Category: Uncategorized

So What Could Trump Do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York Times – Trump Interview

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

Order of Succession – Department of Justice

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

Presidential Pardons

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

 

Shanksville

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

So Let’s Get this Straight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here’s the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN – overview of Trump Meeting

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

Natalia Veselnitskaya

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

Rinat Akhmetshin

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

Magnitsky Act

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

Prevezon Case

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

Yuri Chaika

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

Gibbs Rules

http://www.nciswikia.com

 

I’m not a lawyer, but…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are (still) a long way from that.

 

 

 

An Ethical Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

So What have We Done?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

While Rome Burns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Are You Talking to Me?

As a teacher, it was always easier to lecture, rather than engage in discussion. Lecture was one-way communication. It could be planned out with ordered ideas in advance and presented in a logical fashion. If the lecture was entertaining and engaging, so much the better, as the student/audience stayed attuned to the subject.

The harder way was to engage the students, shaping the discussion using their questions and answers to still cover the topic in a logical manner. It took time, listening, and a lot of thought to make a “Socratic” method work, and often the questions were tough and formulating answers tougher.

One-way communication works well if you are talking to an audience that agrees with everything you say. It’s the Trump Administration’s favored means of communication. While they will send out the lower level “surrogates” to talk to the mainstream news media, strictly staying on “the point of the day,” in general the White House prefers to speak directly to the base through “tweets.” The President himself will talk to “safe” questioners, sticking to “Fox and Friends.” https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/06/22/donald-trump-loves-safe-space-fox-friends/216997

It has been abundantly clear that the Trump Administration strategy is to continually fight the mainstream media. This is a political decision: undercut public confidence in the press and communicate directly to the Trump base (30-40% of the current electorate.) Without awkward questions to be answered, without implied criticisms of executive actions, direct communication works perfectly.

Since Press Secretary Sean Spicer has been thoroughly burned out by this process, they brought out Deputy Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The White House determined not to have televised press conferences for several days (with some not even allowing audio), but when CNN retracted a story and fired three reporters, everyone was called into the press room with the cameras running. After a softball setup from the Breitbart News reporter, Sanders opened up on the press:

“I don’t know that it’s that the response isn’t good enough for the president. I think it’s the constant barrage of fake news that is directed at this president, probably, that has garnered a lot of his frustration. You point to that report; there are multiple other instances where that outlet that you referenced has been repeatedly wrong and had to point that out or had to correct it. There’s a video circulating now — whether it’s accurate or not, I don’t know — but I would encourage everyone in this room and, frankly, everybody across the country to take a look at it. I think if it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism…”

Brian Karem, correspondent from Playboy (I forgot they had good political articles, were they there when I was a kid?) responded, calling out Sanders and the administration for their ongoing attacks:

“Why in the name of heavens — any one of us, right, are replaceable. And any one of us, if we don’t get it right, the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us. You have been elected to serve for four years, at least; there’s no option other than that. We’re here to ask you questions. You’re here to provide the answers. And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say, “See, once again, the president is right, and everybody else out here is fake media.” And everybody in this room is only trying to do their job.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/politics/donald-trump-sarah-huckabee-sanders-media/index.html

The “press conference” lasted just a few more minutes followed by Huckabee Sanders walking out, her message delivered. Her reference to a video was an “ambush” video of CNN personnel by “Project Veritas” edited to suggest that CNN was only reporting on the Russian connections for ratings (http://projectveritas.com/2017/06/28/van-jones-russia-is-nothing-burger-american-pravda-cnn-part-ii/)

CNN’s response http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinions/much-ado-about-nothing-burger-van-jones/index.html

The White House then continued its all-out twitter war against MSNBC and CNN. It’s one way communication, it’s a distraction from the real issues this Presidency faces with it’s program and it’s survival, and it’s a way to deny the truthfulness of those who question, much less answer.

In one of the first blogs written in February here on this site,  Two Universes of Facts, it was lamented that there could not be “civil discourse” it there are no “common facts.” Over the past several months, it has become clear that the war on facts has continued, and hope for civil discourse has faded away.

If a majority of Americans feel left out and confused by the Trump communications strategy, they should. It’s not aimed at them, it’s aimed at generating the “base.” Ultimately it will be when “the base” determines that Trump’s results haven’t lived up to his promises that the Administration will be forced to answer.

 

 

 

Patriotism

 It’s the Fourth of July in the first year of President Trump. With all of the distress and disgust, with all of the “hate” among us; it still is the Fourth of July. It is the celebration of the 241^st year of the Republic.

 If there is a day for patriotism, for love of country despite its flaws, the Fourth of July is the day.

 Over twenty years ago I was teaching high school kids government, and faced the question: “what is patriotism?” I tried to come up with an answer for those students. And while it was in a very different era (those students are almost forty now), on this Independence Day in particular, it is a good time to re-visit Patriotism.

I spent the day reading student essays on patriotism. Some students confused it with right wing ideas, some students thought it had to do with politicians, a lot of students just had no idea what patriotism was. Many, many blamed a lack of patriotism on a lack of knowledge. “We were never taught about it!” they cried, “we should have known it at an early age — then we would have ‘patriotism.’”

Is that true? Did we miss an opportunity to teach these young people? Have we created the cynicism they are so well known for; are they too aware of the world without having the background to see through the flaws; are they too jaded by the post-Vietnam “everybody is screwed up” world we have created?

What comes to mind is this: teacher, teach. Explain to them what is right with America, why this is a good place, and what makes it a country that demands loyalty despite its flaws. Explain to them what is “patriotism”, and why you are a patriot.

