“Newspeak”

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

How do we create dialogue on different planes of reality?

I recently had a conversation with someone who stands on the far opposite end of the political spectrum from me. When I presented a verifiable fact, the type of fact that one could argue the reason for the content of the fact, but not the occurrence of the fact itself, I was told that it did not happen. “Fake news,” I was informed. I didn’t quite know what to say, but responded with a simple, “no, it’s not.” From there we argued whether or not the fact actually happened, and this person’s veracity made me question my truth. So, I re-verified what I knew to be fact. I felt vindicated, but I also felt cheated – that I had allowed what could have been a productive conversation between two people with different beliefs to turn into an argument over the very validity of a fact. Has political discourse become nothing more than petty arguments over what a fact is?

George Orwell, in his increasingly prescient novel 1984, said, “not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

We currently have a president who has told more than 10,000 non-truths in 2.5 years. But, he is an expert at denying what we can see with our own eyes. By repeating the lie over and over, we begin to question what the truth is and, over time, our truths become different realities. When I speak about something I know is truth, there are others that believe the opposite is true. One of us believes 2+2=5, and as a result, the other loses the freedom that comes from saying 2+2=4. And while one can say they have verifiable evidence that 2+2=4 (the mathematics community, etc.), the believer that 2+2=5 has a traditionally reliable source telling them they are correct, the President of the United States. The very existence of eternal reality is being questioned. Arguing if what we know beyond a reasonable doubt as fact is true destroys all meaningful dialogue on the important topics we need to discuss as a nation.

So, how do we make sense of this and return to an age when we could discuss things productively? I believe that dialogue is important, and our lack of conversations of substance has badly harmed our country.

I think there are several things we can do to begin curing this and healing.

First, we absolutely must elect a president that holds truth to the highest standard. Someone who is honest even when it’s unpopular and hasn’t shifted their goal posts throughout their career. We will never be able to re-discover integrity, on both sides of the aisle, if we don’t demand our elected leaders possess it.

Second, we must demand that social media give us an accurate depiction of the world and political landscape so we can escape our individual bubbles. Social media is designed as an echo chamber in which we are presented with information that furthers our beliefs and shows us what we already believe, not as an actual provider of information and truth.

Third, we continue to talk, at any cost. Maybe we have to schedule these talks with others that actually want to have dialogue on important topics. Maybe we need to have a computer nearby to verify data we disagree on the validity of. Maybe we begin the conversation by finding common ground and building from there. There are very few people who believe small children should be separated from their mother, even if they don’t believe the mother and child have a right to be in this country. Are we able to get to meaningful conversation by first agreeing that children should not be kept in jails away from their family?

Fourth, we have to always remember that we have been presented with separate facts, and we do not share the same truths. The bubbles we live in are not of our own making, but they are real and we won’t pierce through them by getting frustrated or angry. So, we understand that we need the dialogue, our realities are different, but we have common ground. Then we verify facts and we demand the way we receive information is based in reality and our elected leaders are committed to the truth. Who knows, it could work.

One thing is for sure, if we do nothing, it will be a bright cold day in April as the clocks strike thirteen. 

Similar Read: Critiquing the Candidates

I Read The Mueller Report… Here is My Summary

by with 2 Comments FeaturedPolitics

I Read The Mueller Report, and Here is My Summary. 

You can read it too if you have the time:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

These are my summations and conclusions:

VOLUME 1 – Russian Meddling in the U.S. Election and Collusion with the Trump Campaign

p. 9 Mueller gave the report straight to the Attorney-General because he was ordered to do so by the original mandate. Even if, as evidenced in this memo: https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/12/20/read-bill-barrs-19-page-memo-ripping-mueller-probe/?slreturn=20190318182817, William Barr is politically compromised in favor of President Trump (a la Roy Cohn), Mueller did his job and followed the letter of the law rather than go rogue and release the unredacted report to Congress or the public. Because of decisions like this, and because Mueller did not make any brash decisions to prosecute Trump even with overwhelming evidence of obstruction (as I will summarize later), Mueller’s credibility is without blemish. This report is to be believed whether you love or hate Trump and his associates.

p. 9 The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump get elected. This is not a conspiracy, this is a fact.

p. 9 The Special Counsel’s appointment was predicated on Intelligence gathered BEFORE the Steele Dossier. So there can no longer be discussion about this investigation being illicit on the grounds of wrongly obtained FISA warrants or anything else related to the Steele Dossier.

p. 9 The Special Counsel found that Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadapoulos had met in May of 2016 with a Russian Government Agent to obtain disparaging information on Hillary Clinton and consequently started its investigation into Russian Involvement in the election in July of 2016.

p. 9 The Russian Government perceived that it could benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.

p. 10 Collusion is not a crime and the Special Counsel focused on “coordination” or “conspiracy” which would require an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. It was established that the Russian Government helped Trump and that Trump enjoyed this help, but no evidence could be found to conclude that this was planned prior to the election.

p. 12 The Russians targeted Clinton, her campaign staff, and all her major supporters spreading false information about them as well as accurate information that was damning. These operations were carried out by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which was funded by Russian Oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin (who is heavily tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin).

p. 12 The IRA started in 2014 with the goal of simply disrupting the American Electoral process and sow discord amongst the United States (the U.S. being Russia’s greatest obstacle to economic and political power). As Trump became a viable candidate in 2016, the IRA switched its objectives to helping him win after identifying him as incredibly favorable to Russian national interests.

p. 13 There were numerous communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government (which were lied about, consequently resulting in criminal indictments for many in the Trump Campaign), but the Special Counsel could not establish that there was a prior conspiracy to coordinate the many damaging releases of information by Wikileaks (via the IRA) to hurt Clinton and help Trump.

