Posts Tagged ‘Trump corruption’

They Booed Trump at the World Series:  What Does That Mean?

October 29, 2019

They Booed Trump at the World Series:  What Does That Mean?

There’s been a lot of discussion in the press about events October 27, 2019.  First, Americans woke up to hear that the founder and leader of DAESH or ISIS had been killed in a nighttime raid in Syria.  He was a brutal and seemingly power-mad terrorist, even compared to Osama bin Laden, and the violent death of a person who celebrated rape, slavery, torture and murder is good news for anyone who loves justice.  As the Commander in Chief of the US military, Donald Trump clearly expected at least a little boost in his popularity.  You could argue that he should have gotten enormous praise and gratitude, not in the sense that he was morally owed anything but rather in the sense that if you light a fuse and it burns down to the dynamite and nothing happens, you say, “That should have exploded.”  Something unexpected and seemingly unnatural happened; instead of cheers or even polite applause, Donald Trump was jeered and booed the very day he announced that one of America’s most vicious enemies had been killed.  Why is that?

There have been many comments made about the way Trump announced the death of Baghdadi.  Obama announced the death of bin Laden with little prior build-up.  It came totally unexpectedly.  In fact, right before the raid he was going through one of the traditional Washington rituals, the White House Correspondents Dinner Roast.  He mocked himself and was mocked by others; he also teased others.  He was funny and seemed relaxed, as if nothing special was happening.  A few hours later, he was in the White House listening in real time while the raid played out, so that if any major decisions needed to be made or major announcements made, good or bad, he’d be there to do so.  When the raid was over and the troops safely on their way home, he made a relatively dignified speech congratulating and thanking all those involved, even the military who weren’t always his biggest fans because he had not served and had made decisions many disagreed with.

By contrast, during the actual raid to kill Baghdadi, Trump was golfing, enjoying his weekly multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded personal pleasure.  Then he tweeted about an upcoming big announcement, teasing it like it was the new Star Wars trailer or something.  When he finally made his announcement, it seemed to many to be self-congratulatory, to reveal operational details better kept secret, and to be generally undignified and unworthy of the president of the United States.  While Obama had emphasized that the body of bin Laden had been buried with the dignity we’d give one of our own, Trump repeatedly spoke of how humiliated Baghdadi had been, “whimpering” and dying “like a dog.” While Obama had notified leaders of both parties, Trump notified the Russians but not his real enemies, the Democrats, American citizens, most of whom have handled secret materials for years without leaking it.  And many were quick to note that when bin Laden was killed, Donald Trump was one of the first to say that Obama did not deserve any credit because he was merely the President; so why, critics asked, should Trump get any credit now when he had no more to do with killing Baghdadi than Obama had to do with killing bin Laden?

All of this, however, strikes me as beside the point.  Ultimately, while these considerations might have warranted rebuking Trump’s boorish and narcissistic messaging or his hypocrisy, it doesn’t explain the chants of “Lock Him Up!” by tens of thousands of people on live, international television.  Something much more is going on here. 

Tamara Keith of PBS Newshour was onto part of it when she pointed out that bin Laden was a much bigger force in most Americans’ minds than Baghdadi ever was.  Al Qaeda killed thousands of Americans in one day on live television; DAESH sought to establish its caliphate on the other side of the world, and most of its victims were Syrians and Iraqis.  Newshour also pointed out that while Obama got a popularity boost after the killing of bin Laden, it didn’t last; wile he got a month or two versus the hours at most that Trump earned, ultimately it partisanship took hold in both cases.  The difference between the two cases was not as different as it might first seem; still, it’s worth asking why Trump didn’t earn even the temporary boost Obama got.

