Category Archives: Trump Chronicles

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 134: Props to the Whistleblower

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been quite a week and there’s lots to unpack. In my last post I suggested that we need to reconsider impeachment, even if probably won’t lead to the Senate removing the President from office.

None of this would have happened had not a civil servant (the whistleblower) read the transcript of a phone call. Our President, never one to care about anyone other than himself, has called this civil servant almost a spy and suggested he (or she) committed treason.

The Republican response is no more responsible. They claim that since the whistleblower was not on the call, anything he says is hersay and this needs some unpacking.

When someone testifies in a court of law, he (or she) can only testify to what he saw or heard. For example, if I witness a robbery I can testify to that. But I can’t testify that I overheard someone tell another person that he committed the robbery. That’s hearsay.

But here’s the problem: the whistleblower isn’t testifying: he’s reporting. His report doesn’t claim there was a crime or an impeachable offense, only that there might be something that bears a look.

Let me draw a parallel from my own life: because of my job as a hospice chaplain I’m known as a “mandated reporter” for elder abuse. If I see or suspect abuse I’m required by law to report it to the authorities. Nobody gets in trouble for what I report and all it means is that someone will investigate.

That’s what the whistleblower did. He reported his concerns to the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General.

Stay tuned. More later.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 133: Reconsidering Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

Six months ago I wrote that impeaching President Trump probably wasn’t a good idea. At the time (a month before the release of the Mueller Report) we suspected much but knew little.

The report’s release stopped short of accusing the President of a crime, but also didn’t exonerate him. The President, of course falsely claimed it did exonerate him and most Republicans sided with him. I still believed impeachment wasn’t a good idea.

But the events of this week have cause me (and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to reconsider. In the last week we learned that someone in the intelligence community read a transcript of a phone conversation between the President and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019. This person became so alarmed by what he read that he wrote a report to the Intelligence Community Inspector General raising the possibility that the President implied that he would sell anti tank missals to Ukraine in return for Ukraine investigating Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

These reports are often called “whistleblower” reports and this public servant has become known as the “whistleblower.” We don’t know who this person is.

The “transcript” he read isn’t a verbatim transcript but a report written by someone was listening to the call. You can find a link to the transcript from the White House page.

This is pretty common and most of these transcripts are classified. They aren’t normally shared with the public, but they are shared with members of Congress. But here the administration attempted to block it from Congress. It didn’t work and the White House eventually released it.

So where does this leave the question of impeachment? Good question. Democrats, and even a few Republicans, have reacted with alarm. Not surprisingly, the President insists this is just another witch hunt and most Republicans are ducking for cover or supporting the President. The idea that, if impeached, the Senate would vote to remove him is pretty remote. While the House can impeach with a simple majority, the Senate needs a 2/3 majority to remove him from office.

When President Bill Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office, in 1998 there was a backlash and his popularity increased. The President’s opponents have a well founded fear that this will aid his re-election next year.

But on the other hand, if we allow him to continue with this behavior, I believe we are tacitly complicit. The Republicans in Congress have shown a breathtaking amount of cowardice in the face of wrongdoing. If nothing else, impeachment and removal will force them out of the shadows and explain to their constituents and the American people why they support this President.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 132: Cokie Roberts is Praying For You (and I’m Trying)

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I posted about the death of Cokie Roberts (1943-2019). As you can imagine people from around the world have posted remembrances and condolences.

President Obama said this: “Michelle and I are sad to hear about the passing of Cokie Roberts. She was a trailblazing figure; a role model to young women at a time when the profession was still dominated by men; a constant over forty years of a shifting media landscape and changing world, informing voters about the issues of our time and mentoring young journalists every step of the way. She will be missed ― and we send our condolences to her family.”

President George W. Bush said this: “We are deeply saddened that Cokie Roberts is no longer with us. She covered us for decades as a talented, tough, and fair reporter. We respected her drive and appreciated her humor. She became a friend. We know Steve, their children, and grandchildren are heartbroken. They have our sincere sympathies.”