Again, The Russian Government identified Trump as the best candidate for their future success and worked to help him get elected. It could simply not be proven that Trump conspired with them towards their goal.

p. 13 Trump was trying to build Trump Tower Moscow in 2015 and lied about this during the campaign saying, “We have no business with Russia.” The deal would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump.

p. 14 On August 2nd, 2016, Paul Manafort met with a Russian Agent to establish a plan for Russia to control Eastern Ukraine after Trump’s election (while the U.S. would essentially look the other way).

p. 14 Wikileaks (via IRA) released the Podesta emails hours after Trump’s damning “grab ‘em by the pussy” video to help the Trump Campaign change the national discourse from his behavior on that bus to the DNC’s unethical behavior during the primary (which ultimately hurt Bernie Sanders’ chances of winning). This was action taken by a foreign government to interfere in the U.S. election to help Trump win.

p. 15 After Trump was elected, dozens of Russian businessmen started reaching out to the Trump campaign to set up phone calls and meetings.

p. 15 Obama sanctioned Russia for interfering in the U.S. election and Michael Flynn personally requested to his Russian contacts not to escalate the situation because Trump would likely not continue these penalties against Russia.

p. 17 The Special Counsel found a great deal of evidence for contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russia, but not enough evidence to file criminal charges. So, there is evidence of collusion, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 17 Many members of the Trump campaign lied about their Russian contacts and this is why there are so many indictments and Trump campaign members currently serving jail time.

p. 18 The Republican Party changed its stance on Russia (from hostile to friendly) in the summer of 2016, but the Special Counsel could not conclude that this was related to a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

p. 18 MANY INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PLEADED THE 5th, LIED IN THEIR TESTIMONY, OR WERE FOUND TO HAVE DELETED INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION. In other words, the Special Counsel is making decisions based on evidence it could find, but states in this report that a TON of information has been illegally discarded, including via the methods that many Republicans accuse the Clinton campaign of utilizing (acid washing email servers, destroying computers, etc.).

The Special Counsel therefore states that there could be more evidence that DOES prove conspiracy between Trump and the Russian Government.

p. 19-33 information on how the Special Counsel was formed, its jurisdiction, and information about the Russian hacking agency IRA. Most of this is redacted.

p. 33 The IRA spent $100,000 to purchase over 3,500 advertisements on Facebook that promoted groups supporting Trump and spreading false information about Clinton.

p. 34 IRA fake accounts reached tens of millions of people and attracted hundreds of thousands of followers.

p. 34 Before their deactivation in 2017, fake Russian accounts spreading propaganda in favor of Trump and false information about Hillary Clinton had reached an estimated 126 million people.

p. 35 U.S. Media regularly quoted the false information from these fake accounts as factual news, notably Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, and Michale Flynn Jr. who retweeted or cited these fake sources on network Television.

p. 37 The IRA organized hundreds of rallies via Facebook across the U.S. by having a Page administrator host the rally and then claim they could not personally attend, leaving the ground organization to the enthusiastic members of the group. The earliest evidence of this technique was a “confederate rally” in November 2015.

SIDE NOTE: Russia’s goal is to destabilize America (because America’s military presence prevents Russia from controlling major resources, trade routes, and strategic lands like the port of Crimea and Georgia which Russia annexed over the course of the Obama administration). But to accomplish this, Russia has studied the issues that sow the most division in America and have sought to fan the flames which already exist here – like racism, Confederate sympathizers, Nazi Sympathizers, the Ku Klux Klan, gun rights, Police protection vs. minority targeting, the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice battle, anti-Immigrant sentiment, religious division, etc.

Trump’s voting base is almost entirely made up of single “wedge” issue voters who only need to hear one sentence: “I support your position” to gain their votes. This is an obviously successful political strategy that plays perfectly into the goals of the Russian Government: sowing divisiveness. It may be the case that Trump is not a witting agent of Russia (although the Mueller report does not rule that out), but he is at least an unwitting agent of their agenda to get America to fight amongst itself while Russia promotes its interests globally.

p. 39 The IRA recruited individuals it believed could help further its agenda of helping Trump and hurting Clinton. It focused on individuals who could “amplify” its content.

p. 41 The Special Counsel found two definite links between the IRA and the Trump Campaign, but none between IRA and Clinton.

p. 42-65 All the hacking techniques used by IRA including how they got the data and disseminated it via Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DC Leaks.

Also outlines what actions many Trump campaign officials undertook to defraud the United States and essentially commit treason by assisting Russia/IRA.

MANY REDACTIONS here.

p. 68 Trump Jr. was communicating directly with Wikileaks about damaging information.

p. 69 The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign actually did the hacking or released the damning information, but that they simply welcomed its effect on the election. The famous Don Jr. “I love it,” email when he heard about dirt on Hillary is not evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

p. 70-73 Because Clinton did use a private email server (which was reckless, but not criminal according to the FBI), her communications that she destroyed were vulnerable and in fact had been obtained by many foreign agencies. The Trump campaign was trying to find these emails (to use against her), but this is still part of “politics as usual,” and they did not specifically coordinate with a foreign government in this regard.

p. 74-120 Outlines all the links between Russia and the Trump campaign (there are many).

p. 74 Trump Tower Moscow details (it was a very real project for years).
TRUMP WAS WORKING ON GETTING THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT DONE WELL INTO HIS CAMPAIGN WHEN HE LIED ABOUT “NO BUSINESS WITH RUSSIA.”

Was this because he was conspiring with Russian Oligarchs to win the election and then help Russian National interests? Or just because he knew it would look extremely bad if the President of the United States was doing business with a hostile nation?

