Category: Uncategorized

It Ain’t All Their Fault

It feels like America is truly divided. Even before the election of Donald Trump, the nation felt like two different places: the progressive trans-national vision of Barack Obama, and the protectionist, nationalist philosophy of the Republican right. And now we have the “alt-right” outflanking the already conservative Republican party. There is little room left in the middle. There are few “blue-dog” Democrats, liberal on social issues, but conservative on defense and economics. And there are almost no “moderate” Republicans. The few that look moderate now (John Kasich for example) are far more conservative than Jacob Javits or Edwin Brooke of the past, or even Mitt Romney in his Massachusetts Governor days.

Some would argue that America is essentially a “purple” country. While a look at the 2016 Presidential election map is quite stark in its red and blue contrast, an analysis of the election show state after state had incredibly narrow results. In “all Republican” Ohio, Trump received 2.8 million votes, but Clinton had 2.3 million. North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania: all were narrow wins. There was no “mandate” for President Trump, just a perilously close electoral win.

Others would take the same evidence and note that Clinton won only 8 counties in Ohio, while Trump won 80. The contrast was clear: the urban areas of Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, Cincinnati, Youngstown and Akron, along with “liberal” Athens County went for Clinton: the rest were for Trump. In many of those counties Trump gained more than 70%.

The “progressives” feel that the gains of the past decades in LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, national health, education, the environment and a multitude of other issues are being lost. They also feel that the President at the helm might get the US in a war across the world.

Conservatives feel like even though they “won,” Progressives still rule. They feel that the institutions of government (the “DeepState”) are preventing the “winners” from running the country. They feel  that Trump’s win should give them the right to rewrite the changes of the past decades. Instead, they feel that America is re-writing its own history, writing out the role of traditional heroes, and defiling the symbols that represent our nation.

Are we re-writing history? Today we are tearing down the monuments to the Confederacy, declaring all Confederates “supporters of slavery.” We are focusing our rear view vision on the war fought over 150 years ago. And just as the idea that the South was fighting for “states’ rights” only and not slavery is foolish, so is the idea that every Confederate was a “traitor” fighting for slavery. Like all history, it’s a whole lot more complex than that.

While slavery was always an issue for the United States, the dynamic of state versus federal power was always on the table. We struggled with that from the writing of the Constitution. Madison had to add the 10^th Amendment, reserving rights to the states and the people, to try to clarify the issue, but it didn’t. The first great argument for secession was from New England, facing economic losses from Jefferson’s embargo prior to and during the War of 1812.

The next was between President Andrew Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun, both slaveholders, over taxation in South Carolina in the early 1830’s. Calhoun argued the concept of nullification – that a state could nullify a federal law within its jurisdiction – originally authored by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution. Jackson proclaimed that the union must be preserved. Calhoun ultimately resigned from the Vice Presidency, and Jackson sent Federal troops and ships to the state. A compromise was reached: the state dropped nullification, the taxes were reduced and the troops removed, but the argument of the power of states versus the federal government would continue.

So to claim that the state’s rights argument was only about slavery is far too simplistic. Had slavery not existed, there probably would not have been a Civil War, but the issue was more complicated than just slavery. And while Northern abolitionists were loud and clear about ending slavery, they truly represented a small minority of Northern thought before the war.

Prior to the Civil War, Lincoln, like Jackson, declared that the Union was inseparable. When the Civil War began, Lincoln made the war one of union versus dis-union, not slavery versus freedom. It was only after a year and a half of war that Lincoln began the process of emancipation.

So does this mean that we should maintain Confederate monuments? Whether they were fighting for states’ rights or slavery, they were fighting for dis-union. We should begin our discussion there, and determine what is right today. And we should do so as communities, not as a national showdown. We should remember that while Confederates were fighting for dis-union, most perceived the fight as protecting their homes. At the least, we should allow their cemeteries to be honored for the sacrifice they made, even for a losing cause.

And “progressives” should not make re-litigating the Civil War as the cause of the day. There are too many issues of NOW that we must contend with as we attempt to maintain the progress of the last twenty years. To allow our focus to be drawn to the alt-right distracts us from that more important cause.

