Politics – Years Of Being

“Why Joe?” Is More Than Merely “Why Not?”

There are not a few voices out there who find deep faults with Joe Biden, and his accomplishments. Or his (perceived) lack of accomplishments. And I do not refer to the insane and anti-logical cacophony of the MAGA crowd. History will eventually bury their empty noise, and rightfully so. No, I am talking about the “friendly fire” on the Left, those impatient souls who demand and insist that Biden “do more”, or worse, that he has “done bad”.

History may seem dull to those who are focused on the future. Yes, working on the future is absolutely the prime responsibility of the leaders in the present. And God knows, the Climate and the Threat to Democracy loom over us all. But let’s be clear. Joe Biden has managed, via legislation and executive action, to get a rather incredible amount of things in place to deal with these and other issues, including the largest federal allocation ever made to combat climate change. But also repairing a badly crumbling infrastructure, canceling student loan debt, and measures to increase voting rights. And all this while working with one of the most antagonistic Congresses imaginable. That’s astonishing. But apparently not enough.

Admittedly, Joe has not reversed Dobbs and restored Rowe. He has not halted all fossil fuel usage and shut down all drilling and mining. He has not reinstated the Voting Rights Act. There are many things still needing to be done that Joe hasn’t done.

But then, History (and the Constitution) reveal that Joe Biden has no unilateral power to do those things.

In America, government actions require laws, and laws require consensus. Only autocrats will bypass those mechanisms. Now we all rightfully oppose the obscenity that is Donald Trump, and his lust to be a strongman tyrant, the equal of Putin or Kim Jong Un. If Joe Biden had such power, he could singlehandedly fix all these wrongs, no sweat. But surely we can see that an autocratic Biden (or any progressive), though he or she would undoubtedly “use the power for good”, is not an acceptable or desirable state of affairs. It would be as if Gandalf had decided to wield the One Ring “for good”. The outcome would be inevitable and disastrous.

So, perhaps it would be best to temper those rash denouncements of “Old Joe”. Joe Biden is 80 years of age. He is old, yes. But it is very important to remember that above all, he has a big heart and an old-fashioned love for America not still seen in many places. He most assuredly continues to act for the good of the country and its people, and not out of personal greed and aggrandizement. That aspect of his character cannot be overemphasized. And especially when contrasted against the sociopathic, narcissistic shitstorm that is Donald Trump.

Just as in 2016, and again in 2020, elections have consequences. Consider well how you vote in 2024.

Support Trump? Hie Thee Away From Me

Consider this blog post as a stone marker on the ground, an adamant declaration of “here and no further”. It comes down to this:

If you support Donald Trump, you and I will no longer have any association. If you are voting for Trump in November, you and I can no longer share any sort of friendship or even casual interaction.

By supporting Trump, you have revealed yourself as a person morally bankrupt, or intellectually damaged, or both. And the most damning thing you have revealed is that you hold absolutely no regard for the fundamentals of American democracy, nor freedom, nor justice, nor decency, nor the rule of law, nor the Constitution, nor any of the norms upon which the greatest country in history was built.

Instead, you have surrendered your independent thought and liberty to a sociopathic, narcissistic, lying, corrupt authoritarian, a man who cares not a whit for you or your well-being, or any goddam thing in the world other than Donald Trump. That being the case, and since I maintain a set of standards that determine whom I consider a friend, or even with whom I will exchange words, be advised that you no longer rise to any level I will accept.

Furthermore, I have no use for any attempt at explanation for your support of Trump, no willingness to listen to your “reasoning” or “rationale”. If you support Trump, that is demonstrated proof that you have no capacity for reason. Like everyone else in the country, you’ve had the same four years to experience his complete lack of human decency, his endless lying, his imbecilic pronouncements, his idiotic and embarrassing lack of even the basics of how our government works, his sadistic cruelty and bullying, his willingness to not just ignore, but to trample the precepts set out in the Constitution, his greed, his stonewalling and coverups, his corruption that continues to line his pockets in direct violation of the emoluments clause, and on and on and on. So there is no possible reason that you could provide for supporting this monster.

But if you do support him, either you are hopelessly blind, or else you agree with his words and actions. If you are indeed that blind, then you must be willfully so; the sheer extent of Trump’s abominations make it impossible to ignore or deny them without actively working hard to do so. And be advised: if the gods strive in vain against stupidity, they rage in righteous anger against willful ignorance.

If you agree with what he has said and done, then you are, like him, a worthless excuse of an American, much less a human being. To agree with Trump is to have forsaken every basic building block upon which this great American Experiment rests. You are denying the critical principles of justice for all, individual liberty, and equal treatment under the law. You are forsaking the basic humanity which all our better angels forever compel us to promote: work for the common good, care for the least among us, feed the hungry, protect the children. Not put them in cages.

