Happy 50th Anniversary, Watergate

Today is the 50th anniversary of Watergate, the scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. 

And I can't help drawing comparisons between that crisis and the one in which our most recent former president finds himself knee deep.

 For example, 

• Richard Nixon had a CREEP - the Committee for the Re-Election of the President; Donald Trump is a creep. 

• Nixon had criminals acting on his behalf; Trump had hundreds of criminals acting on his behalf.

• Nixon's scandal came to light with a break-in at the Watergate Hotel, a building in DC; Trump's came to light with the break-in at the US Capitol, a building in DC. 

• The Watergate scandal had Deep Throat, the long-anonymous source who fed reporters information they published in real time; the Trump scandal has deep voices: the dozens of reporters and former staffers who have written about his administration. 

• Nixon had the Saturday Night Massacre, in which DOJ folks quit so they wouldn't have to fire the special prosecutor investigating the scandal; Trump conspired to fire DOJ staff, and had a legion of people threaten to quit. 

• Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, destroyed White House documents; Donald Trump has allegedly destroyed White House documents. 

• Nixon had the 'plumbers'; Trump was full of crap with his ideas of a stolen election.

• Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected after the scandal; Trump continues to maintain that he overwhelmingly won an election he overwhelmingly lost. 

• Gerald Ford declared "our long national nightmare" to be over when Nixon resigned; Mike Pence prevented a constitutional crisis when he refused to follow Trump's directive that he not certify the election. 

• Nixon dealt with shady characters in support of his winning re-election effort; Trump had Rudy Giuliani, Steven Bannon, and countless others helping him try to steal back an election he lost. 

• It took a long time for Republicans to turn against Nixon; it's taking Republicans a long time to turn against Trump.

• Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon; Trump pardoned just about everyone.

• Richard Nixon famously said he was not a crook; Donald Trump said "No way we lost this election!"

Let's all raise a glass to the Republican who had the good sense to quit, shall we? 

Sunday School 1/30/22

I wandered into ABC's This Week classroom yesterday. Here are some highlights. The segment that got the most press, from what I could see, was the George Stephanopoulos interview with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Very Concerned) and what she didn't say. But let's start with what she did say. 

Collins appreciates adding diversity to the Supreme Court, but says the "clumsy at best" process around Biden's promised nomination of a Black woman "adds to the further perception that the court is a political institution like Congress when it is not supposed to be." And, she disagreed with George that this was the same thing President Reagan did during the 1980 campaign.

Actually, this isn't exactly the same. I've looked at what was done in both cases. And what President Biden did was as a candidate, make this pledge. And that helped politicize the entire nomination process. What President Reagan said is, as one of his Supreme Court justices, he would like to appoint a woman.

I'm very concerned with the senator's research skills - because Reagan did not say he "would like to appoint a woman." He went much further than that.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all court vacancies. 

Not only that, but thanks to some great research and documentation, we now know Reagan did it for exactly the same reason Biden did: to secure votes from a specific demographic in order to garner his party's nomination. 

Now, to the attention-grabbing part. George asked Collins about president Trump's hint that he'd pardon January 6th insurrectionists if he gets elected in '24, and whether she could  "imagine any circumstances where (she) could support his election." Collins said Trump shouldn't have said that; she thinks we "should let the judicial process proceed." And when George pushed her on not ruling out supporting Trump, here's what she said.

Well, certainly it's not likely given the many other qualified candidates that we have that have expressed interest in running. So, it's very unlikely.

It's also very unlikely she'll commit to anything, if she can't even commit to this. 

The panel this week included political animals Donna Brazile, Donna Shalala, and Chris Christie, and Reihan Salam, president of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Here's Brazile on SCOTUS, after noting that 108 of the 115 Supremes have been white males, some of whom "were extraordinary..."

But the fact is, 55 years after Thurgood Marshall was put on the court, 31 years after Clarence Thomas, 13 years after Sonia Sotomayor, this is a moment when the country can finally say equal justice under the law applies to everybody. It's an extraordinary move by the president. I welcome this appointment. And I'm going to fight with everything I have, to make sure that this extraordinary woman gets confirmed.

Here's Christie after noting that "elections have consequences."

...it wouldn't have been the way I would have approached it, by pre-announcing something like that, but Joe Biden won the election. He gets to make the choice. And every one of the 100 senators has a right then to scrutinize this person's background, experience, and decide whether or not they deserve lifetime tenure.

And Shalala, on both the prospect of a Black woman joining the Court and on polling showing most American just want the most qualified person. (I don't believe that for a NY minute, I've gotta tell you, but I digress). 

Well, it brings someone with a different experience, a black woman's experience. It makes the court look like America. It makes it look fairer. And I'm not surprised the majority of Americans think he ought to just pick the -- the qualified candidate. That's, in fact, an advancement, that we ought to pick the qualified candidate. But a black woman on the court, it will make a difference.