This is but one issue that divides our country, and one where some feel that “progressives” are changing the nature of it. Others “hot button” examples:  kneeling during the national anthem as a  form of protest, or university campuses providing “safe zones” from free speech, all make “the red” side of our nation feel like the nation is changing beneath their feet. Right or wrong, it ain’t all their fault that they feel that way.

 

 

Contempt of Court

Yesterday President Donald J. Trump pardoned the former Sheriff of Maricopa County (Phoenix, Arizona) Joe Arpaio. Arpaio was convicted in Federal Court for Criminal Contempt. His department was profiling Hispanics, stopping and placing them in custody until they could prove their US citizenship. When some of the US citizens who were jailed went to Federal Court, the Court agreed that the Department was violating their 4^th and 14^th Amendment rights. The Court ordered Arpaio to stop these actions. He continued the profiling for years, and therefore was held in contempt.

Trump’s actions really surprised no one. He has made it clear that he will go to great extents to keep “undesirables” out of the United States, including his Muslim ban and asking local police departments to enforce immigration policy. Arpaio decided he knew better than the Courts what was “good” for Maricopa County, mirroring Trump’s own view.

Trump has demonstrated disdain for the Courts. His career in real estate began in Court, as he was sued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for discrimination in leasing apartments. His businesses have used the Courts to avoid paying debts, to declare bankruptcy, and in general as a tool for furthering their own financial interest.

Trump doesn’t recognize that judges might operate without bias. His claim against Gonzalo Curiel, who heard the case against Trump University, was that of course Curiel would rule against him;  he was Hispanic and Trump was against illegal immigration. (Curiel, the son of legal immigrants, was born and raised in Indiana and got his law degree at Indiana University.)

Trump has constantly criticized the judges (as opposed to the decisions) of the Courts that have ruled against his various immigration schemes. Most notably, he has claimed that the 9^th Circuit of Appeals is an “Obama” court,  getting back at him for being elected.

Trump clearly has contempt for the Courts, and his pardon of Arpaio allows him to display that contempt. It also fits in with his current strategy of “playing to the base.” More insidiously, his preemptive use of the pardon power at this time also may be the beginning of a grander strategy to “pardon” his way out of the Russia crisis.

Here’s how that might work. The Mueller investigation in part is based on pressure. Like any criminal enterprise investigation, it begins with the “smaller fish:”  truthful testimony elicited with promises of leniency. The information gathered is then used to get the “bigger fish.”

A Presidential pardon can be for actions that might have occurred (see Ford’s pardon of Nixon) and prevents any Federal prosecution. However, it would also remove the “pardonee’s” 5^th Amendment right to refuse to testify due to self-incrimination. Should a person who is pardoned refuse to testify, the next leverage against them is criminal contempt of court. However, with the Arpaio pardon, it is clear that the President would be willing to pardon that infraction as well, thus closing down that entire line of testimony.

It would be incredibly ugly, but it would work. There is absolutely no legal check on the President’s right to pardon, with the exception that it applies to Federal cases only. State cases could continue. (Could Trump pardon himself?  There is no precedent, and it would certainly end up in the US Supreme Court.)

There is, of course, one massive check on Presidential power. If it became clear that President Trump was using the pardon power to obstruct justice, that certainly would be an impeachable offense. It would require the members of the House and the Senate to put down their political battles, and find the courage to do what’s right for the country. If Trump starts to “pardon his way out” of this, let’s hope they find it.

 

 

The Speed of Air Force One

Was it the weekend before last that there were marches and tragedy in Charlottesville? Was it just a few days later that we realized that the President of the United States was implicitly endorsing white supremacists? Was Bannon fired just last Friday? Was it only two days ago that the President announced a “new” strategy in Afghanistan – and then the next day back to the same old stuff at a rally in Phoenix? And Trump himself has gone from New Jersey to Washington to New York, to New Jersey to Washington, to Virginia, to Washington, to Phoenix and back. Whew!!!!!!

