The Trump Chronicles, Volume 159; The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 6: Our First Former President Is Indicted

Posted on by
Reply

Since he first announced his run for President we’ve known that Donald Trump believes that rules and laws apply to other people and nothing he does is wrong. He is the only President to be impeached twice for clear wrongdoing; he successfully hid behind his office. But it appears his hubris may have reached its limit.

In March he was indicted by the state of New York for falsifying business records; a woman named Stephanie Clifford (stage name Stormy Daniels) claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump. Trump then directed money to buy her silence and claimed it was money paid to his attorney.

But he has since been indicted on far more serious charges. When a President leaves office virtually all his papers belong to the National Archives and special care is given to memos classified as Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. There’s always a fair amount of chaos when a President leaves office and it’s not unheard of for someone to accidentally remove documents that should have stayed. When President Trump left the White House on January 20, 2021 he directed boxes to be taken to his residence in Florida. When the National Archives noticed documents were missing they asked the Trump team to produce them. Trump refused. Trump was then issued a subpoena demanding those documents. Again he refused. He then directed his lawyers to either deny they exist or hide them to make sure they weren’t found. In August of last year the FBI obtained a search warrant as they believe Trump still has documents that belong to the National Archives; they search his residence and find 102 classified documents.

You can read the full text of the indictment here. It’s remarkably short and readable and I recommend everyone read it. Please note: if you haven’t read it and want to give me your opinion I won’t listen.

So where do we go from here? These are serious charges and he could end up doing serious prison time if he’s convicted. But he has a history of using social pressure and money to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. He’s claiming that he’s being singled out because he’s running for President and the whole thing is unfair. It’s been good for his popularity and fundraising but won’t make any difference as his case goes on.

At this point he has a few choices:

  • He can go to trial and hope to be acquitted. But he runs the risk of being convicted and sentenced. I don’t see him doing this
  • He can instruct his lawyers to bargain for a lighter sentence. In other words he pleads guilty to a lesser charge that will give him a lighter sentence. This would require him to admit guilt. Again, I don’t see him doing this.
  • He can plead “no contest.” This means he avoids admitting guilt but does not fight the charges and he accepts that he will be sentenced. Vice President Spiro Agnew famously used this plea in 1973. To the extent that this does not absolve him of the charges I don’t see him doing this.
  • Similarly a defendant can use the “Alford plea.” Here the defendant also does not admit guilt but recognizes that there is enough evidence to convict him. Once again this does not allow him to avoid being sentenced and I can’t see him agreeing to this.

So what will he do? I’ve been miserably wrong in all my predictions but I think he’ll run. Much like Edward Snowden I believe he’ll find a way to get to Russia and seek asylum from Vladimir Putin. Furthermore I believe that he kept many of those documents as a type of “currency” to get Putin to allow him in.

I know that’s a pretty serious charge but I believe nothing matters to Trump more than saving his own skin. When he was arraigned he wasn’t required to surrender his passport. If that happens you heard it here first.

The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 5: Yes, There’s More

Posted on by
Reply

While the Democratic field for the 2024 Presidential election appears pretty stable, the Republican field keeps getting bigger and bigger. Former President Donald Trump continues to be the front runner but his legal troubles continue to pile up. It appears that the other candidates are banking that at some point he won’t be able to continue his candidacy and they are hoping to be positioned to take the mantle. Some are critical of Mr. Trump, others are not. But all of them know that something will have to happen for them to have a shot.

As of now here is the lineup:

Democratic Candidates:

Republican Candidates:

The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 4: This Surprises Nobody

Posted on by
Reply

For several months now we’ve known that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was planning a run for the Republican nomination for President, and a few days ago he made it official. He’s been a strong supporter of Donald Trump and he probably hoped that Trump wouldn’t run in 2024 but instead would endorse him. Yea, I don’t think any serious person thought Trump would move over for anyone.

Unlike some of his early opponents it’s easy to see where DeSantis is planting his flag. He believes that homosexuality is evil and that young people can be “groomed” into that lifestyle. In other words he claims the need for laws that will “protect our children.” He has signed legislation that makes it illegal for elementary and high schools to teach about LGBT issues; he believes this education should come from parents and not from schools.

It is no surprise that the LGBT community and their supporters see this a way to drive them further into the closet and return is to the days of state sanctioned discrimination. The Disney corporation has expressed its opposition and this has led DeSantis to “reign in” Disneyworld. I’ll certainly have more to say about this as the campaign continues.

Here is the current lineup:

Democratic Candidates:

Republican Candidates:

The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 3: Another Hat In The Ring

Posted on by
Reply

This will likely keep happening over the next few weeks and months. Tim Scott is now officially a candidate for the Republican nomination for President. He is currently a Senator from South Carolina and is the only Black Republican Senator. You can read for yourself but he’s running on a popular platform: control immigration, restore traditional values, etc. He enjoys some name recognition partly because of his race. His challenge in the next months will be to differentiate himself from others and raise serious money.