Meanwhile, our current President (who must not be named) said this: “I never met her. She never treated me nicely. But I would like to wish her family well. She was a professional, and I respect professionals. I respect you guys a lot, you people a lot. She was a real professional,”

Way to make it about you.

The Trump Chronicles Volume 131, The Money Chronicles Volume 18: More Tax Cuts?

Posted on by
Reply

A year and a half ago I argued against the Republican belief that cutting taxes will benefit the economy and pay for themselves. Granted, tax cuts can increase consumer spending in the short run and that’s good for the economy. But it also balloons the budget deficit and the national debt.

Now, in August of 2019, we see signs of an upcoming recession. This is nothing but bad news for President Trump as a recession would likely doom his reelection.

Hoping to stave this off, in the last few days he’s suggested another round of cuts to payroll taxes (in fairness, as I write this, he now claims he’s not considering it). Then again, since he reacts to the last thing he saw on Fox TV who can tell what will happen?

There are times when higher deficits make sense, and President Obama’s quick action to recover from the Great Recession added to both the deficit and the debt. Ironically, this led to a recovery that lasts to this day, and a recovery that President Trump claims credit for.

But our economy rises and lowers, booms and busts. Frankly we are overdue for a downturn. President Trump clearly hopes not so much to prevent the inevitable next recession as to delay it until after the election 15 months from now.

But here’s the problem: his proposed payroll tax cuts work like taking cash advances on your credit card. Responsible consumers sometimes use cash advances in a short term crisis. But responsible consumers know that they need to plan a path to their repayment. Maybe the need cash to relocate for a better job or make a necessary purchase. Irresponsible consumers, who don’t have a repayment plan, learn eventually that they’ve dug a hole they can never climb out of.

Unlike the United States, irresponsible consumers can declare bankruptcy. Our nation can’t.

And we are led by a President who has declared bankruptcy six times.

Can somebody tell him that the United States economy can’t?

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 130: You Should Read This Book

Posted on by
Reply

I just finished Daniel Okrent’s book The Guarded Gate. Here’s what I’ve learned:

This was not an easy book to read, particularly to those of us who follow the news. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species that found that plants and animals change and develop to adapt to a changing world. In the decades that followed, many people asked the question as to whether humans do the same.

It’s a decent question and we’ve found that skin color has changed incrementally over millennia based on our distance from the equator and sunlight. We all began in Africa with dark skin because of the sun: we needed dark skin to block skin cancer. But as a species we migrated to areas where the sun was not as intense, areas that we now know as Northern Europe and Scandinavia. Those migrants needed lighter skin because they needed the Vitamin D that the sun provided. And over thousands of years they developed exactly that. The different skin colors between Africans and Scandinavians had everything to do with the sun and nothing to do with anything else.

But in the decades after Darwin this debate took a horrifying turn: a number of Americans took Darwin’s theory to argue that people from certain countries were “good” and some were “bad” based on skin color and where they were born.

From the late 16th Century much of what we now call America saw a huge influx Western Europeans. In 1776 we declared ourselves independent from Europe (England) and opened our shores to all who wanted to come, not thinking much about skin color (except for the slaves we brought here in chains but that’s grist for another post). This lasted until 1882 when we decided that we didn’t want to include people from China.

Shortly after this descendants of Western European immigrants feared they would lose their wealth and their identity because of current Eastern and Southern European immigrants. With calls of “Keep America for the Americans” they decided that some immigrants were good and should be welcomed and some were bad and should be banned. They claimed science on their side and named their belief “eugenics.”

Daniel’s book documents this belief that Europeans could be divided into three groups: Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans.” With no evidence they claimed a hierarchy: Nordics were good, Alpines were suspicious, and Mediterraneans were inferior. In no small part they recognized that Nordics had fair skin and fair hair while Mediterraneans had olive skin and dark hair.