Either way, the President lied repeatedly to the American people for reasons that are extremely impeachable (attempting to use the Office of the President for personal enrichment which violates the Emoluments Clause), or treasonous (conspiring with a hostile foreign power to defraud the United States).

p. 118 At the Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with Russian Agents to discuss “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. later lied about this meeting after Trump instructed him to (this is public knowledge now after Trump’s lawyer released a letter stating that Trump helped to craft the letter pretending that the meeting was to discuss adoption).

p. 131 Russians at the Republican National Convention (notably Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak) got the Republican platformed changed from “lethal assistance to Ukraine in response to Russian aggression” to “appropriate assistance.”

p. 133 A Trump representative stopped the Republican National Convention Committee from drafting a platform amendment that was tougher on Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Support for NATO was also discouraged with Trump’s representative J.D. Gordon stating that “We don’t want to start World War III over that region.”

In other words, Trump’s position on Europe and Russia is to be hands off and let them figure it out. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it goes against the US (and Republican Party) policy since probably World War II.

p. 137-152 Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, his assistant Rick Gates, and their criminal connections to Ukraine and Russia.

p. 153-181 After the election, multiple Russian Oligarchs, Businessmen, and Politicians began reaching out to the Trump Campaign through channels that had been pre-established (including the Russian embassy).

p. 182 The decisions to prosecute (or not prosecute).

p. 183 Trump Campaign did have contact with IRA, but did not do so with criminal intent.

p. 183 Many Russian hackers were charged with Computer-Intrusion Conspiracy.

p. 184-188 Almost all redacted.

p. 188 The Trump Tower meeting was not a conspiracy or a violation of campaign finance law because no evidence of any criminal intent was established. However, this meeting was lied about multiple times and has consequently yielded several obstruction of justice charges already against U.S. citizens.

p. 189 The report defines “conspiracy” (“collusion”) and says that Trump and his associates did many suspicious things, but they could not find evidence of a criminal coordination to defraud the United States. This does not mean there was NO evidence, just not enough to prosecute.

p. 190 Manafort and Gates illegally engaged in acts on behalf of a foreign principal (hence their prosecution and jail time).

p. 191 Michael Flynn also violated the same act. These men were essentially trying to sell out their country in the interest of helping other countries (for lots of money).

p. 192 There was no campaign finance law violations because the Trump Campaign never paid money for the “dirt” on Clinton and thus never unlawfully spent campaign finance money to help win the election.

p. 192-195 Essentially the June 9th 2016 Trump Tower Meeting was incredibly close to violating a Federal Law banning foreign assistance during campaigns, but the Special Counsel could not prosecute on the grounds that “recounting damning information that is historically accurate” does not constitute a “thing of value” (they then go on to define “thing of value” to prove their point).

SIDE NOTE: So there WAS a type of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian Agents, but just not technically according to legal definitions. 

p. 196-199 Redacted (this is suspicious).

p. 199-206 All the indictments because of lying to the FBI

VOLUME 2 – Obstruction of Justice Investigation of the President

p. 213 MUELLER STATES THAT HE CANNOT PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THAT ACTION IS UP TO CONGRESS. So he is only providing evidence here and it clearly points to the fact that Donald Trump obstructed justice.

p.213 MUELLERS STATES THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED (ONLY IMPEACHED), WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. This leaves the door open for prosecution once Trump leaves office.

There is a good reason for this precedent. A President could be implicated in a dozen crimes of which he is innocent and standing trial for those crimes would take all of his or her time away from the all important office and duties he or she is meant to uphold. A President’s crimes must be so egregious and obvious that Impeachment becomes necessary and this requires an enormous majority of Congress to accomplish (which also makes it a Political trial more than an evidence-based trial).

p. 214 IF TRUMP WAS INNOCENT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WOULD HAVE STATED IT. HE IS NOT.

The report on Obstruction all but states that Trump committed Obstruction on the first page, but leaves the conclusion (and trial) up to the Congress.

p. 215 Mueller outlines the main evidence for Obstruction of Justice in the first chunk of this Volume. Here are the main points:

  1. During the 2016 campaign, Trump lied publicly that he did not believe Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC when privately he was seeking even more information from Wikileaks which he knew was connected to Russia.
  2. Trump also lied about having business connections in Russia during his campaign while he was, in fact, negotiating with Russian Oligarchs to build Trump Tower Moscow.
  3. After being elected, Trump expressed private concerns that the Russia Investigation might delegitimize his Presidency.
  4. On January 27th, 2017, the day after the President was informed that Michael Flynn lied to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to dinner at the White House and demanded loyalty.
  5. On February 14th, 2017, the day after the President asked for Flynn’s resignation, the President told an advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigation would continue. Hearing this, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey (to the dismay of all of Trump’s advisors), and asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn.
  6. Trump sought to have Deputy National Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak (this is actually more proof of Russian Collusion). McFarland declined because she did not know if that was true and this letter would look like a quid-pro-quo for the ambassadorship she had just been offered.
  7. In February of 2017, Trump told Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself on the Russia Investigation. When Sessions recused himself, Trump expressed outrage and told advisors he should have an Attorney General that would protect him. Trump took Sessions aside that weekend and told him to “un-recuse.”
  8. Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed to Congress that the FBI was investigating “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election,” including any links to the Trump campaign. Trump reached out to DNI and CIA to get them to publicly dispel any suggestion the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also called Comey twice directly, against his own lawyer’s (Don McGahn’s) advice. He wanted Comey to publicly state that Trump was innocent.
  9. May 3rd, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey.
  10. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, falsely state that Comey had informed the President he was not under investigation.
  11. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation, but the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice so this was a lie.
  12. The day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by Comey’s firing.
  13. The next day, the President acknowledged in a TV interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ’s recommendation and that when he “decided to just do it,” he was thinking that “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.
  14. On May 17th, when Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the Russian Election Interference and possible ties to Trump, the President reacted to this news saying: “this is the end of my presidency” and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions resigned, but Trump did not accept it.
  15. The President tried to tell aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and could not continue. His advisors told him those alleged conflicts had no merit and were already considered by the Department of Justice.
  16. On June 14th, 2017, when Trump found out he was certainly under investigation, Trump fired off a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s investigation.
  17. On June 17th, 2017 the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had “conflicts of interest” and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out this decision deciding he would rather resign than carry out what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre (a reference to Watergate).
  18. Two days after directing McGahn to fire Mueller, the President made another attempt to affect the investigation. On June 19th, 2017, the President met one-on-one with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. He told Sessions to say that the investigation was “very unfair” to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let him move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.” Lewandowski never delivered this message, feeling uncomfortable with the request. He asked White House Official Rick Dearborn to do it, but he did not follow through either.
  19. Trump then began blasting Sessions on Twitter mocking him and letting him know his job was in jeopardy (clearly) because he was not fighting Mueller publicly in regards to this investigation.
  20. Trump edited a press statement about the June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump tower deleting a sentence that stated the Russians had “information helpful to the campaign” and stating the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. The President’s personal lawyer said the President had no role in drafting this statement, but this was later proven to be a lie. Trump helped to draft this lie to the Public about a very important component of the Russia Investigation (by itself this is obstruction).
  21. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal.
  22. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to “take a look at investigating Clinton.”
  23. In December of 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, Trump told Sessions that if he “un-recused himself and took back supervision of the Russia Investigation, he would be a hero.”
  24. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel in 2017 and that McGahn threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. Trump ordered McGahn to refute this claim publicly and make a record that this was never the case. McGahn told Trump officials (who were asking him to do this) that the reports were accurate and he would not lie. Trump later asked McGahn why he had told the truth to Mueller about Trump trying to get McGahn to fire him, and why McGahn took notes during their meetings.
  25. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, Trump’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of Trump’s “warm feelings for him” which “still remain” and for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.”
  26. When Flynn’s counsel informed Trump that Flynn could no longer share information, the President’s counsel said he would make sure Flynn knew his actions reflected “hostility” towards the President.
  27. The President praised Manafort in public, calling him a “brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” almost ought to be outlawed.
  28. Trump’s conduct towards Michael Cohen changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President’s involvement in Trump Tower Moscow, to the castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness.
  29. When Cohen started cooperating with Special Counsel, Trump publicly called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.
  30. Trump threatened witnesses in public and dangled pardons and this is still an obstruction of justice even though it was done in plain view.
  31. Trump acted in two phases: prior to being told he was under investigation and afterwards. The second phase also occurred after firing James Comey. His actions, both publicly and privately, after finding out he was being investigated demonstrate a clear motive to obstruct.

p. 220 The President’s counsel tried to stop the investigation into obstruction, but their defenses failed to provide a basis for declining to investigate the facts.

p. 220 The President is not immune from being prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice, but it is the Congress’ job to investigate and prosecute (impeachment).

The next 200 pages substantiate the above conclusions in great details.

In conclusion:

The President of the United States certainly obstructed justice and is also an unwitting (or possibly witting if more evidence presents itself) aid to Russia which is why they helped him win the 2016 election.

A New Hope (in Political Discourse)

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

Last week members of Congress on both sides of the aisle tested a new low in political discourse during hearings on financial institutions and climate change.  Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) used his time during a House Oversight Committee meeting on climate change with testimony by former secretary of state, senator and presidential candidate John Kerry to begin his questioning of “pseudoscience” by equating it to Sec. Kerry’s BA from Yale in Political Science as being also a degree in “pseudoscience.”  The entire back and forth where Kerry (for good reason) asked “Is this really happening right now?” was actually more painful to watch than even this sounds, and if you didn’t know already would leave you incredulous that Rep. Massey is also the recipient of a Masters in Electrical Engineering from MIT.

Massie Kerry Exchange

Just down the hallway, while the House Financial Services Committee was hearing testimony from Sec. of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, when he asked to be dismissed at the end of his testimony period to attend a previously disclosed meeting with a foreign dignitary, a standoff ensued where Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), whose committee had fallen behind schedule told Mnuchin that he may leave, but refused to dismiss him. The semantics were not lost on Mnuchin that the Chairwoman intended to later accuse him of abandoning the hearing without being dismissed- something he did not wish to do- eventually after the hearing descended into pettiness and already late for his other scheduled meeting, Mnuchin did leave as he was “free to do” without being formally dismissed.

Waters Mnuchin Exchange

Neither of these hearings was particularly insightful and in neither case was the member of Congress hoping to learn anything useful from the testimony.  The primary objectives were to 1) play to their respective bases by forcing extremely senior members of the current and former cabinet to listen to copious amounts of dressing down that would please their bases in much the same way WWE fans cheer when a wrestler breaks a chair over the head of WWE’s billionaire CEO, Vince McMahon.  And while many of those on the sidelines cheered and jeered one and the other, in both cases, Congress, the Cabinet and all of America got a little dumber.

But I took some hope in something else I saw this week…

A back and forth feud ensued between mayor and presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg and Vice President Mike Pence.  In a similar fashion, they are both on extremely different ends of the political spectrum- although both represent the views of very large blocs of the country and the electorate.  And yet their discourse was so much different.  It was pointed, direct, biting and civil.  People on both ends of the spectrum, in similar fashion, cheered and jeered, and both are men the media on both sides are propping up and tearing down in a personal fashion that doesn’t represent the actual men.. and yet, they remain positive, civil and focused on the issues.

