Category: Uncategorized

Take a Breath

It is absolutely breathtaking: the speed at which the Trump Administration creates a crisis, so fast that the seemingly impeachable offense of last week gets usurped by the seemingly impeachable offense of yesterday. Events move so fast, that it is difficult to take it all in. Here’s this week’s list.

1. The President of the United States stated that he fired the Director of the FBI, James Comey, in part because of the Russia Investigation: possible obstruction of justice
nbc: Holt interviews Trump

2. The President of the United States invited the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador into the Oval Office, then revealed classified information which may put intelligence sharing agreements at risk (as well as possibly individuals)
WAPO – Trump leaks intel

3. The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested and will receive money laundering data from the Treasury Department division charged with tracking potential illegal transactions (the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network)
Reuters – Senate asks for financial information

4. The drip, drip, drip of information on the Trump Campaign staff connections to Russia continue, with the White House visit of Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahayan (MBZ) who connected the Russian Intelligence agencies and Trump surrogates in the Seychelles prior to the Inauguration.
WAPO – Trump surrogates meet Russian in Seychelles

5. And finally, the rumors of federal sealed indictments in Federal Courts, in both the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) and the Eastern District of Virginia. Some rumors even mention Donald Trump as being named in an indictment.
EXCLUSIVE: Sealed Indictment granted against Donald Trump

To try to change the subject – Trump just tweeted about “LEAKERS” even though he should be worried about HIS OWN leaking!!

Take a breath. The President is not going to resign today, nor will he be impeached tomorrow. All of this is a jigsaw puzzle, only the straight edges are starting to be put in place. We don’t know what the puzzle will ultimately look like yet, we aren’t even sure if it’s a portrait or a landscape. All we know is the tantalizing images of the little pieces we think we have fit together correctly – it will take time to complete. It was June of 1972 when the “White House Plumbers” broke into the Democratic Headquarters at the Watergate Office Building. It was May of 1973 when the first Senate Watergate Committee hearings began. It was May of 1974 when the House of Representatives began Impeachment hearings, and August 9th, 1974 when Nixon resigned. That’s over two years (and my junior and senior year of high school!)

The President of the United States is immune from judicial prosecution. You can’t convict him of a “crime” while he’s President, all of that must wait until he is out of office. That leaves the political process as the only possible way to remove him.

IF IF IF

If Donald Trump were to be impeached or resign, if the Republican majorities of the House and the Senate were even willing to entertain the idea of removing him, if any of this were to occur, it will take time. Stop holding your breath!!!!!!!!

Disgruntled Former Employee

We’ve heard it time and time again: “a statement was made by a ‘disgruntled former employee’.” They quit or were fired, what they have to say is completely colored by the fact that they left the employer, they are “disgruntled” a word that can only mean that they are willing to lie in order to get back at the former employer.

Here’s a quote from a contracting business website:

He was called a “phone buff, pompas, (sic) arrogant, street angel – closed doors devil.”
Wow. But that was just the start. The former employee added, “This Executive is afflicted with accute (sic) narcissism, a pronounce inclination toward moral insanity, utter lack of empathy for our clients, management, staff or professional tradesman.”

Contracting Business.com

The White House strategy of the day is to paint James Comey as “the disgruntled former employee.” Trump leads the strategy, characterizing Comey as a “showboat” (my mother would say the pot calling the kettle black) and as someone begging to keep his job (he wanted to come over to dinner and asked to stay on as FBI Director.) As Comey or his friends began to try to correct the record, Trump tweeted:

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

When Comey does eventually began to talk about what happens, the White House will have already begun the smear: disgruntled former employee. This way they can discount anything he says, and at the same time warn others – this can happen to you (Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and the rest.)

The problem for the White House is their absolute tone deafness to history. With the ghosts of Watergate already haunting the halls of both the Executive Mansion and the Capitol, they continue to conjure up the memories: Henry Kissinger on Monday, tapes on Friday. All of the “old men” of Watergate days are re-appearing and comparing today’s actions to the past. The White House doesn’t get it – they don’t have the perspective to see that much of that is their own doing. It is just one more factor that makes the Trump Administration so troubling.

And what they also don’t remember is the famous Godfather quote: “Keep you friends close and your enemies closer.” Comey is a “Boy Scout”, and folks will find it very difficult to believe he has taken on the role as “disgruntled former employee” particularly with the amount of praise Trump has heaped on him over the past year. Even the most avowed Trumpster will begin asking questions. Trump should have kept Comey in-house, giving Trump more control and access. Instead, now he’s got an unfettered Comey who can (and maybe will) say what he thinks. Trump has also given the core of the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community a martyr to rally around. All in all, not a good week for the Administration.

