do anything and everything to win?

Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner were faced with this kind of ethical question. A meeting was arranged with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, with the goal of getting “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370

A brief Google search would have found the linkage between Veselnitskaya and pro-Putin positions. A little further digging would have found that she represents some of Putin’s closer allies. Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner walked into a meeting with a Russian with government connections at a time when the Trump campaign was pivoting to attack Clinton, and looking for a way to get it done (and Trump himself was calling on Russia to find Hillary’s 30,000 emails.) That this particular source (whether it was fruitful or not, we really don’t know yet) was so obviously linked to Putin’s regime should have warned them off. But they took the meeting, making the ethical decision that the benefits would be worth the cost.

If they got information “hacked” from the Clinton campaign and the DNC it was illegal. If they were searching for information from any source (especially foreign) to “get Clinton” they may have participated in a pattern of corrupt activity (RICO violation.) Either way, they showed they were willing to do whatever was needed to win.

So those were the ethics of the Trump campaign senior staff. They couldn’t have been so ignorant of campaign ethics and law especially with such a seasoned campaigner as Manafort in the room. No, they made a choice.

I made a choice too. Regardless of our political differences, I called the “bad guy,” met him at the local restaurant, and handed him the envelope. Though the information, true or false, would have changed the debate and destroyed him, I had good reason to believe it wasn’t true. It was a choice, one that I taught my students and my athletes: that cheating to win isn’t winning at all. I considered the consequences, and decided the results weren’t worth the cost.

We won our issue in the end, campaigning on the ideas we believed in. Perhaps the Trumps would have too. We’ll never know, and the price of   “winning at all cost” ethics may be their utter destruction.

 

So What have We Done?

 

President Trump met with Vladimir Putin yesterday and many in America are breathing a sigh of relief. Trump didn’t seem to give away “the farm”; he (maybe?) seemed to be on an “even field” with the “KGB Master.”

And that’s the problem. President Trump met with Putin, and placed Putin’s Russia on an even playing field with the United States. Does Putin belong there? Currently, Russia is ranked 12^th in the world by GNP (gross national product) with the US 1^st, China 2^nd, and even Canada and South Korea rated ahead (10^th and 11^th). The United States GNP is over 14 times greater than Russia.

And while Russia still has the second largest military in the world (and arguably the biggest nuclear force) that military force has been used to sustain the Assad regime in Syria, takeover Crimea from the Ukraine, threaten several other Eastern European states, and put down factions within the Federation. And, of course, the Russian security apparatus has assassinated its opponents, and attacked the US by effecting the 2016 election. Just yesterday they were accused of attempting to penetrate US energy infrastructure.

Putin made his own “deal with the Devil” when he took power in Russia in 1999: he allowed the “kleptocrats” to continue to loot the people of Russia, as long as they agreed to support him. And he took care of himself, with a current projected net worth of over $200 Billion. Not bad for a former KGB colonel.

So when Trump sat down with Putin for over two hours, he validated Putin’s desire to make Russia “an equal” to the United States. Putin’s ultimate goal is to regain the Russian Empire, the old Soviet Union, and to regain the power and prestige of the Stalin/ Khrushchev/Brezhnev glory days. Trump sat down with a leader of a sovereign state of organized crime, a murderer, and a dreamer of world conquest. Trump treated him as an equal, while proceeding to continue to ignore our world allies, most notably Angela Merkel of Germany. He even felt it “proper” to leave his daughter in his place with the leaders of the world, clearly not concerned about the message that sends.

No, President Trump didn’t give away “the farm” in talking to Putin. He didn’t become hypnotized by Putin’s dead blue eyes. Trump treated Putin as an equal – just what Putin needed.

 

While Rome Burns

North Korea launched its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) this weekend. For the first time, they have the ability to directly strike at the United States, and most targets on the Pacific Rim. North Korea not only launched this missile after repeated warnings from the United States to cease, they then dropped it into an exclusive Japanese economic zone of the Sea of Japan.

While the North Koreans have not shown they have the capability of creating a nuclear warhead to cap their ICBM, it really seems to be only a matter of time. That the Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, will control the ultimate weaponry available is the most destabilizing issue in the world today.

President Trump has pressed the Chinese, North Korea’s major trading partner and lifeline to the world, to somehow rein in Kim Jong-un. Trump anticipated that he would be able to convince President Xi Jinping that trade with the United States is worth the rigors of trying to control North Korea.

US Admiral (retired) James Stavridis made it clear why the Chinese are reluctant to become involved in restraining North Korea. He sees China as taking the “long view.” If China  intervenes, precipitating the fall of Kim Jong-un, it could result in a unified Korean peninsula. Like the union of Germany after the fall of the Soviet Union, China sees a unified Korea as a huge economic rival on its own backdoor. The threat of that is great enough, that China is willing to risk Kim’s “twisting the tail” of the nuclear threat.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/what-are-us-options-for-dealing-with-north-korea-983666243827

Or, perhaps China is looking for a trade. China and the United States are involved in a territorial dispute over the South China Sea. The Chinese are expanding and militarizing small coral islands there, in order to claim territorial sovereignty over the entire area. The United States has disputed this claim, performing “Freedom of Navigation” exercises by sailing within twelve miles of the island of Triton last week. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/02/politics/us-navy-south-china-sea/index.html)

The deal might be, China gets what it wants (control of the South China Sea) in return for reining in North Korea. The problem: the United States is unwilling to cede control of this main sea lane to China, and at the same time is unable to tolerate North Korean threats to South Korea, Japan, and of course, the US itself. It is the United States that “needs” the deal, more than China does.

Meanwhile the US is considering a military option. This would involve targeted strikes against both the missile and nuclear facilities in North Korea. It would certainly trigger a North Korean attack against South Korea, where 38,000 US troops are stationed, as well as millions of South Korean citizens, and ultimately a renewed Korean War.

The other option is status-quo, allowing the North Koreans to continue their nuclear/missile development. Once they have reached the capacity for a nuclear attack on the US (they already may be able to deliver one on Japan and US bases in the Pacific, and certainly on South Korea) the stakes will be extremely high. The US is continuing testing and improvement of the anti-ballistic missile system, but there is no “guaranteed 100%” system.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/politics/pentagon-missile-test-north-korea-iran/index.html

While the US is entranced with the spectacle of the Trump Administration, and we all wait for the next “shoe to drop” in the Russia controversy, North Korea is a problem that won’t go away. Hopefully President Trump and the rest of the government aren’t “fiddling” while Rome burns.