So, again: if you support Trump, if you plan to vote for him, put us in the category of “No Longer Connected”. Unfriend me on FB, or send me a message, and I’ll unfriend you. As Henry told Eleanor in “The Lion In Winter”, “We do not touch at any point.”

And we never will.

Television News: A Brief History

Here is one of those factoids that historians may find pivotal when they look back on this era (assuming there are historians: if Trump wins 2020, one fears for the very existence of such people, not to mention what unimpeded climate change may do to fate of civilization. But I digress). At one point in the late 70’s and early 80’s, two fundamental changes occurred in news reportage, and they were not unconnected. One of course was the advent of 24/7 cable news (CNN being the original). The other was the fact that network news came under the same umbrella as network entertainment. Prior to that, news departments in the Big 3 networks actually existed as independent corporate entities. ABC led the charge when Roone Arledge was promoted from managing sports to being the network head. He decided news should make money just like sports did, and the other major networks followed suit.

The main impact of that separation had been that news was NOT part of the ratings/commercial aspect of the networks. Before these mergings, network news organizations generally operated at a loss, which the networks felt was a reasonable expense. Given this freedom, they were not accountable to ratings and sponsors. And this allowed them to simply report the news. Period. They did not have to justify their existence by a ratings competition.

By combining them with the entertainment wing of their respective networks, news programs were suddenly in need of “ratings”. Meaning they needed audience share. News became entertainment. At the same time, CNN (and the subsequent cable news channels) had to justify a 24/7 coverage of news. You can imagine the challenge. Instead of audiences being content with the Today show and Good Morning America and then 30 minutes of the evening news shows, it was necessary to try and keep viewers watching ALL THE TIME. Only shocking, tittilating news would suffice.

So all the news outlets were, in one fell swoop, suddenly in the “business” of news. That, plus the daily deluge, and the immediacy provided by our global connectivity, has resulted in news being NEWS: it’s ALWAYS breaking, it’s ALWAYS on, and it’s ALWAYS trying to shout louder and to be more shrill. Naturally the end result is that we are now inured to horror, immune to shock, indifferent to disaster. And something like Fox “News” was able to worm its way into existence.

BTW: If you ever find yourself in Britain, watch the BBC news. The have what are called “news readers”. That’s what they do: they read the news. It’s amazingly refreshing. And purely informative.

“Where did you go, Walter Cronkite?
Our nation turns its bleary eyes to you, woo-woo-woo
What’s that you say Mrs. Robinson?
Cronkite’s dead and now we’ve gone astray, hey, hey hey.
Hey, hey hey.”

Just Want To Testify

Robert Mueller will testify before Jerry Nadler’s Judiciary Committee. The only real question left to determine is whether anything beyond his opening statement will be televised, open testimony. Mueller has reportedly expressed his desire to take the committee’s questions behind closed doors, with the transcript to be subsequently made available to the public.

The visceral impact of hearing and seeing Mueller cannot be overestimated. Common wisdom says that it was the televised testimony in Watergate (John Dean in particular) that was instrumental in shifting public opinion against Nixon. And no one is ever going to read the transcript (though Rachel Maddow will surely enact great swaths of it for you!). Having said that, it is also clear that the current format that permits limited time for questions by committee members is a TERRIBLE format, encouraging posturing on both sides. It is understandable that Mueller would want to avoid providing fodder for such political theatre. The Republicans would make no honest attempts to uncover the truth, and would use their time simply to attack his credibility (which, in normal times, would be a pointless endeavor. I mean, it’s Robert Mueller, for Christ’s sake).

If, on the other hand, Mueller were to make a comprehensive opening statement, one that covered all the important questions and pulled no punches, that might be the best of all worlds: no chance for Republicans to publicly attack, Democrats don’t come off as political hatchetmen. Use the opening statement to say it all. Why the money trail was not followed, or what happened if it was? What happened with the counter-intelligence investigation? Did Barr short-circuit the special counsel’s investigation? Or did he NOT? It’s important to know either way. What were his explicit reasons for not making a prosecutorial determination for obstruction? The DOJ memo or something else?. Clarify the decision for no conspiracy charge in face of the overwhelming prima facie evidence of Russian-Trump connections and communications. Just lay it all out in front of the cameras.

Then, fine, go behind close doors and let the Republicans do what they will.
But starting with an uninterrupted flood of information, and opinion, would likely be damning. And Mueller certainly needs to set the record straight w.r.t. how Barr behaved in all this.

After all, Bill Barr did not shy from repeatedly using the cameras to mischaracterize Mueller’s work, and with no questions interrupting him. Seems only fitting that Mueller be given the same platform.

