WILL ONE MAN TRUMP THE LAW?

 No President is above the Law.  In fact, every President has the solemn obligation by oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  In most circles that would mean obeying the Constitution and protecting it from denigration, undermining, violation or overthrow.  A President who puts his own personal and political status or success or business above what the Constitution summons him to do, who calls on foreign nations to interfere in the internal workings of this government for his own political benefit, would be in violation of that oath and make him a candidate for impeachment.

Likewise, legislators and officeholders have taken on the same obligation by their oath to uphold that same Constitution.  When legislators attempt to derail a unique and indispensable obligation endowed to their House by raiding a Committee charged with taking testimony by deposition --  on the mistaken assumption that they have a right to defend their President -- they have violated their solemn oath of office and disobeyed the rules of their House. 

The foolish prank visited upon the work of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, by two dozen rogue Republican congressmen is an affront to all of us who believe in our Constitution, and in the unique function given to each branch of government to balance the use of power by other branches. In other words, the disruption of an impeachment inquiry in order to delay that process is a violation of their oath of office because it undermines the Constitutional mandate that gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. 

Like it or not, once accusations and charges have been brought to the House (as they have been by a Special Counsel report, by career civil servants, by whistle-blowers and by the actions and words of former employees of the Executive Office) the obligation to move an impeachment inquiry forward was clear enough to cause the Speaker to call for that impeachment inquiry.  No other action was necessary at that point – no resolution, no declaration and no vote (today confirmed by a federal court judge). 

As to denigrating the process by railing about transparency and delaying a deposition as a means of defending their president, the rogue congressmen have undermined the separate but equal status of the Congress granted by the Constitution, damaged their status as an independent check on the Executive, and flaunted the rules of their own House that are meant to enable the constitutional process of impeachment to run an orderly course.  They are not just immature frat-type brothers; they are violators of their sacred oath.

Besides, they are in error as to there being no representation of their point of view since each Committee involved in the impeachment process has its full complement of Republican representatives.  And, they also missed the boat on transparency since a closed-door hearing is a usual procedure undertaken when national security is on-the-line (or crucial evidence is being gathered).  In fact, by bringing electronic devices into a safe room they violated protocol and by recording sounds, opened the way for outside forces to co-opt vital information. Their actions are much closer to treason the they are to a mere stunt.

Now let us return to what has become a bête noire in this whole debacle:

§  Is the President above the Law?

§   Is it remotely possible that he cannot be held responsible, while in office, for any crime he may commit? 

§  Is it true that he cannot even be investigated for a possible crime, or stopped from committing a crime? 

§  And finally, is it stated anywhere (except in DOJ policy) that a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime?

The answers to those questions (most likely by the courts) will likely determine the future of our form of government.  Should any federal court find in favor of the President on this issue, the Rule of Law will be null and void; the Presidency will be an imperial one run by a despot, and the Congress will be a creature of the President having lost its independence and its ability to check what a president does. We will be the victims of a coup d’état carried out by a rogue president and his henchmen. 

Let me tell you why I say this would be the undoing of our constitution.  In addition to his oath of office, there are ten words in the Constitution that speak against this foolishness of a president being above the Law; or being un-indictable and untouchable while in office.  They are found in Article II, section 3: “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. It is impossible for a president to faithfully execute the laws and himself be a lawbreaker at the same time. Let’s take a deeper look at two of those words: ‘faithfully’ and ‘execute.’

“Faithfully” = an adverb that describes the manner in which the execution of the laws is to be done.  “Faithfully” has first to do with thoroughness in the performance of a duty, and second with the steadfast fidelity (‘devotion’) necessary in that performance and thirdly with the constancy, dependability and firm reliability that such a duty demands.

“Execute” = an action verb meaning to give force or effect to a law; to carry out or carry through the intent or essence of the law, and to enforce its provisions.

There it is in black and white for all to read and heed.  The President has the unique responsibility and obligation to faithfully execute the laws with steadfast devotion, constant dependability and reliable thoroughness. Nowhere does the Constitution say that a president is above the law or exempt from being questioned about the law or about his solemn duty to “faithfully execute” the laws.  In fact, this obligation (implied by the words “take care”) places him in the role of a faithful defender of the law; therefore, for him to break any law would be not only an abuse of his office, a breech of his oath and an impeachable offense, it would be a nullification of his role as Executor of the laws of the land, and would thus invalidate his Executive power.  In other words, a lawbreaker (a crook or criminal) in the White House is like a fox allowed into a hen house – order and safety are abandoned, chaos reigns and lives are threatened.   

We are indeed facing a constitutional crisis. If the Supreme Court (or a federal Appellate Court) does not uphold the true meaning of these ten words, we shall have witnessed the downfall of our system of checks and balances that defines the independent and co-equal nature of our three branches of government.  It will mean that the ability to interpret the intent and the content of laws by the Supreme Court will have been conceded to the president who will have the power to determine which laws are valid and which are not, in his opinion.  It will mean that the Congress will no longer have the power to make the laws because any of them will be able to be overturned by a president who is above the law and can therefore declare what they mean or don’t mean.  The congressional veto override power will thus be invalidated, and Congress will have lost its power to legislate any laws other than those the president approves. 

