Category: Uncategorized

Quid Pro Quo (to get something for something)

President Donald Trump, through his newly appointed Deputy Attorney General, fired the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, Tuesday night. Doesn’t seem to be quite fair, not a “quid pro quo,” considering many feel that Comey was instrumental in getting Trump elected to the Presidency in the first place with the “October Surprise” announcement.

Sonny Corelone(the Godfather) once said “…the goddamned FBI don’t respect nothin’…” Clearly Donald Trump felt the same way, as his letter from Tuesday night shows:

“While I appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nonetheless concur with the judgment in the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.”

Trump’s own letter made it clear that his focus was on the possibility of an FBI probe into his own behavior in the 2016 election. He took the opportunity to get rid of the man leading the investigation that could end up there. As the noose grows tighter around Flynn, Manafort, Stone and the others; the path to Trump himself may be opening. What better way to delay and deflect, than to decapitate the agency doing the investigating.

The details are ridiculous. Comey was fired ostensibly because he bungled the Hillary Clinton email investigation. The Deputy Attorney General’s critical letter could have been written by the Democratic National Committee. It states that Comey should not have held a press conference about the Clinton emails in July, should not have released the “October Surprise” and should not have commented on any of it.

Trump, of course, rejoiced in all of those actions at the time, praising Comey for being fair and above the political process. Now that investigation has turned to him he has the “quid pro quo:” “You’re Fired.”

So what now? Clearly the firing will have a chilling effect on the career officials of the FBI and the Justice Department who are investigating the Trump campaign. The message is clear: start getting close and you’re out. Ask Comey, or Sally Yates.

But just as clearly, this firing will have a galvanizing effect on the Democrats and the Press, and place more pressure on the key group in this whole mess: the Republican moderates in the Senate. McCain, Portman, Collins and the like are being pushed to take a side. They don’t like Trump anyway, and they are also the ones who saw the center of the Republican party slip away. Now they are the key to what happens next. The same is true from the “Tuesday Group” in the House of Representatives; they have the future of the Republican Party, and perhaps the nation, in their hands.

Like the Watergate investigation, a Special Prosecutor should be appointed to oversee the investigation. That would require Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (since Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from this issue) to make the appointment, but it seems unlikely he would do so after he followed Trump’s lead to fire Comey.

If a Special Prosecutor is unattainable, then the investigation will be left to the Republican dominated House and Senate. The question then is the same question former President Obama asked on Sunday night:

As everyone here now knows, this great debate is not settled but continues. And it is my fervent hope and the hope of millions that regardless of party, such courage is still possible, that today’s members of Congress, regardless of party, are willing to look at the facts and speak the truth even when it contradicts party positions.

We are left to hope that those moderate Republicans will find their Profile in Courage, not for a quid pro quo, but what’s right for the United States of America.

Washington Post – Documents

up next – “When will the money turn?”

If They Only Had a Heart (Karma’s a Bitch)

Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, was one of the members of the Freedom Caucus that directed the Trump Health Care bill. His statement on the impact of the bill (if it were to become law) on those with pre-existing conditions is not only significant, but horrifying in its implications.

Mo Brooks on Pre-Existing Conditions

For those who choose not to click on the link – here’s the synopsis:
Brooks stated that in order to bring insurance premiums down for those who have lived “a healthy life” and “done all of the right things” sick people (those with pre-existing conditions) should pay more. While he then states that not all sick people are at fault for being sick, we need to balance their needs against the needs of the “healthy” to pay less.

The clear frame of reference: sick people are getting what they deserve.

Mo Brooks is not a “barn burner” like former Congressman Joe Walsh. He represents a tremendously conservative part of the world, and was born and raised there:

Brooks Campaign Biography

Raul Labrador, Congressman from Idaho (and the Hispanic Conservative Republican hope) stated:
“No one dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
Labrador – News and Guts

It is of course the fallback position for de-regulating health insurance. NO ONE DIES – because they can always go the the emergency room. NO ONE DIES – because they can get emergency care without insurance. It ignores the whole proven effect of preventative care, of making prescription drug use affordable and therefore consistent, and of early detection and intervention. THE REALITY – many will die if their only access to medical care is emergency care. Not only will many die, but their medical care will be delivered in the MOST EXPENSIVE way possible, through emergency services.

And the argument that the truly poor can get on Medicaid starts to collapse, when Medicaid is on the chopping block. Fewer people get insurance, more people DO get their only medical care through emergency rooms.

By the way, when all of the emergency care is charged off, where do the costs go? Who pays? Oddly enough, not the government. The cost is absorbed into the overall operating costs of the hospital, those costs are then distributed among the paying customers. So in the end, we pay, we pay through higher hospital costs (or higher insurance costs) to cover those who can’t pay.

I don’t believe (or choose not to, anyway) that Mo Brooks and Raul Labrador are so hard hearted to wish people to die. They want to lower the costs of premiums for their chosen constituents (and reduce taxes and controls on their chosen contributors.) The problem, taking care of the “chosen” means that those who truly can’t afford insurance are left even farther behind.

So what’s the deal? Insurance companies don’t want to insure people who are more likely to get sick. That sounds like a stupid statement, but it’s completely valid. Insurance companies aren’t about protecting people, they ARE about making money. Sick people cost a whole lot more than well people (who just pay into but don’t take out of their insurance policies.) So if they can find a way to “bring competition into the market” by “charging more for pre-existing conditions” they can make more money. From all of the sound bites, the current House bill states that as long as you don’t drop (or get dropped) from your policy, you won’t have your premium raised for a condition. However, if you change jobs, if you fail to continue your current coverage, or if you somehow lapse in coverage, you are vulnerable to a huge increase under the current House bill.

“But we have returned power to the states, where they are closer to the people, rather than the federal government!!” Power to the states, where gerrymandered districts have guaranteed that insurance companies will be in control of any legislation. States can get waivers from even the modest requirements that the House bill suggests.

Maybe the title of this blog should be “Karma’s a Bitch” rather than “IF They Only Had A Heart.” Because as cruel as it may seem, I hope that the authors and supporters of the House bill may someday face the results of their legislative prowess. Because if “Karma’s a Bitch,” they are in for some difficult times.

America’s Heart?

My vision of America is a nation that cares about others, both here and abroad. A nation that at its heart is invested in people, not process. A nation that is willing to sacrifice to make everyone’s life better, not just those who already have successful lives. A nation that believes in the value of the individual, not at the exclusion of the many but as part of a complex goal that states “we can have it all.”

As an educator for forty years, I have seen the educational “establishment” move from caring about the individual to caring only about process. Process: in “educationese” it’s all about numbers, measuring proficiency and growth, whether teachers follow curriculum and meet testing standards. We then add another layer of “measuring” to derive statistical values to determine whether someone is a “good” teacher.

Caring about individuals: in real terms it’s about meeting the needs of students at their level. It might mean dealing with the societal issues the students are faced with, it might mean getting breakfast or coffee for students who can’t sleep at home, it might mean – heaven forbid – not following today’s curriculum to deal with real student issues (without penalty for the teacher.) It might be caring about kids, rather than statistics.

This “process priority” has devolved down to the lowest level; it is the rare Principal or school district bucks this trend. It makes our schools into “machines” rather than places that nurture kids, we are turning out “widgets” not students. And we have “normed” teachers, taking the best and beating them down to average, so that we can take the worst and try to force them up to average. The penalty is huge, both for our best students who are no longer challenged, and our worst students who are left to fail.

In education we have abandoned the hope of the turn of the 21st century, when we saw a model of empowering teachers to make decisions and improve both the education and lives of their students. Education is now a “top down” model: the administrators govern the employees, and teachers are rendered powerless. For a teacher to suggest differently means real threats and job sanctions.

