Expect Impeachment But No Conviction

After three sometimes gripping, at time contentious, sometimes pedestrian days of hearings by the House Intelligence Committee, the questions to be answered are, Did Donald Trump’s actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense? And, given the Democratic Party majority on the committee and on the Judiciary Committee which would have to pass impeachment charges, and its majority in the full House of Representatives which has to affirm the charges which would then be sent to the Senate for consideration, is there any prospect that the Republican controlled Senate will vote to convict and thereby remove Trump from office?

Yes, the House will vote along party lines to impeach; no, the Senate will not vote to remove.

There was no smoking gun testimony as there was during the Watergate hearings and impeachment inquiry. No secret tapes (as far as we know). Nothing and nobody to testify to direct person to person dialogue with Trump about his actions to withhold congressionally approved military aid to an ally unless Ukraine investigated Joe and Hunter Biden.

Unless, and it is a big unless, former national security director John Bolton chooses to testify. Assuming, of course, that he would finger Trump for actions specifically in violation of his oath of office. 

At the end of the day Trump will get off with no more than a slap on the wrist. Like a cookie jar pilferer who gets caught by an admonishing mother, he no doubt will return to equally provocative acts, believing that as long as the Senate remains Republican controlled he will be immune from removal.

Here’s another question central to our democracy—when, if ever, will Republicans return to their long held beliefs? When will they once again condemn executive office overreach? When will they recall their opposition to a ballooning national debt and their desire for a balanced budget? When will they again champion unfettered foreign trade not hamstrung by tariffs? When will they advocate for strong and respectful international alliances? When will they rebuke a president who trusts Russia more than his own intelligence agencies?

Is the answer only when Democrats regain the presidency?

Have we so tribalized our politics that we cannot accept any action by a president from the opposition party, and the corollary, that we blindly accept whatever “our guy (or  gal)” does?

Has our politics become so toxic that anyone we disagree with immediately becomes the object of smear campaigns and physical threats? 

Don’t expect answers from me. I’m as perplexed, as depressed, as woebegone as you. 

The Freddys: An Idea for Trump's Economic Stimulus Plan

Here’s an idea Donald Trump might want to consider for his economic stimulus plan, an idea perfectly suited for his experience and temperament.

With so many millennials graduating from college with fewer prospects than their parents had, perhaps Trump can suggest a helping hand program similar to the one he received from his father, namely, a low interest million dollar loan. In honor of Trump’s father, we’ll call the loans the Freddys.

Now, not just anyone would get a Freddy. To secure a million dollar jump-start loan, applicants would have to participate in a televised competition (this is where Trump’s reality show experience comes in). Similar to the Shark Tank TV show, would-be billionaires (no reason to set our sights low for these budding entrepreneurs) would present their ideas to Trump. Proposals would be judged on viability with particular emphasis on the number of employees each anticipates to hire and where workers would be located, with special emphasis placed on the Rust Belt.

Giving away $1 million per winning entry (by the way, Fred’s loan to Donald would be valued today at $3.6 million) may limit how many winners are chosen each year, given Trump’s desire to reduce the national debt. If each week’s show picks five winners, that’s 260 per year, or $260 million. Chump change in a federal budget of $3.8 trillion.

Perhaps there are a few kinks in the Freddy program that need to be worked out. After all, I’m no Mark Burnett. But it’s a sure-fire way for President Trump to keep his toe in and face on TV each week without having to console the nation after another mass murder, another terrorist attack, another country that imposes high tariffs in retaliation to his trade wars, another invasion of an Eastern European country by one of Trump’s admired world leaders, Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

So let’s all tune in to the Freddys. It’s the least we could do in Trump’s dyspeptic and dystopian world.  

Christie Speechwriter Soft on English and History

I was driving back from Manhattan Tuesday when WNYC public radio broke away from The Brian Lehrer Show to broadcast New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s presidential campaign kickoff speech. He’s a dynamic speaker. Coupled with my interest in politics, I chose to listen. 

It was a strong presentation full of broad bromides about what Christie would accomplish, not unlike any of the other announcements by Republican would-be presidents. They are long on generalities, short on specifics. They’re all (except Rand Paul) for a more muscular military ready to be deployed wherever necessary, as in Christie’s words, “And it is a strong, unequivocal, America, that will lead the world and not be afraid to tell our friends we’ll be with you no matter what. And to tell our adversaries that there are limits to your conduct and America will enforce the limits to that conduct.”