The white supremacists, the neo-Nazis, the KKK, the hate groups and the Alt Right are doing all they can to restrain their joy over the possibility that the SCOTUS could actually by ONE VOTE give them the white nationalist Fuhrer they long to embrace and hail (Heil?) as their North (Norse?) star.  ONE VOTE on the Supreme Court is all it will take to turn this democracy into a despotic regime.  ONE VOTE! 

But the ONE VOTE that got away is just as important to question right now.   The one vote that is now absent from this moment is one we should never forget and that is President Obama’s nominee to the SCOTUS who was never considered by the Senate for appointment.  His name was Merrick Garland.  His nomination was blocked from consideration by the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who made a habit of blocking much of President Obama’s agenda.  It is incumbent upon all progressives, liberals, and Democrats to never forget this dastardly act of obstruction by Moscow Mitch and his minions. 

One of the first acts of a democratic majority in the House and Senate should be an Amendment to the Constitution that forbids any such non-consideration of judicial appointees in the future.  A foundation for it could be started simply by undoing the Senate rules that allow any senator or leader to block appointments or legislation by a filibuster, member privilege or super majority.  The role of the Majority Leader and his powers under the Rules should also be examined and deflated where necessary.  We must not allow any political Party to dictate to the Senate or the House by partisan rules a direction that limits or blocks either House from acting in the best interests of the People.  Mitch McConnell is a blight on our democratic values and process.  The voters in Kentucky need finally to call him to account for mis-representing them by demeaning and undermining the powers and solemn obligations of an Upper House that was meant to stand as the deeply wise, deliberative and benevolent chamber that would be a check on any words and actions that might harm our Republic.  Stand up and contribute a bold legacy to your children and your grandchildren by rejecting and retiring master manipulator Mitch McConnell.

Finally, let us speak about those future generations.  What are we leaving on their plates?  Well, it’s not all bad; but, it’s not all good either.  Let me put ten issues in three categories: the GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY. 

GOOD                                                              BAD                                 UGLY

Progress in Civil Rights/Human Rights                Lost Sec.Voter Rights Act    Laws restrict voter rights

More acceptance of diversity/equal opportunity   Laws discriminate ag. Grps  Rogue police shoot kids

Mobilization of all ages to save planet earth         GOP disbelieve climate chg Corps. poison food/environ

Public favors sensible gun restrictions by a lot     Congress fails to act             39,773 gun deaths in 2017

Public schools make up 90+% of schs. In USA    Rural/inner city less fundg   Pub.ed. under DOE attack

Infrastructure widely recog. as major prob.          Congress refuses to act         More lives lost/bad structs.

Technology widens possibilities for good             Privacy compromised          Growth in Monopoly contrl

Good/Excellent jobs avail. in certain skill areas   Many without proper skills   Jobs disappear/wages stag.

Some corporations are good citizens                     Some feed off others            Attack life/liberty/happ  

More people run for office/protest/involved          Gov’t ineffective/divided     Corrupt/abuse/control  

No president in this country is above the law (unless that president becomes a dictator).  Creating the possibility or milieu for that to happen is what unquestioning and unethical sycophants do (and are doing as we speak). Fortunately, we have career non-partisan civil servants in our government who speak truth to power, but that will do little good or have little effect if 40% of voters and a majority of the Senate support and defend actions and words that can lead to the overturning of our Constitution and our democratic values and ideals. 

Let us not waiver from reality or truth in this moment of constitutional crisis.  Let us support the process of impeachment. Let us protest the corruption and damage being done to our form of governing and let us vow to fight to rid ourselves of every sycophant who does not come forth to defend  the Constitution and our rights and freedoms.  

After the invasion of the House Intelligence Committee hearing by rogue Republicans in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that they made unsafe and vulnerable to foreign adversaries, we are not in the mode of politics-as-usual.  Those “suits” (with their invisible Red Caps) were like the “brown shirts” and the uniformed “storm troopers” of not so long ago – they ranted; they raved; they shouted, they threatened; they blocked a legitimate Committee from doing their constitutional duty for more than five hours.  This is the initiation of a Right-wing attack on the legitimate work of impeachment assigned in our Constitution solely to the House of Representatives to accomplish.  No one has the right to intervene in this process, to block it or to undermine its power to check a president who has been broadly accused of the abuse of his powers.

This is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country, not their Party.  We must recognize the cancer that is growing on this presidency, this Trumpian Republican Party, and in this Senate.  If we want to preserve our Union and our Constitution, we must pledge what Patrick Henry called our “sacred honor.”  We have no other choice except the kind of tyrannical dictatorship that our Founding Fathers beckoned us to reject.  In the spirit of the late congressman, the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, we must assert that no matter the cost, we must stand firm in support of our Constitution and be prepared to address the question that will be asked by young people in the future:  “what did you do” when our Constitution was threatened? Will we be able to say we stood against potential destroyers in their attempts to eliminate this democracy; this Rule of Law; this home of the Free and the Brave.  Will we be able to say we helped to secure a meaningful and enhanced future for our children and grandchildren, and for all those who will inherit the consequences of this battle? 