In our “everyday” world: we care less about the passenger on the airline, more whether that seat can be cleared for an airline employee. We care more about removing an “illegal alien” than about the mother with four children who’s lived a productive life in this country for many years. We care more about the money in our pocket than the life of an infant. Ask Joe Walsh, former Congressman best known for screaming out LIAR to President Obama during the State of the Union Address. When talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel spoke about how he felt during surgery on his infant child, Walsh came back with:
“Your sad story doesn’t obligate me to pay for somebody else’s health care.”

Walsh and Kimmel

In our political world our President should represents the values of the United States as well as the interests of the United States. We now have a President whose view is completely “transactional” (read process): we don’t care what actions or immorality other leaders take, if they can help us we use them. We can invite a murdering President of the Philippines to “come see me at the White House,” or soft-pedal the insanity of North Korea’s Kim, or instantly change our mind about China’s role in the world.

We have appointed a woman to oversee a national program fighting teen pregnancy who doesn’t believe in contraception.

Trump picks anti contraception appointee

We have appointed an EPA chief who rejects the science that protects our environment.

Pruitt and Science NYT

We have a Congress still attempting to pass a Health Care Bill that will ultimately deny insurance to 24 million. They seem determined to find a way to force those who are unfortunate enough to have a pre-existing medical condition to either be forced off of insurance or forced to pay exorbitant fees. They hide this by pushing the heartless decision of cutting them off onto the states, but it’s there.

The America of 2017 grows heartless. Donald Trump is a result of this trend, his election was not the cause. We need to look deeper into ourselves to find the flaw and the cure for our hearts.

Lunatic Fringe (thanks Red Rider!!)

I know it’s been a while since my last blog. In my non-blog life I am a high school track coach, and this is “crazy” time. But I’m back today, so let’s get crazy!!

Louise Mensch has “all of the answers” in regards to Trump, Putin, and the Russian takeover of the American Presidency (her theory, not necessarily mine.) She has an odd background for a “ground-breaking” reporter on an American crisis. Born in England, a former Conservative Member of Parliament, she moved to the US to be with her children and husband Peter Mensch who runs “Q Prime” a band management group (Metallica, Red Hot Chile Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins.)

She made her reputation in Parliament with her sharp questioning of the Murdochs (Fox News) in the British media phone hacking scandal. After she resigned from Parliament and moved to the US, she went to work for “Heat Sheet” on online political “news” journal owned by the Murdoch’s News Corp.

She broke into the Trump story with a November 2016 story stating that the FBI had been granted a FISA warrant for activity between the Trump Tower server and two Russian Banks. This warrant would cover anyone with connections to these servers, thus perhaps including Donald Trump himself. While at the time the story seemed fantastical, and in fact was denied by the New York Times, later research by other organizations (BBC, the Guardian) seemed to back her claims.

Mensch: FISA Warrants

Since that time she had developed a comprehensive theory of a multiple year attack by Russia on the United States, which include the claims that there are Russian “moles” in the National Security Agency that influenced and aided Edward Snowden in his massive data breach of US secrets. She sees all of these actions (Snowden, email hacking, election involvement, subversion of senior American government officials) as one plan orchestrated by Russian President Putin. She no longer writes for “Heat Sheet” though she continues to be employed by News Corp. She blogs about the Trump crisis at her website patribotics.blog. Her comprehensive theory of the crisis is further explained here:

Mr Putin, lets play chess

I can’t prove that she’s wrong: but it’s difficult to prove that she’s right either. She has attempted to develop a “roadmap” for the current crisis, and much of her early work has proven to be accurate. It doesn’t mean that it’s all correct: but it does give pause.

Christopher Steele, the author of the famous “Trump Dossier” (including Golden Showers) is another Englishman whose work has had a dramatic impact on the current crisis. Steele, a former British intelligence agent, was commissioned first by opposing Republicans and later by Democrats to develop a report of Trumps’ activities regarding Russia. It was the revelation of this document (wholly unsubstantiated by outside sources at the time) that began the Trump crisis. And again, while large portions are still unsubstantiated, significant pieces have been documented.

Steele Report

As Bob Woodward of Watergate fame pointed out at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday, reporting is about putting a story together piece by piece, and not getting ahead of the substantiated facts. He and Carl Bernstein look back to the years it took them to piece together (along with many other reporters) the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon Presidency.

Deep Throat stamped his foot. ‘A conspiracy like this…a conspiracy investigation…the rope has to tighten slowly around everyone’s neck. You build convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and the Liddys. They feel hopelessly finished – they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing at the next level. If you shoot too high and miss, then everyone feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I’m sure smart reporters must, too. You’ve put the investigation back months. It puts everyone on the defensive – editors, FBI agents, everybody has to go into a crouch after this.’

Louise Mensch may be on the “lunatic fringe” of the Trump investigation. It doesn’t mean she’s wrong, it just means she’s shooting too high. Christopher Steele wasn’t worried about an investigation, he was just writing an opposition research report. In the end they may both be road maps to nowhere, or they may show the direction of this Constitutional crisis.

Wagging the Dog

The dropping of the “Mother of All Bombs” on an obscure target in Afghanistan brings back memories of movies. The first was the really bad Charlie Sheen 1991 send-off of Top Gun, Hot Shots. “Topper Harley” drops a bomb on Sadaam Hussein “ the mother of all targets.” But the actions of Trump World this week brings to mind another fine film of the 1990’s, Wag the Dog with Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro. This story, filmed in the middle of the Clinton sex scandal, stars De Niro as the political operative for the President, colluding with film producer Hoffman to create a war in Albania to distract the public from the President’s sexual activities with a Girl Scout.

In 1998 Al Qaeda launched terrorist bombings against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton retaliated with missile attacks on Al Qaeda sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. Critics claimed that Clinton was “wagging the dog” to distract from his ongoing political problems as the Senate proceeded with impeachment.

This past week we had three military actions. While some may see all of these actions as justifiable, they also may be seen as “wagging the dog.” The first was the missile attack on the airfield in Syria in response to Syrian chemical weapons use. Fifty-nine cruise missiles were launched at a previously warned airfield in Syria, at an approximate cost of $800,000/missile (Newsweek ). That’s a total of over $47 million in missiles that did a minimal amount of damage: the Syrian’s launched a conventional bombing mission from that airfield the next day.

The second was the transferring of the Carl Vinson Carrier strike group from Singapore to near North Korea, in an attempt to intimidate Kim Jong-un to stop testing ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. The concern: with the well documented paranoia of Kim, he may well react to this intimidation by responding with the self-same missiles and nuclear weapons, and of course, we have now given him a primary target. He can’t reach the continental US with a missile (yet) but he certainly could take a stab at the Vinson Group in nearby seas. (Reuters)

The third was what triggered the flashback to the drug fueled Charlie Sheen and Hot Shots. The US dropped the GBU-43/B, a 30’ long by 3’ wide 11 ton bomb also known as the “MOAB”, the Mother of All Bombs. The bomb is estimated to cost $15 million. It was dropped on a ISIS cave complex in Afghanistan, reportedly killing 36 ISIS soldiers (at a cost of $416,666 a piece) and perhaps collapsing the tunnel complex. While it’s use this week was against ISIS, many commentators suggest that it was to send a message to others, including Assad in Syria and Kim in North Korea.

The net effect, we spent $62 million plus the cost of moving the Carl Vinson Strike Group, to essentially kill a few Syrians and ISIS soldiers and damage some planes and buildings.