And, here's Salam, after noting he thought Biden's promise "was a mistake," because it limited his options 

... I think that one thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic coalition is awfully diverse along many different dimensions. Donna Shalala mentioned that there's such a thing as a black women's experience. When you look at the four leading contenders, as far as news reports go, these are people with dramatically different experiences and actually some subtle differences in ideological sensibilities as well... So I think that recognizing the distinctions among black women and recognizing that there are many other kinds of diversity one could bring to the bench is a good and valuable thing. And Democrats ought to keep it in mind.

Perhaps the most remarkable comment of this discussion was about the politics of the whole thing, and it came not from a panelist, but from the host. Christie set it up.

...But on the politics of this, George, for the midterms, when you have inflation where it is, when you have crime where it is, the things that affect people's everyday lives, they don't see the Supreme Court affecting their everyday lives in the same way that inflation, crime, and foreign policy crises do. So, I think it may have some small effect, but nowhere near a determinative one.

Here's the comment from Stephanopoulos.

It has rarely been a big - a big voting issue in either presidential or midterm elections...

Um, really, George? I'm Susan Collins-level very concerned with your failed memory of the 2016 and 2020 elections. The Supreme Court was one of the keys to Trump's victory in the former, and he also used it in the latter. Sheesh - everyone knows that.

I was going to end the post there, but instead I'll close with thoughts about Rs not wanting to stick a fork in a Trump 2024 run. Here's Salam's take on it.

Well, I think that it makes sense for people to want to preserve freedom of action. You do not know how the environment might change. There are a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives who said at the very beginning of the 2015-2016 campaign cycle that they wouldn't support Donald Trump. But then things changed. And we could condemn them. We could praise them for that. But the reality is that, you know, politics, the environment moves very, very quickly.

And, here's Brazile.

I can't imagine President Trump saying he will pardon the very same people who injured 140 policemen. I can't imagine President Trump saying at a rally that he would pardon people who said, kill Mike Pence, assassinate Nancy Pelosi. There's -- there's -- there's no place in our politics for that type of rhetoric and that type of action and leadership. So I hope the Republicans reject Donald Trump so that they can move past this movement and we can try to figure out how to bring the country together. 

From where I sit, 'bringing the country together' remains a Herculean, or even Sisyphean task, but one can always hope. I encourage you to join me in not holding your breath on this one.

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 12/23/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

There's so much wondering in my head today. For example:

Who will be in the next round of pardons, clemencies and commutations? 

Why is the United States considering offering immunity to Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi royal who's such a good What's App friend of Jared Kushner, for his role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi?

Who will be the next target that the president will attack, now that he's gone after the #2 Republican in the Senate? Any guesses?

Why are people all of the sudden worried about foreign policy? Why haven't they been complaining all along? And why are reporters and politicians lying about it?

Why did the president decide, suddenly, to be interested in the pandemic spending bill once it had been approved, after not paying attention - for months?

If you don't put out cookies for Santa Claus, does he get free returns on your stuff? And does he keep all those receipts? 

How many Bed, Bath and Beyond coupons do you think they get at the North Pole, anyway? And, of course, while I'm typing this, a BB&B coupon landed in my inbox... 

We've been listening to our collection of Christmas CDs (we're old - we don't stream) and my husband said that the "Mayhem Steamroller" tunes would be coming up soon... and can't you just picture THAT Allstate commercial? 

How do we get out of the mess, all of this stuff I posted yesterday?

Why are people STILL so concerned about the House Speaker's ice cream habit? And why do people think that she could fund the stimulus with it? And am I a bad person for buying craft ice cream myself?

How many people will follow the applicable COVID restrictions where they live? How many of the three million+ people who've moved through TSA airport screening checkpoints around the country are going to quarantine when they get off the plane? 

How much does Dr. Deborah Birx regret travelling with multiple generations of her family?

News is breaking that the president has vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the $740B military spending plan, mostly (he's said in the past) because it allows for renaming military bases, and because it doesn't remove protections for Twitter and Facebook, which have aggressively labelled his posts as fake news - and, really on both, what do they have to do with the military? 

How long will it take for his veto to be over-ridden? Probably not long.  And does Trump know he's the first to not sign the bill in nearly sixty years? And does he consider being the first another notch in his #winning  hair spray bottle? 

Should pandemic-denying Republican members of the House and Senate be getting the vaccine ahead of front line health care providers, the elderly, essential workers, and folks of all ages with pre-existing conditions? Are they really that much more valuable or that much more worthy of the protections than, say, my 90-year-old-with-a-heart-condition Mom?

What are you wondering about?