Why in the world would President Trump fire James Comey as FBI Director.
What is the upside for Trump?
1. He gets rid of a “wild card” FBI Director who seems to follow his mind/conscious wherever it leads him
2. The Dept. of Justice regains “institutional control” over the FBI, no longer will it be perceived as a separate entity
3. If Comey was getting close to Trump or his inner circle, it will delay the inevitable.
4. Democrats should be happy – they didn’t like Comey either (really, it’s true!!!!)
5. Getting rid of Comey might put the “she would’ve won if it weren’t for the October Surprise” stuff to rest.
6. He gets to say “YOU’RE FIRED” to another guy on TV (Comey wasn’t even given the common courtesy of notice, he was out of town in the middle of a speech when the Networks began broadcasting his ouster).

But lets really go into the darkness and conspiracy of what might have happened in the Comey firing. Unlike many of these posts, let’s delve into the “maybes and might bes”, not necessarily the facts.

1. Comey had just gone to the Deputy Attorney General to ask for additional funding for the Russian Investigation. According to “unnamed sources in the White House” Trump was furious about the continuing focus on Russia.
2. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is a well seasoned and respected lawyer. Reading his memo on Comey to the Attorney General, it sounds more like a political hatchet job than a lawyerly account of why Comey should be fired. Where are the citations of Dept. of Justice policy, where are the legal precedents? Instead, it is a document full of “I think” and “others say.” I would expect a great deal more from him, even on two weeks notice. The suspicion – he was handed the document by a political flak, and told to sign on. It’s too bad he couldn’t find the courage of Eliot Richardson or Don Ruckleshaus (from Saturday Night Massacre/Nixon era) and stand up to the politics. Instead, he signed on, and lost his opportunity to write history.
3. Comey, who had access to the necessary intelligence to know, discounted Trump’s claim that “Trump Tower was tapped.” It angered Trump so much, he wanted Comey out.
4. Rudy Guiliani, a well known Comey critic, all of a sudden is in and out of the White House again. Doesn’t this just sound like a Guiliani move, particularly when you remember his “contacts” with the FBI New York Office who were so upset with the fact charges didn’t come out of the Clinton Email investigations.
5. Attorney General Sessions, ostensibly recused from all decisions regarding the Russia investigation, helps lead the way to decapitate the Russia investigation. It’ll be fun to hear how he justifies that in testimony in front of some committee.
6. “Teflon” Vice President Pence was right in the middle of this decision, which also puts him right in the center of what could be seen as an obstruction of the Russia investigation.
7. And finally, what are the optics of bringing Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, into the White House the day after the firing? Who in the West Wing thought that was a good idea?

So what’s the next move?
The pressure is going to be on the Congressional Republicans. How long can they stand it, before they either: call for a special prosecutor (also the way that Rosenstein, the official who has that responsibility, can redeem himself) or set up a different investigative committee. The problem with all of that – time time time!!!

If nothing happens – will this guarantee a change in power in the House (more likely) or the Senate (less likely) or both? With the full investigative power of either or both arrayed against the Trump administration, it will grow very ugly. Think of the Benghazi investigation on steroids – or for folks my age – think of the Watergate investigation at quadruple the speed!

IF this all comes down, IF the Trump administration and Trump himself collapses, we can look back at this moment as the true beginning of the end. In Watergate, it was the moment when Alexander Butterfield acknowledged that there were tapes of all White House conversations, in this one, the day Comey was canned.

Quid Pro Quo (to get something for something)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post – Documents

up next – “When will the money turn?”

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

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

Mo Brooks on Pre-Existing Conditions

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

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

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

Brooks Campaign Biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America’s Heart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walsh and Kimmel

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

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

Trump picks anti contraception appointee

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

Pruitt and Science NYT

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

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

Lunatic Fringe (thanks Red Rider!!)

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

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

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

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

Mensch: FISA Warrants

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

Mr Putin, lets play chess

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

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

Steele Report

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

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

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

Wagging the Dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passover and Easter Eggs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phantom of the White House (unmasking the smokescreen)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not a new story

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian Connection

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

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

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

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

Following the Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

911

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

77744

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

NYT – 2016 Presidential Election Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Money or Your Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process

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

The Impeachment Process

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Succession

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

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

25th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shiny Balls

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN: Who is Carter Page

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

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

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

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

NYT: Wikileaks Releases Trove of Alleged CIA Hacking Documents

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

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

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