It seems that this could have been done with a lot less dramatics and at a far smaller cost. But it certainly “Wagged the Dog”. We weren’t talking about the advances in the Russian connection investigation, we weren’t talking about the over $21 million the President has spent going to his Mira Lago Resort, we weren’t talking about the signing of a law which allows states to withhold federal money from Planned Parenthood. We were watching videos of missiles taking off, carriers moving, and giant phallic bombs.

President Trump will have to act in foreign policy. I hope that he can find a way to do so through diplomacy as well as explosions and death. But discussions, even between the old friends Putin and Tillerson, won’t distract from the internal problems Trump faces. Blowing stuff up “wags the dog.”

Passover and Easter Eggs

It’s been a bad week in Trump World. Sean Spicer, Presidential Press Secretary, tried to make a comparison between Assad of Syria and Hitler making Hitler the “good guy.” That normally is a non-starter in any conversation, as Spicer blithely stated that at least Hitler didn’t use chemical warfare against civilians. He was right, except for a large part of the 10 million executed in the gas chamber of Death Camps (Spicer called them Holocaust Centers) by various chemical compounds: OOPS!!! It almost made you feel sorry for him as he tried to walk the statement back again and again and again.

It does demonstrate three things. First, these guys aren’t as smart as they ought to be. Second, they read way too much alt-right news. newsmax This is similar to the Trump “Obama wiretapped me” tweet generated from a Breibart article (Washington Post).
Third, it demonstrates Spicer and a lot of the Trump Administration are insensitive to Jewish history and anti-Semitism. Just so everyone is clear: a concentration camp is where Jews and other minorities and “undesirable” people were sent to work as slave laborers and die. Death camps were places where those same people were executed upon arrival. Holocaust centers are museums or other places commemorating the events of the Holocaust. You don’t die there. It seems pretty basic. That this compounded gaff took place during the Jewish celebration of Passover only makes it worse.

The second ridiculous statement comes from Eric Trump, son of Donald. Eric stated that firing missiles at Syria was in fact proof that his father did not collude with Putin ( Time). It proves nothing of the sort. The United States carefully bombed an airfield, but warned the Russians we were coming well in advance, and carefully avoided putting the airfield out of commission, destroying some buildings and Syrian aircraft. We carefully did nothing that would alter the calculus between the US and Russia, and while the war of words have heated up between the two countries, nothing of substance has changed. This attack was neither evidence for or against a possible collusion between Trump and the Russians.

But the “Easter Egg” (more in the gaming sense) of the week, was the disclosure that a FISA warrant was issued for surveillance of communications by Carter Page, Trump campaign foreign affairs advisor (Washington Post). Months ago we talked about the possibility that Carter Page was the “go-between” from the Trump campaign to Russian Intelligence (Drip-Drip-Drip).

Page’s role in the Trump campaign is murky at best. At one point, Trump named him as one of his policy advisors, but the campaign later distanced themselves from Page. How he got into the Trump organization in the first place is still obscured. Page’s role in the Russian connection was first identified through the “Chris Steele Report,” the incendiary document which outlined the Trump connections to Russia. Steele claimed that Page was the go-between from Russian Intelligence to the Trump campaign.

The revelation that a FISA warrant was issued means that the FBI had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed or that an intelligence issue was at stake. The “drip-drip-drip” continues, as the FBI does a classic investigation, working from the bottom up.

The second “Easter Egg” was from Trump himself, as he distanced himself from Steve Bannon, calling Bannon a “nice guy” who came into the campaign “late” (New York Post: New York Post
It may well be that Trump’s loyalty to the folks that work for him will again turn into his favorite phrase: You’re Fired.

And the final “Easter Egg” week involves Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager from March through August of 2016. Manafort has continued to deny taking any money “under the table” from pro-Russian Ukrainians. When those same Ukrainians fled their country, a journal was discovered with notes showing $12.7 million in payments to Manafort. Manafort denied that this was correct. The AP news service has reported that they have actual transaction receipts for $1.2 million (AP – AP
This validates part of the journal claim, and makes Manafort look like a liar, especially since the money was laundered through dummy corporations set up in Belize.

Page under surveillance, Manafort laundering illegal money, Flynn hiding ties to Turkey: the drip-drip-drip of the Russian scandal continues. It can be clouded for a time by missiles over Syria, but inexorably the investigation draws tighter and tighter around the Trump campaign. It will take time.

United Airlines stock has dropped today: Damn Right! United can’t get what it deserves for the actions not only of its employees, but of their management in the Chicago “re-accommodating” incident. If you missed this one: a man was seated and buckled in on a United flight out of Chicago. At the last minute, the United management realized that they had “overbooked” the flight by 4 seats. This “overbooking” was not caused by selling the seats to passengers, it was caused by a deal with regional airline Republic that United would move their personnel (4).

United offered $800 and a hotel room for anyone willing to give up their seat: three took the deal. United than randomly selected the fourth guy to go. He refused, and Airport security bodily dragged him from the plane, busting his lip. He then ran back onto the plane, chanting “…I have to go home, I have to go home…” as other passengers looked on. Finally the entire plane was cleared, and he was taken off on a stretcher.

United’s CEO apologized for the “re-accommodating” incident. He didn’t apologize for United using security like goons to further the company’s financial agenda. He didn’t apologize for exposing the passengers on the plane to this kind of violence, and he didn’t apologize for his company’s crass attitude towards an actual paying customer.

And, while the passengers on the plane were all willing to video the incident, and a few spoke out (including one telling the security guards “good job”) no one stood up for the guy being dragged off of the plane.

So what does this incident tell us about United Airline? First, your safety and security are only worth $800 and a hotel room. After that, it’s onto the goon squad. Second, United is more interested in its corporate contracts than it is individual customers. Third, United is willing to go to pretty much any length to get what it wants, including bodily harm to its passengers.

We all know that the ticket we hold on an airline is completely conditional. We know the plane can be delayed, changed, cancelled, or our seat “contract” withdrawn for any number of reasons, which the airline is not held accountable for. We know this is the “price” we pay for modern aviation, though we wouldn’t accept this kind of business arrangement for any other kind of transaction (well you did buy a new car, but we going to give you a different one, and by the way, we won’t deliver it for a while, and we just might completely change our mind.)

A lot of the accommodations we make with airlines are actually reasonable. What we do expect is that the airline will recognize that those accommodations also imply a greater duty of the airline to take care of their passengers. What should United have done differently?

Well, I would be willing to bet that if $800 and a room wouldn’t do it, $1600 and a room would have. I’d also be willing to bet that United wishes they had offered $1600 now!!

But what I really get from this incident, is the cavalier way that we accept this kind of authoritarian violence. That those security officers,the passengers, the crew and the ground personnel would all find these actions acceptable, that is the biggest concern. If this passenger was drunk, disorderly, or in some other way dangerous, than perhaps these actions would be justifiable. But he was simply a guy who wanted to go home. He could have been you or me.

In a “new” society, where the cries of “Black Lives Matter” have receded into the background as the smokescreen of “Trumpian America” fills our world, it is a ongoing question: what level of violence are we willing to accept in our day-to-day lives? And on a more specific matter, should United pay any cost for these actions?

I don’t generally fly United, they don’t usually go where I want to go, but I’ll make sure not to do so now. That will be the language they understand, not common decency, but cash on the barrelhead.

Phantom of the White House (unmasking the smokescreen)

Picture this: the President’s National Security Advisor is given intelligence showing that the Russian government was intervening in the United States Presidential election. The Advisor then sees that in the course of the campaign, it appears that one of the Presidential campaigns is coordinating it’s efforts with the Russian attacks. As the Advisor reads through the intelligence, it shows that Russian intelligence representatives are having conversations with Americans about this effort.
(see October 6th, after the “Bus Tapes” when the Podesta emails are released per the prediction of Roger Stone)

Whatever political party is in power, and whatever political party is campaigning for the Presidency, it would be unreasonable, incompetent, and probably malfeasance if the National Security Advisor did NOT take all legal measures to find out what was going on. It IS legal for the National Security Advisor to ask the “owner” of the intelligence (in this case the National Security Agency) to “unmask” the names of the Americans on the other side of those conversations.