It is no wonder that Americans are tired: tired of the constant tirades, tired of chaos, tired of living in hysteria. Thank God for the total eclipse, we got a breather from our “real” world to marvel at THE REAL world. The Chaos theory of Trump is pretty effective though, as we focused on his tirades and questionable loyalties, we missed the slow drumbeat of Russia building momentum to threaten the Presidency.

Glenn Simpson, the President of Fusion GPS, spent ten hours talking to Senate investigators yesterday. He also left 40,000 pages of documentation. Fusion GPS is the organization that contracted with Christopher Steele to produce the “Steele Dossier” which detailed contacts, collusion and cooperation between Trump and Russian intelligence agencies. While the full text of Simpson’s testimony is still held private (Simpson himself has asked that it be made public) the one point that came out: Simpson and GPS Fusion stand by the accuracy of the dossier.

Billy Piper, a Republican lobbyist and former Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell raised the “I” word in remarks about Trump: “The quickest way for him to get impeached is for Trump to knock off Jeff Flake and Dean Heller and be faced with a Democrat-led Senate…”[1] The relationship between Trump and McConnell has gone from shaky to bad, as Trump targets GOP senators (Flake, Heller) for primary challenges by candidates more “Trump-like.”

In addition, Trump has consistently attacked McConnell for the failure of the health-care legislation in the Senate, and now, according to the New York Times, berated McConnell for failing to protect him (Trump) from Russia investigations. Some GOP Senators have been willing to criticized Trump publicly, notably Bob Corker from Tennessee, who raised questions about Trump’s competence to be President. Others are reported to being  very critical, privately.

In the meantime his Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, is under investigation by the department’s Inspector General for the “strong arming” Alaska’s Senator Murkowski to pass the health-care legislation. His Treasury Secretary’s wife is attacking folks who complain about her use of public monies for travel, and his Secret Service is running out of overtime money from covering the travels of Trump and his family.

It’s August. We will get back to the meat of the Russia investigation soon, when Congress returns from the August recess. We know that the Mueller investigation is proceeding, with requests for information from the White House itself. We also know that there will be confrontations in Congress about taxes, and more immediately, about the budget and the debt ceiling. The next crisis may be a government shutdown at the end of September.

As events seem to move at the speed of Air Force One, behind the scenes there is the building momentum of the Russian investigation. As Trump  burn more bridges, those that could protect him seem less and less inclined to do so.   For some of us, the results of the investigation can’t come out soon enough. Expect that there will be more distractions, but know this:  we will eventually know what really happened between Trump and Russia.

 

PS – on a wholly different subject – what is the likelihood that the most professional Navy in the world would have four ship collisions in the same geographic area in the past several months? Several sailors have been killed in these incidents. The Navy is treating this as human errors and has relieved the three-star admiral in command as well as others. But as all of these events are in proximity to China, and China has a huge interest in dis-crediting the US Navy in the region, is someone checking that our incredibly complex navigation computers haven’t been hacked?

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump.html

Darkness at 2:31!

President Trump tweeted
·today:

North Korea and Venezuela have managed to use crooked – stolen technology from fine American Industries TO BLOT OUT THE SUN!!!!  SAD!!!……

New Tweet

  ….So we will now BUILD A DOME WITH CLEAN COAL POWRRED LIGHTS  over the entire United States and the CHINESE will pay for it!!  We will MAKE AMERICA LIGHT AGAIN #MALA

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders later said the President’s statement speaks for itself and she could think of nothing to add….

Happy Eclipse Day!!  I’m in Oak Ridge Tennessee waiting for totality!

PS – my wife says to tell you I made this up! Too many people will think he really tweeted it!!  SAD!

---

 

 

 

You break it, You Buy It – The Republican Dilemma

The Republican Party is facing a difficult dilemma. They leadership of the party accepted, with reservations, the candidacy of Donald Trump. They allowed him to have their nomination for President, against their own better judgment, and now they are faced with the reality of his actions as President.

Let’s look at the facts. The Republican leadership, and by that I mean, Paul Ryan, Reince Preibus, John McCain, and the rest; fell in behind the Trump juggernaut at the Republican convention. They were faced with a difficult choice: turn against the party they love, the supporters they worked with, and the voters they needed; or accept Trump’s legitimacy as the Republican candidate. They could have done it: John Kasich did. They could have divided the party, taking the moral position that Trump should not be the President.