Stay tuned, there will be more announcements in the coming days. In the meantime here is the updated field:

Democratic Candidates:

Republican Candidates:

The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 2: Voter Limitations Are Alive And Well

Posted on by
Reply

The ability to vote and choose our leaders has laid the foundation for our democracy since 1776. But not everybody has been allowed to cast a vote. We have seen, however, legal and illegal roadblocks throughout our history. Our Constitution has been amended three times to expand voter eligibility:

The 14th Amendment (1868) was passed shortly after the Civil War. Among other things it granted citizenship to former slaves and since only citizens can vote it granted voter eligibility to former male slaves.

The 19th Amendment (1920) allowed women to vote.

The 26th Amendment (1971) lowered the minimum age for voting to 18.

With the 2024 election just 18 months away we already have a candidate who wants to restrict voting. Republican Vivek Ramaswamy has proposed a change. Under his plan the voting age would be raised to 25 with exceptions for emergency responders, anyone who served at least six months in the military, or anyone who passes the naturalization exam.

This is purely a political move, a way to attract attention. Since it will need a Constitutional amendment it’s unlikely to go anywhere but it got him some publicity.

But it does point to a troubling trend. If it were to pass it would be the first time we shrank eligibility and made voting more exclusive. It’s also no coincidence that Republicans don’t poll well among young people but they do poll well among members of the military.

I predict that this will not be the last Republican attempt to disenfranchise voters they don’t like. Instead of appealing to them it’s easier to get rid of them.

Stay tuned.

The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 1: And So We Begin

Posted on by
Reply

Yes,it’s that time again. We are a little less than 18 months from the next Presidential election. We’re only six months out from the last Congressional election and 30 months since the last Presidential election and already we’re gearing for November 2024. Hard to believe that in 1960 John Kennedy announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960 and eight years later his brother Robert announced his bid for the 1968 election on March 16, 1968.

Since 2016 I’ve made a few changes. I no longer list the candidates on the left side; elections come and go and I like the continuity of keeping the look of the page the same. Also I used to list everyone I could find who was running, including independents. I started doing it to give at least some publicity to people who didn’t have the resources to run a national campaign. Unfortunately I found most of them were people in need of either stronger medication or more supervision.

The list of candidates is fluid; new people announce while others see the handwriting on the wall and drop out. As major candidates announce I’ll link to their web pages.

Democratic Candidates:

Republican Candidates:

This is the beginning of a long road. We assume several others will run but they have not announced. I’ll update when they do.

Preview Of The Election 2024 Chronicles

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes it seems like election seasons are getting longer and longer and the respite between them gets shorter and shorter. Our next Presidential election is set for November 5, 2024. For no clear reason I’ll start the “Election 2024 Chronicles” category on (or near) May 5th, 18 months before.

It’s already getting interesting. President Biden has already announced his intent to run for reelection; that’s a concern because he’s already 80 years old. Many of us have concerns about this, but frankly don’t see an alternative. If he does win in 2024 I hope he’ll spend at least part of his term looking forward to a younger successor.

I had hoped he would seek the nomination without rivals but it appears that isn’t happening. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has announced his intent to run and he’s problematic at best. He’s an attorney and spent much of his career in environmental law. That’s good but in the last several years he’s advocated against vaccines and has promoted the lie that vaccines in children make them more susceptible to autism. There’s no way he can win but he may cause some damage.

On the Republican side we already know that former President Donald Trump is running. He’s lied about so many things it’s hard to keep track but he still argues that he was cheated out of the 2020 election. He is currently under indictment in New York for bribing someone to keep quiet about their affair. There are likely other indictments to come.

Right now he is still the frontrunner despite all this. But there are several others who have also indicted they will seek the nomination, and others who we assume will make that announcement soon. They have a problem because they don’t wish to go head to head with Trump but they also want to give a reason voters should support them. My suspicion is that they are aware of Trump’s age (he’s only 3 1/2 years younger than President Biden) and hope that a health crisis will pull him out of the race.

Keep posted. I’ll have more soon.

The War In Iraq, Twenty Years Later

Posted on by
Reply

The date March 20, 2003 doesn’t sound important and most of us don’t remember where we were, but it is an important date. On that day President George Bush announced that American troops began an invasion of Iraq. It’s a good time to ask why we invaded, what happened, and where we are now.

No understanding of the invasion can be understood outside the attacks of September 11, 2001. On that morning we watched in horror as passenger planes crashed into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania (that was likely headed toward the White House). It didn’t take long before we learned that the mastermind behind these attacks was Osama bin Laden; he was in Afghanistan being protected by their government.