President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, did exactly that. She did exactly what we would expect of any National Security Advisor of either party to do. She saw a threat to our core national interest, the choosing of the President, and acted appropriately to try to find out what was going on.

All the other nonsense about this is just a stall and a smokescreen. Fox News, the Daily Caller and the like have pulled out all the stops on Susan Rice, from Benghazi to her original roles in the Clinton administration. None of that has any relevance to this issue.

If Susan Rice had “unmasked” Americans named in the intelligence reports (Michael Flynn for one) for political reasons, wouldn’t she have done more to actually influence the election before election day? If she tried to disrupt the Trump campaign, wouldn’t that information have been more influential on October 7th? At least give her the respect to think that if she “playing” this card, she would have actually played it.

It is just another distraction, another “shiny ball” to keep the public distracted, and to give Senators like Rand Paul the opportunity to show “righteous indignation.” It is amazing to me that those Republicans, some of whom were as damaged by the Russian actions as Hillary, still stand up for Trump (or stand silently by) as the evidence of Russian actions grow.

By the way – just announced – Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council – look for the quiet removal of Ezra Cohen-Wotnick soon…

This is not a new story

I just finished watching the local Sunday news interview show. The local news anchor had a representative of Trump and a representative of the opposition to talk about the administration. The representative of Trump made the statement that former NSA Director Clapper and current FBI Director Comey had both stated that there is no connection to criminal action by the Trump Administration and Russia. Her line was: “there is no there, there”.

The statement was allowed to go uncontested by both the moderator and the opposition representative. The statement is patently false, and a great example of what has happened to our view of “facts” in the past two years. Both Comey and Clapper did state that there was no connection – to statements made that the Trump campaign and transition team had been tapped by the Obama administration. Those statements did not address connections of the Trump campaign and transition team to Russia. “There is no there, there,” better applies to the statement made about the “ Obama tapping fake-news controversy” on Donald Trump’s twitter account.

It’s been going on for several years. The media has agonized over how to cover these statements. If they correct every falsehood, if they call them LIES, then they are declaimed as being biased and unfair. So the “little” untruths are passed over, the half-truths (Clapper and Comey did say something that sounded a little like this) are left uncontested, and the public is left confused.

George Orwell predicated this alteration of truth in “1984.” When we read the novel back in the 1960’s, we related to Winston Smith, the main character who saw through the lies. We were arrogant in our view that it couldn’t really happen, and in the year 1984 marveled at how Orwell got it all wrong. We now live in a true Orwellian world, just a little later than he thought, where the truth is altered to match the political ideology of the teller.

This is the unspoken crisis that our political world faces. As we realize the depth of dis-information the Russians and others were able to place into our political thought, it’s difficult to see what “the fix” is? How do we get back to a point where we can at least agree on the truths? And it’s not just the Russians, certainly there is enough money in our political system, particularly in this post “Citizens United” decision world (NYT – How much has Citizens United changed our political world), that others will follow the Russian game plan to alter the body politic.

We, all of us, the politicians, the media, the private citizens: we all have a duty to define the facts and debunk the lies. Our public lives are currently infected with lies: whether we call them half-truths, opinion, alt-facts, or Russian mis-directions. The cure, the inoculation against manipulation, is to call the truth true, and non-truths lies. It has to happen every time, so that we can find a baseline of healthy truth again. This is the test of whether our nation will survive foreign and domestic terrorism on the truth. How we respond to this test, will determine the fate of our Republic.

The Russian Connection

In 1977 I spent the winter/spring semester in Washington, DC. I started at the Carter Inauguration, dancing in the DC Armory with the Charlie Daniels Band at the Staff Ball, then spent half of my time in class, and the other half in the office of Congressman Tom Luken from Cincinnati.

That winter a new movie came out with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, “All the President’s Men,” about the Watergate scandal six years before. A pivotal character in the movie was “Deep Throat,” Hal Holbrook’s shadowy figure in the parking garage, who helped confirm and direct Bob Woodward as he dug deeper and deeper into the scandal that brought down a President. The movie made you look over your shoulder just as Woodward was doing, worried about what was going on under the surface, behind the tourists and the white marble monuments.

We now know that “Deep Throat” was FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt. Felt knew what the FBI investigation was revealing, and he knew that the pressure on those above him to keep it quiet was so great that the only way the truth would be revealed with through the press.

In “All the President’s Men,” Deep Throat whispers to Woodward from behind the garage pillars:
“follow the money.”

Following the Money

The major question about the Trump Administration: is it co-opted by the Russians, and if so how much, and why. It is possible that this whole scandal isn’t about power or secret alliances orchestrated by Steve Bannon, but simply about money.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia had a brief flirtation with a democratic society. But with so much money at stake (remember that the Soviet government owned everything, now all of the means of making capital were on the market) the democracy slowly drowned in a sea of easy money. Vladimir Putin was a Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB and then head of the FSB (successor to the KGB) under Boris Yeltsin. He rose to power after Yeltsin resigned, and made an accommodation with the Russians who were making huge amounts of money, legally and illegally, controlling Russian industry and trade. These oligarchs agreed to support Putin.

In this sea of easy money, a huge issue for the new “kleptocrats” was to find a way to launder the money so they could spend the illegally gained money, legally. Laundering money is done “for a price,” with the illegal funds “cleaned” for a percentage (30-40% or more). This process can be pretty obvious, like buying a property valued at $41 million for $95 million. (Trump sell Palm Beach Mansion) Or it can be much more complex, like the Russian Deutsche Bank scheme where Russian stocks were bought in rubles, then sold for relatives in dollars. (Mirror Trades at Deutsche Bank).

By the way, Deutsche Bank was fined $10 Billion for the rubles for dollars scheme, and the CEO, Anshu Jain, was let go. He immediately became the Chairman of the Bank of Cyprus, a bank whose current existence is based on Russian money. The fact that current US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross was the vice chairman of the Bank of Cyprus prior to joining the Trump cabinet only “stirs the pot” even more.

So what do we know? We know that Donald Trump was in difficult financial straits in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. We know that his business was based on his ability to borrow money, and that after the bankruptcies and collapse of the New Jersey casinos, he was struggling to do that. We know he had loans from Deutsche Bank, and we know HE was the one who sold the Palm Beach estate. We also know that his Florida properties are heavily sold to Russians (Investigation of Trump Florida Properties). We also know that Trump World Tower is filled with Russian money (Trump Tower and Russian Oligarchs).

President Trump has said over and over again that he has no investments in Russia. Perhaps that’s true (though we’ll never know for sure unless his taxes are released), but that doesn’t mean he isn’t heavily invested in RUSSIANS.

Sure there’s plenty of other Russian connections. Paul Manafort, who we now know was a paid employee, at $10 million a year, for a close Putin associate; the phone calls, the contacts, and the clear passion Bannon has for a Russian deal. But perhaps this whole scandal comes down to a much simpler motive: Trump needed money, any way he could get it, and the Russians needed to clean their rubles. The problem: what kind of influence and leverage does this give Putin over Trump’s actions?

911

September 11, 2001: I was teaching high school government, in a building under construction. TV’s didn’t work, computers were limited and not on the internet. A colleague whispered in my ear: planes into buildings in New York. I took my class out onto the track, we sat in the bleachers listening to the radio in my jeep. We watched the planes lined up coming into Port Columbus. We faced 911.