In 1924 Congress passed (and President Coolidge signed) a law that placed horrific quotas on immigration from different nations of Europe. I encourage you to read the book but basically they wrote this law that set up immigration quotas from each nation. Those from Northern Europe and Scandinavians enjoyed generous quotas (including, by the way, President Trump’s mother who came from Scotland in 1930) while those from Italy, Austria, and the Balkans were essentially shut out.

The horror of this law wasn’t realized until the 1930s when Jews from Europe frantically attempted to flee Nazi Germany and were turned away from our shores because of their misfortune to come after their quota had already been met. Thousands were turned back where they perished in concentration camps. If you don’t think this has real consequences, read about the St. Louis.

Today, day after day, we see that men, women and children come to our borders. They are desperate to flee because of the same fear that Jews faced in the 1930s. They don’t face antisemitism but instead face death threats. Their fathers, brothers, sons, and grandsons face threats from local gangs who demand that these young men join their gang or face death.

They don’t want to join gangs and they began a long and dangerous journey in the hope of a place of safety: the United States. They want what our ancestors wanted. But when they arrive at our border they are seen as “invaders” who want to “take our stuff.”

In 2019 we cannot condemn xenophobia in the 1920s and defend xenophobia today.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 129: Thoughts on Gun Violence and Mental Illness

Posted on by
Reply

News reports about mass shootings have become part of our lives ever since Columbine in 1999.

And the reaction to these shootings has divided our nation. Many of us look to gun control. We believe that military weapons were designed to kill a maximum number of people in a minimum amount of time, and don’t they belong in the hands of civilians. Others claim that these weapons of max destruction aren’t the problem. Instead they suggest that these massacres are the result of bad people or bad circumstances, or…whatever. In the last several years they have settled on a scapegoat: people who struggle with mental illness.

One some level I understand their choice: while we’ve found success in treatments for our kidneys, hearts, and pancreases we had a much harder time with brain disease. Gun control opponents have seized on this opportunity to claim that we should continue to allow military grade rifles for all those except who are mentally ill. After the shootings the President said this: “[W]e must reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence, and make sure those people not only get treatment, but when necessary, involuntary confinement. Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.”

So here’s the problem: nobody knows what level of mental illness should block someone from buying or owning a gun. Simply put, opponents of gun control point to a problem with no solution and celebrate the appearance of concern.

If we’re not good at treating mental illness, we’re even worse at diagnosing it. The idea that we can predict the next mass shooters while treating those who suffer but aren’t a threat is, frankly put, a myth. People who live with (among others) depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia normally do more damage to themselves or their immediate circle of family and friends than they do to large numbers of strangers.

Recent massacres in Gilroy, California, El Pao, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio have made my point. None of these shooters would have been classified as mentally ill.

And even if you don’t buy my argument that we can’t predict these mass shootings, I’ll also argue that this will make it harder to provide treatment to those who suffer from mental illness.

How do we classify mental illness? We already have a “cannot purchase” list, but these are primarily those who have felony convictions, are on terrorist watch lists, or have been convicted of domestic violence.

But the term “mental illness” is much more fluid. Do we include only those who have been involuntarily institutionalized? What about those who have been voluntarily institutionalized? What about those currently in the care of a psychiatrist? Or those formerly in the care of a psychiatrist? What about those currently in the care of a psychologist? Or those formerly in the care of a psychologist?

Do we include those who participated in a depression support group? How about those who participated in a grief support group?

Many who suffer refuse to ask for help because of a well founded belief that they will be unfairly labeled as weak or crazy and will put themselves at risk of discrimination. Now imagine a troubled teenager who comes from a family who hunts. He knows that if he asks for help he may well be put on a database that prevents him from purchasing a gun.

We already have reasons for people to fear mental health treatment, we don’t need to create another.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 128: Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un

Posted on by
Reply

After World War II the Korean peninsula was divided into North Korea and South Korea. During the Cold War North Korea aligned with the Soviet Union and South Korea aligned with the United States. Five years after the end of World War II the Korean Peninsula became the first flashpoint of the Cold War when North Korea and its ally the People’s Republic of China invaded South Korea.

