December 11, 2019

The Shallow State of Donald Trump

Among the many interesting issues being discussed in today's Senate committee hearing is the strange case of Carter Page. Numerous layers of misinformation and disinformation have been piled upon his role in the Trump campaign by the administration. Some are contradictory – Trump, for example, has both claimed that Page was the victim of FBI spying on one hand, and has claimed Page was spying on the campaign for the FBI on the other hand. A rational person might correctly note that both of these cannot be true. In fact, it is possible that neither are accurate.

Older forum members may recall previous discussions here, dating back to what now seems the distant past, about Carter Page in January, 2018. Ancient forum members might even recall similar conversations on Page dating back to late 2017. Then, in February 2018, Malcolm Nance spoke about what was becoming evident regarding Carter Page. And now, like an unlucky penny, he keeps popping back up.

We know that Page has a curious history of ties with Russian intelligence that date back years before he served on the Trump campaign. In fact, it has been documented that Russian intelligence had – at very least – thought they could exploit him, and possibly turn him into serving as an asset for their use. A couple of articles in the New York Times addressed this: “Russian Spies tried to Recruit Carter Page before he Advised Trump's Campaign” (4-4-17) and What (if anything) does Carter Page Know?” (12-18-17).

As a result of Page's dealings with Russian intelligence and publicly expressing disagreements with U.S. Policy towards Russia, he became the subject of a FISA warrant. It is essential to understand that numerous U.S. Intelligence agencies beyond the FBI were interested in just who Carter Page was, and exactly what he was doing. And to fully appreciate this, one must keep in mind that Page had served in the Office of Naval Intelligence for many years, including but likely not limited to his time in the Navy. And that, of course, places him along side with not only Malcolm Nance, but such figures as Mark Felt and Bob Woodward. Prehistoric forum members will recall interesting discussions on the topic of the last two from the Bush-Cheney era.

Now, let's consider the timing of Page's serving in the Trump campaign. Trump announced that Page was a foreign policy adviser in March, 2016. That, of course, was the very same month that Paul Manafort officially joined the campaign. Manafort has proven incapable of telling the truth, of course, but there is ample evidence that one or more of his connections with the Russian-Ukraine mob had assured him that Page was a solid resource.

For three months, Page reported to Corey Lewandowski, who was running the Trump campaign. Poor Corey was fired in June, and replaced with Paul Manafort. Readers may recall that in June of 2016, Manafort met with some friendly Russians in Donald, Jr's office, to hear how the Russian government could help Trump win the election. Page would travel to Russia and meet with a Russian operative during his time on the Trump campaign, before officially leaving the campaign in September.

At the same time the Trump administration has noted the FBI was spying on Page after he left the campaign, they have also stressed that Page actually had no role in the campaign. They say he never met Trump, which removed the possibility that Page was another mere coffee boy. And, as noted, Trump has claimed that Page was a deep state operative sent to spy on the campaign, which is very curious indeed, since Page did not approach the Trump campaign – they approached him.

At the time Page was associated with the Trump campaign, the U.S. Intelligence community was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. It seems likely that this would include using someone connected to the IC who had cover – known in intelligence as a “legend” – that creates the impression that the IC does not trust them. Thus, in Page's case, it would seem to the Russians that he might be trusted. This is one type of a “double-agent.”

Due to the nature of today's technology, that can include having one or more FISA warrants on record, to indicate to invasive computer examinations to believe Page was not an IC operative. This would allow him to be involved in the counter-intelligence operations geared towards investigating the Russians' penetration of the 2016 campaign. And it would be likely that not every domestic IC member would know if a man like Carter Page was an ONI officer working under cover.

Lindsey Graham has enough organic intelligence to understand this. And his character is certainly low enough to try to exploit this, since he is fully aware that no individual from any intelligence agency could speak publicly to the issues. Indeed, that's what we've seen Graham doing today.

December 9, 2019

101 Refresher

“The duty of a true Patriot is to protect his country from its government.”
-- Thomas Paine



While watching today's House hearing, the kindest thing I can say about the republicans is that their behavior appears surreal on the surface. If we dig a little deeper, it seems bizarre. Let's take a moment to dig even deeper, to see if we might identify why they are acting like petty brats.

“Politics 101” teaches that in every political contest, there are three groups: those who always support you, those who always oppose you, and the undecided. The basic strategy is to campaign in a manner that makes your supporters happy, that doesn't rile your opposition into taking action, and convincing the majority of the “undecided” to support your position.