As we head into this election, I’m hopeful that both Buttigieg and Pence will continue to lead us out of this race for the bottom. People on both sides have good reasons to support their candidates and good reasons to have real, honest, heartfelt and passionate fear, excitement and at times anger, but the dumbing down of our leaders has caused us to replace governance with Facebook memes, sound bytes, and personal attacks that distract us from the policies and agendas that underly our elected leaders.  You may hate or love what Pence or Buttigieg represent, but either way, the odds are that you judge them by their policies, their agendas, their beliefs and their objectives.  And if Congress could follow that example, America would be far better off.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

Reframing the Mueller Investigation

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen ZPolitics

The Mueller report has been finalized, Barr has released a four-page summary to the American people, and now the fight has been moved to Congress to determine what happens from this point on.  Barr’s summary, though it is notably not a substitute for the entire report, states that “no evidence of collusion” was found on the President himself, and the obstruction of justice case produced results that neither “indict nor exonerate” Trump.  For Democrats, perhaps, and especially those that have been counting on Mueller to save them, the outcome, at least so far, was underwhelming. Now, the focus shifts to Congressional Democrats to decide whether they should fight to have the Mueller report released and move forward with a possible impeachment or simply move on.  But it is important to see the end of the Mueller investigation for what it is: not an unsatisfying end but part of the larger process to remove Trump from office. 

Before we go there, though, it is worth looking back at what reasonable observers should have expected at this point. The Mueller investigation took 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 interviewed witnesses, and almost two years.  Over its course, it charged 34 individuals, including nine connected to the Trump campaign, though it did not ultimately bring about criminal charges for Trump.  In a lot of ways, the Mueller investigation turned up way more information than we should have expected: what was once a question about a few Russian internet trolls and Facebook algorithms now sheds so much light on the wrongdoing inside and around the Trump campaign.  As compared to past scandals, spanning from Iran-Contra to Whitewater and beyond, Russiagate was a very successful investigation: many people very close to Trump are likely to receive justice and Mueller also recommended other findings about unrelated crimes to their respective departments.  For those who want to see Trump out of office and unable to act on his regressive agenda, the Mueller investigation was hardly a failure, even if it was overhyped by some.

Still, something about it feels disappointing, which is likely to do with our own naivety than anything else.  In other words, we should have expected this to be the institutional result of all this Russia-talk. In America, it has long been said that we have two justice systems—one for the poor and powerless and one for the rich and powerful—and that alone should explain the non-result which has come of Mueller’s investigation.  Beyond that, the history we like to remember tells us a much different story than the one which is true. In school, we all learn about Nixon’s impeachment, from break-in to coverup to resignation. We learn that a popular president was eventually forced to resign by an exhaustive investigation and about how the wheels of justice turn against all who are guilty.  But just maybe we forget or are unaware of the important context that goes along with it. A lot has been said recently of the allies Nixon courted precisely because of—and not in spite of—the Watergate investigation, of people like M. Stanton Evans who said, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.” Eventually, the public turned against Nixon, despite their unwillingness to do so earlier, and the Republican Party was prompted to abandon him too.  In this way, impeachments are not like trials with Congress members as jurors, but trials in which the American people force their representatives’ hands.

Due to this reality, the lesson that transcends Nixon is that removing Trump from office through electing a Democrat in 2020 and through a successful impeachment are not necessarily two divergent strategies forward.  They are, at best, one strategy, with two divergent ends. In other words, the way to impeach Trump is not to find enough evidence to change the GOP’s view on him to obtain the votes, but to change the people’s minds enough to force the GOP to abandon him to protect themselves.  To do this, the Democrat’s private strategy must be seemingly at odds with their public choices. In effect, the bar for impeachment is much higher than the bar for voting him out in 2020: while no one who supports impeachment supports his eventual re-election, there are many Americans currently who support neither his impeachment nor his re-election.  The path forward, then, is to use the cloud of the Russiagate scandal along with the failings of the Trump presidency to fell the president, killing two birds with one stone towards getting him out of office.

On the former, the Democrats have a lot to work with: the uncertainty of the verdict of the Mueller report, it doesn’t exonerate the president, nor leave him untouched with the indictments of his former staff; its incomplete nature, as the people have not read the report and the investigation did not touch on many of issues raised since by Cohen’s testimony; and the apparent secrecy of the findings, Barr issued a summary letter when an innocence-proving-document would warrant a public release.  All of this makes up the public strategy forward for Democrats, but—though I am rarely one to warn Democrats about going too far—I would say their private agenda should be one of caution. Clearly, the evidence in the case is not overwhelming, or Barr would have had to cede such findings. Therefore, impeaching Trump on the grounds of Mueller’s investigation alone with a Republican majority in the Senate is patently impossible.  With that said, Democrats need to publicly raise the Russia questions while never quite bringing the issue to a breaking point, which would likely go against them. To the plain eye, Trump is a conman, but the burden of proof for people as powerful as he is high, and that must be understood.

The point in all this is that the left would benefit from a reframing of Mueller’s investigation from a verdict of success or failure towards a realization that this is but one step in the ultimate process.  While they should not count on the Russia scandal, the left also must never forget it: when they win, they hold all the cards to enact their agenda and keep their place. It is then up to the opposition—those who support democracy and the rule of law—to take it from them.  While legal justice requires a standard beyond reasonable doubt, electoral justice only requires 270. 

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust? 

Professional Fandom: Donald Trump, Robert Mueller, Sports, and Pop Culture

by with 2 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

Last Friday, the most anticipated political moment of the Trump Presidency occurred: The Mueller Report was completed and submitted to the Justice Department. Within minutes of the breaking news, every cable news channel, political blog, and Facebook newsfeed was flooded with a flurry of opinions without any new details. While it is a perfect example of the hyper-polarization of today’s political climate, it is also a microcosm of a much deeper trend that transcends politics. Like our interest levels in sports, music, and entertainment in general, our passion is no longer rational and under control. Due to the global reach of social media with immediate access to anything that strokes our most passionate interests, it is no longer acceptable to be a casual fan. You are required to devote a level of obsession that previously was considered psychotic.