The Truth Will Out

Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long.
A man’s son may, but at length the truth will out.

The Merchant of Venice, William Shakespeare

Bill Barr continues to sit on the Mueller report. One supposes he is trying to hide something contained in the 400+ pages, something damning to Donald Trump. Barr’s four page summary, released two weeks ago, was interpreted as “full exoneration” by Trump and the Trumpsters, even though the verbiage quotes Mueller as explicitly stating it was not an exoneration of the President, specifically in the area of obstruction of justice.

Barr and Trump can do what they will, but in the end, the report will become public. Even if Barr obfuscates and delays and redacts to his heart’s content, the Special Counsel and his team have the facts. They had even, according to leaked accounts, prepared “public-facing” summaries of the report’s main sections, summaries that were written specifically so as to not require any redaction. Barr ignored these summaries in favor of his own white-washed summary.

But now, member of the Mueller team, after 22 months of the most disciplined leak control imaginable, have, in the wake of being disbanded, begun to let important tidbits out. The reason seems to be that they are extremely dissatisfied with Barr’s characterization of their work. The obstruction charges were in particular “very serious”, and the evidence strong. We do not know the whole reasoning, but Mueller’s decision not to present a case for indictment may well have been a decision based on DOJ’s long standing rule (not a law!) against indicting a sitting President. Why recommend indictment if the Attorney General would summarily refuse to prosecute? Likewise, even though Mueller did recommend against a criminal case for conspiracy with the Russians, we do not know the breadth and depth of whatever evidence does exist for conspiracy, regardless of whether it was sufficient for an airtight criminal case, the only kind Mueller and company have yet established.

We don’t know… but we will know. As I said, even if Barr sits on the report until hell freezes over, the people who know what’s in the report still know what they know.

And they can testify to that knowledge.

Neal Katyal was the DOJ lawyer who drew up the Special Counsel regulations after the Special Prosecutor law was allowed to lapse. KenStarr, the man who investigated Bill Clinton, was a Special Prosecutor. After that fiasco, Congress chose to sunset the Special Prosecutor idea, and DOJ replaced the office with that of a Special Counsel. In an interview, Katyal made the point that a Special Counsel is completely independent. Yes, he is required to submit his report to the Attorney General, who then has complete discretion as to what to release, to Congress and to the public. Barr is showing us what his intentions are.

But Katyal said that it was a specific decision to make the Special Counsel completely independent of DOJ, just for the situation when an AG might act politically w.r.t. disseminating the results. Which Barr is obviously doing. That independence means that the entire team is not subject to any DOJ control as to what they can or cannot say after the Special Counsel has been disbanded. Mueller and his team can say whatever they wish, and specifically can speak freely to House Oversight, Judicial and Intelligence committees. One can only imagine that, if team members are disgruntled with Barr’s handling of the report, and how he is ignoring their findings, they will be eager to set the record straight. And especially in the public forum of committee hearings.

Then there’s the matter of Trump’s tax returns. Richard Neal, an extremely taciturn man, is the chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. In accordance with a law in effect since the early 20th century, he has requested Trump’s tax returns for the last six years. These are the same returns Trump pledged, during the campaign, that he would release after being elected, but has subsequently reversed himself, telling everyone to go screw themselves: he will not release.

The law mentioned is very specific. If the Ways & Means chair (or even the Ways & Means chief of staff) makes such a request, for any American, the IRS “shall supply” the requested returns. There is no gray area, no ambiguous language, no requirement for providing any justification. They simply “shall supply” the requested returns, and any supporting documentation. Cut and dried.

Trump has appointed lackeys as the number one and number two men at the IRS (he even had Mitch McConnell fast track their confirmations, even ahead of the Secretary of Defense nomination!) Naturally, they are not complying with the law and the returns have not been given to Mr. Neal. The whole thing will go to court, and one can expect it to be fast-tracked, almost certainly to the Supreme Court. It is important to note that there has never been a single case since the law was enacted where the IRS failed to comply. The language is as unambiguous as it gets. Even with five conservatives on the SCOTUS, it would seem impossible to see them rule in Trump’s favor.

So, yes. At the present moment, the facts lie at least partially hidden from scrutiny. But even with the depth and width of corruption and outright criminality displayed daily by this administration, even with their blatant and brazen stonewalling, those facts will come to light. And likely sooner than later.

At length the truth will indeed out.

The Way We Were Who We Were

My high School class (Cullman High, Cullman, Alabama: 1969) will be having our 50th reunion this summer. That fact starkly stands before me as an ultimately sobering thought. Life has its “odometer” moments: turning 21, 30, 50, 60. And one’s 50th high school reunion jumps right up there like a giant neon sign on life’s highway. Just doing the math gives one pause to consider all the water that’s passed under all those bridges, including the ones I burned behind me.