Now, using that context, what are the republicans doing today? It certainly does not qualify as an attempt to follow the concepts of “Politics 101.” Though it is not quite the exact opposite, it is clear evidence that the republican strategy is coming from a place of weakness. They are appealing only to the conspiracy theorists among their party – those who would support Trump even if republicans in the House and Senate admitted the president was 100% guilty as charged.

By today's performance, the republicans are making Trump's base their exclusive target. Attempts to muddy the waters with emotional turbulence will be unlikely to appeal to moderate republican voters. It will energize Democrats, from the grass roots to Washington, DC. And it will repulse the majority of the undecided citizens. It reeks of desperation.

Thus, it is important that we not be reactive to the republican emotion-based nonsense. We should not follow them there. There is no need to, for they are desperate. Instead, Daniel Goldman provides a proper role model here: a focused response. We can focus on exposing their weakness. In doing so, we help to protect our country from the Trump “government.”

Peace,
H2O Man

December 6, 2019

The Trial of Donald Trump

“ Stated simply, impeachments are no place for small minds or low politics. …..Although the House and Senate are irreducibly political, the Constitution makes clear that impeachment calls for a profoundly different mentality. ….An impeachment along political party lines would only be acceptable where the president as captured or corrupted his own political party. ....Refusing to impeach a known tyrant out of partisan self-interest would constitute a failure of governance at least as profound as urging impeachment solely for partisan reasons.”
Laurence Tribe; To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment


My daughters asked me to compile a list of the books on impeachment that I do not have, as the holiday season is upon us. Hence, my dining room table has a variety of books, including those specifically on impeachment, and those about the Nixon and Clinton eras, piling up. By way of internet, I have found that there are four on the topic that I do not have in my library.

My son thinks it's a giggle to watch me pouring through those that now force us to consume our evening meal in another room. All of my children are used to hearing me talk to myself when reading or watching television, so I suppose it comes as no surprise when I'm in the middle of a heated debate with some paragraph and the boys say, “Will you please keep it down, Boomer?” My current response is, “Get out here! You won't believe this!” The older son finds it particularly annoying between the hours of 2 and 4 am/est. Last night, he told me if I didn't stop yelling at books, he would have to make an appointment at the local animal shelter to be put to sleep.

Hopefully, this helps to explain my long and tedious essays on DU:GD.

Today, I thought I'd talk about what we might expect in terms of format if and when the Senate hears the trial of Donald Trump in early 2020. While the Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, the ritual has only two examples in our nation's history. Thus, the path the trial will take is not as well defined as, say, a criminal or civil trial.

That is important to keep in mind for several reasons. Among them is the level of “proof” put into evidence needed for a conviction. In a criminal trial, of course, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an ill-defined level. In a civil trial, it comes down to the preponderance of evidence, which means if it's 51-49, the jury may go with that 51.

But as Laurence Tribe points out, the verdict for impeachment is somewhere in between. He notes that an impeachment of a president is evidence of a national crisis. In theory, every Senator should put country first, though obviously party and personal issues may influence their decisions. Unfortunately, we see republicans putting self first, party second, and country last when it comes to all things Trump. But calling the president rude-but-accurate names in off-the-record conversations clearly isn't enough in times of national crisis.

This was anticipated. Thus, the Senators are required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution as the first step of an impeachment trial. This oath is distinct, as it is the only time a federal official is required to take an oath separate from their initial oath of office, for an official duty. This second oath is, in theory, to remind each Senator that their focus should be on country, rather than party of personal employment considerations.

The House will appoint those who will “manage” the case, acting as prosecutors. After the Senators are sworn in, the manager (or managers) will present an outline of the case. After this, the Senate calls upon the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court to oversee the case. In doing so, they remove the vice president from any role in the trial. Initially, this was done in part because the VP was whoever took second place in the election, not necessarily from the same party as the president, and who would have obvious potential conflicts of interest in the trial. More, it signals the importance of the national crisis that the Senate is tasked with resolving.

After that, the process is not defined, as noted before, to the degree that criminal and civil trials are. Thus, the Senate majority leader is in a position to exert great influence. The 2020 impeachment trial of Donald Trump will be under the influence of Mitch McConnell, a uniquely petty man who has been exclusively focused on personal power throughout his political career. His quest for power has overshadowed any beliefs of values that he may have once had.

Thus, in 2020, Mitch will be focused upon personal power, party, and country in that order. He wants to be re-elected and maintain his current position in the Senate. Knowing this, we can conclude that a fair trial in the Senate is not his priority. He wants to maintain the powers of the Elder Tortoise. Because advancing age has diminished his thought capacity, he is currently relying on his aides to help him assess the national mood.