Through social media and advancements in technology, fans of any form of entertainment have access to stoke their curiosity level from casual to knowledgeable to obsessive. There are Facebook groups, hashtags, fan pages, message boards, YouTube channels, smart apps, etc., dedicated to every cinematic or musical genre, sport, team, political candidate, and political or current event. If you are a fan of your college team, there are multiple message boards that provide in-depth analysis, recruiting updates, and behind-the-scenes stories regarding potential coaching challenges that keep you informed before any of it hits the mainstream news. If you are a fan of the WWE, you have an on-demand network that has every match, pay-per-view, or show. If you are a big video gamer, you can play every game online with people across the globe on every gaming console (Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC) that matches your skill level and personal tastes. Simply put, if you have more than a surface-level interest in something, you will be exposed to enough material to progress that interest from ‘Intrigued’ to ‘Passionate’.

Like our entertainment options, the same options are available for our political tastes. Whether it’s the cable news channels that unabashedly market to a specific political affiliation, Facebook groups and fan pages devoted to individual candidates or causes, or the pre-determined newsfeed of our Facebook page from the people we associate with, it is nearly impossible for someone with an interest in politics to not make the emotional leap from a responsible voter to outspoken advocate. As one’s interest grows, the pressure from fellow believers is to only communicate and associate with likeminded views while censuring out anything that challenges or competes with that unassailable principle. One’s community is no longer your next-door neighbours or co-workers; it’s the hundreds of people we communicate with daily across the world. In many cases, these ‘friends’ are people we have never met and will never meet in person.

As our created communities become more politically homogeneous, our tolerance for divergent views weakens. If this were a football game, we became ‘That’ fan with our face and chest painted in team colors standing in sub-freezing temperatures heckling every opposing player or fan present. No one questions our fandom, but opposing fans and even some mutual fans, will dodge us to avoid making a scene or listen to a guilt trip for being a ‘Fairweather fan’. As voters transform from the family taking their kids to their first ballgame to ‘That’ fan, the political candidates who best play to ‘That’ fan are the ones that rise to the top. Donald Trump is NOT the cause of this dynamic, he is the byproduct of it.  

President Trump is the perfect byproduct of this phenomena. For the most part, no one is a casual fan or critic of him. He uses this dynamic to provoke the (predictable) reactions from his audience. If this was a neutral stadium, he’s provoking the liquored-up super fans from both teams to go at in the stands. In a vacuum, we generally find this behavior disgusting, but the reality is we all had a hand in this. The reality is we are all guilty of being ‘That’ fan (I am guilty when it comes to A&M football, Spurs basketball, and the WWE). For some of us, it’s politics. For others, it’s a sports franchise, musical artist, or gaming community. Having passion for something is a GREAT thing, but if our passion controls our behavior and character it will continue to poison the well for future generations. 

Similar Read: A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

Not Counting Calories (Cohen And Faithful Trumpers)

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump regularly ate McDonald’s and other fast food. Each meal contained nearly a day’s worth of calories and sodium! Almost double the recommended daily dose of saturated fat and two and a half times the sugar he should eat in a day, according to US Dietary Guidelines.

When the National Champion Clemson Tigers visited the White House, the traditional catered meal wasn’t an option due to the government shutdown. Instead, Trump famously paid for their dinner… an all-out fast food buffet extravaganza! Enough food that surely broke the record for calories per person. 

Trumps eating habits would only bother one who actually took their health seriously. And one of the ways you do that is by watching your calorie intake.

Even without the bun, which is how Trump eats his sandwiches, fast food is ridiculously unhealthy. But Trump doesn’t care about that, and you know who else isn’t counting calories… beloved Trump voters just like Trump himself, they don’t care about calories. 

Even though there’s a not so shocking correlation in that the states who voted for Trump are also the most obese states in the nation, I’m not just talking about food. I’m talking about the evidence that continues to pile up against the improprieties of the Donald Trump presidency.

The Cohen interview… hearing… spilling the tea… whatever you want to call it, it’ll have zero effect on Trump voters, despite how damaging it was against the Trump presidency.

Why is this important? 

Because Trump has entrenched a cult, and not based solely on party lines; but of people who believe his acts are on the right side of history. They don’t really believe this, nor do they care. They care that Trump is a president mostly for the preservation and advancement of Whiteness, more so than any president since Reagan.

Though that’s toxic for all, it’s what they know (a White majority thinking nation) and what makes them most comfortable. Just like fast food. You see that golden arch after a long drive or long day, and no matter how much you know it will hurt your stomach and destroy your diet, you begrudgingly pull into the drive-thru line and place your order… a number 2… super-sized… with a Diet Coke, of course. 

NP

2019 State of the Union Address: Fact or Fiction

by with No Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

Various news organizations and media outlets analyzed the SOTU transcript. 

According to the U.S. Constitution, The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

President Donald Trump gave this address to a polarized Congress on Feb. 5, 2019, after a 35-day partial government shutdown – the longest in U.S. history. Topics covered included his continued call for immigration reform to the strong economy to the record number of women serving in Congress. 

Starting off his agenda, Trump states he wants to “reduce the price of health care and prescription drugs, to create an immigration system that is safe, lawful, modern and secure, and to pursue a foreign policy that puts America’s interests first.” According to POLITICO, the Trump administration has indeed lowered those costs, particularly on prescription drug prices.