Do you know? How long has it been since you have asked yourself that question? A teacher of history and government, and lover of the events that made America what it is, why are you a patriot? Explain: that’s what you do for a living, isn’t it? Teacher, teach.

It seems awkward, even trite, to write down why you love something. It exposes your soul to the world, it leaves you open for attack. But how can you ask it of someone else when you are unable to do it yourself? What is patriotism, and why are you a patriot? Answer the question, in 300 words or less (right!).

Patriotism is a love of your country, a love for what America means and what it stands for. Patriotism is not fanaticism, it allows for criticism and fault. Patriotism accepts the fact that others may not be patriotic, but it requires that at the end of the day, there is a basic loyalty to one nation, our nation. It means a love of what America was and is; with flaws, with unfairness, with discrimination; but with an essential rightness that rises above the inequities.

Why love this country? Because it began with goals that even then far outstripped the reality. So what if Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so what if George Washington needed his land in Ohio to be open to settlement? They looked beyond their own material gains, they tried to establish a nation with a purpose that far exceeded their own potential benefit. Did they mean to, or was it a subterfuge to cover their own material desires? It really doesn’t matter, they set the tone either intentionally or despite themselves. They established the dream.

I once went to a Fourth of July picnic at a friend of my family’s house. He was a federal judge, and he brought a fellow judge with him to the picnic, Judge George Edwards. Judge Edwards had been put in jail fighting discrimination long before it was the “right” thing to do, he had used his great mind not to benefit financially, as many lawyers do, but to further what he thought was right. Judge Edwards lost his most precious gift in the end, he had a stroke that took away his mind, and this was near that time.

But Judge Edwards got up at the Fourth of July picnic, and in a quavering voice read the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

 

            …We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

They were not just words. They were his life. They are what he staked his whole being on. He was the government, a federal district judge. He believed in the dream of Jefferson and Washington, and knew that reality did not reach the dream. It did not matter, he believed.

I walked Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, by myself, in the heat of the day in July as did the soldiers in Longstreet’s command. I looked at the low ridge, Cemetery Ridge, where Hancock and the Federal troops waited to dispatch them. I thought, how could they do this? How could they walk this long mile, climb the fence, cross the road, and run up the hill into what could only have been a flaming wall of musket fire?

They were a mixed bag, but mostly simple country boys. So were the Federals who just as bravely stood to meet them. Why go? It wasn’t a belief in slavery, or a hatred of it. It was simple: a man ought to have the right to determine what will happen to him. Both sides believed it, just one side thought they had to be on their own, and the other side thought they had to be together. It was a simple belief; and it wasn’t pressure, the officers in the rear with pistols, or the penalties for desertion that drove men to fight that day. Men ought to fight for what they believe, and in the Civil War both sides believed. A cold wind blew through my soul that day, even more that night as I stood on Cemetery Ridge and watched the sun go down behind the sad statue of Robert E. Lee on the far side of the field. They gave more than anyone could have asked; they were all patriots, they died for us all, both sides.

I have a friend, a man now, who once was a student of mine. He was born in the worst of situations, abandoned by both parents, raised by relations, lived in tough financial circumstances. But he had a mind that could reach beyond it all, and a heart of gold. He used his abilities, both mental and physical, to move himself to the top of America’s academic world. He earned scholarships, he met all of the challenges, and he never let the circumstances of his birth dictate what his life would be. He has stayed himself, but he has made himself, because he believed in the power of his dream.

Why love America? Because men like George Edwards made it their life’s work. Because the soldiers at Gettysburg were willing to die for their belief in it’s freedom. And because America allows those with the worst disadvantages to use their talents to rise to become its best.

Why love America? Because in your own way, you too are part of its story, its tradition, and its future. Because each person at Gettysburg, George Edwards, my student; all did not see themselves as a “great piece of history”, but only as doing what they thought was right. So should we all, and because we are in a country that allows it, we have reason to love America.

Behind the Veil

Note: This one is pure speculation – but let’s have some fun!!!!!

 For the first time since the Inaugural crowd size flap (to Trump, size matters, ask the crew at MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”*); this week the national attention has been drawn away from “Russia” and onto health insurance. But like any good addiction, we are inexorably pulled back into the fray. What’s going on “behind the veil” of the Special Counsel investigation? While unlike the White House, there doesn’t seem to be much leaking from Mr. Mueller’s office, here’s what the rumor mill has.

The first order of business was to establish a nexus between Trump and the Russians. In this case, it is nexuses (Webster’s Dictionary), five in fact: Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Sessions, and Kushner. While Carter Page may also be involved, and clearly has links to the Russian side of the equation, his direct links to the Trump side are more tenuous, and if he was involved (as mentioned in the Steele Dossier) it was more likely a “cut-out” between the five and the Russians as the conspiracy got going. He’s had multiple interviews with the FBI already, supposedly without benefit of counsel (a person who represents himself has a fool for a client).

Here’s the five, and here’s where they stand now.

Flynn – now exposed as an agent for Turkey (he made $530,000 for work before Election Day. [1])  Flynn, whose contacts with Russia and directly with Putin are literally on video, is looking to cut a deal. He has offered to testify for immunity from prosecution [2]. Clearly, as more charges mount against him (income tax evasion, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, lying on his security clearance, acting as an agent for a foreign government while serving as National Security Advisor) the stakes will grow higher and perhaps the depth of his testimony greater. No one wants to go to jail and it seems pretty clear that Flynn won’t be the one to “take the fall” for Trump. If he’s got it, he’ll spill it – for a price.