George W. Bush was a disputed President. The ballots in Florida were flawed, many thought they were voting for Al Gore, and instead voted for Ralph Nader. The Supreme Court allowed the Florida count to stop, Bush was declared the winner by the official appointed by his brother, the governor. Later counts showed that Gore would have won.

Much of the same anxiety, anger, and acrimony greeted Bush at the White House door as welcomed Donald Trump. And while Bush, unlike Trump, seemed to recognize his status and his duty to try to represent the whole country; his actions did not mollify many of us who resented his presence.

September 11, 2001, the United States was under attack. Bush, who started the day in an elementary school in Florida, was flown to Air Force bases in Louisiana, and then Nebraska. He was in a bunker at Offut Air Force Base when he made a fateful decision. The President needs to lead in times of crisis, and he can’t do it from a bunker in Nebraska. His plane was the only one in the sky as he flew back to the White House.

In the next few days, Bush chose to lead. He addressed the nation from Washington, and from ground zero in New York. He went to a mosque to declare this was NOT a war on Islam. He embodied the “righteous might” of the United States. And while many of his decisions after were beyond questionable: the excesses of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and the war in Iraq; he was able to lead the country through a national crisis. For the moment, we were “proud to be an American.”

Donald Trump has done nothing to unite us. The anxiety, anger and acrimony has continued to grow as he tries to jam his alt-right policies down the nation’s throat. He has failed to acknowledge that his Presidency represents a truly minority view. He has even co-opted the song, making “proud to be an American” into “proud to be a Trumpian.”

The United States has gone through many crises. We have survived drunkard Presidents (Andrew Johnson), disabled Presidents (Woodrow Wilson) and Presidents who broke the laws (Richard Nixon.) The question is, in an era when North Korea is poised to start a nuclear war, when the Russians are willing to attack our democratic process with impunity, and where we have insulted and shunned our allies; what will happen in a tragic national crisis. Will Donald Trump have the “gravitas” to lead our nation?

Historians have noted that in American history, someone has also appeared to “lead our country” through. From George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt, the Presidency has brought out the best in those Americans tasked with the crisis in office.

Donald Trump has not shown an inkling of that strength. The first 100 days of his tenure have been nothing but division, trivial tweeting, and management failure. My greatest fear is not that Donald Trump will remain in office despite his Russian backers, my greatest fear is that Donald Trump will prove what we all fear: that he does not have the capacity to lead under fire. Let’s hope that he will not be tested.

77744

Seventy thousand, seven hundred and forty four is the number. That is the difference between the vote totals for Donald J Trump and Hillary R Clinton in three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Out of the 13,233,376 votes cast, the difference was 77,744. In Wisconsin, Trump won by 22,748; in Michigan, 10,704; and in Pennsylvania 44,292. Had these numbers been reversed, Hillary Clinton would have won the electoral college with 278 votes to 260 votes for Trump.

NYT – 2016 Presidential Election Results

We all know it was a close election. The difference in those three states is less than 0.6%.

So here’s the point: now that we are aware that the Russian Government, through a highly complex and orchestrated campaign against Hillary Clinton, influenced the United States elections in 2016, we don’t really need Trump “collusion” to come to a conclusion. All the Russian actions had to do was effect 77,744 votes in three states: convincing folks to vote for Trump versus Clinton, change their vote to a third party rather than Clinton, or stay home. All the Russians had to do was change 0.6% of the electorate in those three states for the outcome of the election to be changed. It’s a simple fact: the Russians changed the results of the election. Russian intervention elected Donald Trump.

They did it through a variety of means. They hacked into the Democratic National Committee, stealing emails and information which they strategically leaked out in a manner to not only damage Clinton, but to distract from the seemingly catastrophic failures of Trump. They used Wikileaks as their “cover,” trading on Julian Assange’s reputation of being the voice of those who “blew whistles” against “evil institutions.”

We now know they also developed a complex strategy, using “bots” to flood Twitter and Facebook with anti-Clinton messages, targeting those messages to those Clinton supporters who were “on the edge,” particularly those who originally supported Sanders. They also targeted pro-Trump folks, feeding them “red meat” stories, increasing their drive to the polls despite their misgivings about Trump himself. (Note: I am NOT saying that Sanders voters were more susceptible than others to Russian manipulation, I AM saying that we were ALL manipulated, tweet by tweet, and post by post, to be resentful towards Clinton, and to be less motivated to vote for her against Trump.)

Whether the Russians attempted to hack the “actual” vote count doesn’t even really matter. They hacked something much more significant: the new means by which we communicate and discuss our political thoughts and ideas. They got ahead of the American people by getting into our internal conversation. We were played.

More will come. Whether that manipulation in some way involved members of the Trump campaign, or the new President himself, is a whole different question. The results of those investigations may lead to a national change in leadership. But we are already in a national crisis: it is clear that Russia has chosen our President. It only took 77,744 changed minds, voters who stayed at home, or voters who were motivated to vote against Clinton. We’ve got the President the Russians wanted. Now what?

We have never been faced with this kind of crisis before. We need to ask the most serious question: if we know that the election was manipulated, and we can clearly see the results are in fact distorted by that manipulation, what do we do? In sports if a game is rigged, than the results are vacated. Ask the multiple Russian athletes who have lost their Olympic Medals due to their doping actions. Since we know that this election was tainted, as is clearly true with or without Trump campaign collusion, then what is the next step in our American saga? Will it take a “smoking gun” of Page, Manifort, Flynn, Sessions, Stone and Kushner’s direct cooperation with Russian actions? And if we know that the results were flawed, then how is it that the majority of the country (there’s that 3 million again) will swallow everything from Neil Gorsuch to the gutting of the EPA? Is it any wonder that the country feels “wrong?” It is.

Steve Bannon and the alt-right believe that Trump’s election has given them the “right” to control the total policy of the United States Government. They believe they are being resisted by elected officials who work for the Federal Government (see the first post in this blog:
Astronomy and the Trump Administration)
In the alt-rights’ mind, the “deep state” represents the drag on the government that prevents their radical changes from taking effect. Trump supporters have called for a “purge” of the executive branch (Steve King calls for purge.)
Let’s take the alt-rights’ views on Russia. To quote:
That a group of faceless, unelected intelligence and foreign policy careerists in the Deep State could effectively run an operation to oust a duly elected sitting U.S. president is a much clearer and present danger. How, exactly, would repairing relations with Russia, which is sitting on a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, be a bad thing for Americans? (Julian Assange: Hilliary pushing for a Pence Takeover)

The alt-right sees the resistance of the “deep state,” what we used to call the bureaucracy, as preventing change. The questions regarding Russian involvement in the election, Putin’s dictatorial actions including the murders of opponents, and the Russian actions in the Ukraine; all fall by the wayside to the alt-right view. Russia, to them, is seen as a natural ally, who will help lead the Northern European coalition against “Radical Islam” (which seems to mean all of Islam.)

Trump’s own words about immigration ban and the “unprecedented judicial overreach of District Court judges” is another way the Administration is trying to weaken the non-Trumpian government. The courts represent a drag on the Administration’s radical changes, and since federal judges cannot be “fired,” they must be emasculated.

And, of course, the Deep State represents the greatest threat to the Trump Presidency. The FBI, NSA, and CIA all are “deep state” organizations, and all have access to the information which may actually call into question the actions of the Trump campaign, and Trump himself. As a pure case of self-protection, Trump, Bannon and the alt-right need to devalue the information those organizations may offer, in order to win a possible future battle for the Presidency.