But not long after these events President Bush and his administration began to push the idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the attacks. There wasn’t any evidence of this and the Bush administration stopped pushing it but never completely disavowed it. Instead they pushed the idea that Saddam Hussein had both the ability to and intention of attacking us. He possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, we knew where they were, and we could confiscate them. Further, they claimed that the conquest of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Ordinary Iraqis would see us as liberators. Six weeks later, on May 1st, President Bush announced Mission Accomplished on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

In the years since then we’ve learned that none of this was true. It wasn’t a cakewalk, we weren’t seen as liberators and we didn’t accomplish the mission in six weeks. So what happened?

Today I heard an excellent podcast on this. The podcast is called On The Media and the link to this episode is here. It’s true that members of the administration “cherry picked” information that made their case and they gave too much credibility to sources who made unsubstantiated claims.

But the podcast shows that those behind this campaign felt that the only path to peace for the United States lay in “liberating” nations like Iraq and that the Iraqis suffered so much under Saddam that they would welcome us. President Bush also talked about the “axis of evil,” countries that included Iran and North Korea.

War is horrible and should be used only as a last resort. Saddam Hussein was never a threat and all we did was lose thousands of lives and leave a country that is broken to this day.

We need to remember this next time there is a call to war.

Christian Nationalism Is Neither

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been hearing a phrase in the last few years called “Christian Nationalism” and the more I hear the more I’m concerned. Don’t get me wrong: I’m proud to be both American and Christian but along with our Founders I believe that both institutions function best when they are separate.

Christian Nationalists believe that the United States was founded on specific Christian values, that we have drifted away from these values, and the only hope for our future is to reclaim and recapture them. Problem is, they tend to be pretty selective in which Christian values they embrace. So, in no particular order, here are my objections to this movement:

  • Several of our Founders practiced a Christianity we would barely recognize. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd President. He was a Deist in the sense that he believed in God but he didn’t believe parts of the Bible that spoke of Jesus’ miracles or Jesus’ resurrection. He took a razor and edited out those parts of the Gospels he believed and pasted them together in a book called The Jefferson Bible. It ends with the crucifixion of Jesus but stops there.
  • The Founders did hold strong beliefs that a person need not be a believer. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution not only allows Americans to believe what they wanted, that included having no beliefs at all. I used to work with someone who grew up in Germany. When she started working she was told that part of her salary would be paid to either the Lutheran or Catholic Church and she was asked to choose one. She didn’t want her government to give anything to support religion but was told that wasn’t an option. As an American I recoiled at this. Because of our 1st Amendment nobody is required to support any faith. Christian Nationalists would make it more and more difficult not to hold Christian beliefs.
  • They are selective in which Christian beliefs they support. They are strong in their opposition to marriage equality or other LGBT rights but they say little or nothing about Christian values about welcoming the stranger or feeding the hungry. They clearly use the Bible to back up their beliefs that exclude others.
  • They don’t know as much as they claim to know. There was movement to place the 10 Commandments in public places, arguing that this should be the basis of American values. But ask one of them to recite the 10 Commandments. In 2006 Stephen Colbert hosted a show on Comedy Central and he would interview politicians. You can read about this here and it’s good for a laugh. Stephen was interviewing Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland who proposed that the 10 Commandments be displayed in Congress. Mr. Westmoreland argued that this was something we all needed to know. But when asked to recite them, he could only name 3 of them.

At the end of the day my problem with Christian Nationalism is this: it’s not about Christianity or Nationalism. It’s about fascism. A small group of entitled people who want to ensure that their feelings aren’t hurt, who don’t want their prejudices challenged, and want to make sure “those people” know their place. I don’t believe Jesus would have any place for Christian Nationalism.

Fox News And Press Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

It’s old news that President Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020, claiming massive voter fraud. It’s also old news that Fox News claimed, particularly in the first few weeks after the election, that Mr. Trump’s claims were valid. They pushed a story that Dominion Voting Systems changed votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, thereby illegally swinging the election to Biden. Dominion provides electronic voting machines to more than 28 states.

Dominion then sued Fox News for $1.6 billion claiming that Fox knew none of the allegations were true but pushed them anyway. Today we found out that Fox News anchors sent emails to each other where they admitted that the allegations weren’t true and Trump operatives (like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell) were unreliable.

All along Fox has claimed that they are protected by New York Times v. Sullivan, a Supreme Court Case from 1964. In that case the court found that New York Times couldn’t be sued for honest reporting mistakes. Freedom of the press protects them unless it can be shown that the news organization either knowingly reported what they knew wasn’t true or they were incredibly reckless. Reckless, in this context, means that the organization went with the story while intentionally not investigating because they knew there was an excellent chance the story was wrong.

Today’s story shows that Fox News new their sources were fabricating their charges and that they went with the story fearing that they would lose viewers and make Donald Trump angry. The Constitution does not protect them.