I’ve been designated as the “technical guru” for a group of people who, by and large, preceded by about 10 years that cohort that became comfortable with computers, either by growing up with them, or being forced to adapt to them. My classmates generally missed that bus. I am the outlier: for a variety of reasons, many accidental, my career path lead me right out on the bleeding edge of technology. I spent 35 years at Intergraph, a company that has been pushing technical boundaries in computer graphics since 1969 (it was a coincidence they started when I graduated from high school. Or was it? Gibbs (NCIS) Rule 39. Look it up).

Anyway, as almost the sole person in my class who actually knows how all this stuff works, I took it upon myself to build a fairly involved web site for our 40th reunion. That magic was highly appreciated by my less computer literate classmates (“any sufficiently advanced tehnology is indistinguishable from magic to the uninitiated” – Arthur C. Clarke, more or less). So much so that I was prevailed upon to update the effort for our 50th (“No good deed goes unpunished.” – Wicked). In so doing, I decided to make better quality images from my senior annual. Which brings me at long last to the crux of my essay.

As I went through the process of scanning each page from the Senior section, then cutting and adjusting the individual photos, I could not help but reflect on those faces, faces from 50 years ago, many of which I never saw again after leaving those “hallowed halls.” Oh, there were several who were good friends, and not as many who remained good friends: life sends us down whatever paths it will, and divergence is almost guaranteed to some degree. But there were many faces I never really knew, names that had never been imprinted on my mind, people whose lives had never really even crossed mine, not then, nor in the intervening years.

I am keenly aware that high school is in many ways no longer remotely comparable to the way it was in 1969. Beyond the bedrock of how and what things are taught, the norms and mores of teenage life cannot be more drastically different when today’s youth go to high school than when the Ancient Ones (ie, me and my cohorts) attended school. Music, language, pasttimes… there is likely no aspect of modern teenage life that I would understand. And likely be astonished by. Hell, the cell phone alone has forever redefined not only teenage life, but even what it means to be a social entity on this planet.

Nevertheless, I would be willing to wager a considerable sum that one aspect of high school life is still in effect. Groups still form, cliques coalesce, exclusion exists. That is basic human nature. As is the concomitant cruelty that teenagers so easily and carelessly inflict on each other.

My point is that this eternal social dynamic was obviously also in effect in 1969. We all gravitated into our social circles, orbiting around each other, obeying an implicit hierarchy of “coolness” and awareness, and all trying hard to present a worldly knowledge that we were all stumbling around trying to learn. But the hard rules of cliqueishness too often raised impenetrable walls between “Us” and “Them”, however us and them were defined.

And so, in the three years I attended Cullman High, I only partially knew so many of my fellow stumblers. I may have never shunned people (I pray to God I did not), but then I never went out of my way to engage them either. The Comfort Zone of the Clique is a powerful insulation, and nothing ever happened to push me out of that zone.

Now, I am looking at all those pictures, closely. Age may not bring wisdom, but I do believe it has given me an awareness of Intelligence and Awareness when I see it someone’s face. The eyes, really. But all those decades ago, like everyone else, I only saw superficial exteriors. And I missed so much. I can see in so many of those faces in my annual the Light that I have learned to recognize and treasure. The glimmer of clarity and awareness that signal real curiosity and awareness.

Now it is five decades further down everyone’s world line. The people in those pictures have all gone on to become whatever life lead them to be. I know, without knowing the specifics, that for far too many, their path lead to some form of extinguishing that Light. Life is long. Life is hard. It is not fair, and circumstances too often simply beat down the human spirit until it can do nothing but wake up every day and go to sleep every night. On automatic.

Some will have gone on to do great things, creative things. They are the ones in whom that Light I see in those photographs never died, but instead blossomed and burned brightly. There will be some who have made a life of giving care and comfort and solace. There will be many (most?) who will have turned in the end to a deep form of religion, thinking themselves in personal communion with God and Jesus (this is Alabama, and therefore satori is much less likely). By the same calculus, it is likely many (most?) will even be Trump supporters. My own bias leads me to believe that those individuals will have been the ones whom life beat down the most. But who can say? The human animal is nothing if not a walking mass of contradictions.

The lesson, learned too late for almost everyone but the saintly and truly spiritual, is to somehow overcome the willful stupidity that we adopt so early and so easily. To recognize the Potential and Inner Mounting Flame that burns in people and places where we do not believe it can. And to not ignore it when we feel it.

Time To Move On?