The Update Desk: Chris Collins, Again, Darn It

I was sure, the last time I wrote about convicted securities fraud conspirer Chris Collins, the former Congressman from Western New York, that I was writing about him for the last time.  I really should have known better.  You can read his sad story here, in my last update. 

I had been ignoring the delays in getting his just over two-year prison term started - concerns about the coronavirus and all - and I even ignored it when he finally did report for duty at the Pensacola Federal Prison Camp back in October. 

Tonight, the impeached, lame duck president issued 20 pardons and commutations, with Collins being among the lucky. 

That the former congressman was the first one to support the president probably was very meaningful to Trump - and I can only imagine that, had he still been in office, Collins would have happily added his name to the list of 126 House Republicans supporting the 'Texas+' lawsuit (sorry, tired of listing the other states that joined that ridiculous case). 

He probably would have been appearing at rallies for the president, or maybe trying to overturn New York's election or something equally silly. At least we didn't have to see that, with him in prison down in Florida. 

I'll leave you with a comment from Geoffrey Berman, the prosecuting US Attorney in the Collins case. (You may remember that Berman was fired by Trump after some questionable personnel decisions by AG Snitty Snitty Bill Barr backfired.)

Anyway, here's what Berman said.

Lawmakers bear the profound privilege and responsibility of writing and passing laws, but equally as important the absolute obligation of following them. Collins' hubris is a stark reminder that the people of New York can and should demand more from their elected officials, and that no matter how powerful, no lawmaker is above the law.

Yes, they do. And no, they aren't. No matter what the pardon memo says - or doesn't.

Thoughts on Winning

I got a message from a friend today, offering up a way that our national post-election nightmare can end and America can win, Biden (the winner) can win, Mike Pence can win, and the president (the non-winner) can win. And how we can all be tired of all the winning because there'll just be so much of it, we don't be able to stand it anymore.

I have to say, initially I thought his idea was kind of whacky, but then, it started to grow on me. Like moss, on a stone that's not rolling, or something.  No, really, that's not fair - it's kind of an interesting idea. 

First and foremost, we know that the president hates to lose - at anything - and that his first thought - always, right before threatening or actually taking legal action - is to deny that he lost. 

We also know that he doesn't like anything President Obama did, and wants to beat President Obama no matter what. And we've seen, over the past several months, that President Obama doesn't seem to be interested in retiring from public life. And neither does AOC, it seems - and we know that the president doesn't like her and would love to beat her at something, almost as much as he wants to do stuff that Obama is not capable of doing. 

We also know the president is a student of history. I mean, he's told us over and over that he's the best ever at so many things - fighting terrorism, producing jobs, building, attracting crowds, not being racist, developing resorts, owning clubs,  making fragrances, writing 140-character sentences, and more. And he's definitely up there on the list of best presidents ever, maybe even the best president ever, certainly the best president since Abraham Lincoln, he's determined that with certainty. 

Given his best-ness, and his better-than-Obama-ness, and the wanting us to get tired of all the winning - you remember that, right, back in 2016 at a speech in Iowa?

We're going to win so much that you're going to get sick and tired, you're going to say, "Please, please Mr. president, we're sick and tired of winning Please let us have at least one loss. It's no longer exciting to win" and I'm going to say, "No way, we're going to keep winning and I don't care if you like it or not." We have to win.

Well, here's how everyone wins, as we have to, as we are destined to.

First: the president retires, before the end of his term. He doesn't quit - that's what a loser would do. He retires, at the top of his game, as a winner: the guy who defeated ISIS and the caliphate, Antifa and monument-busting protesters, the coronavirus and Communist China; the man who put his slippery leather shoes in the DMZ between the Koreas; the man with ambiguously legitimate Israeli housing units named after him; the man who gave us covfefe and Happy Meal celebrations; the man who gave Rush Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom. 

Second: upon the president's retirement, Mike Pence becomes the President-lame duck, #46, who will guide us through the rest of the counting of the illegal Democratic votes and the ignoring of all the perfectly legitimate Republican votes on the same ballot as the illegal Democratic ones. He's got just the right temperament, and an uncanny ability to talk at length and never answer any questions. And, he's a horrible Tweeter, which will be good for us he tries to heal the nation, right up until January 5, 2021 when people run around all over the state of Georgia trying not to be members of a minority, and then again until 11:59AM on January 21, 2021, at which point no one will ever hear of him again.

Third: Before riding off into the sunset, Pence #46 can offer pardons to everyone: #45, Mrs. #45 (those Christmas decorations. That Rose Garden, (ahem) renovation. That green jacket. #BeBest...), the children of #45, the girlfriends and spouses of the children (after all, the best is yet to come), the swamp monsters, and more. He could even pardon Hunter Biden's laptops, which would go a long way towards the healing and winning we need. And, instead of releasing the Kraken (hey - he could pardon Rudy Giuliani, too!), he could release the transition funds, which would allow for the peaceful transition of power that's supposed to be happening. 