NOW is the TIME TO DECIDE and to ACT!

WHO ARE The REAL CONSERVATORS?

I never thought I would say this, but guess what?  The true conservatives remaining in this nation are not necessarily who you think they are.  The basic principles of conservatism have turned out to be less secure with the Republican Party than we have been led to believe.  The destruction of those principles began when Richard Nixon launched his attack on the integrity of the presidency that laid some of the foundation for a Donald Trump and his outright attacks on those principles.    

Instead of pursuing that intriguing subject, let us look at some definitions of the word “conservative.” (New World dictionary)

“Conservative” adjective –

1. “conserving or tending to conserve; preservative

2. “tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these       

“Conserve” – “to keep from being damaged, lost, or wasted; save”

Those definitions aren’t enough to describe political conservatism in this country right now.  We need to explore further to identify what some Conservatives claim as defining principles.   We begin from a bit different perspective at a site known as factmyth.com. 

“From a historical perspective we can define the terms conservative, liberal, and progressive as:

• Liberal: Can mean classical liberal (individual rights ideology rooted in the late 1600 – 1700’s) or social liberal (an evolution of classical liberalism that includes… response to the age of Robber Barons as social justice). This term is sometimes used as meaning “not a conservative.” In current usage, the U.S. classical liberals are called libertarians, and social liberals are called “liberals.”
• Progressive (or Radical): Always means wanting to push forward. Progressivism typically implies altruism, but not all good intentions have positive outcomes. Likewise, radical typically implies “going too far,” but not all radical movements have negative outcomes.
• Conservative: usually opposes liberalism or progressivism. As liberalism, socialism, and progressivism changed, what conservatism meant changed in response. The Conservative Federalists of the late 1700’s wanted order… after changes in the parties, modern Republicans often ran on a radically conservative platform. They may, for example, favor state-enforced religious laws. Meanwhile, progressive movements like Prohibition have conservative aspects to them.”  (factmyth.com)

Based on that last sentence, we shall proceed to examine who the real conservators and preservers are in our current circumstances.  It is not conservative Republicans or Donald J. Trump.  Clearly, Trump and his minions are more tied to the classical conservative model, as indicated by the following. (factmyth.com)

•  classical conservatism focuses on authority and order through traditional/classical power structures like the church and state (it favors authority of the few or one, and not individual liberty of the many).  In its social form (social conservatism) it favors social hierarchy and tradition, and not social equality.
• FACT: Conservatism came from the Enlightenment thinkers, although we can trace the history of conservatism back as far as we can trace the history of Monarchies…

TIP: In general, it works like this, each term considers how fast change should occur (either change forward toward “progress” or change “conserving” back to a less liberal or progressive time).

According to Russell Kirk, a visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Conservatism is claimed to be “a body of sentiments, not a system of ideological dogmata”.  Nonetheless, he offered ten principles to which he felt confident most conservatives would subscribe.  But he is not necessarily describing classical conservatism that appears most relevant to Trump tweets and policies. We shall address 4 of the 10 principles here and save the rest for another posting.

1.      There exists an enduring moral order; moral truths are permanent.  There are two aspects or types: the inner order of the soul and the outer order of the commonwealth.  Kirk claims: “A society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society – no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution…” In other words: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties than the whole force of the common enemy.  While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” – Samuel Adams

In contrast to a permanent moral order, Trump believes in and practices:

·      lying as a tool of propaganda;

·      taking revenge against anyone who criticizes him;

·      demolishing or destroying political opponents;

·      abusing children by locking them in cages as a tool of discouraging immigrants seeking asylum,

·      threats to export children and adults who had been temporarily allowed in this country to receive special medical treatment but who would most likely die without it after deportation

·       enabling killing of Kurdish children by Turkey’s army after withdrawal of American troops in Northern Syria.

·      use of vile language;

·      advocates abuse of women;

·      often refuses to pay for services or products;

·      uses his office to enrich himself and his family;

·      admits to disobeying laws like tax requirements or reporting of foreign nation influence-peddling and attempts to interfere in our elections  

·      disrespects constitutional provisions that limit his powers

·      incites others to violence with his words and with videos, the latest of which shows him attacking media members and other “enemies”

·      invites interference from foreign nations into our elections and uses those nations to advance his agenda and election campaign 

Apparently, Trump and his supporters are anything but committed to the moral order, while liberals and progressives are attempting to resurrect a social morality dedicated to greater inclusion, greater equality and greater regard for the needs and dignity of all people in a society that stands for those principles and values.  Their H.R. #1 bill also intends to strengthen the ethical standards for individual officeholders.  Plus, the very act of initiating the power of impeachment procedures is an attempt to restore the order that is missing under this president and his administration.