Immigration reporter Ted Hesson confirmed Trump’s claim that in two years he has launched an “unprecedented economic boom.” The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported the U.S. gross domestic product has increased 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2018, but Hesson added former President Barack Obama surpassed that level four times during his presidency.

We get into a sticky situation when Trump says unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over half a century. Politico staff counter this with links to articles that say in September, unemployment fell to 3.7 percent, the lowest it has been since December 1969. Last month, the unemployment rate was 4 percent.

Trump used his usual rhetoric towards illegal immigration from Mexico, “As we speak, large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States.” The Atlantic criticized President Trump for not devoting more time to speaking on Afghanistan, trade with China, or Venezuela. They reported he “devoted 463 words to immigration and 180 to the wall—a total of 643 words on a subject where he is bound to lose.”

Looming over the State of the Union address was the approaching Feb. 15 deadline to avoid another government shutdown. PBS Newshour reported Democrats have refused to accept Trump’s demands for a border wall, Republicans are increasingly unwilling to shut down the government, and the GOP does not support his plan to declare a national emergency if Congress won’t fund the wall. 

Trump continued by stating, “Year after year, countless Americans are murdered by criminal illegal aliens.” He brought Deborah Bissell, a woman whose parents were burglarized and shot to death in their home by “an illegal alien.” The couples granddaughter Heather and great-granddaughter Madison were also present. Politifact reported there is no quantitative proof specifically documenting how many U.S. citizens have been killed. This is because we do not have a national database on murders committed by immigrants in the country illegally. 

A striking display of applause from female Democrats dressed in white in solidarity for the suffrage movement came after Trump’s comment that women have filled 58% of the new jobs created in the last year. “You were not supposed to do that. Thank you very much,” Trump joked after the freshman congresswoman erupted in applause.

The internet more specifically erupted at the manner in which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi clapped. Pelosi, who remained seated for a majority of the address, rose to her feet and clapped at President Donald Trump’s call to end the “politics of revenge.”

Although the Washington Post said Pelosi’s clap wasn’t sarcastic, it still made for some fantastic memes amidst the 82-minute speech.

A detailed fact check of the entire State of the Union address can be found at POLITICO.

Bold Ideas and Lessons Learned

by with One Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

While we all look ahead to 2020—which can be fun, that I will not deny—it might be best to start by looking back.  On Tuesday, Trump gave his second State of the Union Address, followed by the Democratic rebuttal given by Stacey Abrams.  Reading through Twitter after the address, I was expecting to find my favorite political voices pushing back on Trump’s falsehoods and rhetoric, and I did, but right before sighing and calling it a night, I found something even more profound.  It was a tweet, retweeted by an account I follow, written by Joe Kennedy. He was offering support and advice for Stacey Abrams before her rebuttal speech. It took me a minute to even understand the tweet’s context: Kennedy gave the Democrat’s State of the Union rebuttal a year earlier, at the end of Trump’s first year in office.  Aside from jokes about Kennedy’s over-application of chapstick (which he poked at in the tweet), the speech ultimately fell flat. That’s not to say it wasn’t well done, but it is to say that it appeared to be Kennedy’s opportunity to be thought of as the future of the Democratic Party, and a year later, he is not. In a very short time, the Democratic Party has experienced some pretty significant changes.  

To explain this, let us go back further, to 2015, when Hillary announced she was running for President.  Her campaign, personality notwithstanding, was essentially a promise for 4 more years of Obama: hold the line on some of the important victories Democrats had won, like Obamacare, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and legalizing gay marriage, and build on some of the things he began to do, like strengthening discrimination laws and making minor cutbacks in incarceration laws.  Then Bernie came along, then Cynthia Nixon, then Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and today, our Democratic Party has taken an entirely different form. It is being moved by a diverse array of faces, it is confronting and pushing back on its opponents, and it is insisting on bold changes. Part of this, it must be said, is due to a wholly unpopular president and stagnation in progress on health care, tax reform, and mass incarceration, which are key issues for the American public.  But it is also an important lesson in American political science. A lesson borne of our obsession with the moderate, our two-party system, and a relatively obscure idea called the Overton Window (to be explained later).

Let us start with the moderate, who is the fixation of nearly every politician who hopes to take office.  When we envision our two-party system, we imagine our microeconomics lesson on two competing hot-dog stands: if there are two hot-dog stands on a street, logic would say the best placement would be such that the two stands broke the street up into 3 equal parts.  To increase Stand A’s business in this situation, one would suggest moving closer to the middle of the street—customers who were once in the middle now find themselves closer to Stand A, while those on the edge of the street are unaffected. For an example of this kind of thinking in politics, simply look for anyone begging the Democratic Party to abandon things like Medicare for All or free college tuition in order to “appeal to the moderate.”

The problem with this opinion is that it fundamentally misunderstands how American politics work.  If we go back to the hot-dog stands, what happens in the long run if the best idea to increase business is to stay close to the center?  The answer is that we are eventually left with two stands directly next to each other—a smart reaction in the short term turns into a long-term equilibrium where very few people are happy with the inefficient placement of the stands.  Next, who’s to say that the location of the people has to be fixed? The first question ties in deeply to Clinton’s 2016 campaign; an obsession with being near the center leaves voters near the edges unhappy, and they end up staying home or voting for Jill Stein.  The answer to the second explains the importance of figures like Bernie Sanders and AOC; bold ideas, attractive messaging, and genuine desire for change has the Democratic Party promised for success in 2020 and beyond.