And, finally: At noon on January 20, 2021, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. will become the oldest President ever. And then, shortly after that, Pamela Camela Carmella Kamala Harris will become the firstiest Vice President ever. The first woman, the first black, the first Indian American, the first Chucks-wearing, the first rain-dancing, and, probably, the coolest Vice President since Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. jogged around the White House with Barack Obama.

It's a perfect plan, right? It plays to everyone's strengths, and it lets us get back on track with having someone run the country, not ruin it on their way out. 

Teddy Ballgame hit a home run, and retired. Eli's brother, Peyton 'Omaha!' Manning, won a Super Bowl and retired. Donald Trump, just 'won' the election, so he, too, should retire at the top of his game.

Let us begin to get tired of the winning. We're ready.

Sunday School 12/29/19

Today, Andrew Yang was the only one of the 2020 Dems making the rounds in the classrooms, so his conversation with Jonathan Karl on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos gets my undivided attention today.

Our Sunday School Extra Credit will cover the discussion on Meet the Press about "our post-truth society" and the spread of information, misinformation, alternative facts, and the like. That's going to be fun, I'm sure!

But today, it's all about Andrew. Here's the clip Jonathan Karl played to open the segment, of Yang talking about money and diversity at the last debate.

Why am I the lone candidate of color on this stage? Fewer than 5% of Americans donate to political campaigns. Do you know what you need to donate to political campaigns? Disposable income. I guarantee if we had a Freedom Dividend of $1000 a month, I would not be the only candidate of color on this stage tonight. 

I remembered that from the debate, and how it made me stop and think. I've donated small amounts to three of the candidates - but I've never really thought about my ability to do that, or more importantly, about someone else's inability to do that. And, honestly, I'm curious about where the conversation's going to go.

Karl presented the clip as Yang "making his pitch for his universal basic income plan" and noted that  "a dozen governors, mayors and members of Congress have already dropped out."  His first question to Yang was on the meaning of his campaign slogan, "Not left, not right, but forward."

Well, Jon, to me it's clear the reason why Donald Trump is our president today is that we automated away four million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and Iowa, the swing states he needed to win. And what we did to those jobs is what we are now going to do to the retail jobs, the call center jobs, the fast food jobs,  and eventually the truck driving jobs. 

He's right -- who among us hasn't started a call with pretty much any customer service department by going through a bunch of automated prompts before we ever get a chance to talk to a person? And, with the increasing minimum wages we're seeing at the state level, can you remember the last time you walked into a fast food place or Panera and didn't see "order here" kiosks? Or signs outside Dunkin' suggesting you order from your phone and have it ready when you get there?

Here's the last bit of his answer.

We have to have a way forward that works for all Americans independent of (their) political affiliation, so that's what we mean by not left, not right, forward. These problems are technological and apply to us all. 

Karl asked if what he means is that the major parties are too tied to ideology, too far left or right.  Yang pointed out that he was an 'ambassador' (little A, not big A) in the last administration, and added

...to me Democrats still have not asked themselves the hard questions as to how Donald Trump won in 2016 where if you look around the country, you see 30 percent of stores and malls closing. You see record high levels of stress, financial insecurity, student loan debt, even suicides and drug overdoses. These are the problems that voters talk to me about when I'm out there every single day.

And he hit on another of his key points, which I think Elizabeth Warren has added to her repertoire:

And the Democratic Party, unfortunately, is acting like Donald Trump is the cause of all of our problems. He's a symptom and we need to cure the underlying disease.

Karl moved to the details of the Freedom Dividend, which will give everyone over 18 who opts in $1000 a month, free to use however they want. And he wondered about the 'Math' of allowing a Jeff Bezos or a Donald Trump to get the Universal Basic Income (UBI).Yang thanked him for noticing the MATH tagline, which stands for 'Make America Think Harder.' And he explained that his UBI plan is modeled after what they've been doing in Alaska for nearly 40 years - the petroleum dividend that gives everyone in the state the same amount of money, no questions asked. That's what takes away the stigma and makes it truly universal, Yang explained. 

And back to Bezos?

And my way to pay for this is by taking a toll from every Amazon sale, every Google search, every Facebook ad. So we'd be getting hundreds of millions, even billions, from Jeff Bezos. So if we try and send him $1,000 a month to remind him he's an American, it's essentially immaterial. 

Turning to his newly released health care plan, Karl confessed to having some confusion about where Yang stands and played a couple of clips, one of the candidate and one of an unidentified woman, presumably a supporter. Both clips mentioned Medicare for All. His plan, Karl said, "does not call for Medicare for all. In fact, it doesn't even have a public option. So why the dissonance here?"