They’re also for less government regulation and a more vigorous economy, ignoring the fact that compared with what he inherited from the last Republican administration President Obama’s tenure has enjoyed a resurgence in jobs, the stock market and reduced national debt.

But I was truly amused by three parts of Christie’s monologue. First, I smiled when he discussed the need for a revised tax system. “We need a tax system that’s simplified and will put CPA’s like my dad out of business,” he told an adoring crowd in the Livingston, NJ, High School gym. But in the transcript of his speech, the wording was more than slightly different—“We need a tax system that’s simplified and won’t (my italics) put CPA’s like my dad out of business.”

Then there was the matter of Christie’s bemoaning lower education achievements. Perhaps, as Shakespeare had Cassius tell Brutus in Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” You see, I have a fondness for the proper usage of the English language. One of my pet peeves is using “I” when “me” is the correct object of a verb or preposition. Thus, when Christie said of his parents, “They raised my brother and I …” it was an assault on my eardrums. Not only did Christie not know “me” was called for, but his speechwriter(s) also showed a lack of English smarts. 

Now, some of you might be thinking I am being too much of a grammar stickler. Could be. But I, for one, want a president who speaks proper English. (As an aside, my grandniece from London, all of four years old, told my sister-in-law, “Grandma, you speak American, I speak English.” Yeah, but the rules of grammar span the Atlantic.)

Christie’s speech overreached in another arena. He properly lamented the dysfunction in Washington. “Both parties have failed our country. Both parties have stood in the corner and held their breath and waited to get their own way. And both parties have lead (sic—I can’t tell you how many time the speechwriters used “lead” when they should have written “led”) us to believe that in America, a country that was built on compromise, that somehow now compromise is a dirty word. If Washington and Adams and Jefferson believed compromise was a dirty word, we’d still be under the crown of England,” he said.

Excuse me, but if that trio, along with the rest of the Founding Fathers and patriots, had sought compromise instead of revolution, we would not have fought a war of independence from Britain, though perhaps we’d be better at speaking the Queen’s English. 

Christie was somewhat right in that compromise eight years after the war ended enabled the 13 former colonies to adapt the Articles of Confederation into a constitutional republic form of government. However, he and his conservative cohorts cleave to a static reading of the Constitution, ignoring societal changes that should imbue our interpretation of the document.

By coincidence, The New York Times reviewed a new book by Joseph J. Ellis on Monday, The Quartet, Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/books/review-the-quartet-by-joseph-ellis-details-the-constitutions-gang-of-four.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone&_r=0).

Ascribing the successful effort of the Constitutional Convention to Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, Ellis, in the words of the reviewer, believed “what the founders did not want was to be embalmed, or to have their prescriptions taken as sacred script.” 

To support his analysis, according to the reviewer, Ellis ended his book quoting Jefferson: “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I know that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country ...

“But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.”

During a week when the U.S. Supreme Court upended some long-held beliefs, leading some Republicans to question its continued validity, we would do well to reflect on Jefferson’s words. 

Detonate the Nuclear Option

It's time Democrats faced reality. It's time they detonated the so-called Nuclear Option in the U.S. Senate by changing the rules to eliminate the ability of a minority—even one senator—to thwart the will of the majority. The nuclear option would empower a simple majority of senators to pass legislation or affirm presidential appointments (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/politics/senate-democrats-consider-move-to-curb-filibusters.html?ref=politics&_r=0). 

Under current rules, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate, to end a filibuster. As neither party has 60 members in its caucus, even one senator can hold the government hostage. For example, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has held up presidential appointments until he is satisfied he has all the information he wants on the Benghazi affair. Similarly, Republicans have stymied President Obama’s efforts to appoint three judges to the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Democrats have threatened before to change the rules. They demurred because they feared what would happen if Republicans ever gained control of the Senate. Here's what would happen: The GOP would not hesitate to employ the nuclear option. Any party that already has shut down the government, toyed with defaulting on the national debt, and blatantly said its mission is to thwart anything the president does would not hesitate to change the rules and emasculate a Democratic minority. Just look at actions Republicans have taken in state legislatures. They repeatedly have passed measures dear to Democrats. They have enacted laws to stifle voting opportunities for minorities, have curtailed a woman’s right to choose, have diluted the rights of unions, and have redrawn (gerrymandered) voting districts to ensure GOP majorities until after the next census in 2020. 

It is foolish to think the Yahoos in the Republican Party would not opt for nuclear political warfare should they succeed in securing a majority in the Senate. 