Manafort – just admitted to acting as an unregistered foreign agent for the Russian-backed Ukrainian government. The $12 million payment notation that was found in the abandoned ledger in the exiled Ukrainian President’s house has grown to $17 million. He is facing a myriad of charges, including laundering money and income tax evasion, as well as acting as an unregistered foreign agent. [3] Rumor currently has it that Manafort is NOT cooperating with the investigation. That may be for a couple of reasons. First, he may be so dirty, that it is impossible to offer him a deal for anything. He may also be so near “the top of the pyramid”, that the investigators are making sure he is going to face charges. Second, Manafort may be holding out for a better deal, one that would make a future long jail term vanish. It is likely that whatever there is to know, he knows it.

Stone – is always in the background, always up to something. He was the original campaign operative for Trump, and claims to be the one who put the Presidency in Trump’s head. Stone is already on the record with statements showing he had prior knowledge of the Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s (Hillary’s campaign chairman) emails, and Stone was in a campaign firm with Manafort back in the 1990’s. Stone probably knows less than he would have folks believe, but he definitely wants to get attention. He has offered to testify, but probably has little to add to the conversation.

Sessions: the Attorney General of the United States. Sessions is a man who consistently “forgot” about meetings with Russians in testimony under oath, particularly with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. He was the US Senator who first  supported Donald Trump, and gave the campaign some aura of respectability. From listening to his testimony (“….Ah don’t recaul…”) he either is fumbling around his lies, or is using that persona to cover his omissions.  It is difficult to figure out what he might know.

And finally, there is first son-in-law Jared Kushner. He accepted loans from Deutsche Bank right before election day [4] (Deutsche Bank has been fined for allowing Russian money to laundered through their accounts). Kushner was in charge of the data and social media operation for the Trump Campaign – the methods vastly aided by the Russian operations. [5] He also not only forgot secret meetings he had with Ambassador Kislyak, (and did not mention them in his security clearance)[6] but actually tried to set up a secret communications channel through the Russian Embassy back to Moscow.

It is difficult to see Kushner accepting jail time – but he also is married to the “boss’s” daughter. Clearly Kushner knows whatever there is to know, and also is one at the “top of the pyramid.” Whether he would, or could, cut some kind of deal for immunity is a very open question.

So there’s the probable focus of the investigation, and where that inquiry will go.

*As I wrote this blog – the Twitter controversy broke after Trump’s comments about Mika Brzezinski.  To Trump it’s a “even-steven deal” – Brzezinski made fun of the size of his hands on-air this morning.  Trump missed that she’s a commentator – and he’s the President of the United States. There’s a difference! He also missed that his references about women have been ongoing and disgusting.  

 

[1] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michael-flynn-registers-foreign-agent-earned-530k-lobbying-article-1.2993217

[2] Flynn seeks immunity from prosecution

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/politics/manafort-registers-foreign-agent/index.html

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kushner-firms-285-million-deutsche-bank-loan-came-just-before-election-day/2017/06/25/984f3acc-4f88-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.dc080bbebd12

[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#6dc0a9503af6

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

View from the Other Side

Senator Bernie Sanders says that if the GOP Health Care Plan passes, “…thousands will die.” [1] Congressman Mo Brooks says that “…people who lead good lives…” don’t have to worry about pre-existing conditions.[2] The Congressional Budget Office says that that 15 million people will lose their insurance if the plan becomes law.[3]

Some of these statements are true, some are hyperbolic, but they are all part of the incredibly heated rhetoric that surrounds the Senate vote on the GOP Health Care Plan. As a “liberal” I find it hard to imagine that any Senator would vote for this Plan with the clear impact it will have on their constituents’ lives. And it’s easy to fall into the trap of saying all of the Republicans are “bought out” by the insurance companies, or the billionaires who look to make vast amounts of money on tax breaks, or really believe that the “virtuous” won’t need insurance.

Part of believing in “civil discourse” means that I believe that folks of good faith can have differing views, reasonably held. So in the interest of being civil, here is what I believe are their reasons to change health care (though I find none of these reasons persuasive!!)

1. Conservatives believe that the free market will do a better job of providing insurance rather than one controlled by government regulation. Competition will ultimately drive the cost of insurance down, making it more affordable. Then it will then become more attractive to younger, healthier people who are not now inclined to buy expensive insurance, expanding the market and therefore create a broader base paying insurance and lowering costs.
2. They also believe that medical care is a simple ‘supply and demand’ equation. By putting government money into the market (by the increase in Medicaid payments) it creates more demand for care, and, as the supply of care cannot easily expand, the cost of medical care goes up for all.
3. They also don’t believe that “people will die” if the GOP Health Care Plan becomes law. There are already laws in the books that require public hospitals to treat everyone who comes in the door, and while that treatment is folded into the overall cost of health care, it doesn’t come out of the government pocket.
4. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, as Vice President Pence has made clear.[4] Personal responsibility means that folks have to deal with their own issues, whether it’s pregnancy (men shouldn’t pay for pre-natal care) or diabetes. Others shouldn’t have to pay more on their insurance to cover it.
5. Conservatives don’t believe that Government money should be paid through Medicare to solve “social” problems: most notably drug addiction. Either drug addiction should be treated through “stand alone” programs, or,  echoing the personal responsibility idea, addicts did it to themselves.
6. And perhaps most importantly, conservatives believe that the current government cost of health care is unsustainable, that it will increase the National Debt to the point where the value of the US Dollar will begin to fall from inflation, and ultimately will require future generations to pay a huge cost.