We need to move towards universal health care that's high quality and nearly cost free for Americans around the country. But reality is, we have millions of Americans who are on private insurance right now and taking those plans away from them very quickly would be untenable for many, many Americans. 

And he suggested the goal should not be to shut down private insurance, but instead

To me, the goal of the government has to be to demonstrate that we can out-compete private plans and then push them out of the market over time. And that's -- that's what we're proposing.

Karl pushed back, saying "...but-- again, I'm confused. Your ad is explicit. Your ad says, Medicare for all. Your plan is not Medicare for all. It's not even 'Medicare for some' because in your plan there -- there's not even a public option."

Our plan is to expand a universal health care system to all Americans. Medicare for All is not the name of a bill. Medicare for All -- is universal health care for all Americans. And that is our vision.

I give Jon Karl credit for pressing on this question, because it does seem confusing. He asked again, "But Medicare for All is Medicare for all, right? I mean --" 

Well, our -- our health care plan would be -- would be based on Medicare and expanding it over time to more and more Americans. You'd lower the eligibility age and then you make it widely accessible.

Karl gave up, saying he "didn't see that" in Yang's plan, but moved on to talk about Yang's campaign.

Reiterating that he's "been the surprise break-through candidate" and that no one expected him to still be in the race or on the stage for the last of the 2019 debates. But, he noted, Yang's yet to break 5% in the early-state polls, and wondered what he has to do "to actually break through to the next level?"

Yang was upbeat in his typically self-deprecating way, saying he loves being described as a "surprise break-through." He also noted it's been a while since there's been an early-state poll - over a month, he said, and so he

can't wait for some new polls to come out that show how much we're growing, how much the energy and enthusiasm and the crowds are getting bigger every time I go to any of the early states. I'm on my way to New Hampshire a little bit later today to celebrate New Year's Eve. And you're going to see, when the polls come out, we'll be at 5 percent or higher. I think significantly higher.

Moving to impeachment, Karl noted that Yang says no one ever asks him about that, and he's also said that Dems spend too much time talking about it. So, he asked Yang to confirm whether he supported impeaching Trump.

Yes, I do support the impeachment process, but voters don't ask me about impeachment, they ask me about health care and child care and education and climate change. And the fact is, we need 20 Republican senators to have a change of heart or a change of mind in order for impeachment to be successful.

So this strikes many Americans like a ballgame where you know what the score is going to be. And until that changes, to me, we need to be focused much more on presenting a new and positive vision that Americans will get excited about. That's how we win in 2020.

Karl tried to turn that into specifics, asking if Yang would advise Dems to "just forgo the Senate trial," noting that Trump's already been impeached and if, as Yang says, we already know the score in the Senate, why spend "the better part of a month, maybe longer" on a trial that Yang says voters don't care about.

Well, we -- we've impeached him. And if you're going to have the trial, you should make it happen as quickly and expediently as possible. I've already said that I think that the other candidates who are in the Senate, Senators Warren and Sanders and Booker and Bennett should feel free to continue their campaigns during the trial because the fact is, we have an election to win later this year and a case to make to the American people.

Karl noted that Yang has suggested he'd "be open to pardoning Donald Trump if (he) were elected" which is something I had not heard before. Karl asked if that was something Yang would do, and if any Democrat won in November, should a pardon be issued?

My focus is on solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected and moving the country forward. And if you look around the world, unfortunately, it's developing countries that have fallen into a pattern of the new president or the new leader prosecuting and sometimes imprisoning the former leader. That's not a precedent that’s been set here in the U.S., and to me, that's something that I would be interested in maintaining. It's not in the country's interest necessarily to look backwards. We need to look forwards.

Hitting this one more time, Karl wondered if Yang would "not want to proceed with prosecuting Donald Trump after he left office" and if he'd be open to a pardon, or if he thought Trump should be pardoned.

Well, we would have to see what the facts were. We’d have to see what the charges were and what the attorney general advises. But my interest is moving the country forward.

That's where they left it, but I did some digging to see what Yang had said about impeachment. Most information points back to the November debate; here's a little more on that from NBC News.

Andrew Yang said he does not think Trump should be facing criminal charges and would consider pardoning Trump if he were in fact prosecuted.

"We do not want to be a country that gets in the pattern of jailing past leaders," Yang said, adding that "there's a reason why Ford pardoned Nixon." 

"I'd actually go a step further and say not just, hey, it's up to my [Attorney General]. I would say that the country needs to start solving the problems on the ground and move forward."

"Would you consider a pardon then?" NBC News asked.

"I would," Yang said.

So - we opened with a clip about diversity and never talked about it again, and we closed with a conversation about pardoning Trump. Interesting way to bookend the interview.

See you around campus.