When Obama took office, there were two great threats hanging over our collective heads:  the Great Recession and radical Islamist terrorism.  Killing bin Laden symbolically took care of one of these, while the Obama economic plan, including the bailout of the auto industry, helped with the other.  Before Obama took office, economists predicted that recovery from the Great Recession would be slow and uneven; some of the jobs lost would never come back, though others would replace them.  Sadly, that prediction proved true; some areas of our country never really recovered, though overall the economy has grown steadily through most of the Obama administration and into Trump’s.  The result was a balkanization of our fears.  In rural areas, and many manufacturing areas, the economy continued to be a source of anxiety; but for most of the nation, things were slowly looking up.  Areas where jobs were scarce and immigrants relatively unknown, the fear of Islamic terrorism grew to a general xenophobia; not only were foreigners seen as terrorists and criminals, but also as competitors for the scarce jobs.  But in more developed areas, there were enough jobs that immigrants were seen not as competitors as much as a necessary part of the work force.  People who knew Muslims first-hand didn’t fear them all, but distinguished between them.  So while Obama addressed the concerns of most Americans, Trump addressed himself to the needs of only a limited portion.

According to opinion polls, more Americans are worried about mass shootings and domestic terrorism than they are about Mexicans or ISIS.  More Americans worry about Russian hackers than about whether #MeToo is unfair to men.  While Trump voters fear illegal aliens voting, voters in other areas have dealt with real election fraud:  the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia sabotaging voting machines in black neighborhoods, the Republican candidate in North Carolina literally stealing ballots from Democratic voters, thousands of legal citizens being blocked from voting around the nation by Voter ID laws designed to handicap legal citizens, and so on.  The problems most Americans fear are not being solved by Trump.  In fact, Donald Trump seems to exacerbate those problems.  He doesn’t fight mass shootings; he defends the NRA, which even the GOP-controlled Senate concedes is a Russian asset, and which fights to preserve the rights of suspected terrorists, domestic abusers and the mentally ill to have military-grade weapons.  He doesn’t fight to ensure that all citizens can vote; he supports voter suppression and voter suppressors.  He doesn’t fight foreigners undermining our elections; he encourages and even forces them to intervene to help him.  And most tellingly, while he touts his fight against Islamic terrorism, more Americans have been killed or threatened by white supremacist terrorism which often cites Trump-favored information sources like Breitbart and InfoWars, or even quotes Trump himself.  We’ve had mass shootings, white supremacist riots, and bombing attempts, all citing Trump’s words in support and loyalty to him as their motive.  In short, to most Americans, Donald Trump is a more obvious and all-encompassing danger than Baghdadi was on his best day. 

Why did they boo Donald Trump at Game 5 of the World Series?  Because they hate Trump, sure.  But why?  Is it, as Trump supporters claim, because those 40,000 people simply hate America?  That would be stupid; this is where we keep our stuff, so why would we blow it up?  Is it “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” an irrational blind hatred of all things Trump?  Again, no.  The hatred and anger flows from the fact that Trump is felt to be a threat, a greater threat than any other, the nexus of most or all of the fears and anxieties of the majority of Americans.  He supports the terrorists most of us fear, the ones who shoot up schools and shopping malls and churches:  the white supremacists, the incels, the people who just collect guns so that when their anger boils over they’ll be ready to make the universe pay.  He accepts the praise of those who literally proclaim him the new Christ, and who threaten to unleash civil war in God’s name if he is opposed. 

I don’t think most of the people in that ballpark thought about this explicitly.  They reacted emotionally, as a result of conscious reasoning and unconscious perception.  The two things Trump can most credibly brag about are simply not the two things most people fear the most; and the things they do fear the most are things they associate with him.  Booing Donald Trump feels like booing Nazis and other “very fine people,” like booing the El Paso shooter and the Charlottesville driver and all the other terrorists who have quoted him, like booing climate change and all the entitled billionaires who fight to keep it happening, like booing the corruption of government officials who funnel tax money into their businesses while brazenly shaking down lobbyists for “donations.”  In a real sense, Donald Trump is a symbol, a bigger-than-life character, the way bin Laden was and Baghdadi is not, at least not for Americans.  And while for many Americans he’s a symbol of fighting social and economic changes that unsettle traditional values, for a return to the America they remember from their childhood, when America was Great, for many more he’s a symbol of chaos, random violence, political violence, oppression, environmental chaos of floods, fires, melting glaciers and mass extinctions, of religious oppression, and an attack on Hope itself. 