The ARE multiple problems with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It was based and passed on the concept that ALL states would expand Medicaid, and therefore expand the number of healthy individuals in the insurance pool. The Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of the expansion, and  therefore reduced the size of the pool.[5]

The IRS has stopped collecting the “penalty” for not having insurance. This removes the incentive for healthy individuals to enter the insurance pool, and it reduces the amount of tax brought in to back the rest of the ACA. Meanwhile, insurance companies are getting out of the individual state marketplaces, often because they have no faith that the laws of today will be the laws of tomorrow.

The ACA was an attempt to bridge the divide between the free market view of health care and the more liberal “single payer” system, which is most easily thought of as Medicare for everyone. But even for a single payer system to work, the US must also step onto the other side of the equation in health care, price control. Medicare already does this by restricting the amount that can be charged for a given procedure, but drug costs have been specifically EXEMPTED from control. While the argument is made the Pharmaceutical companies won’t do research if they don’t make a big enough profit (the famous “first pill” cost,) it’s hard to imagine that the excessive profits big pharma makes now are just used for research.

In the end, health care support from the government is a choice. It is a spending choice, just like building a wall at the border, putting more bombers in the sky, and improving roads and bridge. It shouldn’t (and doesn’t have to be) a choice that bankrupts the nation, but it does raise the question: what is the role of government to the people’s health? Does the Constitutional admonition to “…promote the general welfare…” include their health, or is that a “personal responsibility?”

[1] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/339234-sanders-thousands-will-die-under-gop-health-bill

[2] http://www.salon.com/2017/05/02/alabama-congressman-people-who-lead-good-lives-dont-have-preexisting-conditions/

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/senate-health-care-bill-republican.html

[4] https://twitter.com/mike_pence/status/878669323929341952

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-surprise-medicaid-ruling-could-reduce-coverage/?utm_term=.e20eff9e530e

Mom

My Mom, Phyllis Mary Teresa O’Connor Dahlman, better known as “Babs” would have been 99 years old Sunday. She passed away at 93, and had a hard way to go for the last couple years of her life. But the rest of her 91 years were well lived and exciting. She wasn’t part of Trump World (what she would say about him would make us all blush) but she taught and lived an example that I hope lives on in all who knew her.

Mom was British, and fiercely proud of it. She fought as a spy during World War II, going behind enemy lines to help the Underground Resistance to the Nazis. She met Dad, brought in by the US Army, on a blind date. Mom and Dad fell madly in love as the bombs fell in London, and she returned to the US as a war bride in 1946.

http://www.uc.edu/info-services/spy.htm

She became as fiercely patriotic about the United States as she was about Britain.   While she never gave up her British citizenship, she was always deeply interested and involved with what went on here in the United States. She had strong opinions about everything, and she was perfectly willing to discuss and defend them. At our dining room table we (the kids, friends, Dad’s new employees) were expected to participate in the political debates of the time. (The only out of bounds topic, the Queen!)

I had a Kennedy button (that’s John F Kennedy for President, 1960) when I was four years old. We visited our friends the Shrivers, well known for their Republican views, and I wasn’t allowed to enter their apartment in the Vernon Manor Hotel. Mom let me sit out in the hall rather than take off my JFK button. All was finally made well, as the Shrivers gave me a lead elephant (I don’t think they worried about poisoning back then) to play with. It’s still around here today.

She encouraged us to care – about our neighbors, about the community and about the world. When my sisters went to protest the Vietnam War, when I became involved in local and national political campaigns, Mom was always curious and a great sounding board for new ideas. She wanted us to be a part of the world, as well as a part of our own lives.

She was able to listen to different views. At her dining table there was no problem with having a liberal Federal Judge, a conservative engineer from Proctor and Gamble, a founder of Planned Parenthood, and even a couple in communication with aliens from outer space. Mom and Dad enjoyed the diversity of opinion. When the new political rhetoric of the Rush Limbaugh’s and Glenn Beck’s came out, allowing no discussion without attack; she felt it violated the “rules” of civil discourse. It wasn’t that you couldn’t disagree, it was that you needed to be able to listen as well as speak. She didn’t understand people that she knew were intelligent, attacking that way.

She would have hated the politics of Trump World. She would have been appalled to see the cold heartedness of the Muslim Ban and Trumpcare. She would have argued the case for compassion and love, not self-centered isolationism. I hope, and I think, that her children channel her ideas and love through our work today. We miss you Mom.

 

 

1. The Critical Issue

With all of the concerns about the Trump Administration, from Russian influence to Mob connections to manipulations of social media; the biggest concern to the United States is the least exciting. The Critical Issue: what is the state of our electoral infrastructure, and beyond that, the state of the rest of our energy, industrial and transportation controls.

Over the past couple of weeks, it has become clear through testimony that the Russians were attempting to “hack” our voting system. That’s no easy task: not only is the US electoral system divided into 51 separate entities, both most of those entities are further divided into counties and parishes. In Ohio there are 89 electoral systems, one for each county, and a statewide interface. Multiply that by all of the states and the District of Columbia, and we have some security through diversification.

In addition, the states are highly jealous of their powers when it comes to elections, and as former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said last week, are very concerned that any Federal “help’ would come at the price of loss of control.

