July 10, 2018

Speculation (part 17)

Like many people here, I had no interest in watching the Trump show last night. It was a cheap imitation of when LBJ attempted to build suspense before the 1964 Democratic National Convention, regarding his choice for vice president. But President Johnson – for all of his faults – was a master politician, whereas Trump “ain't a pimple on a good man's ass” (to quote LBJ).

I was invited to sit down at a small meeting among grass roots activists in the early afternoon today. We had people from three different counties in rural upstate New York. These are all registered members in the Democratic Party, who write letters to elected representatives, make phone calls, attend public rallies, go door-to-door, and who always vote. After hearing some sad, yet humorous stories about acquaintances who do not grasp the implications of a news report in the biggest regional newspaper, that documented the unethical behaviors of a republican state senator from our region, we got down to work.

Our focus was twofold: to coordinate efforts to prevent Trump's USSC candidate from being confirmed, and plans to get the maximum possible voter turnout in support of Democratic Party candidates at all levels in November. And we even had a woman there that one of the county party's has asked to run for a town seat next year. Every election is important.

The conversation eventually turned to the Mueller investigation, and the nonsense that Rudy G has been spouting over the past few days. The main question was will Mr. Mueller subpoena Trump to testify in front of the grand jury, if he refuses to meet with prosecutors? That is an interesting question, of course, and at this point, one can only speculate. Thus, as I do from time to time, I speculated on one possibility that may prove to be true.

There are two factors to consider. The first is Rudy's seemingly unrealistic demand that Mr. Mueller provide any evidence that Trump may have committed a crime. Now, any good criminal defense lawyer is going to know what's up, if police want to interview their client – or if the client is called before a grand jury, where the lawyer can't be in the room. But this is distinct, in part because Rudy is a no-good criminal, who works on Trump's criminal defense team.

Rudy contradicts himself by saying they need this evidence from Mr. Mueller, and then claiming they already know everything Mr. Mueller has. It can't be both, and is most likely neither. They have communicated with the lawyers representing some other witnesses. But, even in that case, some have cut connections with Trump's team, and pleaded guilty. Flynn and Gates, for example, are cooperating with prosecutors. Rudy doesn't have a clue what they have shared.

The second factor relates directly to something Rudy does know. Trump dictated the original letter to fire Mr. Comey; Stephen Miller wrote it up. The White House counsel strongly advised not sending it. He did not do so because it provided evidence of how upset Trump was by the way Mr. Comey damaged the Clinton campaign. Rather, the focus was on the Russian investigation. And Mr. Mueller has a copy of that original letter. It is evidence of Trump's attempt to obstruct justice.

That letter is not the lone piece of evidence of obstruction. Rudy does know that. He also knows that the Justice Department has a policy that prosecutors do not subpoena targets of investigations to testify in front of a grand jury. If Rudy believes – or knows – that Trump has been upgraded from a person of interest to a target in recent weeks, he knows that it is very unlikely that Mr. Mueller would attempt to ignore that policy. More, if Mr. Rosenstein were to give Mr. Mueller the green light to subpoena Trump, it could serve as grounds to fire Rosenstein.

Rudy has said that the Trump team is focused upon public opinion, because they believe there will be an attempt to impeach Trump in 2019. Their activities with the media are in line with that. More, Malcolm Nance recently stated that the grand jury will soon indict more people, and that Mr. Mueller's report to Congress will identify Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator. Perhaps Mr. Nance also thinks that Trump has become a target of the investigation.

Speculation on my part.
H2O Man

July 7, 2018

Mueller vs Manafort

Mr. Mueller's team has evidence that Manafort's bank fraud case is indeed tied directly to the Trump campaign. See:

https://wgno.com/2018/07/06/manafort-bank-fraud-trial-does-have-trump-campaign-connection-muellers-team-says/

Call it speculation on my part, but I bet this will be a big story this weekend. This makes, I believe, two days in a row that Team Mueller has filed court documents on Manafort. Today's appear to me to be more significant than Thursday's.

July 5, 2018

Church vs State

“... but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
-- Article VI, Clause 6; U.S. Constitution


Charles Pinckney of South Carolina introduced this clause to Article VI, because he was aware of the dangers that “religious tests” posed to true democracy. He understood this, because he had witnessed not only the experience of the Church of England's control, but also various states – including his own – restrictions. These included allowing only christians, often only Protestants, and sometimes only conservative Protestants, to hold office.

While Clause 6 only applied to the federal government at that time, it serves as definitive proof that the Founding Fathers sought to build a wall between church and state. The clause was passed without any serious opposition, despite the fact that Pinckney did not promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Thus, even before the Establishment Clause of Amendment 1, we see that the framers of the Constitution were intent upon separating church and state in terms of the federal government.

Today, we are witnessing the gross violation of this original intent. Despite White House puppets saying that Trump is not asking potential Supreme Court Injustices about Roe v Wade, it is well-documented that he is picking from a list of candidates that were approved by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Both of these groups favor only those who share their religious views on abortion. More, Trump himself said that overturning Roe v Wade would be the inevitable outcome of his selecting Justices.

Clearly, any objective person would recognize this as a violation of Clause 6. And it bends the Establishment Clause to the breaking point. It seeks to impose a minority's religious views upon the majority, including religious and non-religious citizens. It is, in a literal sense, no different than if President Kennedy had sought to make the Catholic Church's rule of “no meat on Fridays” a federal law, by having the Knights of Columbus screen potential nominees. (Luckily, God changed his mind about that dietary restriction.)