So what role should bureaucrats play in determining policy? Is their job to use the Nuremberg defense, simply following orders regardless of whether they think those orders are sound or in fact lawful (as in former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates?) Or do we want the bureaucrats to use their own judgment, developed over what for many is decades of experience, to temper what they see as the excesses of the Presidency? And isn’t that too fraught with danger, both now and in the future.

The United States, like it or not, elected Donald Trump as President (3 million votes to the contrary.) Even with that fact, I don’t believe we also chose the alt-right radicalism that Steve Bannon represents. While I don’t like the power that the bureaucracy has represented for years (at least since the 1930’s) I think I’d rather make my deal with that devil, than the one the sits next to the Oval Office.

Your Money or Your Life

As Congress, the President, and the rest of the country discusses what will happen with the US Government involvement in health care, the issue comes down to: your money or your life. The Congressional Budget Office scored the current Trump/Ryan health insurance bill as reducing the US Government deficit by $33 billion a year over the next ten years. The current deficit is $441 billion and projects to $1.4 trillion for 2027. (The deficit is how much more the government will spend in a year than it will bring in.)

Reducing the deficit would be a good thing. The problem: The CBO also projects that 24 million Americans will lose their health care coverage if the Trump/Ryan bill passes.

The traditional “liberal” argument is that “conservatives” would let people die rather than pay for health care. Some statements by conservative Congressmen seem to echo that idea: Jason Chaffetz telling folks to, “skip their IPhone to buy insurance,” or Roger Marshall saying, “… some people just don’t want healthcare.” But that’s not really a fair argument. Let’s assume (danger!!) that everyone wants people to have access to health care, it’s just a matter of paying for it.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has stated, “everyone will have access to health insurance…” under the Trump/Ryan plan. Those are carefully chosen words. Having access does NOT mean being able to afford health insurance. We all have access to buying Porsches, but not all of us can pay for them.

The Trump/Ryan bill replaces the Affordable Care Act subsidies (the government pays for part of the insurance) with tax credits (the government credits part of the taxes you paid to pay for insurance.) Two problems: first the subsidies were a percentage of insurance cost and increased with increasing premiums, the credits are a set amount.
Second: the subsidies did NOT depend on the amount of taxes you paid, but you can’t get a tax credit if you didn’t pay any taxes. The least able to afford insurance, those who didn’t make any or enough to pay taxes, will be the most likely not to be able to get it.

So, will the people without insurance be left to die? NO one wants that, not even Chaffetz and Marshall. But here’s the effect of not having insurance. Those folks are less able to access preventive care (it costs) and therefore will be more likely to end up with serious but preventable illnesses. They then WILL be treated, but in an emergency room and hospital setting, where costs are the highest.

Uninsured hospital costs will NOT be “eaten” by the hospitals, those costs will be spread among the “paying” customers. This will result in higher hospital bills for everyone else, higher costs to insurance companies, and ultimately higher insurance premiums to EVERYONE (not just those using federal health insurances.) So instead of either paying more taxes, or having a larger deficit; the costs don’t disappear, they get transferred to EVERYONE.

Your money or your life? It’s our money for other lives, and we get to pay for it either way. The Trump/Ryan plan makes sure that we don’t take as much off of the government books, but it doesn’t mean we don’t pay. It just means we pay through “market forces,” the conservative way of saying that we’ll pay more, for less.

Process

This is NOT an opinion piece. There have been some questions about what would happen if the President is impeached. This is how it works.

The Impeachment Process

The President of the United States is immune from criminal prosecution while in office. While this is NOT a Constitutionally mandated rule, it has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court historically, and as a practical matter makes sense. Since the President is not only the “chief law enforcer” and also has the power to pardon, it would make little sense for him to arrest himself, and/or pardon himself.

The President can be impeached and removed from office for Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. While this sounds like a big deal, in reality Presidents have been impeached for perjury, abuse of power, failure to follow a law passed by Congress, contempt of Congress, obstruction of justice, and failure to pay taxes. The former President does NOT have immunity. Therefore, in order to criminally prosecute a President, it is necessary to remove him from office first. This process is called the Impeachment Process (US Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4.)

Impeachment begins in the House of Representatives. In the past, the Judiciary Committee of the House votes for a “bill of impeachment,” which then goes to the whole House. A majority of the House members must vote to Impeach. The term ‘impeachment” is similar to “indictment” used in the court system. When a President is impeached, it is the House of Representatives bringing charges for trial in front of the US Senate. The House acts as the prosecutors of the case, the US Senate acts as the jury, and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court acts as the presiding judge.

The impeachment trial takes place in front of the Senate, with the Chief Justice serving as the presiding judge. The “managers” from the House of Representatives act as the “prosecution” in the trial, and the President is represented by counsel of his own choosing. Two thirds (67) of the Senators must agree in order to remove the President. Once they have done so, they can remove the President, and bar him from holding other offices in the United States.

Two US Presidents have been impeached and tried: Andrew Johnson in 1868, and Bill Clinton in 1999. Neither was convicted, (Johnson stayed in office by one vote.) Richard Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee started impeachment proceedings. He was then pardoned for any crimes he might have committed by President Ford.

Presidential Succession

If the President is impeached and convicted, he is removed from office. The Vice President then becomes President for the remainder of the President’s term of office. If the Vice President is removed (or resigns) then the Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes the President. Under law, when the Speaker of the House becomes President, he no longer is Speaker or a member of the House, and he would remain President through the full term of office.

If the Speaker is unable to become President, then the Presidency goes to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (usually the Senator of the majority party who has he most seniority in the Senate). The current line of succession then: President Trump, Vice President Pence, Speaker Ryan, President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch. By the way, if none of the above serve, the Secretary of State is next in line: from Exxon/Mobil to President!

25th Amendment

The 25th was written as a response to the possibility of a President who was alive but unable to serve (Wilson’s stroke, Eisenhower’s heart attack, if Kennedy had survived Dallas). It also allowed Congress to approve a new Vice President if the office was vacant.

This is a process for the “temporary” filling of the Presidency, but this process is intended for the temporary disability of the President (illness or injury). If the President states that he is temporarily unable to fulfill his duties, he can notify the Speaker and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Vice President can become acting President until the President notifies them he is ready to resume office.

In addition, the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet can declare the President unable to perform his duties and “take over.” If the President wants to resume the office and the VP and cabinet disagree, the Congress has twenty-one days to determine the outcome, with 2/3 of both the House and Senate having to agree to allow the VP to continue as acting President.

“I know You’re Not a Doctor, but Take Out My Appendix Anyway”

Not a lawyer: be on the Supreme Court. Not a doctor: operate on a hot appendix. Not a plumber: run a plumbing company. If that makes sense, then it makes sense for Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education.

Betsy DeVos has no experience in public education. She went to private Christian schools through elementary and high school and to a private Christian college, Calvin, where she earned a bachelors degree in Business Economics. Her children were home schooled.

Betsy (Prince) DeVos is an heir to a car parts company fortune. She married Dick DeVos, an heir to the Amway corporation fortune. Her brother was a founder of Blackwater, the private security company. She has worked for the Republican party throughout her life. She was party chairman for Michigan, raising millions for Republican candidates, and her family has reportedly donated over $17 million to Republican candidates and committees.

What were her credentials for Education Secretary? DeVos headed up the non-profit “American Federation for Children.” The goal of this organization is to break down education funding into voucher/scholarship programs which would allow individual parents to spend public funds on public, private, charter or home schools. She is committed to this vision of moving money for public education into the private sector.

And, she raised a lot of money for Republicans. And, she has spoken of dissolving the Department of Education. And she fits into Senior Presidential Advisor Steve Bannon’s overall plan of “deconstruction of the state.”

If the Department of Education represents the federal public education, then Betsy DeVos represents the anti-public education world. Much like the appointment of Scott Pruitt as the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, her choice signals that the Trump Administration looks to “deconstruct” public education.