The real preservers of this first principle of moral order are not conservatives, especially those Republicans in Congress who have abandoned morality to support ethical disorder, abandonment of principles, and financial gain for themselves. Republicans have blatantly used the institutions of government to bilk the people (such as gutting regulations that control cheating of consumers by business). Department heads have been caught using taxpayer funds for personal travel; taking advantage of insider information to enhance their stock options or to improve the profit margin of companies in which they have an interest. 

Moreover, they have used the tax system as cover for their fraudulent assessments of personal wealth, but mostly used that system to lower their taxes.  And, the “swamp” that supposedly existed in Washington under Liberals has been “overrun” by the many creatures of the Trump administration who have gone to jail for carrying out illegal actions on his behalf.  John Adams’ words resonate through the centuries – this administration has lost all its principles and ethics and invited foreign and domestic forces to devour our individual and national soul.

The real conservators are the much-maligned Liberals and Progressives who have acted to preserve a moral imperative of decency and justice for all.  It is the Progressives who have acted to preserve voting rights, women’s rights, children’s health and education, affordable health care, a fairer justice system, to establish a decent minimum wage. Not the Republicans.  In fact, Democrats have passed much legislation to address national problems and needs that has been blocked and discarded by Senate Republicans.

2.      Conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity…that enables people to live together peaceably.  Kirk says: “When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions…the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior” to the one overthrown.  Order, justice and freedom are the…result of centuries of trial and refection and sacrifice; that continuity of a society must not be interrupted.”  In other words, “No one…can come…to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of…society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.”—Will Durant

Kirk and Durant never met Donald J. Trump! He has already captured (and probably destroyed) the Republican Party.  On that path, he has also captured the leadership of a Republican-controlled Senate and obliterated that institution and its standards of rigorous debate and legislative prowess. Instead, its leadership now plays lapdog to the Executive. 

Using his appointive powers (and the Senate’s non-opposition) he has created a Judiciary beholden to him to the extent that one of his nominees to an appeals court has just written a dissenting opinion that creates a false interpretation of the Constitution that is already perfectly clear on where the sole authority for impeachment lies – with the House of Representatives.  She asserts that the President has a right to be included in that process. Liberals and Progressives oppose that false interpretation of the clear intent of the Founders.

 

Democrats have also asserted the primacy and importance of public schools, the right of both houses of Congress to formulate their own rules to maintain their independence, and the importance of government regulation of Trade, Commerce and financial interests; the importance of placing more regulators in certain departments like the EPA, the IRS and the border patrol.  Conservatives under Trump are steadily de-constructing the federal government which the Constitution enshrined in the first place because the separate states in a Confederation were not able to fulfill a broader responsibility for national issues and problems.    

In addition, Trump has been the catalyst for undermining elections, not only inviting foreign powers to interfere, but encouraging restrictions on voting for certain groups.  Liberals and Progressives oppose the destruction of these institutions and have passed legislation to overturn such de-construction only to have that legislation blocked by a “conservative” recalcitrant Senate that cares little for continuity or equality. 

3.      Conservatives believe in the principle of prescription, that is, things established by “immemorial usage.”  According to Kirk, “In politics, we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for…the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than…petty private rationality.” 

Interesting, is it not, that such a principle does not rule out “prejudice” or the historic devastation of the Civil War fought over the slavery of others. 

Is it possible that this conservative principle of prescription also includes a loyalty to precedents like racial discrimination, white supremacy,  placing women in secondary positions and salaries, working to diminish labor unions, being intolerant of anything associated with LBGT, attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion or favoring air/water/ground pollution by chemical effluent from certain factories?  Does it include the time-tested practice of banks withholding or blocking mortgages for minorities or the lowering of taxes for a small percentage of the population?  All of these and more negative precedents meet the definition of time-tested standards and norms.

It is sheer folly to live by a principle that tests and memorializes one side of human nature and not the other.  Human beings, and the things they memorialize have flaws as well as assets and negative as well as positive outcomes.

Perhaps liberals are more careful conservators or preservers of what is positive, like laws that address racial equality, union rights, women’ rights, equal opportunity, social justice, health care, and so on.  It is my contention that Republicans tend to prescribe many more time-tested negatives than positives for the people, while Progressives seek to prescribe far more investment, support, encouragement and opportunity for those traits that reflect a regard for the dignity and well-being of humankind.

4.      Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.  Kirk says: “The conservative…acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences.  Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.”  Prudence doesn’t exist in the Trump vocabulary or in his toolbox (unless it can be used to advance his own interests).  All one needs to do is look at the present decision to pull troops out of northern Syria, to invite the Turks to invade so they can build a “neutral zone” on the Turkish-Syrian border, abandon the Kurds to certain genocide, and then to direct the  pull-out of all US troops from Syria which will lead to the resurgence of thousands of ISIS fighters. 

This foreign policy disaster began with a phone call between Trump and Erdogan of Turkey that is probably now assigned to the same highest classified server on which several of Trump’s indiscreet conversations may be hidden.  This is not prudent in any sense; nor is it diplomatic or based on a weighing of consequences.  This is a sudden and slashing decision that benefits one other tyrant: Vladimir Putin.