William Barr took 48 hours to produce a four page summary of Mueller’s report, which took 22 months to produce. That Barr is one heckuva summarizer! He’d be invaluable to Reader’s Digest, assuming anyone still reads Reader’s Digest (does it even exist?). In those four pages, Barr is widely reported as saying Mueller found no evidence for conclusion or conspiracy with the Russians. He also says that Mueller, while finding evidence that Trump obstructed justice, did not find conclusive evidence for that crime. And so Mueller (incredulously, it seems) decided not to make a recommendation on the question of obstruction. Barr then graciously stepped and in made the hard (and unilateral) decision: Not enough evidence to charge obstruction. Whether this was Barr’s decision to make, or should it have been left to Congress (who, rather than Special Prosecutors, made such determinations when Nixon and Clinton were invesigated) is a question being hotly debated by every news outlet other than Faux News.

So the question before the Democrats and others who oppose Trump and his corrupt administration might now be characterized as: Is it time to fold our tents and drop this whole issue of campaign malfeasance by Trump and his associates?

Certainly there are political considerations that argue for dropping the fight. Democrats will likely not be able to leverage the 2016 campaign brouhaha in the 2020 election, and indeed, continuing to shake that tree runs the risk of turning public opinion against their efforts rather than gaining any new converts.

But there are aspects of the whole roll-out by Barr that feel less than fair and wholesome. First of all, there is the infamous 19 page memo Barr wrote as his job application to be Attorney General. The main thrust was his contention that the President cannot be charged with, nor commit, obstruction of justice, simple because he is the President. In particular, he claimed that the Mueller investigation into obstruction was wrong-headed and absurd. Many (most?) legal scholars have ridiculed Barr’s assertions in that memo. Barr, as a strong proponet of the “imperial presidency” (he would have been warmly welcomed by Alexander Hamilton), is almost the last person who could, without bias, declare Trump summarily innocent of obstruction. Especially given that he wrote this memo. Having Barr decide in lieu of Mueller’s abdication on the matter is a lot like having the fox decide whether the henhouse needs guarding or not. It is basically a foregone conclusion.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that Mueller ever thought that, in leaving the question of obstruction unresolved, intended that it be decided by the Attorney General. In fact, the whole idea that someone of Mueller’s known fortitude and resolve would actually leave the issue unresolved seems questionable in itself. Mueller has not been known for backing away from tough choices.

The question of collusion (ie, conspiring) with the Russians is also not so cut and dried. Yes, Mueller definitely said there was not enough evidence to bring the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the standard for every indictment brought by (or referred by) the Mueller team. Based on the statement in Barr’s summary declaring no collusion, Trump and the GOP have claimed complete vindication on the matter. But to decide there was not enough evidence to bring the charge is not the same as saying there was no evidence. Hell, there’s plenty of evidence in the public domain to suggest some sort of collusion.

Both of these gray areas are reasons why it is critical that the Mueller report in its entirety be made public. Furthermore, it is just as critical that Mueller himself testify before Congress w.r.t. his thinking about the obstruction evidence. Did he intend for Barr to make that decision, rather than, say, Congress? Why did he decide, against everything we know about the man, to punt on deciding whether the obstruction evidence warranted criminal proceedings? Did it have anything to do with the current DOJ policy of never indicting a sitting President?

In the meantime, Barr’s summary, regardless of what is revealed when the full report comes out, gives Trump and GOP the opportunity to claim full vindication. Note that since Barr’s summary was released on Sunday, Trump, et al have been shouting from the rooftops how Trump is “completely exonerated” (even though even Barr’s letter explicitly says he was NOT exonerated). This basically gives them a leg up in the court of public opinion, where there is never much attention to detail.

Having gained this shot of poltitical capital, Trump has wasted no time in using it. His first expenditure: a new attempt to completely overturn ACA, this time in the courts. Not just selected portions of the law, but the whole shebang. One can only shudder in anticipation of the chaos that would be unleashed in our health care system were they to succeed. Trump is demanding that the investigators be investigated, claiming terrible personal harm from the two years he was investigated. Senator Linsday Graham wants to open an investigation to determine whether Obama tried to prevent Trump’s election. Note that Obama was the man who decided NOT to reveal the ongoing counter-intelligence investigation (involving Trump) during the campaign lest it be interpreted as an attempt to sway voters.

Is this significant reversal in fortune enough to turn the 2020 election to Trump? I for one will be very interested in seeing Trump’s polls numbers from before the Barr summary and after. But there can be no doubt that he will receive some positive bump from this episode.