The United States and several other United Nations countries fought back. Nobody won the war and on July 27, 1953 both sides signed an agreement to stop fighting. Technically, the Korean War never ended.

Since 1953 North and South Korea have lived an uneasy peace. The border between their nations soon became the DMZ or “demilitarized zone.” The DMZ has famously become the most heavily armed border in the world. Both nations faced the fear of an invasion from the other side.

This uneasy balance was upset in 2005 when North Korea announced it had developed nuclear weapons. The United States developed the nuclear bomb during World War II and used it to force the Japanese to surrender in World War II. A few years later the Soviet Union developed similar nuclear capabilities. For the next three decades most of the world accepted the fact that these two superpowers had the capability to destroy the world and prayed they wouldn’t.

But other nations also worked to join the “nuclear club.” We’re not entirely certain who belongs to this club, but North Korea’s announcement ushered in a new concern. North Korea did well after the Korean War under the sponsorship of the Soviet Union, but when the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991 it was no longer able to support North Korea (or Cuba, or Poland, or, well, you get the idea).

Famously they suffered a famine in the 1990s caused by a combination of lack of Soviet support and unusually high rain levels in 1995 and 1996. North Korea also insisted they didn’t need help. There’s no way to know how many North Koreans starved but it’s agreed it was substantial.

By that time the first ruler of North Korea, Kim Il Sung (1912-1994) had died and he was succeeded by his son Kim Jong Il (1941-2011) who oversaw the nuclear program while refusing international aid to feed his people.

This caused a great deal of concern with the rest of the world as North Korea was seen as both unstable and dangerous. Anyone who develops nuclear weaponry can use it. It was generally assumed that Kim Jong Il desperately wanted respect and “a seat at the nuclear table,” and it was not given. He was treated by most of the rest of the world not as an adult but as a nut case. We feared this unstable leader would use his nuclear power as a lethal temper tantrum.

But in 2011 Kim Jong Il died and was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Un (b.1983). He was incredibly young and inexperienced and we all held our breath. At the time the United States was led by President Barack Obama. Like his predecessors President Obama worked hard to encourage a stable North Korean government.

And it all changed on January 20, 2017. Donald Trump entered the White House and decided he was the man to “fix” North Korea. And that’s fine except instead of negotiating with Kim Jong Un, he craved North Korea’s approval. In fairness he did once refer to Kim as “Little Rocket Man” in 2017 (and leaving himself open to be called Honky Cat) but hasn’t done that since.

Instead he now speaks about how they “fell in love.” Last year I wrote about this and explained that Kim gave away nothing and Trump cancelled joint exercises with South Korea to prepare for a possible North Korean invasion.

This has to stop. Kim has figured out that he doesn’t need to give up his nuclear status while at the same time ensuring that the United States won’t confront him on anything substantial.

Meanwhile he has turned his back on our allies. A year ago he called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dishonest and weak. The next month he turned on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, saying Germany has made itself a captive to Russia. And most recently he called Britain’s Prime Minister Teresa May foolish.

Let’s face it: we have a president who craves the approval of dictators and turns his back on our allies. The 2020 election can’t happen soon enough.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 127: My Biggest Fear

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written volumes on how I’m concerned that President Trump is causing real and lasting danger to our nation. Today I read an article on CNN that spells out my biggest fear: what happens if he is defeated in 2020 and refuses to leave the White House?

In a previous post I spoke of his belief that he won the popular vote and he was the victim of voter fraud. Nobody with any knowledge of the election believes it, but he’s been able to convince many of his supporters that he’s right.

So what happens if he loses the 2020 election and makes the same claim of voter fraud? What if he refuses to leave the White House and calls his supporters to come to Washington DC and set up a perimeter around the White House?