Sunday School Extra Credit: 12/1/19

Stepping away from impeachment and the 2020 race with this week's Sunday School Extra Credit, and instead I sat in on a conversation between Martha Raddatz and three veterans on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos who were discussing the Commander-in-Chief and his very active involvement in all things Navy these days.

Raddatz talked with Col. Dave Lapan, US Marine Corps (Ret), who served for 34 years and deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti; Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, US Marine Corps (Ret), a Cobra pilot with multiple deployments in over a decade of service, who has a PhD from the Korbel School; and Cdr. Kirk Lippold, US Navy (Ret.), a 26-year veteran who served on Aegis guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and who was the commanding officer on the USS Cole at the time it was attacked by al Qaeda.

She started by asking the veterans to react to comments made by fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who, in an op ed, said the president's order to restore Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's rank of the president's order to restore Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's rank,

"was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review. It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically, or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices." 

Lapan agreed, saying that Trump did "reach down into the chain of command, into the military personnel system in an unprecedented way" and also noted

I think this is the latest example that we've seen from the president that shows he has very little to no understand of the military that he professes to love. 

Lippold, on the other hand, believes Trump did the right thing, noting "you have to look at how the military justice system was performing at that time" and said it was failing, with a prosecutor removed.

The president made it very clear that he was disappointed that the system was not working as it was (supposed to). He wants to back his troops on the ground. This is very disconcerting in many ways to senior officers. 

And, he said, Spencer's comments and how he made them was "wholly inappropriate" and made him seem petty after being fired for cause.

Hunter was troubled that Trump's interventions "send some very concerning messages" after noting that it's important to think about all of this in the context of "the importance of moral in small unit leadership."

And rules of engagement are an incredibly, incredibly important system that is put in place for a reason, And the boots on the ground, the individuals that are making that split (second) decision to take a life or not take a life, to pull a trigger or not pull a trigger, need to know that those rules are there for a reason and that they mean something. 

They discussed a tweet from the president which states "we train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill."  Lippold said it was inappropriate, and to his thinking, it shows the president "is not fully grasping" that they are professionals, with standards and rules that need to be followed.

Hunter was asked to talk about "good order and discipline" and why that's so important.

...in the military, we are expected and we're trained and we are required to do things that often go very counter to human nature. We run towards conflict. We - we lean into it. And that's not something that's easy. It's not in our normal nature to o ti. And so to do it and not devolve into the idea of being a barbarian, that takes a lot of training, but it also requires that there are rules and constraints put in place. 

Lapan shared a story from a time when both he and Raddatz were in Fallujah, and one of our  convoys was caught up in a spot where traffic had been stopped, and an approaching vehicle started going around the ones that were stopped. A Marine shot at the vehicle, in a split-second decision that it was a threat. It turned out not to be the case, but

those are the kind of split-second decisions, life or death and I think that's the key to understanding good order and discipline. We talk about it, but most people don't understand that. 

Raddatz wondered two things - what kind of effect would this whole thing have on our troops on a go-forward basis, and how would they talk to their troops if they were in command today. Here's Lippold:

I would sit there and I would say the president made a decision. It was within his bounds to do so. That is not going to change how we are going to train to do business if we have to go to the tip of the spear and defend this nation. 

If I'm a commander, I am going to still run my unit to that standard, period, because I know that I'm operating under the guidelines and the long view of history is going to support that.  

And here's Hunter, on potential long-term affects.  She mentioned PTSD as something she worries about, and

You know, coming back from war, having made decisions to pull the trigger is hard. You know, it's something that I have worked through. And I think knowing the rules of engagement are meaningful, knowing that we made the best decisions for ourselves and for the people that are to the left and the right of us is something we need to continue to have confidence in and we owe it to those, you know, those young women and men who are over their right now, that they're making the right decisions. 

Raddatz wondered if this divides the force. Lippold said yes, before Raddatz even finished her thought, which was that

we have - we have different opinions right here. I'm thinking in the SEAL community and I'm thinking of the SEALS who - who support Gallagher - who support him and a whole bunch of others who think it's - that should not have happened. 

 Hunter suggested that's one of the "most harmful" long-term effects that you have is

that good order and discipline, rules of engagement, the chain of command both up and down also exists to unify us. And when there's - when the military becomes politicized, nothing good can come of it for the long-term health of the military.

Lippold, who agreed that Trump did the right thing in firing Spencer, seemed to agree.

The military today, I think unfortunately at the senior levels, has become more politicized that it's ever been in our history. And I think at the end of the day, those troops on the ground, those sailors on the ships, want to know that the chain of command has their back.  

The last work goes to Lapan, who painted a somewhat disturbing picture of things, I think.