Prudence is epitomized by Liberals and Progressives who have long advocated and worked to develop the most effective and affordable system for universal healthcare coverage. Prudence has also characterized the Liberal approach to abortion, space exploration, work with the U.N. and other international groups and with coalitions of all kinds, especially those related to trade and defense.

    

While “sudden and slashing” reforms are attributed to Progressive Liberals, that negative attribute just doesn’t fit the record they have compiled.  To Conservatives who are reluctant to change anything, proposed change always looks like it is sudden simply because Republicans have delayed any real action for so long on issues like gun violence control, climate change, immigration reform, healthcare, women’s rights, minority rights, etc. that any change seems to them like a slashing, sudden assault.

One last thought on this subject:  progressivism has been (and will continue to be) the saving grace in terms of the advancement of rights, freedoms and responsibilities simply because Conservatives do not know the difference between delay/obstruction and prudence.  Progressive Liberals know that prudence means well-conceived, well-researched, well-thought-out, well-executed, well-evaluated and well-fixed when required. Conservatives (especially right now) have no clue as to these positive meanings for prudence.  Instead, their locked-in approach is to de-construct government itself and destroy government programs that lend a helping-hand to anyone other than their wealthy friends and sponsors.  Their prudence translates to inability to confront problems like climate change (and more important: the pending annihilation of life on this planet) or the need for universal affordable health care to reduce the financial ruin that confront too many families today; the need to rebuild our infrastructure before we become a 2^nd rate economic power.  They cannot even produce a vote on important reform legislation already passed by the Democratic majority in the House (environmental protection, election reform, gun violence control related to universal background checks, infrastructure repair, etc.).  Republican “prudence” (translated as obstructionist-do-nothingness) is costing us our future. 

Those whose “prudence” won’t allow them to throw off the destructive influence of Trump and the puppets dancing to his tune (like the automatons of any tyrant) -- to vote for real progress, for preservation of our values and the goodness of our institutions, plus for the acquired best practices of our democratic system –- let them suffer the consequences of their actions.  Any more years of this false form of conservatism will destroy their sense of satisfaction and unquestioning loyalty and approval of the destructive fascist values of this authoritarian leader, (Fuhrer)Trump.

We are on the Brink, and Trump intends to push many of us into the abyss below because that is what he has always done with “lesser” people.  His list keeps growing: Islamic and Mexican immigrants, all those who need government help such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, Affordable Health Care, TARP, Head Start, etc. or those who seek abortions, or Planned Parenthood or Section 8 housing.  Then there are those people who are homeless, or mentally ill or living with developmental disabilities – they are expendable in his mind. 

Of course, others are not just expendable, they are useful as tools for his propaganda – just like those children and families seeking asylum in this country – he separates and detains them in cages without access to hygienic conditions or even to outside recreation and lets us know they are being used as examples to other refugee/immigrant families to warn them not to come here looking for entry to this country.

As we have seen, of all his miserable decisions about the welfare of human beings, he has abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria in order to make a deal with Turkey to create for themselves a “neutral zone” in northern Syria along the Turkish border.   The Kurds are being slaughtered and Trump does nothing except threaten financial sanctions against Turkey.  And WHY has this happened? As a gift to Vladimir Putin say many analysts.

Who is next on his list?  Perhaps the rural poor or the family farmer who voted for him and then received the negative results of his Trade War with China. Perhaps veterans whose benefits keep getting cut in Trump budgets.  Maybe seniors who are a drain on resources for Medicare and long-term disability.  Or maybe just more women, like those who supported him, but more likely those supporting his opposition – they are the activists who present the biggest threat to his re-election.  But then – who knows…it could be anybody!  Take care all of you because the authoritarian tyrant in the White House believes he can do anything that advances his cause and his power.  That chaos in Syria and the Senate and at the southern border means that government might no longer be your protector and advocate but could become the centralized authority favored by classical conservatives which has no other interest than its own power.  We are all in danger from a pretender to a throne of his own creation.

FOOTNOTE:  Recently, I saw General James Mattis (Ret.) on Meet the Press.  Now, there’s a true Conservative:  places his trust in the American people, believes in building trust and support between allies; refused to put politics in front of duty (resigned from a political position over a disagreement on principle); willing to speak out when circumstances demand it; committed to principles of duty, civility and civilian control.  He is concerned with the integrity of America, the military, and his own actions; understanding of the importance of diplomacy; unwilling to speak ill of others or to join in such “swampiness”; concerned with the morale of the military and the well-being of his troops, and ultimately of the American people and this nation.

It doesn’t matter whether he is a Democrat or Republican; Conservative or Liberal.  He embodies principles that illuminate the greatness of this Republic, reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.  Is he perfect?  No, but perfection is not what we seek.  We seek strong commitment to principles and values that enhance the lives and just aspirations of this nation and its people; plus, the extension of such to humankind.  We are beginning to see government professionals -- diplomats, military, administrators -- come forward, some as whistle-blowers, but most as concerned citizens, to say “enough is enough,” Donald Trump is destroying our nation and his destructive policies must not be allowed to stand. 