They didn’t. They didn’t because they were afraid of the backlash of their own voters. They didn’t because they were afraid that taking that moral view would mean they would lose their personal power. They didn’t because (some) hated the Clintons with such virulence that they were willing to make a “deal with the devil” than to allow her to win the Presidency. They didn’t because they didn’t think it was possible he could win.

They had a second chance to do so when Trump demonstrated his own personal immorality in the famous “bus tapes.” Some stepped back from Trump then, stating that they couldn’t explain support for him to their families. Yet, a week later, they were back with personal endorsements. Jason Chaffetz is the prime example of this (and it seems the decision so soured his gut, that he left Congress.)

They didn’t. They swallowed their pride and their morals, and probably secretly wished that the polls were right and Clinton would win. They began planning their “resistance” to the Clinton Presidency, preparing more hearings on Benghazi and e-mail.

And then Trump won. The legitimacy of his win is questionable. There is the known Russian interference in the election, and the unknown question of whether votes in key states were tampered with. Republicans in those key states have block inquiry into the voting totals: but like the questionable elections of the past, Trump is the President (Bush/Gore, Hayes/Tilden, JQ Adams/Jackson.)

And as President, Trump is demonstrating the incompetence and incapacity that everyone from Jeb Bush on, knew. It’s not just his inability to get his own agenda through Congress; it’s his willingness to risk the nation by foolhardy saber-rattling in North Korea, and his tacit support of white supremacy in Charlottesville. The Republican leadership now is faced with the dilemma: can the country survive a Trump Presidency without irreparable damage.

As a Republican leader the choice is the same one that faced them in August. Allowing Trump to be President lets them temporarily keep their party, their power, their base. But there must be a “tipping point” where they recognize that they will inevitably lose that party, power and base with Trump: and perhaps their nation too.

There are more than just the political issues involved. To some principled members of Congress it is most difficult to overturn what they see as the decision of the American people by attempting to throw out a duly elected President (though they didn’t seem to have much of a problem when that President was named Clinton.) Their concern extends beyond the precedent of second-guessing the electorate: it also raises questions about the stability of the American government and the Constitution.

And to some, there is the real concern that Trump supporters will do more than just scream and wear MAGA hats if he is removed. Pence is not a legitimate substitute for those folks, he does not represent the “outsider” they were looking for in a candidate. The marches in Charlottesville, while NOT representing most Trump voters, might pale in comparison.

And what of the Democrats? Their role in this is to accept the “conversion” of Trump supporters to the current reality, without blame or recrimination. They must recognize that for the good of the Nation, those who finally recognize the incompetence and inability of Trump, even as late as now, have a role to play in what happens next.

But in the end, it is the Republican leadership that still controls what happens: Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the number of Congressmen and Senators who can recognize that we have reached the “tipping point.” It will take the political courage that failed them twice already. But in the end – they broke it – they bought it – they better fix it.

 

 

 

Who Are Those Guys?

This week the President of the United States drew a “moral equivalency” among all of those at Charlottesville last weekend. In fact, the President watched (more carefully than the reporters did, he said) the “tiki torch march” on Friday night, and saw some “very fine people”. (It’s amazing what Fred Perry polo shirts, khakis and a permit can do!)[1]

A “moral equivalency”: that both sides in a struggle have no more or less claim to being “right” (that’s right versus wrong – not right-wing). The President also introduced a new term in the ongoing debate over the division of America: “alt-left.” No one had heard that one before.

It’s time for a “scorecard.” Who are these groups, what do they stand for, and who, if any, has the “moral high ground”? Names are thrown around: Alt-Right, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, Black Lives Matter, Anti-Fascists, and White Supremacists (Nationalists); all need to have some meaning. As Butch said to Sundance: who are those guys?