The first thing he has them report upon is, of course, national polls. He is old enough to know that national polls on impeachment are relatively new – the first merely dates back to 1973 – and that they are rarely an accurate measure. If memory serves me correctly, a national poll in 2014 showed that the majority of Americans believed impeachment was mistakenly believed to be about the public's reactions to such things as economic policy. That is an example of the dangers of ignorance.

More important to Mitch are state-wide polls. Yet these, too, often reflect the level of ignorance that the citizens in a state – say, Kentucky – dwell within. Hence, Mitch's aides are also focusing on the levels of contacts that his flock of tortoises receive from the public. This includes phone calls, letters, and e-mails, weighted in that order. On-line petitions are given zero value.

Thus, in the upcoming impeachment trial, it is important to recognize that Mitch will no longer be representing one state. He will be working for all of us, Democrats, independents, and republicans alike, nation-wide. He will be, in other words, our employee. And it is essential that we let him know what job we want him to do – indeed, we forfeit the right to complain afterwards if we do not provide him with specific instructions.

Thus, the best thing that you and I can do this weekend is to write to Senator McConnell at the Russell Senate Office Building, 2 Constitutional Ave NE, Washington, DC, 20002, and tell him what to do. Keep in mind that even snail-mail letters are weighed differently: a hand-written letter is actually given more weight than a typed one.

Will you join me in this effort? Encourage family and friends to do the same?

Thank you for your consideration.
H2O Man

December 5, 2019

The Foreign Exchange Student

Years ago, when my daughters attended high school, we had a foreign exchange student from France stay with our family. It seemed possible that there would be more than a bit of “culture shock,” considering she came from a well-to-do background in Paris, and we live in the sticks. But from day one, it was a blast for all of us.

My daughters visited her in France this summer, and she is planning to come here next year. I always enjoyed talking about politics with her, and we continue this tradition on the internet. Since Trump “won” the presidency, there has been a lot to discuss. Not surprisingly, she says the people she knows think of Trump as a sick joke, and are concerned that the United States is experiencing a serious illness. I get messages from her that simply say, "Oh, Donald!" is a popular saying among young adults in France.

Last night, I told her to thank Emmanuel Macron for me.Her response has been laughter.

December 4, 2019

Linsey's Proposed Compromise

“The divisions among Republicans were clear on the television talk shows today as Senator Slade Gorton, a Washington State Republican, defended a plan he had drafted with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, to condense a trial into a matter of days.”
– New York Times; January 4, 1999

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/04/us/congress-returns-to-a-shadow-cast-by-impeachment.html


“I can say with 100% certainty that Senate republicans have been having these things researched, and have quoted Byrd in recent off-the-record conversations among themselves and with Democrats. They seek to justify voting to not convict Trump, and some are hoping that Democrats will accept the compromise of censure.” – H2O Man; November 22, 2019

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212718983





Yesterday, I read an OP by Miles Archer, titled, “Lindsey discusses 'bipartisan support' of a censure to spare country of 'trauma' of impeachment trial.” The OP/thread can be found at the link below:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212747026

This immediately brought two things to mind: the above quote from an essay I posted in November about an effort by some republican Senators to convince Democrats to compromise on the upcoming impeachment by agreeing to censure Trump, and the long-forgotten effort by two Senators, Slade Gorton and Joe Lieberman to convince the Senate to make a similar compromise in the Clinton impeachment case.

I thought it might be of some interest to review the Gorton-Lieberman compromise plan. This should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the plan then, or more importantly, of the plan that Graham is advocating now. Rather, it is simply to supply some historical context.

After the House had impeached President Clinton, the members of the Senate knew from the giddy-up that there was no chance of it getting the two-thirds of the votes necessary to convict. Rather, they knew that what would unfold was an ugly trial that could only serve to divide the country and damage the public's faith in the institutions of government.

Two Senators, Gorton (republican) and Lieberman (Democrat at the time), put their heads together to try to identify a way forward. The plan they agreed upon was to have the trial's “opening statements” made, to take a preliminary vote that would fail to reach the necessary two-thirds, and to formally end the trial, with a vote for censuring President Clinton.

This plan had significant support among Senators from both parties. However, when House republicans got wind of the plan, they put extreme pressure on the republican Senators to kneecap the effort. The rest is history.

Keep this in mind as the process unfolds in Washington. The fact that Senator Graham would mumble about censure as a compromise, like his saying that Russia, rather than Ukraine, infected the 2016 election, shows a divide between the Senate republicans and Trump. They know that they cannot call Trump's call “perfect.”