KICK HIM OUT and LOCK HIM UP!

The "Deep State" gets "Hatch-ed"

Trump and his minions claim it’s the “deep state” that produced this “spy” (whistleblower) inside our government bureaucracy.   A question rarely asked or answered is:  what is the deep state?  Apparently, it has something to do with liberal Democrat bureaucrats who are opposed to Trump’s election and therefore are opposed to taking action on Trump orders or legislation; instead, they block anything he tries to do.                                                                                                               

Too bad we never receive any proof of this conspiracy theory, because if we did, we might know just how very stupid (and inaccurate) it is!

According to the federal Office of Personnel Management, there are three categories of U.S. federal employees:

1. The competitive service that includes the majority of civil service positions, meaning employees are selected based on merit after a competitive hiring process for positions that are open to all applicants.

Most federal officers and employees are now generally free to engage in a broad range of partisan political activities on their own "free time" or "off-duty" hours. The provisions of the "Hatch Act Amendments of 1993" removed most of the restrictions on voluntary, free-time activities by federal employees in the executive branch of  Government for or on behalf of partisan candidates or political parties, while providing more express prohibitions regarding on-the-job politics in federal offices.  
All officers and employees in the executive branch, other than the President and Vice President, are generally restricted by the Act in the following ways:

(1) They may not use their "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
(2) They are generally restricted from soliciting, accepting or receiving political campaign contributions from any person.
(3) They may not run for elective office in most "partisan" elections.
(4) They are prohibited from soliciting or discouraging participation in any political activities by a person who has an application for a grant, contract or other funds pending before their agencies, or is the subject of an ongoing audit or investigation by their agencies.
(5) They are generally prohibited from engaging in partisan campaign activity on federal property, on official duty time, while wearing a uniform or insignia identifying them as federal officials or employees, or while using a government vehicle.
Members of the uniformed services are subject to the military's own restrictions issued as a Department of Defense Directive, No. 1344.10. Employees of the legislative and judicial branches of the Federal Government do not come within the restrictions of the Hatch Act, although some other provisions of federal law, such as the criminal restrictions on campaign contributions and solicitations, generally apply to all federal officers and employees (congressionalresearch.com)  

In passing the Hatch Act of 1939, Congress affirmed that partisan activity by government employees must be limited for public institutions to function fairly and effectively. 

Federal employees know if they violate the Hatch Act they can be removed from their position and funds appropriated for their position cannot again be used to pay them. However, if the Merit System Protection Board finds unanimously that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay can be imposed by direction of the Board.  Federal employees are also aware that certain political activities may also be considered criminal offenses under title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Having once managed the largest federal grant of its particular type, and having served as president of a national association organized to advocate for hundreds of programs with similar grants, I had opportunity to work with many federal employees in this category, and some in the other two categories as well. 

In my experience, the likelihood that a typical federal worker would get away with a blatant Hatch Act violation is low. Break the law and there is a good chance the employee would be fired, especially during election season. There are some things that are allowable - like putting a campaign sign on your lawn - there are others that might seem okay but are Hatch Act violations. For example, even when not on duty or in the workplace, one may not 'like,' share, or retweet a social media post that solicits political contributions, including invitations to fundraising events. In my experience, civil servants did not even mention their political leanings or memberships in compliance with the Hatch Act.  There is no evidence of a ‘deep state’ in this sector, and the low numbers of employees guilty of Hatch Act violations only reinforces that conclusion. 

2. The Senior Executive Service (SES) is the classification for non-competitive, senior leadership positions filled by career employees or political appointments (e.g., Cabinet members, ambassadors, etc.). 

This is an area where we begin to find some of the political failings that are forbidden by the Hatch Act.  Perhaps, this is due to the fact that this category includes political appointees and some former appointees who are saved when one administration is replaced by another.  This is done by moving such appointees into the next category just before the ousted administration leaves office.  Recently, some rather high-profile appointees have been accused of Hatch Act violations, including Julian Castro under the Obama administration and Kellyanne Conway with the Trump administration.  

3. The excepted service (also known as unclassified service) includes non-competitive jobs in certain federal agencies with security and intelligence functions (e.g., the CIA, FBI, State Department, etc.) that are authorized to create their own hiring policies and are not subject to most appointment, pay, and classification laws.  Generally, those dealing with law enforcement or national security, are still subject to more restrictive provisions, similar to the old Hatch Act, which broadly bar such employees from taking an active part in partisan political activities even on their own, off-duty hours.

We all know about the attacks by Trump on these services, but there is no documentation that these employees constitute a ‘deep state’ designed to take down his administration.  There are those who oppose his policies and practices – like Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and Mueller – but there is so far no proof that any of them have overstepped the laws and regulations that apply to them, in spite of continuing efforts by the Trump administration to exact revenge against them. (See the post at 2/5/2018 for another possible motive for Trump attacks).

The bottom line is simple — even though they are not supposed to, senior political appointees sometimes get away with conduct that will get a regular federal worker fired. Nonetheless, in general, the rules are such that it is still a good idea for political appointees to not cross the line on Hatch Act violations because a career could depend on the verdict.