So the primary question before those of us who oppose Trumpians with every fiber of our being is this: Is it in fact time to stop worrying about the 2016 election campaign shenanigans and instead focus solely on efforts to unseat Trump in 2020? That focus would certainly involve articulating our positive vision for what is needed to make America move forward into the 21st century:

how to negate the existential threat to humanity of climate change
how to make our elections secure from interference
how to reverse the trend of voter suppression
how to humanely and fairly deal with border security
how to achieve racial, gender and sexual equality
how to continue to improve healthcare for all Americans
how to once again make America respected among the nations of the world, instead of ridiculed

And even if the results of the Mueller investigation offers no slam-dunk damnation of Trump’s actions in that campaign, the spin-off investigations provide endless opportunity to present strong arguments to be used in the 2020 election. He stands at the apex of a morass of corruption and financial crimes to ignore. It is an embarrassment of riches in terms of targets to use. Not to mention the widespread corruption that has basically defined his entire Cabinet and administration.

But even with that as our focus, I do not believe we should simply walk away from the Mueller forum. The report must be made public. Mueller must testify before the appropriate House committees, as must Barr. But, as the Wicked Witch said, these things must be done delicately. And we must be prepared to weather the shitstorm that Trump, the GOP and Fox will unleash in retribution for “winning”.

The only moving on we should concentrate on is the one exemplified by MoveOn.org. Fight against authoritarianism and corruption. Fight for equality and justice. Stay informed and stay involved.

Our nation’s future depends on it.

Report Card

Okay. The Mueller Report is done, his investigation is complete, he’s given it to Barr. That central focus of the last two years is soon to be in the rear-view mirror, at least w.r.t. the Special Counsel’s efforts.

It all seems a bit anti-climactic, at least here in the first 24 hours after the report was dropped. Like so many, my attention has been riveted to the ongoing saga: the indictments, the trials, the convictions, the investigations that were spun off. Like everything else in the Trumpian universe, there was simply too much of it to process; the overall miasma of wrongness was so complex and intertwined that it defied efforts to comprehend it. But it was nevertheless impossible to look away. To think the primary investigation is over and done is akin to that deflation that I used to feel after all the Christmas packages had been opened. Sitting amid the chaos of paper and ribbons and boxes, the feeling was “What? No more? That’s it?”

Except of course, we know there is more: more investigations, more revelations and almost certainly more indictments. But the thrust of these ancillary actions are, by all accounts, with regard to financial corruption. Definitely enough to eventually put more people in jail. But not likely to affect the ongoing damage to national security, international affairs, elections jeopardy, and the tidal wave of corruption that Donald Trump has unleashed on our nation. On the question of Russia and the 2016 election, the endgame of the Mueller investigation, with its notable lack of indictments against Trump and his family, seems to have come up short.

So let’s recap. These are the cogent points.

The report is done. The Mueller Show has closed down, tents folded, Nothing else will come from this fount of many legal blessings.
We don’t (yet) know what is in it. Attorney General Barr has pledged to be “as transparent as possible,” and to even work with Mueller and Deputy AG Rosenstein to determine what can be made public. That may be a good sign, but Barr’s stated positions on the power and immunity of POTUS make his intentions suspect. Time will tell, and it needs to be as short a time as possible.
There are no more indictments coming from Mueller, and in particular, there are no accusations of conspiring with the Russians. This is perhaps the most distressing of the apparent conclusions. The infamous June Meeting in Trump Tower and the trip by Eric Prince to the Seyschelles to meet with a confidant of Vladimir Putin seem to be open and shut instances of Russian coordination. The demonstrable perjury by Don, Jr., Eric Prince and others would seem to require indictment. And surely to God obstruction would be an open-and-shut case, even when it was largely done in the public forum, open to see for everyone.

If this is all that comes out, it is evident that Trump and his minions will claim, arguably with some basis, that they are completely vindicated. Their victory lap will play like gangbusters with the GOP base. Even given the circle of convictions that surround the President, and the cloud of corruption being tracked down by the Southern District of New York, the fact that most people never dig very deep into the facts will likely mean Trump’s numbers will get a boost. Without direct evidence damning him, Donald Trump may very well emerge much stronger, and the Democratic strategy and tactics to unseat him will require a definite shift, or else run the risk of losing the impetus of outrage that currently fuels the opposition.

The bottom line is that we run a great risk of Donald Trump being reelected. And that would all but complete the re-normalization of America’s expectations of what constitutes a legitimate President of the United States.

And that would be the worst long-term damage of all.

Beto, Biden & Bernie

Here we go. The Democrats are off to the races to decide who will face the huge pile of certifiably insane orange excrement our country currently boasts as its President. In terms of the continued viability of our Republic, there’s never been a more important election than the one we will have in 2020. If Donald Trump were by some outlandish set of circumstances to again win the presidency, the long-term damage to America would be incalculable.