            To my disappointment, the reaction to a critical infrastructure designation, at least from those who spoke up, ranged from neutral to negative. Those who expressed negative views stated that running elections in this country was the sovereign and exclusive responsibility of the states, and they did not want federal intrusion, a federal takeover, or federal regulation of that process.

http://kpvu.org/post/security-state-election-systems-focus-dueling-capitol-hill-hearings

Conservatives view this as a serious intrusion of the Federal Government. The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank financed by the Mellon and Coors families among others, outlines the concern:

Given the lack of a credible threat of a cyber-attack, there could be another explanation for what DHS is doing.  But designating election systems as “critical infrastructure” could grant Secretary Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security officials, and officials at the Department of Justice access to any and every election and to any and every voting location they “deem” threatened. The government would be able to police the systems, and could demand changes be made to election and voting systems regardless of the views of local officials.

http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/why-does-dhs-want-designate-election-booths-critical-infrastructure

Given all of this, it is known that the Russians attacked in at least twenty-one states (and probably more) and gained access to at least two systems, one in Illinois and one in North Carolina. While it is stated (over and over) that there is no evidence that actual votes were changed, it is certainly not clear that the necessary investigations have been made to find out. The current Department of Homeland Security will not disclose the states where hacks were attempted (other than already known North Carolina and Illinois.) Their argument is they don’t want to “embarrass” those states and perhaps restrict future cooperation.

So, here’s what we have: the biggest possible threat to US infrastructure – a real and credible threat – election hacking. A system so scattered as to be difficult to attack, but even more difficult to defend. Every state (and county) jealously protecting their own power to control voting procedures, and a Federal Government afraid to embarrass those jurisdictions. And, the knowledge that two states and one software producer for multiple states (VR in Florida) were hacked. We know Russians had access to voting registration programming, we don’t know (though it seems very possible in North Carolina) whether that access created damage.

Here’s what we don’t have: we don’t know what the Russians were able to do, and we aren’t going to find out if we are afraid of someone being “embarrassed.” We also don’t know, because there is a lot of power vested in not “disturbing” the current system. If, for example, it was found that Russians hacked voter databases (or worse) in three critical states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; then it would call into question the Trump “mandate” from the electoral college. It is also true that the majority of state election officials are Republican, and are not excited about finding information which would call the election into question.

In a less partisan sense, we need to know what the Russians did, how they did it, and what effect it had nationwide. The foundation of our democracy is that election results are valid. Even more than that, we need to know that our other infrastructures: power, transportation, communication, stock and commodities markets; are protected from this same kind of attack. We can’t do that by closing our eyes or worrying about the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency; we need to know, and we need to fix what’s broke. That’s the critical issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lessons from Georgia

John Ossoff lost the Georgia 6th Congressional District last night. It was a tough sell: a District that had been Republican since 1979, and included Newt Gingrich and present Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price as the past two holders of the seat. It clearly was not a “moderate” seat (Price, Gingrich were never considered “moderates”) but it would seem if you spend $35 MILLION to win one Congressional seat in the first six months of the chaos called the Trump Administration, you ought to be able to pull it off.

It wasn’t money. What are the lessons of Georgia 6th?

First, in an uphill battle, it doesn’t help that the candidate didn’t live in the District. “Carpetbagging” is a very familiar term in the South. The “nice” name for Northerners who came down to the South to take advantage of the Reconstruction Era, it never has been a popular position for any candidate, anywhere. Even Evan Bayh, the veteran Senator from Indiana, failed in a bid to return to the Senate in 2016, when it became clear that he had spent most of the last six years in Washington, D.C rather than Indiana.

For a candidate to run with that near-fatal flaw in a traditionally right leaning and Republican District in the South, just seems to be like starting a car race with four flat tires. His opponent, Karen Handel, never let him, or the District, forget it.

This points to the first dramatic problem for the Democratic Party. From the Presidency on down, where are the candidates? The fact that clearly Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden  are keeping their hands in for the 2020 Presidential race, shows that there isn’t a “bench” to draw from. Ohio is a dramatic example: beyond Senator Sherrod Brown there is NO state known office holder. While some mention Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General and current Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; other statewide “contenders” include “family friendly” show host Jerry Springer, former Governor Ted Strickland, 76 years old, and Mike Coleman, 62 year old former Mayor of Columbus.

Where are the young guns? Where are Ohio’s John Ossoff’s, where are the strong women and men who have ideas that appeal to Ohio’s hard-working voters?

Which leads to the second problem: what is the message of the Democratic Party? Clearly the current message is that Trump is wrong (and Obama was right) and while that certainly appeals to the Democratic base, it requires more than just the base to win elections in Ohio and it will certainly require more to turn the House, Senate and Presidency around.

One lesson the actions of the Republicans from 2008 – 2016 is that obstruction works. And while that may have been true for them, I hope that the Democratic party can do better than that. Clearly the message of the party has been compassion for the poor, minorities, and folks that have been disenfranchised. What is missing: the Democratic Party that also represented the needs of the “worker.” How did the party which was based in “blue collar” workers, allow them to get ripped away by a party committed to defending the wealthy? And more importantly, how can the Democratic Party reach back to those workers, as well as keep the “rainbow coalition” (thanks Jesse Jackson) intact?

And, can the Democratic Party do that and still appeal to the highly educated white collar suburbs that have been gerrymandered into Congressional Districts?

What is required of the Democratic Party now? A message that is bigger than the current one: Obama was right, Trump shouldn’t have won, and he needs to be removed. While I agree with all of those things, it won’t win elections tomorrow.  We need to find new faces and support them (Duval Patrick where are you?) and we need to define a message that appeals to more than just our base.