Peace,
H2O Man

December 3, 2019

Our House

“What do you have when a wise man argues with a fool? Two fools!”
Rubin “Hurricane” Carter; letter to H2O Man; 1974



Fairly frequently, I see an OP/thread on DU:GD about a community member spanking a Trump fan in a debate. I always take pleasure in reading these. There are a significant percentage of Trump supporters, primarily republicans but some independents as well, that not only ask for – but actually beg for – our nailing them in a manner that provides entertainment.

I read an OP/thread today, posted by a long-time good friend, about responding to aggressively ignorant Trumpets. I believe it is up to the individual to determine, based upon context, is that individual. That context includes both how the individual is feeling at the moment, and the setting of the particular incident.

Debating, and even arguing, can be fun. I grew up poor, in a family that viewed debating and arguing to be a fine art. In particular, this included arguing with our father about politics and social issues, and debating my older brothers about boxing. Being the youngest and smallest, I learned to anticipate the exact moment to stop when someone became furious, as I have never enjoyed being punched.

These days, I do have some interaction on Facebook with some old high school friends and one very distant relative who like Trump. They are furious about the impeachment process, and ready to insult anyone who thinks differently. Growing up with absolutely no social graces, I always view these as an invitation to join in on their conversations.

My angry friends like me, so they tolerate my contributions. One is a prison guard, who doesn't so much like Trump as he hates the Democrats in office. Every day, it seems, he posts some bizarre “meme” on FB. I take one to two paragraphs to explain why it is someone purposefully lying to him. I ask him if he has seen the conspiracy theory of the day reported anywhere else? Even Fox? Then I ask if he likes being lied to?

With others, I suggest that we discuss impeachment not as Democrats or republicans, but as Americans who respect the Constitution. That this will allow for discussion, rather than debate or argument, because as long as we are discussing the Constitution and its history, it can be a learning opportunity for each and every one of us.

Now, perhaps as a result of leading a boring life, since 1973 turned into 1974, I have found the topic of impeachment fascinating. And there are rational differences of opinion on a range of things contained in this document. And that is the perfect reason for studying how the section on impeachment came into being.

Most of these gentlemen have not looked at the Constitution since we were in junior high social studies class. They can paraphrase Amendment 2, but nothing else. They may still believe in the mythology we were taught in our youth, about all of the Founding Fathers being super-humans. And certainly, a few were extraordinary people, and as a group, created a great document. Yet it was a group of men committing “treason” against the English, discussing, debating, and arguing about ways to form a more perfect union.

Why, I ask these fellows, did they pick the House of Representatives to have the sole power of impeachment? How did this relate to the earlier Articles of Confederation? What other options were considered first? What is the connection between their choice of the House and the electoral college?

It may surprise you – perhaps even shock you, so I hope you are sitting down – that only one of the guys has correctly answered one of those question. And he is a republican who thinks that Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses, and needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. More, he is the only one of the guys who thinks that my proposal that we meet as a group to discuss these issues as Americans concerned about the threats to the Constitution is a good idea.

The idea of impeachment is obviously rooted in the concept that no one is above the law. The majority of the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of an American political leader who was equal to a king, after all. Within the proposed republic, the House would be the only office selected democratically (popular vote for the Senate came much later). Thus, the House served as “the voice of the people.”

Other nations and even states had taken the route of allowing their judiciary to be involved in removing an elected official. Yet the federal judges in the US were to be appointed, not elected. Hence, there could be conflicts of interest (consider Nixon), and it would not represent the will of the people.

But, you might say, neither does the electoral college. True, that. The electoral college, as we know, was a compromise to convince smaller states to join the union. What is too often forgotten is that among the leaders thinkers of the Constitutional Convention, there was the expectation that few if any presidential elections would be decided by the electoral vote. There wasn't the technology we enjoy today that allows for instant communications, nor were there but two major parties. Indeed, the electoral college was initially set up to avoid its determining the outcome; instead, “undecided” elections would be decided by the House – the voice of the people.

In other words, they believed they were giving the House the power to elect and to impeach the president. Now, this doesn't even begin to explain how it was that they picked the Senate to hear the trial, including having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court be at the head of the trial. Generally speaking, by now most of my high school friends who have morphed into Trumpets recognize that they are not able to debate or argue with me on these topics. But I'm happy to discuss these fascinating topics with them. Indeed, it is only through such discussions that they might begin to change their minds.

I think our nation requires such discussions. The House and Senate can debate the issues involving Trump and Fiends. But there is no benefit to a hostile, non-factually-based, national argument.

Peace,
H2O Man