Women's health care is not an issue for religious fundamentalists to decide. That includes access to abortion, as well as birth control. By their very nature, fundamentalists have very unhealthy beliefs on sexuality – starting with their own, and spilling over onto everyone else's. But a combined church and state never stops at a woman's vigina. It seeks to dictate everything from the bedroom to foreign policy.

If I am facing a medical crisis – or even basic health care – I'd much prefer the doctor goes by science than religion. If I am involved in a legal battle, I would prefer that it is determined by criminal or civil law, than by someone's religious beliefs. That provided justice in Muhammad Ali's Supreme Court victory over Uncle Sam, where fundamentalist christians sought to impose their rigid belief system upon a man with sincere minority beliefs. And, considering the long history of “religious” wars, I damned sure do not want fundamentalist religious beliefs determining US foreign policy in, say, the Middle East.

For these reasons, I am doing everything I can to stop Trump from packing the US Supreme Court.

Peace,
H2O Man

July 4, 2018

Working Class Hero/ Peasants Revolt

“Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be.”
John Lennon


I started paying close attention to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's the day that I saw a film clip of her outstanding campaign commercial. After listening to her speak a few more times, even though she was considered an underdog, I thought that there was a chance that she'd pull off the upset. One of the things I was most impressed with was her consistently saying that she represents working class values.

On a few conversations here, I noted that I like her history and her platform. I admire her ability to reach people while campaigning. And I believe her working class values reflect a significant part of the soul the Democratic Party had when I was young, and needs to recapture. She has said that she is an FDR Democrat. She worked for Senator Kennedy She supported Bernie in 2016.

Alexandria went to Standing Rock and Flint in 2016. She was an early visitor to the southwestern border, to advocate for families seeking asylum in the US. She is highly intelligent, a talented organizer, and an extremely hard-worker. She is talented in delivering that powerful message during the flood of media attention that she is getting. And she got a lot of voters that normally do not vote in primaries to the voting booth. It's obvious that she is a working class hero who represents the values and beliefs of a significant portion of our Democratic Party.

The response to Alexandria's upset victory over one of the most powerful Democrats in the House was telling. Rep. Crowley displayed the type of class that one can only hope to see, in congratulating and endorsing Ocasio-Cortez. Trump showed an utter lack of class, by taking a cheap shot at Rep. Crowley, and pretending to be happy Alexandria won. His ilk are hoping that Ocasio-Cortez represents a fracture-line within the Democratic Party that they can exploit. In fact, she represents just the opposite.

The number of losses that we have suffered in state and federal elections over the past decade or so is unacceptable. We should never be comfortable with continuing down the same path that put the majority of Americans in this intolerable position. Continuing to engage in the same thinking and actions that allowed Trump to “win” in 2016, and damage the social fabric every day since, is insanity. And only those who are comfortable in losing could possibly argue otherwise.

The media's reaction to Alexandria's impressive victory has included nonsense about it posing a threat to Democratic Party unity. Some want to ignore Joseph Crowley's endorsement, which demonstrates unity, and pretend this impressive victory represents a challenge to unity, when it is clearly proof of the power of a unified Democratic Party. Having progressives like Alexandria winning in some districts does not translate into their demanding to be in the driver's seat. Rather, it means if your driver makes a wrong turn to the right, they be willing to listen to their passengers.

Rep. Crowley was not alone among Democrats in DC that have for years accepted corporate contributions. He accepted an average of $3 per election cycle from Wall Street, big pharma, and luxury land developers. In fact, many of his biggest contributors are the exact same as those who funded the Trump campaign. Alexandria simply said that there is another alternative – let's try turning left, and finance campaigns with grass roots' contributions. And the people in the 14th district agreed.

When a candidate's campaign is financed by people, that politician works for the people. If a candidate's campaign is paid for by “big business” – such as the Blackstone Group – that politician becomes an employee of big business. It is as simple as that, and the proof is found in Washington, DC. This is a truth that should not be viewed as a threat to the Democratic Party, but rather as an opportunity to institute change. Economic injustices cannot be gained without turning in that direction.

To get people to contribute to Democratic candidates' campaigns – including donating time and money, and showing up in large numbers at the voting booths – we need the energy and excitement brought by knowing that everyone has a stake in the game, and will have a seat at the table after election day.

Voter participation among blacks and Hispanics was down in 2016, from where it had been in the two previous presidential elections. Many of the young voters who participated in the 2016 Democratic primaries sat out the general election. And too many white people – including Democrats in key states that decided the election – voted for the charlatan All of this is unacceptable. But rather than taking a stick-in-the-mud approach that lays all responsibility for the many loses the Democratic Party has suffered in recent times upon those voters, the party's leadership needs to take their fair share.

If things are as bad as most people here think they are – and I believe they are far worse – than we do not have the luxury of being divided by petty resentments. And that includes groups such as the supporters of both Bernie and Hillary who continue to lay blame and responsibility for our troubles at the feet of the other group. Indeed, it is that shallow thinking that poses the largest stumbling block to potential progress.

Although Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “merely” running in New York State's 14th Congressional District, she is creating the type of excitement that our party desperately needs. The media attention she has had since winning her primary demonstrates this. The republican machine will attempt to use her as a means of dividing our party. And they will use the media in their attempts. Don't fall for that trap.

Again, divided we are like individual fingers that our enemy can easily break. United, those fingers form a powerful fist, capable of protecting all of our interests.

Happy 4th of July!
H2O Man