 

 

 

 

 

Lost Cowboy

Otto Warmbier has become a household name. He was Salutatorian of his high school class at Wyoming High School in Cincinnati, a junior at the University of Virginia, and an exchange student at the London School of Economics. He was a strong student and he was involved in everything. He was “the best and the brightest” that the suburban community of Wyoming, Ohio had to offer; a town and school that prides itself on high academic and professional achievement.

Like a lot of young people, Otto wanted to travel the world. One of the places he chose to visit was North Korea, the “forbidden” country. The advertisement for the trip said; “this is the trip your parents don’t want you to take!” He went, and perhaps he made a mistake. His confession to stealing a propaganda poster can’t be reliable in a country that daily coerces and tortures its own population. The video “evidence” is pretty blurry. But even if he did steal the poster, the sentence of fifteen years hard labor was directed more at the United States then to this particular youth.

Sometime soon after his sentencing, Otto was damaged beyond repair. His brain was deprived of oxygen, and he lapsed into a “vegetative state.” After a year, they bundled his destroyed mind and body onto a plane, and sent him home to die.

As a graduate of Wyoming High School myself, I feel the loss of Otto Warmbier more keenly. I didn’t know him or his parents, but to see them in familiar buildings and streets, to share the experiences and traditions of Wyoming with them, makes his loss more intimate. I mourn for him, and I can’t imagine the pain his parents are in.

To the North Koreans, Otto was a symbol, a pawn in their great game of Russian roulette with the rest of the world. Just like intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs, Otto was another finger in the eye of the United States: you can’t stop our missiles and bombs, and you can’t protect your people either. And they were right, we couldn’t.

So what happens next?

The North Koreans used him and threw him away. His is but one life, and I suspect both he and his parents would not want a nuclear war fought over his fate. But it is up to the United States, even with the dysfunctional government we have now, to find some appropriate means of responding to his death. It is clear that North Korea will continue to challenge the world, to put greater provocations in play, until the United States and the world react.

If there is to be any value in the loss of Otto Warmbier, let it be that we begin a world process to push North Korea back into an acceptable path. Obviously the threat and bluster of Naval Carrier Groups (real or imagined), hidden nuclear submarines and B-1 Bomber over-flights isn’t solving the problem. It will take world action, particularly involving China, and world leadership.

That would be something new and different for the current administration, but something that they must find a way to achieve. That should be the legacy of this one lost Cowboy.

 

 

 

 

A Bill of Impeachment

 

NOTE – This is a list of the possible charges against President Trump. Some are known facts already proven, some are becoming more proven, some are rumors. Since the Impeachment process is a political rather than legal process, the definition of what consists of a “high crime and misdemeanor” can be very broad. These are the areas that I believe are being investigated by the Special Counsel and the Intelligence Committees. It would be interested to hear of others – please comment back!!

Red = facts already on the record

Green = items which have more information on the record as the investigation grows

Blue – Rumor and/or educated guesses – unsubstantiated reports

Whereas Donald J Trump, President of the United States, has violated his oath of office, the United States Constitution, the Federal Criminal Code of the United States, and the laws of several of the sovereign states of the United States; the House of Representatives does find sufficient evidence to Impeach him, calling for his removal from the office of President, and hereby forwards to the Senate this Bill of Impeachment for trial. The particulars of the charges are categorized below:

Article 1

Engaging in treasonous activity, having Contact, Cooperation and Collusion with a foreign nation to subvert the electoral process of the United States, to wit:

Giving information, guidance, and accepting aid from the Government of Russia during the Presidential campaign of 2016

Encouraging and guiding attacks by the Government of Russia on American Institutions, including but not limited to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and State and Local voting regulators and Boards of Elections

Knowingly receiving financial aid and benefit from foreign nationals known to act on the behalf of Government of Russia

Article 2

Committing criminal malfeasance by Running and Accepting the office of President of the United States while being fully aware that foreign nations, including but not limited to Russia, were in possession of compromising materials which influenced and restricted his ability to act in the interests of the United States, to wit;

Had Financial obligations to known actors of the Russian Government which were not disclosed allowing that Government to leverage his decisions

Previously engaging in illegal money “laundering” practices with known actors of the Russian Government

Using surrogates to contact, cooperate and collude with Russian Intelligence, therefore giving them compromising materials

Engaged in illegal and immoral sexual activities in multiple countries, allowing compromising materials including video recordings to exist

Article 3

Prior to and since taking office as President, engaging in illegal business practices including:

Using real estate and casino transactions to “launder” money for Russian nationals

Engaging in a pattern of corrupt business practices in violations of the Racketeering, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

Profiting from the office of the Presidency by refusing to place his business ownerships outside of his direction, and allowing foreign nations to enrich him in violation of the “emoluments clause” of the Constitution

Claiming charitable contributions and actions while in fact profiting from them in violation of State and Federal Law

Article 4

Committing Espionage by betraying highly secret information to our adversaries

Revealing information publicly that allowed a highly placed informant to be readily identified

Informing the world, and North Korea, of the positioning of our nuclear submarines, whose sole survival skill is stealth

Allowing Russian Nationals and Technicians exclusive access to the White House

Appointing a known and admitted agent of a foreign government to the post of National Security Advisor (after repeated warnings not to do so)

Article 5

Acting to obstruct justice and hindering the investigation of his activities by:

Telling subordinates not to testify truthfully to authorized investigations including Congressional Committees

Illegally claiming “executive privilege” in an effort to prevent the discovery of wrongdoing by himself and members of the administration

Publicly and continually questioning the authority and abilities of the agencies of the Federal Government charged with upholding the Constitution and Federal Law in an effort to undercut the public trust in their work

Firing the Director of the FBI for the admitted reason of slowing or stopping the Russia Investigation

 

 

 

John Wayne Had It

Manhood: one of the major themes of Trump World, and one of the major attack modes when Trump wants to go after someone. “Tired Jeb”, “Little Marco”, and now “Cowardly Leaker Comey”: all allusions to some flaw in the victims manhood and sexuality. Obviously “Tired Jeb” is suffering from low testosterone, unable to “perform” like a man; guess what’s little on “Little Marco” (who’s sweaty too); and not only is Comey a coward, but he’s a leaker (must need Depends).