“Given the proclivity of Republican politicians to deride the federal government and the bureaucrats that fill its ranks, it stands to reason Democrats would be more likely to seek out Uncle Sam for employment.  And that is true. But only barely.

“In a recent survey conducted by Government Business Council,(in 2015) the research arm of Government Executive Media Group, 44 percent of respondents identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, while 40 percent identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. The remaining respondents were undecided or did not identify with either party, though a plurality of them said they were ‘conservatives.’ 

“Top-level management is more likely to lean to the left, with 49 percent of GS-15 and Senior Executive Service employees identifying or leaning Democrat and 40 percent Republican. Respondents serving as GS-14s and below saw a 44/38 split toward Democrats.

In 2015, just 5 percent of GOP feds approved of their ultimate boss -- President Obama -- while 91 percent disapproved. About 8 in 10 Democratic respondents gave Obama’s performance positive reviews, while 11 percent disapproved.”

It might also stand to reason that since 2016, more Republicans and more persons of conservative bent might well have joined this category of political appointees so that the separation in percentages could be considerably diminished.  In the 2015 survey, Republican front runner Donald Trump was viewed very unfavorably by the group overall, but 24 percent of Republicans who prioritized federal workforce issues said they would vote for him if the primary were held that day. His lead among that group was even larger than among Republican feds.  

The poll had 973 federal workers participating, with a 3 percent margin of error. It was conducted from Aug. 7 through Aug. 12, 2015. (via amrishw / Shutterstock.com)

That said, it is important to realize a few important points:

• The Hatch Act is an effective deterrent to a deep state acting to block or to oppose a President based on political motives.  Therefore, if Trump truly believes there is a deep state of liberal Democrats in the bureaucracy colluding to “play politics” with his agenda, why has he not called for an FBI investigation or enlisted whistle blowers from the rather large contingent of Republicans and conservatives who also work within that bureaucracy?  Why aren’t those Trump supporters backing up their leader’s charges by gathering documentation of Hatch Act violations?  Or, is it just possible that there exists no such “deep state” conspiracy?

• Furthermore, we must ask: if Trump knows of crimes being committed that are Hatch Act violations, why hasn’t he reported those crimes to the proper authorities?  Isn’t that also a crime of abetting?  And, doesn’t that reach to high crimes and misdemeanors --impeachable offenses perhaps? 

•  If there are now between 40-44% Republican or conservative-leaning workers within the federal work force, are we to assume they know nothing about people they work with every day?  How come we are not being inundated with reports of democratic obstructionism every day, week or month?  Are the usual percentage of Trump supporters just not as loyal as he thinks, or does it indicate that both sides are effectively restrained by the Hatch Act?  

• Finally, let us not minimize the fact that a large portion of the federal workers even in 2015 trended toward Republican or conservative.  91% of those who were of that persuasion reported that they disapproved of their ultimate boss – Barak Obama.  Yet, even under those circumstances, we did not hear of any huge “deep state” conspiracy against President Obama.  (Not that there weren’t any delaying tactics; certainly, they manifested themselves in the Congress).  Is it possible that Trump is attempting to create a deep state conspiracy where none exists?  Of course he is.

Trump's Bamboozling doesn’t end with the deep state conspiracy.  There is that second defensive conspiracy: that impeachment is a time-wasting hoax and he blames Democrats for the slow-down and obstruction of the Trump agenda caused by their all-out pursuit of impeachment.   In other words, “Democrats are engaging in a disgraceful, time-wasting impeachment inquiry and not solving the problems facing this nation.”

This second conspiracy theory has no credibility whatsoever, and fails on the following grounds:1

1. There is little or no legislative agenda for Democrats to block or obstruct.  There may be a budget presented, but presidential budget proposals are usually mostly dead-on-arrival anyway, so that doesn’t count.  And there is that wall on the southern border of course, but that’s been a dead issue long before an impeachment inquiry began.  So, the question, I guess, becomes: what about healthcare, infrastructure, climate change, gun violence control, immigration reform, election reform, adequate housing, schools, and personal privacy on the internet?  Where is the Trump agenda on those issues?  Absent. 
2. The Senate is under the control of Republicans, and they have gone along with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and blocked from consideration most of the major legislation already passed by the Democratic House, some of which include:

a.      H.R.1 — For the People Act of 2019 -- This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.  NO WONDER the Senate Republicans refuse to act on it!  They can’t stand real reform and transparency!

b.     H.R.5 — Equality Act -- This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

c.     H.R.6 — American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 -- This bill cancels and prohibits removal proceedings against certain aliens and provides such aliens with a path toward permanent resident status

d.     H.R.7 — Paycheck Fairness Act -- This bill addresses wage discrimination based on sex. It amends equal pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and increases civil penalties for violations of equal pay provisions.