I side with the jeering masses, the booers, the chanters, the displeased.  I see two great forces struggling for control of America.  One saw itself as the Culture Warriors, but they’ve largely lost that war so rather than fight to win the culture they fight to establish rule by force over it.  Their slogan, Make America Great Again, is a formula for going backwards, for stasis and even degeneration.  The best days are behind them, so they seek to drag everyone and everything back into the past, back to when it was simple.  The other side’s slogan is “Yes We Can!”  It is optimism, It was Hope and Change, It is growth.  Anything not busy being born is busy dying; so this other side seeks to guide the change but not to fight it.  Trump famously, proudly resists learning, resists change, resists advice or other perspectives or other voices than his own.  Obama studied and read and questioned all through his presidency, and changed course when he had to.  Obama said, “You are the change you’ve been waiting for.” Trump said, “Things are a mess, and I alone can fix it.”  I guess, for all my cynicism, my self-esteem is simply not low enough for me to bow down to a mere mortal who claims perfection and omnipotence, and who demands that I shut up and follow meekly where he leads.  I’d rather have leaders who demand my effort, my attention, my mental engagement, my work, but not my soul.  And so, apparently, do 40,000 or so baseball fans at the fifth game of the 2019 World Series.

The Mueller Report: I read it for you, but you should read it for yourself. pt. 10

July 29, 2019

Underlying Factual Issues

            This section deals with general issues, such as the legal justification for the investigation, the legal limits on it, and the general pattern of behavior by Mr. Trump. This is a wide-ranging section, parts of which are rather technical, so a list of the salient points is useful.