It’s all about the Trump definition of Manhood, how a Real Man should act, what a Real Man cares about. In Trump world the definition of a Real Man is:

1. A Man has so much money they no longer have to worry about the necessity of life

2. A Man NEVER compromises, backs away from confrontation, or recognizes that someone who thinks differently might have valid points

3. A Man has sex as a primary concern and goal, and women are simply objects to make him look better (and feel powerful)

4. A Man cannot show emotion (other than rage) or compassion (other than a kind of fake concern for the “working man,” something he’s never done)

5. A Man cannot be a woman (Crooked, Sick, Tired, Hillary)

6. A Man should do “Manly” things like Donald Junior’s Big Game Hunting, where they drive you to the animal, you shoot, and then you drive back to camp. Just like the women, it’s the easy way to get the trophy.

When Trump or his surrogates “call out” James Comey for getting emotional, or deride him for “leaking” his own memos instead of putting them out himself, they miss the main point. Whether you agree with Comey or not (and I certainly don’t agree with what he did regarding Hillary Clinton) Comey made a “mans” decision, and stood up for it. He risked and lost his job by standing up to power, and refusing to be illegally influenced. Like it or not Comey demonstrated everything about a “being a man” that Donald Trump couldn’t.

Even in firing Comey, Trump took the cowards way out, announcing it on TV instead of informing him personally, so that Comey found out as he addressed his FBI agents in Los Angeles. In his television show, “The Apprentice”, Trump fired people face to face: in real life he wasn’t “man” enough.

Sally Yates “manned up” to the risks that informing the White House about Michael Flynn obviously entailed. She then did an even more “manly” thing, she spoke truth to power, refusing to endorse the Trump travel ban (which has been confirmed by multiple courts, including the 9th and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeal.) For that she was sacked.

John Wayne played cowboys in Westerns. He established a character: slow to speak, slow to anger, powerful, compassionate, and was considered a “man’s man.” And while politically John Wayne represented a lot of conservative views I disagreed with, as an actor playing his role, John Wayne stood for rugged individualism, and for compassion, and for respect for women, and for being a man. That’s a role that Donald Trump just can’t play.

Trump’s defines manhood as an image, not a reality. His image of the “boss” with all of the trappings of the rich, misses what real men know: that a real man takes care of others and a real man values things greater than themselves. A real man is willing to dedicate his life to more than just himself: to serve others, his nation, his beliefs. A real man doesn’t even have to be a “man”, just a courageous, compassionate human. And certainly a real man is not a whining, bullying, pretender like Donald Trump.

Life in the Post Comey World

In a hearing hyped as the biggest thing since the Watergate Senate session with Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean, fired FBI director James Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence committee this week. While it was riveting viewing, in the end, we learned very little new.

Comey was fired by Trump. Trump himself has said it was about the Russia Investigation (interview with Lester Holt). Comey stated under oath that Trump wanted him to close the Michael Flynn investigation. Trump denies it, then says that even if he did say it, there was nothing wrong with it. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on the meaning of the word “hope.”

There is a scene in the movie Clear and Present Danger where Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) stands up to the President of the United States, refusing to be part of a cover-up by corrupt Washington (Clear and Present Danger). It’s a proud moment, the upstanding American against the wrong leader of the free world. It’s the moment we willed James Comey to have, as the President “hoped” that Comey would let Michael Flynn off the hook. Instead, Comey himself portrayed it as a time when the awesome power of the Presidency silenced him, when all he could do was to choose his answer carefully.

Or, for those of us with a more sinister bent, it was the time when the Director of the FBI, a seasoned prosecutor, was allowing a suspect to hang himself. Why would he stop the President from interfering in a Federal investigation, obstructing justice, a felony? If this is what the President was clearly intending to do, then why not let him go on?

Comey painted a picture of Donald Trump as a man that could not be trusted. From the first meeting, January 6, 2017, when Comey revealed the scandalous Steele document to Trump (the Trump “porn” the Russians supposedly have), he documented everything he said to Trump because he felt that Trump would lie. He then showed Trump as a man who manipulated those who worked for him, demanding loyalty while showing little in return. He also made it clear that he thought Trump knew that what he was asking was wrong, that the one-on-one meetings were intentionally to avoid witnesses.

He painted a picture of the President not as the “neophyte” politician that Speaker Ryan would have us believe, but as a scheming autocrat who was willing to circumvent the law.

The question that should be asked, is why would Trump go to such lengths to try to protect General Flynn? To a man with such a one-way concept of loyalty, do we truly believe that he would risk everything just to take care of a friend? Or is it more likely, that Flynn represents the key to the actions of the Trump Organization in league with Russian Intelligence. Getting Mike Flynn off the hook may well have more to do with keeping Flynn from taking a plea deal with Special Prosecutor Mueller than with helping a buddy.

The “John Dean” moment of testimony in this scandal is more likely to be the day that Michael Flynn takes the chair, surrounded by the comfort of Federal immunity, when he reveals the depth of the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russian intelligence.