e.     H.R.8 — Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 – H.R. 8 expands background checks to cover nearly all sales and transfers of firearms, closing the “gun show loophole” which currently allows people to purchase guns without going through a background check 

f.       H.R.9 — Climate Action Now Act -- This bill requires the President to develop and update annually a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement on climate change. Specifically, the plan must describe steps to (1) cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and (2) confirm that other parties to the agreement with major economies are fulfilling their announced contributions.  In addition, the bill prohibits federal funds from being used to withdraw from the agreement

g.     Several appropriation bills also await Senate action among the 437 bills passed by the House in 2019 and still awaiting action by the Republican-held Senate! (all documentation drawn from Congress.Gov) 

3. The suggestion that Democrats are working to obstruct and defeat the Trump agenda is not compatible with the reality of the situation.  In fact, most of the legislation that Trump has signed into law since Democrats gained a majority in the House (Jan. 3, 2019) has had to be bi partisan in order to reach his desk.  Thus, Democrats have been responsible for the very legislation that he has been able to sign into law.  Here are some samples:

a.      H.R.2157 -- Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act,

b.      H.J.Res.31 — Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D-CA-40]

c.       John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act

d.       H.R.4378 — Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019

e.      H.R.639 — To amend section 327 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify that National Urban Search and Rescue Response System task forces may include Federal employees

f.       H.R.3253 — Sustaining Excellence in Medicaid Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]

g.      H.R.3877 — Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Yarmuth, John A. [D-KY-3]

h.      H.R.439 — National FFA Organization's Federal Charter Amendments Act Sponsor: Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2]

i.       H.R.1839 — Medicaid Services Investment and Accountability Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-36]

j.       H.R.3151 — Taxpayer First Act Sponsor: Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5] This bill revises provisions relating to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), its customer service, enforcement procedures, cybersecurity and identity protection, management of information technology, and use of electronic systems.

k.      H.R.3311 — Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019

Without Democrat support, none of these would have become law.  It is especially important to notice that this represents a wide variety of issues, and that in some cases the legislation was sponsored or co-sponsored by Democrats.  The charge of non-action and obstruction by Democrats is entirely inaccurate and simply not supported by the facts.

As usual, Donald J. Trump has attempted to Bamboozle the public with conspiracy theories that have no factual basis.  He will continue to do so until he is either impeached or rejected by voters. 

The saddest aspect of this, in my estimation is the constant unquestioning loyalty and support of 33-39% of the electorate for whatever this tyrant wishes to say or do.  There are people within that faction who take seriously Trump’s suggestion of a civil war if he does not have his way, or if he is impeached by Congress or defeated at the polls.  This is not just upsetting or appalling, it is treasonous talk, and has already been shown to have a strong effect among white nationalists and neo-Nazis who have committed acts of violence and intimidation against innocent citizens. 
Liberals and Progressives have difficulty dealing with the reality of such threats and actions.  And yet, this is what much of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are built around: the actual experience of tyrannical acts against the colonists.  At the core of these foundation documents is the basic concept that citizens must be vigilant about, prepared for and ready to defend their Constitution and country against tyranny, despotism and foreign interference, or domestic violence (otherwise known as ‘domestic terrorism’).

 

So, the actions of our representatives at all levels must be made in light of the need to protect against the actions of an illegitimate, tyrannical president and his fawning minions who support him in all things.  There cannot be any compromise with the undermining of our elections, nor with restrictions put upon the absolute right to vote, invitations to foreign countries to interfere in our elections, the abuse of anyone who opposes “the Leader”, attacks against a free press, revenge plotted and enacted against political opponents, the destruction unleashed upon the central government and its programs, the abuse of children to frighten migrants, capitulation to an organization that favors gun violence over domestic tranquility and over life itself, and the abuse of our national security classification system by placing presidential phone conversations on its most secret server.

Those who still waver on supporting an impeachment process  until more facts are in misconstrue the purpose of inquiry and minimize the role of the Congress in calling to account a president who has not only gone down the road of destruction, but has clearly told us in his own words and public actions what he is doing. 

Congressional representatives and judicial appointees must carry out their oath to protect and defend the Constitution by acting to keep this man and his storm-troopers from a complete take-over (coup) of our form of government as defined under our Constitution.  The Founding Fathers gave us this remedy to be used when our liberties are threatened and our institutions are put in danger by an incumbent executive.  
There is no indication that such a situation calls for caution or delay.  There is no “waiting period” connected with impeachment.  There are no mincing words; the verb “shall” does not speak of options.  There is no indication that impeachment and election are antithetical.  Impeachment can happen anytime.  It is not dependent on anything but initiation by the House of Representatives.  Those who place an election or waiting period for more facts in the way of the process are not acting in accord with their oath or their obligations.  Let us simply read again the Constitution’s description of impeachment:

Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Finally, it is not enough for the House to impeach on just one charge of a potentially treasonous phone call to a foreign leader.  It is imperative that the full range of Trump’s High Crimes and Misdemeanors be explored and charged in order to produce for the American public the full pattern of this man’s abuse of power which is undermining and overthrowing our democracy.  Impeachment is not a choice; it is an obligation placed upon the Congress to protect us all from an Executive who threatens our Constitution and our government.  ‘Shall’ means ‘must’, not maybe!