Let’s do the historically clear groups first. The Neo-Nazis (current) are those who espouse the racial message of Hitler. Hitler believed in the racial superiority of the Aryan race, Aryan being defined as white, Northern Europeans. According to Hitler, other races existed to serve the Aryans. He also believed that the Jewish people subverted the power and authority of Aryans, and must be eliminated.  Neo-Nazis (and the modern KKK) believe in the creation of a white “ethnostate” in America.

When the “boys” in their Fred Perry Polos chanted “Jews won’t replace us” they were echoing the cries of the Hitler brownshirts from the 1930’s. When they carried their “tiki torches” they were purposefully imitating Hitler-era demonstrations. The fact that they dress like “preppies” does not change the hate in their words, thoughts and deeds. [2]

The “anti-fa,” or anti-fascists trace their origins to the anarchists of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Dressed in black, they believe that the only way to confront Nazism and White Supremacy is through intimidation and violence. To them, Trump and “Trumpism” represents the triumph of those views. They argue:

“to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.”[3]

In other words, you can’t reason with facists, so attack them physically.

Black Lives Matter is an organization developed after what they see as government sanctioned killing of black men over the past few years. From the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, through Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland: the Black Live Matter movement cites a continuing number of unarmed men being killed by police as a reason for protest. Their goal: to raise awareness and create change through marches and protests. Critics have said that the BLM movement has encouraged rioting, particularly in Ferguson, Missouri where national attention was first focused. The organization itself states:

“We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation and peace in our engagements with one another.”[4]

The Ku Klux Klan has a long history, starting from the end of the Civil War in 1866. Its goal was and continues to be to champion the supremacy of the white race over other races, and Protestant Christianity over other religions. The Klan has had several eras of resurgence, usually coinciding with an era of increased civil rights. The end of the Reconstruction Era in 1876, after World War I and into the 1920’s, and in the 1960’s in opposition to the Civil Rights movement; all were times of high visibility. [5]

Historically it should be no surprise that they have gained notoriety again, given the progress in civil and social rights of the last twenty years. The Klan has also worked to become more “mainstream alt-right” by toning down its hoods and robes and blending into the other white supremacist groups.

The “alt-right” is a more modern (internet) version of the far right represented by Breitbart “News.”  While many of the same ultra-conservative views are espoused by the alt-right, there is a more Libertarian bent, which allows for more individual differences. This is perhaps best shown through Milo Yiannopoulos. A 32 year old British man, Yiannopoulos is openly gay, and was a leading speaker and writer in the alt-right community. He led the tech section of Bretibart “News.” His recent statements regarding gay men and teens have taken him out of the limelight, but his alt-right success demonstrates the difference between alt-right and neo-Nazis.

“The Resistance” is a loosely associated group of millions of folks who feel that the election of Donald Trump threatens the progress in American society made over the last sixty years. There is no membership card or uniform, and people of all ages, races, particular areas of concerns and motivation have participated in protests and demonstrations against a wide number of actions by the current government majority.

The “anti-fas” and Black Lives Matter groups are often a part of those “Resistance” activities, and while a vast majority of BLM and the Resistance are non-violent, the anti-fas are willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

In full disclosure, I started blogging as part of my contribution to the “Resistance”. In addition, I have marched and demonstrated, both against President Trump and the results of some of his actions (cutting Medicaid in Ohio for example.) I am a believer in the First Amendment (as well as the rest of the Amendments – including the Second) and I believe that, particularly in our current time of political unrest, it is important for voices to be heard.

Destruction and or physical violence do not advance the causes I believe in. During the lates 1960’s and early 70’s, there were widespread protests against the Vietnam War. A vast majority of those protests were non-violent, learning from Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. But there were also groups that used destruction and violence to protest, notably the SDS (Students for Democratic Society).  Violence and destruction did not end the war. It gave “the establishment” an excuse to restrict protest.

There is clearly no “moral equivalency” between the white “supremacists” and those who are protesting against them.  The fact those some of the counter-protestors came ready for a fight should not diminish the reality:  we should ALL (you too Mr. President) stand up for American values, and denounce hate and prejudice.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/read-the-transcript-of-donald-trumps-jaw-dropping-press-conference.html

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5g_1exP7H4

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

[4] http://blacklivesmatter.com

[5] http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

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