The divisiveness that we've seen, people taking sides now, more politicization of the military and I'd say it's gone way down at the ranks, it's beyond senior officers when you have, again, troops showing up at events with the president in MAGA hats; (the) Commander in Chief holds events for troops but they're not supposed to be partisan events. And I think the force now wonders and we see divisiveness that's happening because of these things that we've seen the Navy secretary fired over. This president has often talked about how much he admires the military, how much he has done for the military, it's all about the strength of the military. And I'd ask what these pardons have done to further that goal. Rather than making the military stronger, I think he's weakened the military, in these days.

Strength in power, vs strength in morale, in obedience to rules, in respect for the good order and discipline that our military relies on. Think about that.

See you around campus.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v24): Cuomo Pardons

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

The government shutdown, allegedly over border security, is looking more and more like it's about testosterone and backbone more than anything else.

We're hearing of foul-mouthed outbursts, and concerns of a certain someone "looking silly" if he were to back down on his demands, and of course we know that the Senate doesn't care what anyone says, they're not doing their job no matter what. 

The president is spending an inordinate amount of time in the White House, instead of in Florida, which is saving us millions of dollars, so I guess we should be happy that he's contributing in a positive way to the situation.

Meanwhile, back in Albany, 2018 came to a close with NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo issued pardons and sentence commutations to 29 people, 22 of whom are immigrants. And he did it with a dig at the president:

While president Trump shuts down the federal government over his obsessions with keeping immigrants out, New York stands strong in our support for immigrant communities. These actions will help keep immigrant families together and take a critical step toward a more just, more fair and more compassionate New York.

So, who benefited from this, the fifth occurrence of Cuomo protecting immigrants in this fashion?

Wondering on Wednesday (v135)

Here's what's spilling out of the wondering taps tonight.

I can't imagine if anyone's actually wondering whether the mass of suit-wearing white folks who attended the celebration at the White House yesterday were actually Philadelphia Eagles fans. Because, of course, they were not.  They were staffers, interns, and other people who, hopefully, were given God Bless America lyrics in advance.

Anyone else wondering who will be the next celebrity to visit the White House asking for a pardon or sentence commutation for someone?  Sly Stallone was successful in getting the president's attention to the case of Jack Johnson -  and Kim Kardashian somehow struck a chord with her plea for Alice Johnson, and of course the president himself has talked about maybe pardoning Martha Stewart and Rod Blagojevich, so those two might not need a celebrity endorsement. In fact, Blago has filed his clemency papers. But for any number of others, it might just take a B, C, or D-lister to help. 

 Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is holding meetings about school safety and the culture of violence, but those discussions will not include conversations about guns, it seems. Violent video games, violent movies, violent TV shows are all probably in, if we're looking at the whole violent culture thing, but I wonder if her group will be looking at people like Kris Kobach, who rode into Swanee, Kansas on a red, white and blue Jeep with a replica of a machine gun on the back, much to the dismay of may in attendance. As an apparent proud promoter of the culture of violence, Kobach noted that

The outrage over the replica gun on the back of a patriotic jeep is the left trying to attack guns and your #2a rights. I will not back down in the face of a snowflake meltdown and outrage culture.

She also is not, per se, going to be looking at other countries with heavy social media use and lots of video games that don't have school shootings at the same level of ours to see what she can learn.  I wonder why not?

And, I wonder, did anyone know the swamp tastes like chicken?

OrangeVerse XV: Pardon Me

President Trump defended his decision to pardon former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio in the middle of a time when, many believe, he should have been focused on Hurricane Harvey which had just made landfall in Texas.

Here's the question he was asked:

In the middle of Hurricane Harvey hitting on Friday night, you chose to pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I wonder if you could tell us what was behind your thinking for issuing the pardon for the Sheriff. And, as well, what do you say to your critics, even some in your own party, who say it was the wrong thing to do?

Trump laid out his defenses, in verse. Note that, in the middle of his statement (right after the 'Crazy' verse below), he recited a number of pardons made by other presidents: Clinton (Marc Rich, Susan Rosenberg, Carlos Vignali) and Obama (Chelsea Manning, Oscar Lopez Rivera), as if by comparison (always by comparison) he stands alone and above all others who have come before.

 Rating and Raving

Well, 

a lot of people

think it was

the right thing

to do John.

And actually

in the middle of a

hurricane, 

even though it was a

Friday evening, 

I assumed the ratings

would be far higher

than they would normally be.

You know

the hurricane was just starting

and I put it out there

that I had pardoned,

as we say,

Sheriff Joe.

Why, You Ask?

He's

done a great job

for the people of

Arizona.

He's

very strong

on borders

very strong

on illegal immigration.

He

is loved

in Arizona.

Fairly Unfairly

I thought

he was treated

unbelievable unfairly

when they came down

with their big decision

to go get him

right before the election

voting started, 

as you know.

And he lost

in a fairly close

election.

He would have won

the election,

but they just 

hammered him just

before the election.

I thought

that was a

very

very unfair thing

to do.