So what’s wrong with the idea of vouchers: of packing all the government money for a student into a per student package, then handing the package over to the parents to spend their education money where they wish?

1. Private schools do not have the oversight for student learning that public schools do. Students and teachers in private schools are not required to meet the educational standards that public schools have. In the “charter school revolution” of the past several years, many private schools have failed their students because there was no oversight.

2. Private schools can pick and choose students. Students who don’t measure up: in performance, behavior, ability, or following the school’s faith based views – are dumped out. That also means the more expensive students, those with special education needs or physical disabilities, are weeded out of the private school setting.

3. Private education can teach whatever the school decides to teach. While every parent has the “right” to have a religious based education for their child, should every other parent be required to pay for that with public monies?

4. Private education is a profit making monster. Companies running private schools would love to have more access to public funds.

5. With a systematic voucher system, the students left in the public system would be the most expensive or difficult to educate. Of course the claim would be that private education is more efficient, because they wouldn’t have to educate the most expensive students.

What does the Department of Education do? They distribute federal funds, often linked to programs to help certain groups of students like those with physical or learning disabilities or from low income families. The Department of Education uses funding to enforce laws providing equal opportunity to education, gender equality, and preventing discrimination. Going to a voucher style system, with federal monies passed out in blocks to states to be divided into vouchers, defeats this entire process. It sets up a system designed to discriminate.

This is what Betsy DeVos stands for. This is what the world of Steve Bannon and Donald Trump believes in. This is why Betsy DeVos was the exact wrong choice for the Education Department.

Shiny Balls

There is no direct evidence (yet) that the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian intelligence in the disinformation campaign against the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election. Slowly, some circumstantial evidence is coming to light. Meetings between various Trump associates and Russians raise questions about the nature of those contacts: the fact that those same associates lied about those meetings makes them even more suspect.

The leaked “Trump Dossier” written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele (what a “007” sounding name!) states that the Trump campaign actively coordinated with Russian intelligence using Carter Page as the “go-between”. While a great deal of that dossier is still unverified, many of its statements are now checking out as factual.

There are currently at least three active investigations of the Trump/Russia connections. The House and Senate Intelligence committees are both committed to investigations and hearings. Currently, neither committee has plans to call Christopher Steele to testify. And, while it hasn’t been directly acknowledged, it is assumed (ass-u-me, I know) that the FBI is conducting its own investigation as well. Ultimately, a special counsel may be appointed by the Justice Department to oversee another investigation.

Last Tuesday, though it seems like months ago, President Trump gave a “state of the union” style address to a joint session of Congress. Like it or not, it was the most “Presidential” thing he has done. The Trump White House naturally hoped that the speech would drive the newscycle for a few days.

Last Wednesday it was revealed the Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not testify factually to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. Sessions forgot about two meetings with the Russian Ambassador, the second one held in his office the day after the Obama Administration announced that they were investigating Russian involvement in the US election. Sessions was forced into recusing himself from involvement and control of the Justice Department’s investigations into the Trump/Russia connection.

On the same day, it was revealed that Jared Kushner met with the Russian Ambassador during December, along with resigned National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Carter Page revealed that he too met with the Russian Ambassador, and made several trips to Russia (where he had business ties with Gazprom).

CNN: Who is Carter Page

Instead of the newscycle being driven by the speech, the momentum was rolling towards more investigation into Trump and Russia.

Ask any magician: the essence of any good magic trick is distraction. While you watch the beautiful girl, the flaming hat, or the shiny balls; the magician performs his trick. You are amazed!!!

On Friday, Trump left Washington (again) to go to Florida. Saturday morning the first of the “shiny balls” was dropped, as Trump, apparently quoting a Breibart article, claimed that President Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped. Trump then “doubled down” on the tweet, calling for a Congressional investigation of Obama’s alleged actions.

This tweet took over the weekend news cycle. On Monday, the Trump administration cautiously released the next version of the immigration (Muslim) ban, then on Tuesday dropped their version of the new health act. Meanwhile, Julian Assange at Wikileaks dumped a huge load of supposedly CIA information, including allegations that the CIA has worked to hack household electronics for eavesdropping.

NYT: Wikileaks Releases Trove of Alleged CIA Hacking Documents

The Wikileaks dump looks like another “shiny ball.” Its content is designed to “fire-up” both extremes of American political thought, playing into both the fears of the Breibart “black helicopters” groups, and the far-left.

Oh, and we can’t forget the tweet about Obama releasing all of those terrorists who went back onto the “battlefield” (except most of those were released by George W Bush, and of those most who returned to “combat” were released by Bush as well).

It’s only Wednesday. Don’t be distracted by the “shiny balls.” It will take some time, but step by step the nature of the Trump/Russian relationship will be revealed. How far up the Trump organization it may go, we don’t know yet. But in this age of absolute information (alternative or not) we will ultimately find out whether a candidate for President of the United States joined with a rival nation to take over our country.

Drip Drip Drip Part Deux

What an amazing weekend!!!
This weekend we learned:
– there were no “wiretaps” of Trump Tower (James Clapper, Meet the Press)
– the President of the United States cannot “wiretap” people
– the current President of the United States doesn’t know that!!!!

So where do things stand, and what does it mean?

Donald Trump accused President Obama of “wiretapping” his campaign both before the election and after. Legally, the President of the United States hasn’t been able to directly “wiretap” since the 1970’s (that’s Nixon’s era.) The process requires a court order, either from a domestic court because of an ongoing criminal investigation, or through the courts set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which involves a national security interest. Either court would require the agency requesting (FBI generally, but other agencies as well) to produce “probable cause” evidence. Probable cause means that there is clear evidence (not necessarily proof) that a crime or national security violation is being committed, and that listening in to conversations is necessary to gather further evidence.

So if in fact Trump Tower was “wiretapped”, then there was probable cause that the Trump campaign was coordinating in some way with Russian intelligence. By Trump suggesting that there was eavesdropping, then he’s admitting to this probable cause. I don’t think that is what he was doing, but it is an interesting side note.

The agencies dealing with national security DO NOT need a warrant to listen in on foreign electronic communications. They DO need one if the foreigner is conversing with a US citizen. The process goes that a transcript of the conversation is made, and a FISA warrant requested. If the warrant is turned down, the transcript is destroyed. Keep in mind, the transcript or other evidence would have to create probable cause in order to get the warrant.

Trump’s tweets over the weekend were clearly to distract from the controversy itself: was there communication between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. Trump decided to “call out” the Obama Administration, and he got a clear answer from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – there were no wiretaps in Trump Tower.

So what does that mean? It means there were no FISA warrants issued for Trump Tower, for the communications using the Trump Tower phones or other devices. That’s really pretty limited, as most modern communication is done through cell phones, and it would seem reasonable that if a Trump operative was talking to either Russian intelligence or someone in between the two, they would not use an office phone.

It means that Trump is trying to change the subject again, to focus on the “Obama Plot” to get Trump, or as Breitbart now categorizes it, “DEEPSTATEGATE.” It’s all a liberal plot to overthrow the Trump Presidency, so focus on that, not where the actual facts lead. As Obi Wan Kenobi would say, “there are no droids here.”

So are there “droids” here? We don’t know. The information isn’t out there. As many commentators stated over the weekend, there is so much smoke, it’s hard to believe there isn’t a fire. And the Trump group is making even more smoke.

Steve Bannon believes that the “Deep State,” the long time civil government employees who make up the core of the agencies involved, are working against Trump. He believes that they are still following the orders of President Obama. He may not be completely wrong.