Haven’t the Democrats learned anything over the last five years of Obama’s presidency? It might have been nice to try to work with Republicans during the first two or three years, but being nice has merely emboldened Republicans. Perhaps, if Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had shown some backbone the GOP would have sought common ground. As it stands now, Republicans have no problem testing the limits of their power, limits that Obama and Reid have not strongly enough delineated for them. 

Bottom line: Democrats have nothing to lose. Start the countdown now: 10, 9, 8, ... 

Constitutional Perogative

After posting my views Friday on what I’d like from elected officials, Peter sent in the following comment:

“You lost me when you said this, ‘I want a president and a Congress that respects the rights of all, cares for the downtrodden, provides opportunity for all, endorses and expands educational opportunities, builds and repairs infrastructure for today and tomorrow, invests in science and technology, leads global efforts on climate change and human rights, provides universal health care.’

“Where does the US Constitution provide for ANY of that?

“In other words, Murray, you want a Republican to take on all the views of a Liberal Democrat.”

An intriguing thought, Peter. Given that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, saw the national debt increase from $700 billion to $3 trillion, bailed out Social Security and expanded the federal government, he’d probably fail the acid test of today’s conservatives and Tea Party members. Though he balanced the budget, Richard Nixon implemented Wage and Price Controls, set up the Environmental Protection Agency, and started strategic discussions with Communist China. He surely would not be considered a good Republican. As for Teddy Roosevelt, that great icon of environmentalism, conservation and anti-trust legislation, along with enlightened immigration policies, there’s no way his face would remain on the façade of Mt. Rushmore if conservatives and Tea Party’ers ever get swept into the majority.

It’s hard being any shade of Republican these days. But to get to the specific question Peter asked, “Where does the US Constitution provide for ANY of that?,” it’s right there in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

I can’t think of anything more tied into the "general welfare" of our country than providing equal rights and opportunities, education, solid infrastructure, quality health care, support for the less fortunate, investment in our collective future and leadership on the global stage.

Now I’m sure Peter and his similar-thinking patriots would argue that I am interpreting the Constitution. And they’d be right.

Interpretation is a natural and necessary part of keeping our laws current, vibrant and meaningful. It’s like reading and understanding the Bible—no one in the Judeo-Christian world believes “an eye for an eye” is to be taken literally. If we accept that scholars can interpret God’s laws to make them more humane and appropriate to our current age, surely we can accept that modern day jurists and lawmakers can pass judgment on the words of the framers of the Constitution.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy of those who believe their version of the Constitution is the only one that is accurate. Republicans decry activist judges, those who overturn laws passed by Congress. Yet they are seeking to overturn in court the health care reform act duly and legally passed by Congress. Republicans applauded when the Supreme Court threw out the campaign finance law that restricted corporate donations. Why is it acceptable when courts overturn laws Republicans object to, but judicial activism when courts overturn laws Republicans favor, such as anti-abortion legislation?

Democrats bemoan judges who overturn laws they like, as well, which is why when going to the polls Americans need to think long and hard about the judicial appointments their candidates for president and governor are likely to make. We can rid ourselves of undesirable politicians when next they are up for election, but we’re mostly stuck with bad judges for life.

Marching for Peace and Jobs

Some people grouse at the news of wars and national debt. Some listen to old protest songs. Sixty-three-year-old Alan Gilbert decided a more public demonstration was in order.

Late last fall he turned to his wife Barbara and said the only way to solve the mounting debt and budget crisis was to end U.S. involvement in the interminable double wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would organize a march and rally in their home town of Tucson to call attention to a plan to shift the dollars we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan to more fully fund American jobs, education, health care, environmental protection and other human needs. Both wars have cost more than a trillion dollars since their inception.

There have been public protests before in Tucson over Iraq and Afghanistan, but no one had taken the initiative to organize anything for 2011. Alan assumed the role. So on the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq—Saturday, March 19—Alan will lead a march and rally from Armory Park to DeAnza Park. Thousands are expected to follow his footsteps. Twenty community organizations have signed on as sponsors. The Tucson march will be one of more than 200 planned across the country to commemorate the date.

Hardly a rabble-rouser, Alan is a military veteran. In planning the demonstration, Alan appealed to the common sense of an informed public. “Remember that the true security of our country depends on well- funded education for our children, good health care, decent paying jobs, and a healthy environment. We must insist that our government fund human needs instead of death and destruction,” he said in an e-mail soliciting support from ordinary citizens.

I hope many will heed his clarion call.

Alan’s our brother-in-law. He’s married to Gilda’s sister, Barbara.