Crazy

When I

mentioned him

the other night - 

(you saw the

massive crowd we had.)

The people went

crazy 

when I said

What do you think

of Sheriff Joe?

or something

to that effect.

The place went

absolutely

crazy

when I 

was in Arizona

last week.

Sheriff Joe

Sheriff Joe

is a patriot.

Sheriff Joe

loves our country

Sheriff Joe

protected our borders and

Sheriff Joe

was very

unfairly treated

by the Obama administration

especially

right before 

an election

an election

that he would

have won.

And he

was elected

many times.

So I stand by my pardon of

Sheriff Joe

and I think

the people of Arizona

who really know him best

would agree

with me.

Thank you

very much.

Trump in Transition (v19)

Hanging out on the porch, listening to the birds, and letting my mind wander to the latest 'transition' by the president.

Trump has hired a NY big money loudmouth, Anthony Scaramucci, to be his new director of communications.Here's some of what we learned about "the Mooch" in  The Atlantic:

The Wall Street financier and former Obama donor once called then-candidate Trump “a hack politician,” a big-mouthed “bully,” and “an inherited money dude from Queens County” and backed two other Republican presidential contenders, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, before embracing Trump as the party’s nominee.

And, we're told, this son of a construction worker has a background very similar to Trump's:

Like Trump, he parlayed business success into celebrity by writing books, appearing on cable news, and even hosting his own financial show. He and the president also share a lack of ideological rigidity, which meshes with the business-first ethos of the Wall Street veterans in the White House while clashing with GOP stalwarts like Priebus and Sean Spicer, the press secretary who resigned as a result of Scaramucci’s hiring.

Congratulations to Spicer on finally getting out. Why it took getting a new boss for him to rise to the occasion is between him, the bushes and his Easter Bunny but we all have our own last straw, and at least it's over now. He's safe, and we can move on.

Speaking of moving on, what do you say when you accidentally bump into someone? Pardon me is going to be my go-to phrase.

According to this Washington Post article,

Some of president Trump's lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's Russia investigation, building a  case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president's authority to grand pardons, according to people familiar with the effort. 

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump's lawyers have been discussing the president's pardoning powers among themselves. 

#Whatthesniff  is going on? Maybe he's bored from tweeting and beating the Fox News - CNN - MSNBC buttons to death on his TV remote?

The irony of the most interest-conflicted president, first family, and administration in living memory expressing concern over anyone else's potential conflicts of interest is beyond laughable, isn't it? And,
lest they forget, President Clinton was impeached because of activities related to a semen stain on a blue dress worn by someone other than his wife, not for activities associated with a land deal called Whitewater.

These investigations go where they will and the chips fall where they may - and the president messes with that at his peril (at least in normal times...). 

Finally, let's turn to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who is in need of a transition himself. Sessions, you'll recall, recused himself from Russia - Trump investigations or anything else related to the Trump campaign, to remove any potential issues with impartiality.

This week Trump, in a rambling conver(...oh, pardon me, I mean in an interview) with the New York Times, said this about whether the AG had given him a heads up about the recusal:

Zero. Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have -- which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself?  If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said "Thanks Jeff, but I can't, you know, I'm not going to take you." It's extremely unfair, and that's a mild word, to the president. So he recuses himself then I end up with a second man, who's a deputy... 

Does Trump even know what recusal means, or what the AG does? And, until the potential ethical issues stemming from campaign-related activities were exposed, from what could Sessions have recused himself?

I suppose, in his interview for the job, he could have said to Trump,

Listen, you and I both know you ran a shady campaign; we both know your family and advisers, including me, acted like morons and may have broken some laws when we kissed up to Russia with your full knowledge and approval. That's gonna hurt when it all comes out, and we both know it will.  When it does I'll need to step back to protect you. Any issues with that? 

Trump, who hired Mike Flynn knowing his shady background, wouldn't have cared, I'm sure. But Sessions didn't do that, and he paid the price this week. He insists he will continue to serve as our Attorney General.

I have the honor as serving as attorney general, it's something that goes beyond any thought I would have ever had for myself. We love this job, we love this department and I plan to continue to do so as long as that is appropriate.  

Yeah --  it's no longer "appropriate" to stay on. Take a cue from your recusal statement, and bow out before it gets any worse.

During the course of the last several weeks, I have heard that the president is miffed at and confused by my trying to be ethical while helping promote his law enforcement agenda. Most recently, in an interview with the New York Times, he laid bare his distaste for my taking an ethical stand to protect his administration.

Having concluded that neither I nor anyone else has any idea what the president will do or say next, and given his obvious lack of regard for ethics in general, I have decided to resign from my position as attorney general.

This announcement should be interpreted as confirmation that I would rather be an unemployed ethical person than an appointee of this president.  

And then, he and Sean Spicer can go have a beer.