The best articulation of this is the Overton Window, a theory whose named was coined in the late 20th century by Joesph P. Overton, which explains just how vital the “New Left” wing of the Democratic Party is.  The theory goes that the mainstream discourse exists in a certain window, with its center being the “moderate” take, and its edges the farthest one can go without appearing extreme (and being dismissed).  Just 3 years ago, college tuition and Medicare for All fell outside this window and would have been disqualifying in a presidential candidate. The interesting thing about the Overton Window is that it is not a fixed box in space, immovable and restrictive; it is a fluid area that can be expanded, contracted, and pulled in either direction.

Bernie Sanders, through his grassroots campaign and social-media-friendly advertising, moved the Overton Window, putting M4A and other “socialist” policies on America’s radar.  In New York, AOC proved that such ideas were not simply possibilities, they were winning policy goals, as she upset a 10-year incumbent en route to becoming the youngest female ever elected to Congress.  As she leads the progressive charge, Republicans are taking notice, as many on the campaign trail made sure to tell voters they would protect their public health care. The point is not to say that the next president will pass Medicare for All or that a stronger Republican Party will not find answers to a growing swell of progressive support, but the lesson is this: too long have Democrats wholly misunderstood the game they are playing, as bold ideas populate the left, they do not weaken Democrats, they pull voters with them, making a stronger party for years to come.  

SOTU Reactions… From the Left, Center, and Right

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

The president delivered his State of the Union speech last night (2/5/19) under a different set of circumstances… with a new speaker of the House in Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic-led House of Representatives, not to forget a government shutdown looming, all eyes were on Trump. The fear of socialism, immigration, and the border wall were just a few of the many topics he spoke about.

We asked a few of our contributors to weigh in and this is what they had to say…

“In regards to the State of the Union address, I had a hard time deciphering if it was truly the annual update on the process of our Nation or a cameo-filled tribute to the President by the President, flashing all the cool things he has done. One thing I will say is the President has improved his cadence while speaking, as I thankfully didn’t cringe during the entire speech. He hid his usual brash outbursts; however, his viewpoints, particularly on the issues of the Southern border and international relations, were not the most unifying. I found it particularly offensive that he did not address, or better yet THANK, all the federal employees and contractors who worked for 30+ days without getting paid. I pray for the sake of our Nation that the President and Congress come to a middle ground so we don’t have a second government shutdown.” – Left Healthcare Professional 

“Listening to the SOTU left me angry and confused.  It felt like a lot of fluff about unity and being morally correct in the same speech he demonized immigrants.  Once again #45 finds way to instill fear instead of understanding just in an effort to get his way. I would have loved to hear about a real threat to America, such as gun control, our crippling education system, immigration reform, and police brutality.  But none of that was mentioned, just another way to push his agenda of fear.”  – Center Single Mom 

“It was much less divisive than anything we have seen from DC in months. The president remains at odds from the House, but undoubtedly he’s going to get a bounce off the floor he’s been on since January. I don’t know that it changes much in the long-term. The wall is coming – and with it will be the court challenges of what’s pretty certain to be an executive action. The Mueller probe will likely bring a House effort against the president no matter what the findings, and polarization is likely to get more poignant rather than less. But for now, the president has some breathing room, and there is still a lot left of his agenda that’s out there to capture. ” – Right Army Veteran   

Perspectives are important, from the Left, Center, and Right. We should not focus on Trump’s approval rating, which will get an inevitable bump similar to most presidents after they rally the country in their SOTU speech. Instead, we should focus on the citizens who are impacted by his leadership and the gridlock in Washington.

Do you agree with our perspectives?

Yearbooks, Racism, and Black Women

by with No Comment FeaturedPolitics

School yearbooks rarely rest on the mantle in the living room. Whenever it arrives, it’s usually thrown in a box and stashed away in the closet… AFTER you check it out to see the pics and get it signed by classmates who often leave weird notes that only you will know what it means 20 years later. So at least once, and maybe only once, you take a look at your yearbook. Agreed?  

Virginia’s Democratic Governor Ralph Northam has to resign… immediately. The Governor’s claim that he never looked at his yearbook is BS. The claim that he didn’t know where he got the nickname “coonman” is BS. The claim that he didn’t think dressing in blackface as Michael Jackson was offensive is BS. In 1984, at 25 years old, in a state with a Black Lt. Governor, not too far from Washington where Jesse Jackson was running for president of the United States, you knew better.  

After his PR team had 24 hours to prepare (they all need to be fired by the way), his press conference was awful. Instead of calming the waters, it did the exact opposite and led more Democrats to call for his resignation. If there was anything worse than his press conference, worse than admitting to wearing blackface in a different state, and laughing when asked “can you still moonwalk,” it was the willingness of Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) to publish those images in the first place. Where was the oversight? Was there such a culture of racism and bigotry that even the editorial staff and yearbook committee thought it was ok to publish?

We should note the systemic healthcare disparities that exist in this country. According to recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease and Prevention, for every 1,000 babies born in the US, 4.8 White babies die in their first year. For African-Americans, that number is 11.7. After decades of research, it’s a strong consensus that racial discrimination directly impacts many Black women and their inability to carry their baby to full term. For Black women specifically, it’s not just childbirth, it’s breast cancer detection as well. According to a study from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, Black women were much more likely to be diagnosed at later/advanced stages than White women. One might assume they didn’t have access to care or didn’t go for regular checkups and screenings. Not exactly, Black women were 40% more likely to receive treatment that did not fall in line with standard breast cancer guidelines. The list of healthcare disparities adversely impacting Black women, Black men, and Black children, backed by a plethora of research and credible studies, is beyond long.

Medical institutions such as EVMS, which let blatant racism and bigotry go unchecked from future physicians and healthcare professionals, have directly contributed to such bias and mistreatment of African-Americans in their greatest time of need, when seeking medical attention. There’s no room for such racism in this country, especially in the operating room, or the Governor’s mansion. As stated earlier, he needs to resign… immediately.