  1. First, this report differs from obstruction-of-justice cases typically handled by the Department of Justice because it deals with the President of the United States. Some of the report “raises garden-variety obstruction-of-justice issues,” other parts deal with the use or potential misuse of the powers granted to the President by Article II of the Constitution. This is relevant to the possible defense against the charge of obstruction, which is discussed later. At the same time, what for a billionaire heir businessman private citizen might be dismissed as “Trump being Trump” become much more legally fraught when done by the President of the United States, who has “unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses.” It’s one thing if a private citizen, even a celebrity billionaire playboy, says some person or people should be “locked up” for a supposed crime; it’s quite another when the President, who has broad authority to help make that happen, says it. When Mr. Trump called for the Central Park Five to be executed, it was an abuse of his economic power; he was able to take out ads in papers, to use his celebrity status to get television air time, and so on. And it turns out he was wrong; he didn’t know the facts, jumped to a conclusion rather than wait for a proper investigation, and attempted to have innocent people killed. But he was still only a private citizen, albeit an enormously powerful one; the damage he could do himself was limited. The President of the United States, on the other hand, has far more informal power to influence, tweet, speak on television and so on, and formal power to hire and fire prosecutors and even the Attorney General if they investigate (or not) contrary to his whims. When he says someone should be “looked into” it isn’t just an opinion; it’s closer to a credible threat.
  2. Many obstruction cases involve covering up an underlying crime. In this case, however, the Special Counsel did not find proof that Donald Trump Sr. knowingly conspired with Russia to undermine the U.S. election system. However, proof of an underlying crime is not necessary to establish obstruction of justice. The Special Counsel’s investigation firmly established that there were hundreds of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, as well as agents of other foreign governments; that these involved high-ranking members of this campaign including his own family; that the Putin regime was actively working to elect Donald Trump Sr. and that in many cases those campaign leaders knew that they were in contact with foreign agents and/or that they were receiving illegally obtained materials or other legally dubious help. All of this was acutely embarrassing to Mr. Trump and he was intensely concerned that it might undermine the legitimacy of his election. Furthermore, at the time the alleged obstruction occurred it was not established whether there was an underlying crime or whether the President’s own family might be prosecuted; as he himself said, his “satellites” might have done things he didn’t know about. In fact, at the time of this writing it is still not established whether there are more prosecutions; and multiple high-ranking Trump campaign directors or policy advisors have pled guilty or been convicted of felonies. Whether the obstruction of justice is motivated by a desire to avoid personal embarrassment or to hide a potential crime, the damage to the integrity of the justice system is the same; that is why obstruction of justice is such a serious matter.
  3. Many of the alleged acts of obstruction-of-justice took place in public view. This seems strange, given that obstruction of justice is a felony; you would think someone committing a felony would be secretive. However, the report asserts that given the power the President has to influence witnesses and official proceedings through mass communication, what we need to focus on is not whether the act was publicly known but whether we can discern a corrupt intent. In many cases, such corrupt intent is in fact established by witnesses or even Trump’s own words. Whether witness tampering or other acts of obstruction occur privately or publicly, the damage to the judicial system is the same, and therefore the crime is equally serious.
  4. While the report discusses separate instances of possible obstruction of justice, there is an overall pattern. At first, before Trump became aware that he was under any sort of investigation, he was concerned primarily to publicly clear his name. His efforts were primarily focused on getting intelligence and legal officials to state that there was no crime, or at least that he personally had not committed any crime, even though the investigation was still ongoing. But after firing James Comey, Trump found that he himself was being investigated for obstruction of justice, and his efforts became much more direct, aggressive and nasty.
  5. Trump repeatedly attempted to undermine or control the investigation into Russia’s efforts to elect him. Those efforts were often unsuccessful because his aides and subordinates did not carry out his orders. Comey did not shut down the Flynn investigation, which ultimately led to Flynn’s prosecution. McGahn did not tell Sessions to fire Mueller, and did not agree later to lie about having been asked to fire Mueller. This does not make Trump himself any less guilty of obstruction of justice; only a trial could establish that. But it does let most of those aides off the hook since they refused to participate in what might have been illegal acts had they been carried out.
  6. The President’s legal team offers what we might call the Nixon Defense: if the President does it, it is not illegal, even if it would have been illegal if any governor, senator or other official had done it, due to the authority and powers granted by Article II of the Constitution. Citing a great deal of case law, as well as legal interpretation of the Constitution including Article I and the principle of separation-of-powers, the Special Counsel’s report rejects this defense and holds that the laws against obstruction of justice apply to everyone, even the President. Requiring the President to obey laws against corruptly undermining the judicial system for his own personal gain does not unduly impede his ability to fulfill his office as described in Article II, while allowing the President to ignore laws passed by Congress and signed into law would unduly undermine the Article I responsibilities granted to Congress to pass laws for the good of the nation, and to exercise oversight of the other branches of government on behalf of the American people. In so deciding, the Special Counsel’s office cites many court rulings, including the Nixon case.
  7. Finally, the conclusion: while the Special Counsel did not make a traditional recommendation whether to prosecute, it did clearly state that it could not make a decision not to prosecute. As stated earlier, the Special Counsel felt that it could not recommend prosecution no matter what it found, since the Department of Justice policy is to not charge a sitting President with a crime even if a crime is found. However, the Special Counsel is quite explicit about whether this means the President is exonerated. It does not. The report concludes that he may well have committed obstruction of justice, and that were he not President then a trial for obstruction would be warranted.

Mueller’s public testimony clarifies somewhat that if it were anybody else who had committed the actions discovered in this investigation, that person would be facing trial for obstruction of justice. If his office had cleared Trump of all crimes, they would have so stated; but he is not cleared. Mueller stated directly that Mr. Trump can be put on trial after he leaves office. When asked whether an impeachment inquiry would also be an adequate forum to publicly establish the President’s guilt or innocence, Mueller refused to answer. His only concern was with the legal issues and the Department of Justice guidelines that he operated under. These allowed for a criminal investigation to establish facts and record evidence while memories were still fresh and other documents and evidence still exist, even though those guidelines forbid even a sealed indictment. They make no claims about impeachment because that is not the authority of the Department of Justice; it is authorized under Article One of the Constitution, which gives the powers and describes the procedures by which Congress may impeach the President or other officials. The concern is to be fair to the accused, who must be given the chance to answer the charges promptly. In principle, since an impeachment trial is a trial, an impeachment would also qualify as a “forum in which” the accused may “vindicate themselves.”