There are long time government civil servants who have sworn an oath:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

They take their allegiance seriously, and they are determined to support and defend the Constitution. If there was information that the Trump campaign was in fact colluding with Russian Intelligence to influence the 2016 election, it is clear where their oath should take them.

Drip Drip Drip

No surprise to anyone who knows me, I’ve always been interested in politics. I earned my stripes getting kicked out of Aunt Lee’s apartment for wearing a Kennedy for President button at four years old, and I “got hooked” laid up with a broken arm at eleven watching the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968.

But it was during Watergate that I truly became a political junky. For the last three years of my high school career I watched as the Nixon Administration slowly fell apart. I fought with my government teacher (a stalwart Nixon supporter) and found secret allies among the other teaching staff. As I prepared to head off to college, Nixon resigned, a fitting conclusion to his Presidency and my high school career.

From 1972 to 1974, the investigation of Watergate slowly worked it way up the chain. It started with the five in the break-in. Then the leader of the five, then the check in the account of the five, then the Nixon re-election campaign. From there, onto the White House itself and finally the testimony of Deputy Assistant Alexander Butterfield and the revelation of the White House taping system. That was the beginning of the end.

Richard Nixon resigned as President for orchestrating the cover-up of a felony break-in, and for using the entire apparatus of the Executive Branch, including the CIA, FBI and IRS to continue that cover-up. The key evidence was the tapes, all of the conversations he had in the White House – he bugged himself.

Flash forward to 2017. The question: did the Trump campaign cooperate, coordinate, and collude with the Russian Intelligence agencies to torpedo the Clinton campaign and win the election. It’s NOT proven yet. But there is a familiar (to old Watergate “fans”) drip-drip-drip, as the circle around Trump slowly gets dragged into the morass of Russian connections.

What is clear

It is clear that Russian Intelligence involved itself in the 2016 Presidential election. They did this by hacking the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Chairman John Podesta and then using Wikileaks to put those emails into the public. Russian Intelligence also planted multiple “fake news” stories about Clinton and the Clinton campaign, undermining her credibility, and using timely interventions to re-direct the electorates’ attention back to Clinton’s problems (a clear example: one hour after the release of the Access Hollywood tape when Trump made lewd and inappropriate comments, Wikileaks released the first of the Podesta emails.)

It is clear that Trump has had a strange “relationship” with Vladimir Putin, consistently praising him and defending him even to the extent of justifying Putin’s killing opponents. It is also clear that Trump can’t decide whether he’s met Putin or not or whether he knows Putin or not, he’s publicly answered the question in completely opposite ways.

It is clear that multiple figures with direct connection to the Trump campaign and administration have had conversations with members of the Russian government. Those confirmed to have had contact: former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former advisor on international relations Carter Page. Others accused of having contacts but denying them: former campaign manager Paul Manafort and longtime friend and campaign supporter Roger Stone.

It is clear that both Sessions and Flynn denied having contact with the Russian Ambassador. Flynn denied this to the Vice President, and other members of the administration. Sessions denied it in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Once the contact was revealed, they claimed that their contacts were in the reasonable pursuit of their jobs. Their denials raise the question: if what they were doing was legitimate, then why did they deny the contact?

What is Possible

Paul Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager during the summer of 2016. Paul Manafort was a founding partner of the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly from 1980 to 1996.
Manafort had pro-Russian Urkrainian client, President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych was forced to flee the Ukraine when free Ukrainian forces took over, exiled to Moscow under the protection of Putin. He left his mansion completely intact, and documentation was found showing that Manafort was paid $12 million under the table for his services (this is disputed by Manafort).

News sources have suggested that Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign because pro-Ukrainian forces threatened to blackmail him with this information. In addition, Manafort has done other business with Russia as well, but has stated that he never knowingly talked to Russian Intelligence agents.

Carter Page was an investment banker with Merrill Lynch located in Moscow, after which he returned to New York and founded an investment fund with a former Gazprom executive (the Russian Government corporation which controls gas). He has gained a reputation as a harsh critic of US policy towards Russia, and has expressed views in support of Putin. Clearly he had the ability to connect with Russian Intelligence.

Roger Stone, who began his political career as one of the Nixon Campaign’s “dirty tricksters”, was an old friend of Donald Trump, and served as an early advisor to his campaign. Stone claimed in August of 2016, that he was in contact with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange regarding an “October Surprise.” Stone has also worked in Ukraine.

What’s the Possible Outcome

What if a final investigation shows that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian Intelligence in an attempt to win the White House? This would place the entire Trump Administration at risk, both from Russian blackmail, and from US legal and political sanctions.

But one thing for sure – somebody knows!!!! Just like the Nixon White House tapes, most communication with Russian officials are tapped, and US, British, Dutch, French and German Intelligence agencies try to reach in to get the reports sent back to Moscow by Russian representatives. And of course, some members of the Trump campaign must know. The final outcome: the story will come out – and will have consequences.

Trump World and the Beaver

“Leave it to Beaver” was a television show from 1957 to 1963. It presented the model suburban family, the Cleavers, living in Mayfield, Anytown, USA. It was a tranquil world, as June cleaned the house in pearls, dress and heels and Ward went to work in shirt and tie, then came home to the business of raising Wally and “the Beaver”.

It was white, middle class, suburban, and has become a model of what life used to be like. “If only we could go back to those innocent times,” before Vietnam (though we were already there), civil rights (Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, 1955), and grateful Muslims (“Lawrence of Arabia,” 1962). Jobs seemed plentiful (unemployment rates averaged 6% – currently 4.8%) and crime didn’t happen (1.6 in a hundred thousand chance of violent crime, versus a high of 7.6 in 1992, and a current 3.8.)

All of those issues existed, but Ward, June, Wally and the Beaver never had to deal with them. And with the election of 2016, many in this nation were trying to go back to that idyllic, make believe, world. Gay marriage, immigrant rights, global warming, a black President: the drumbeat of change, change, change that many want to escape. Escape back to Mayfield, to a non-existent time when everything was “right.”

Did this nation’s reach towards acceptance and freedom exceed its grasp? Here is just a few of the changes we’ve gone through in the past 50 years:

1993 – President Clinton authorizes “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military
2011 – President Obama allows military service regardless of sexual preference
2016 – President Obama allows transgendered to serve in military

1970 – US Census defines minorities at 16.5%
2020 – US Census projects minorities at 39.9%
2042 – US Census projects “minorities” at 50.1%

1990 – Major Broadcast News – ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS
2016 – Major Broadcast News – ABC, CBS, NBC – MSNBC, FOX, PBS,
hundreds(thousands?) of online sites

1990 – Flags memorializing the Confederacy flew over the state capitols of South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Georgia
2017 – Mississippi still displays the Confederate Battle Flag, some other states still have some symbolism of the Confederacy in their flags.

Our nation has moved towards change with what to some is alarming swiftness. While there were plenty of issues specific to the Trump/Clinton Presidential race, there is a much larger context that should be considered. Many in this country, after electing the first African-American President in 2008, were demanding a halt. The first woman President was beyond them. Even Donald Trump was better than this crazy pace of change: to go back to a calmer time, when Wally and the Beaver went to school in Mayfield, and the world was predictable and constant.

That world existed only on television. But its “reality” still exists in many minds. If we look at the “Red and Blue” schism (or the “flyover country schism”) we need to acknowledge that the pace of change in America is incredibly unsettling to many. They feel left behind, looking at a country they don’t recognize, seeing things they didn’t think were possible, and facing challenges that Ward and June never acknowledged.

As one of her final acts of the Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and her staff wore purple to symbolize a uniting of America. As the “resistance” movement moves forward, we should not be secure in a 2.8 million vote majority. We need to find ways to assuage the concerns of those who feel left behind by the rapid pace of change.