Given the stakes, some would find cause for concern at the sheer number of Democratic candidates, either already announced, or almost certainly assured of announcing. So many faces and voices might serve as a distraction. But the primary process is inexorable: eventually one candidate will emerge. And regardless of who that individual turns out to be, every single voter who truly cares for our nation must be committed to vote for that person. There is no room whatsoever for the ideological errors of 2016. The overarching guiding principle must be, “Donald Trump cannot be allowed to stay in the White House. Period.”

But the yellow brick road through the primaries has yet to be trod. At this end, standing in the center of Munchkinland, just taking our first steps, there is great latitude, and a dizzying smorgasbord of candidates on the menu. Ultimately, this is a good thing. These people will provide useful ideas to be explored, more options from which to pick and choose. One of the best lessons of 2016 was seeing how Bernie Sanders, even in defeat, significantly moved the Democratic needle to the left and to a more progressive platform. His ideas have become solid in the minds of many, if not most, Democrats.

As the horses stamp and stomp around the starting gate, it is already clear that a definite set of favorites has emerged. Polling reveals that Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke are leading the pack, at least among those who have announced. Joe Biden has not yet announced (other than by a slip of the tongue, the sort of thing that endears Joe to lots of supporters). Even so, Joe regardless actually leads many of the polls. Another metric is fund-raising, and in fund-raising, Bernie pulled in an record-breaking $5.9M on the first day of his announcement.

Beto then raised $6.1M on his first day.

Even given his popularity and his fund-raising ability, for some reason, Beto has immediately become the recipient of a barrage of fairly harsh criticism… from fellow Democrats. The primary (stated) reason for this castigation seems to be a perceived lack of specificity by O’Rourke w.r.t. policy specifics. But the underlying problem feels more like disdain for a man who has “white privilege.” The fact that Beto is neither a person of color nor a woman has somehow made him a target for many Democrats.

Look, Beto has freely admitted that he has had a life that benefitted from white privilege. That’s a problem in American life that he is actively working to correct. As for policy specifics, this is not the time in a campaign to nail those things down, not withstanding the fact that he did articulate policy points in his contest against Ted Cruz. This is the time for generating enthusiasm, raising campiagn funds and building a team of advisors and strategists to help win the primaries, and then the election. And there is simply no other person in the Democratic field that even comes close to generating enthusiasm like Beto O’Rourke.

Beto has been compared to Barack Obama, and how he presented himself in the early days of his campaign. The comparison is an apt one. Both men have an energy and a charisma that just naturally draws people to them. Infectious is a good description. Both project an integrity and a powerful optimism that calls forth our better angels.

The same could reasonably be said for how Bernie Sanders campaigned in 2016, when he drew large and extremely enthusiastic crowds wherever he went. And Joe Biden certainly has a wide appeal and a good heart, and that cannot be denied. But both men are ancient. Biden is 76, Sanders is 77. They would be in their 80’s in their first term as president.

As much as these elder statesmen have done for America, as progressive as their ideas are, we cannot afford to put our fate in the hands of men that old. The Presidency erodes a person like no other job on earth. The pressures are unrelenting. Donald Trump is an anomaly in so many horrible ways; he simply ignores the overwhelming responsibilities of the office, and so is untouched by its life-draining nature. The man whose job it will be to undo the travesties Trump has perpetrated on our nation will have even greater than usual stress and pressure.

Beto O’Rourke will find advisors; members of Obama’s team have already started to join him. He will fill in the blanks on planning and policy. And along the way, he will snowball and concentrate the positive enthusiasm we need to both defeat Trump and turn the ship of state around.

I think O’Rourke deserves our support and our vote. Time will tell its tale, but, unlike Han Solo, I have a good feeling about this.

Eat An Impeachment

“Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table…
In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo…
Do I dare to eat a peach?”

“The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”, T.S. Eliot

It is difficult to overstate the negative impact that occurred when Civics ceased to be a mandatory high school or junior high class. I took Civics in the 9th grade at Carr Junior High in Vicksburg, Mississippi. (The fact that such a thing as “junior high” still existed pretty well dates me.) I cannot remember the teacher’s name (Harwell? Hargrove?), but I recall not liking him very much. I don’t even remember whether he was a “good” teacher or not. But I do remember the subject, which means I was taught how our government is organized: the separation of powers, the bicameral legislative branch, how the number of representatives is calculated, why senators have a 6 year term and representatives only a 2 year term, how the Electoral College works. All of that (at the time) was boring material, but which, as it turns out, was incredibly important.

And I learned about the process of impeachment.