The mark of a true democracy turns not on the inauguration of its first president, but its second. It’s worth noting that our first president, George Washington (1732-1799) served two terms and declined to run for a third term. He passed the mantle of the presidency to John Adams (1736-1826).

President Adams served only one term, being defeated in 1800 by his vice president Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). President Adams, though sorely disappointed, handed the keys to President Jefferson.

In the 219 years since that handoff we’ve seen it replayed countless times. In my lifetime I’ve observed Gerald Ford (1913- 2006) handing the keys to Jimmy Carter (b.1924), Jimmy Carter handing the keys to Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), and finally George H.W. Bush (1924-2018) welcoming Bill Clinton.

It’s never easy to pass these keys to someone who the voters chose over you, but all these men respected the will of the people and they acted with grace and a respect for the office.

I fear that the current occupant of the oval office will not act with either grace or respect. I fear we will find ourselves in a crisis that we used to believe belonged only to lesser nations. I fear that our current president will care nothing for our history, our democracy, and our tradition of peaceful transfer of power. I fear he will declare himself “president for life” that will lead us into chaos.

I pray I’m wrong.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 126: Thoughts On the Electoral College

Posted on by
Reply

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution outlines the role of the Executive Branch. There we find the Electoral College. When we vote for President we select electors who meet to elect the President.

This allows for the unlikely possibility that the majority of Americans may vote for one candidate while the electors may choose another candidate. But this is exactly what happened in 2000 and 2016. Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to President George W. Bush in the electoral college in 2000. In 2016 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton also won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.

Because this happened twice in 16 years, and both times sent a Republican to the White House, some are calling for the end of the electoral college and electing the President on a straight popular vote. Proponents of eliminating the electoral college argue that this unfairly benefits states with smaller populations. States send electors to the electoral college based on the number of Representatives plus Senators. For example New York sends 29 electors because they have 27 members of the House of Representatives and 2 Senators. South Dakota sends 3 electors as they have 1 member of the House of Representatives and 2 Senators. My thanks to Linda Monk in her excellent book The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution. She broke down the data and showed that one elector in South Dakota represents 232,000 people while in New York one elector represents 550,000 people.

Candidates for President know this, and the electoral college drives much of where they decide to campaign. I can’t tell you how many of my fellow Californians complain that candidates ignore us, except when they need to fundraise. California sends 55 electors, but it’s a safe state for Democrats and the Republicans see no point in campaigning here. Likewise, Texas sends 38 electors but it’s a “safe” Republican state.

So what states do the candidates care about? That’s actually more complicated than it sounds.

Each Presidential election comprises two parts: getting the nomination and winning the election. And the strategies are different. Most states select their nominees through primaries and they hold both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day. With the exception of a sitting President running for reelection, most primaries begin with several candidates and the field winnows with each primary. All candidates know that winning early primaries gives them an advantage in popularity and fundraising. This works well for the first three states who hold primaries: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

But once the nominees are chosen, the calculation changes. Now the candidates turn to states with relatively large populations where the numbers of Republicans and Democrats are relatively close: Ohio (18 electors), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10). These five states send only 93 electors out of 538 but they make the difference between victory and defeat.

So what happens if our President was elected only the popular vote? Defenders of the electoral college argue that the candidates would focus only on large population centers: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston (my city of San Diego ranks 8th). Rural areas would be totally ignored.

I’m not certain that’s true. Our campaigns have become so nationalized that all of us see the candidates wherever they are. And speaking for myself, I’m just as happy not to have candidates creating havoc and gridlock when I’m trying to get to work.

I recognize that I would be bombarded with campaign mailers, but does it really matter if my recycling bin is filled at the expense of a recycling bin in Ohio?

And yes, at the end the day we can only eliminate the electoral college by amending the Constitution. It’s a long process. A bill would have to be introduced to Congress and get a 2/3 majority in both houses. Then it goes to the states where 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to approve. Of our 50 states, 38 would have to approve it, meaning that 13 states could block it.