Comey had his “Harrison Ford” moment. He absolutely comes across as an honest public servant, who tried to do his job as he saw it. All attempts to tar him as a “leaker” or “liar” are doomed, he IS a real day Jack Ryan to many Americans. Even we Democrats, who lay the election of Donald Trump at Comey’s doorstep, have to admit that. But he is not the lynch-pin to this investigation. It will take more than just “he said, he said” and obstruction of justice to bring down this Presidency.

The Calculus of Losing

President Trump is faced with a difficult calculation. If his “base” of support drops below 30% or so, he will lose his hold on Congressional Republicans.

Those Republicans are backing Trump, in part, out of fear of retribution from voters. Simply put: they can’t win re-election without the Trump base. Montana’s Congressional election helped strengthen that hand. Even when the candidate body-slams a reporter, as long as he clings to Trump, he wins.

But, should the President’s base of support begin to slide away, the door will open for Congressional Republicans to slide away as well. Many are highly uncomfortable with the President and his actions, and didn’t much like Trump in the first place. They are looking for an excuse to get out from under him.

Trump has always claimed to be a “winner.” How can losing then be an effective strategy?

Lets start with the immigration “restrictions.” For months, the Trump administration has gone out of its way to avoid the word “ban.” “Ban” echoes the campaign pledge to “…ban the immigration of Muslims until we figure out what the Hell is going on.” That statement has huge 1st Amendment issues, as it calls for government actions against a particular religion. This week however, Trump is tweeting the word “ban” over and over, even though the case has just been put to the US Supreme Court. But Trump continues to highlight the word. The message of his tweets isn’t to the Court, it’s to his base. Muslims attacked London, Muslims will come attack you – stick with me.

Should the immigration ban lose in the Supreme Court, Trump still wins. He can then say that it’s the Court’s fault that he can’t make America safe from Muslim attack. He has tried. The base stays with him, win or lose.

The same is true with Trump’s attack on the Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn. Kahn, in talking about increased police presence and visibility in London, wanted to assure Londoners that more police didn’t mean a greater threat. He told them to remain calm. Trump immediately jumped on that, saying after these attacks, people can’t be calm. But the undertone was: a Muslim Mayor of London doesn’t take terrorist attacks seriously.

Again, a win with his base, who have proven to be Islamophobic.

And finally the Paris Climate Accord, where Trump was faced with a huge rift in his own advisors. Tillerson, Cohn, and Jared and Ivanka all reportedly urged to stay in the Accord. It was Bannon and Preibus, the political advisors, who encouraged Trump to use the Paris Accord withdrawal as a platform for his defense of “the American Worker.” “I’m the President of Pittsburgh, not Paris” harkens back to the Nationalist platform that got him elected.

So if you feel like Trump is going back to the campaign of March and April of 2016, you’re right. Trump has made his calculation: it is better to keep his base, than it is to govern. He can lose in the Supreme Court, and in the world court of opinion, as long as he can hold his base over the head of the Republicans in Congress. IF he loses that hammer; if Congressional Republicans feel that Trump is an electoral liability more than a strength, he will really feel what it’s like to be a “loser.”

Step Back from the World

On March 19, 1920 the United States stepped back from world leadership. Led by Senators Borah and Lodge, the Senate rejected for the second time the Treaty of Versailles, largely negotiated by US President Woodrow Wilson. The United States withdrew from the coalition of forces that won World War I. We relinquished the leadership role that Wilson had taken in the world, and we stepped back behind our borders (back then it was the oceans, not a “wall”). Soon we were letting business “make America Great” during the roaring 20’s.

The result of this was the US was not a part of the League of Nations and was not involved in trying to balance the crises between nations of the 20’s and 30’s. The League was unable to deal with the rise of Fascism, and in the end, our oceans did not serve as barriers to Fascism as the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The idea that a world agreement and organization could prevent world calamity failed, in large part, because the United States was not a part of the solution.

Franklin Roosevelt tried again after World War II, with the advent of the United Nations. And while the UN is far from perfect, it can well be argued that it helped balance the competing interests of nations for the latter half of the twentieth century. Certainly the terrifying possibilities of the nuclear age were also a part in that balancing, as the United States and the Soviet Union faced off around the globe. The UN served as a “pressure relief valve” for those two nations as well, and nuclear war was avoided.

If war and conquest was the existential crisis of the twentieth century, the growing reality of climate change is the world crisis of the twenty-first century. Until today, the United States was a world leader in trying to modify world behavior and reduce the impact of industry on the environment.

We have often been the greatest offender of environmental change. Our behaviors in the past have led us to recognize the complaint of less industrially developed countries that the US can’t claim “an even playing field.” We got the advantage of damaging the environment early, now we have to pay a greater price to make up for it.

On June 1, 2017, President of the United States Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. He claims that he can “re-negotiate the deal” in order to “Make America Great Again” and deal with other nations on an even basis. Other nations won’t, and shouldn’t, accept this arrangement. Because of this, it is likely that the Paris Accord will ultimately fail, just as the League of Nations did in the 1930’s.

The end result of the League’s failure was World War II. The outcome of this withdrawal might be even greater; it may well mean global catastrophe, which will impact the United States just as much as the rest of the world. President Trump has abrogated our role as world leader, instead pandering to his base (and perhaps the Russians) in order to strengthen his political position here at home. He has led the United States to step back from the world. The problem: the world problem will ultimately step up to the United States, just as it did at Pearl Harbor. At that point, it may not be possible to “fix” the world, even with the kind of national effort that World War II involved.