Although the current blanket wave of news coverage likely makes it unnecessary, here’s a quick recap of how impeachment works. Many people mistakenly confuse impeachment with removal, but it’s only the first step on a path that may or may not lead to the removal of an officeholder. Impeachment is like an indictment. The House of Representatives, if it decides by a simple majority, can impeach a President, or a Vice President, or a Supreme Court Justice, or any civil office holder. In so doing, they have only accused that person of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In order to be removed from office, the Senate must then hold a trial (which is presided over by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS). In order to convict, the Senate must decide by a 2/3 majority that the target of the impeachment is guilty.

And there’s the rub. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Democratically-controlled House could vote to impeach Donald Trump. There is an equal absence of doubt that 2/3 of the Senate would never convict him, regardless of the quantity and quality of the evidence brought to bear on such a decision. The GOP in Congress has locked itself in a death grip with Trump, and there is no indication that they will relinquish that hold, ever. They have lashed their fates to the mast of his ship of state, and they will not even pretend to independence, even if the ship is plunging to the ocean’s depths. Why? They either live in abject fear of losing their seats in the Senate or the House, knowing that Trump’s base would turn on them like mad dogs should they oppose Trump. Or else they are complicit with Trump, and share his authoritarian “philosophy”, and are willing, even eager, to subvert the Constitution, the democratic process and the rule of law. Not to mention (and this applies to everybody) the chance to suck at the teat of unabashed corruption, on a scale not seen in this country since the days of Teapot Domes and the Whiskey Ring.

Nancy Pelosi has made noises in the last few days that this political reality makes the idea of impeachment a non-starter. Knowing that conviction is not even a possibility, she has said that impeachment itself is futile. “Donald Trump is not worth it.”

It is true that the political reality of a failed impeachment (ie, bring articles of impeachment, but fail to get a conviction, as happened with Bill Clinton) would likely strengthen Trump, at least with his base. And it would also likely weaken the Democrats, or that is certainly possible. Aiming the gun but not pulling the trigger could be ruinous. Failure to convict would be seen as weakness for the Democratic party, or even weakness of the case against Trump, although the truth would be that the Republican senators would never vote to convict Trump regardless of the evidence.

So it is difficult to see Pelosi’s aversion to bringing articles of impeachment as anything other than a purely political maneuver, an action grounded in fear rather than principle, and therefore no more defensible than those Republicans who fail to stand up to Trump out of fear of retaliation. But an impeachment of Trump is so clearly required, failure to do so is basically an abrogation of the Constitutional duty of the House. It must be done simply because it must be done. It is impossible to think of a President more deserving of impeachment than Donald Trump.

Consider the two instances where a President was actually impeached and brought to trial. In 1868, Andrew Johnson was impeached because he ignored Congress and replaced the Secretary of War in violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Basically, the whole affair was a squabble between Johnson and Congress. The Senate failed to convict by a narrow margin. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction, basically because of his actions in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The perjury charge was acquitted by a 10 vote margin, though the obstruction charge was basically a tie, which counted as acquittal.

Now compare the charges and actions of these two Presidents against the avalanche of corruption, obstruction, perjury and almost treasonous actions by Trump. The litany of wrongs, even those just in the public domain, is so vast and so overwhelming, that we have become essentially inured to drumbeat of his wrongdoing. Indeed, the sheer magnitude and frequency of his daily lies and misdeeds have served to come dangerously close to redfining “normal” for our nation’s expectations of “acceptable behavior”. It is so exhausting that it takes all we can do to simply maintain vigilance.

So impeachment is not only a moral imperative for this President, it should be regarded as absolutely necessary. But one has to admit that the timing is critical. No, Trump would never be convicted by the spineless Republican cowards in the Senate. But the investigation that would be part and parcel of impeachment proceedings would be the thing that could put the spear in the heart of a Trump re-election campaign. Mueller’s investigation is constrained by the warrant he was given: look for Russian interference in the 2016 election, and possible conspiracy with the Trump campaign. In the course of his investigation, Mueller has unearthed a treasure-trove of related corruption, and indicted and convicted key figures in Trump’s orbit. But the evidence brought to light have pointed to MUCH more than Russian collusion, including tax fraud, bank fraud, obstruction, witness tampering, and a host of other crimes.

Therefore, I agree we should not “dare to bring an impeachment”, at least not just now. Let the Mueller report be made. Simultaneously, let Elijah Cummings and Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff continue to probe and investigate and subpoena. Hell, create a House Select Committee on Trump Corruption, like the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and dig even deeper. Bring as much to light as possible.

Then, in time to have the greatest impact on the 2020 election, so that the public can see it all laid out, impeach the motherf**ker. He NEEDS to be impeached, he deserves it more than any one in American history. Let the trial hound him right out of office and into the arms of whatever indictments the Southern District of New York has waiting for him. Let him and his family spend years in jail. Let justice be done.

That will be so much better than merely talking of Michelangelo.