Just some thoughts on a Wednesday evening.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 125: Speaker Pelosi is Right About Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

Nearly from President Trump’s election there has been a move to impeach and remove him from office. His ongoing lies, abuses of power, and disregard for the rule of law has only provided fuel for this growing fire. As I write this we read daily about various investigations of him, those around him, and the things they’ve done.

Pair this with the fact that most voters in 2016 voted for Hilary Clinton and others and it’s not hard to understand this. But for the first two years of his presidency Mr. Trump didn’t need to worry about this since his party controlled both houses of Congress. Simply put, the Democrats could complain all they wanted but they were powerless to do anything about it.

That changed in November when the Democrats won a majority of members of the House of Representatives though Republicans claim a slim majority in the Senate.

So here’s the problem: removing a president from office requires a two part process and states that a president can only be removed for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” He (or she) can be impeached (by a simple majority in the House) and removed from office (by a 2/3 vote of the Senate). You can read this in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Our founders purposely made this hard to do.

In our history, two presidents have been impeached but neither was removed from office: Andrew Johnson (1808-1875) and Bill Clinton (b.1946). I believe neither of them should have been impeached.

President Johnson came to office in what could be argued was our lowest point as a nation. He took the oath of office a few hours after the death of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), a few days after the end of the Civil War. Shortly after this, President Johnson began to feud with the Cabinet he inherited. He wanted to implement President Lincoln’s plan to generously welcome back the Southern States. But many Republicans, including Secretary of State Edwin Stanton (1819-1869) advocated a much harsher Reconstruction. Recognizing this conflict, Republicans in Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act over the president’s veto. It prohibited him from firing a member of his cabinet without Senate approval; it’s been a tradition before and since that the president needs the Senate’s advice and consent to name a member of his cabinet but that they serve at his pleasure and can be removed at any time, for any reason (or no reason). With his belief that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional, President Johnson attempted to fire Secretary Stanton. By a vote of 126 to 47 he was impeached. But when it moved to the Senate he was kept in office when the vote of 35 to 19 wasn’t enough to remove him from office (it’s worth noting that 35 voted to remove him, but 36 were needed).

President Clinton came into office in 1989, after 12 years of Republican presidents. People who didn’t like him referred to him as “Slick Willie” and criticized his wife for keeping her maiden name. In 1992 we learned that Bill and Hillary had lost a great deal of money investing in a real estate deal called Whitewater and an investigation was initiated. Eventually a woman named Paula Jones accused him of sexual harassment. President Clinton has always denied her claims, and during an appearance before a grand jury he was asked if he ever had sexual relations with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. He had a legal, but inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. But he denied the affair, and lying to a grand jury is a crime. The House impeached him by a vote of 228-226. But, like President Johnson, the Senate refused to remove him from office, voting 55-45 to keep him in office.

I argue that neither should have been impeached because neither of their offenses constituted an abuse of power. Much of the rhetoric surrounding the American Revolution found its voice in the tyranny of King George III (1738-1820) and I believe our Constitution provides the opportunity to remove a President if he abuses his power. President Johnson challenged an unconstitutional law and President Clinton lied to prevent embarrassment.

Two years into the Trump presidency we have reason to believe he has abused his power but we don’t have proof. There are some things he may have done that were wrong but not an abuse of power: he may have lied about the value of his properties to enable him to borrow money (for example). This is clearly a crime but it’s not an abuse of power. He can be held to answer for this when he leaves office, but I don’t this should cause his removal from office.

On the other hand we see allegations that he may have broken the law to abuse his power. Investigations in place look to the possibility that the president conspired with the Russians: in return for them to post fake social media that put Hilary Clinton in a bad light (in the hopes that voters would believe this and vote for Mr. Trump), President Trump would ensure a more cozy relationship with the United States.

But we don’t have all the facts yet. If our suspicions come to light, from the Mueller report or some other source, Speaker Pelosi and I will change our minds on impeachment. Only then will we support impeachment and removal from office.

Only then.