The Auto-Obit of an Unassuming Hero

This is a different sort of post from my usual rants on “Lies and Damn Lies.”  Nonetheless, it somehow fits the theme.  (At least I think so; you can decide for yourself.)

A friend of mine passed away recently. Bob Peirce was an amazing person. In many ways, the sort of person I admire most – the person who does the right thing just because it is right.  About a year before he passed away (and just a year or so after he ceased leading trekking expeditions through the Himalayas for people 30 to 60 years younger than himself), he decided to sit down and write his own “auto-obituary.”  Below is what he wrote.  I know that I should present his words without commentary, but I just can’t.  So, here’s my commentary: don’t be fooled by Bob’s modesty. Bob was a man who moved people. Nepal named a mountain after him.  Out of the blue, they just did it.  On his 90th birthday, he led a 130-mile fund-raising bike trip from Portland to Seattle. The Portland Art Museum held a retrospective of his artwork.  When he became weak, Bob never asked for help.  Without prompting, Nepalese Sherpas tried to convince him to retire to Nepal.  When he refused, they simply moved from Nepal to care for him in Portland. He was that kind of person. To this day, don’t be surprised if, while trekking through Nepal, you meet a Sherpa whose middle name is Peirce.  So many loved him that much.  Anyway, here’s his auto-obituary.  I claim zero credit for his brilliance and all blame for any faults, typos or errors I introduced while transcribing it.

—————————————————-

“Bob Peirce never made it to the top.

He never much got to the top of anything.

For that matter, he didn’t get to the top of Mr. Robson, the highest mountain in Canada, and he didn’t get anywhere near the top of Grand Teton in Wyoming (it turned out they were climbing the wrong peak, anyway).  Nor did he really get to the top of Mera Peak, the highest trekking peak in Nepal.  He said he did, but that was because getting up to the real top would be too much of a challenge and would take too long, so he told his group that what they were standing on was the top, that it was higher than that other hump over there (never mind appearances), and that they had reach the summit.

He was in an honors department at Harvard, the only honors department that that college had at the time, but he did not receive honors.  That was because on his very last term at Harvard, his grades dropped below a B average and that disqualified him.  He had to write a thesis anyway and the reader said it certainly deserved a summa cum laude,’ but he was already disqualified, so he graduated without honor.

He took the test for Officer Candidate School when he when into the army but, because he didn’t know any math, his grade was just below what it should be to make him an acceptable candidate.

So he spent his time in the US Army as a Private.  Sometime before the war was over, there was a change in the Table of Organization, the chart by which the army matched rank with jobs.  The job he had been doing was now supposed to be done by a Technician Fifth Class, a kind of broken-down corporal and only a small step up from Private.  Whether anyone wanted it or not, that meant a promotion for Bob Peirce.  Peirce was one of the people who did not want it (maybe this had to do with the ugly prospect of having to sew stripes on his sleeve).  He even went to his commanding officer to tell him this.  The CO agreed that it did not make sense for Peirce to be promoted, yet he had no choice.  You do not argue with the TO, which is created in heaven and inscribed on tablets.

In spite of two degrees from Harvard and a private school education, Bob Peirce was not qualified for any line of work when he finally had to leave school.  His job search took him from universities to hardware stores to the Federal Reserve Bank (where, at the end of his job interview, they felt compelled to ask him, as delicately as they could, just what ever made him think he would want to work there).  It was not until he walked into the Portland Art Museum that anyone asked him “which job do you want?”  (When, not having listened to the choices available, he answered, “Curator,” it turned out that was the job of the man who was interviewing him.  They hired him anyway, but as Librarian).

Earlier – back in New York where he had spent a year in the Statistical Department of Oxford University Press, he was presented with one of those opportunities that come out of the sky and can change a person’s life.  One of the editors had been impressed by Peirce’s hand-drawn Christmas card and had a proposition.  The Press was about to publish a book that they thought was very good (I’ve forgotten what kind of book it was) but the author wanted it to be illustrated by his friend, and the friend’s illustrations, in this editor’s view, were “pretty awful.”  Bob Peirce’s assignment was to take up pen and make his own version of what the friend had illustrated and to do such an outstanding job that the author would have to agree that Peirce would be the illustrator instead of his friend.  It had to be a secret mission; the author was not to know what was afoot until presented with drawings so dazzling that he would forgive the Press for its misgivings about his own choice of illustrator. And the fact is that the drawings Peirce made were outstanding – maybe even dazzling.  He did them in Maine where he had gone to spend a few days with his grandmother, and they were right there in the bag when he arrived back in New York.  What he had managed to leave on the train, and what was never recovered in spite of frantic searches, were the original drawings of the author’s friend.  There is no way of knowing how they explained this to the author.  What is known is that this marked the end of Bob Peirce’s career as an illustrator.  The rumor is that it was his picture that the editors posted just outside the bathroom door to throw darts at during their lunch hours.

Except for the Portland Art Museum, Bob Peirce was fired from ever job he ever had – and there is a good reason to believe that he was about to be fired from the Museum when, after 24 years and his first trip to Nepal, he quit.

And then there were smaller things where he missed the top.  After spending many hours interviewing Portland Symphony Conductor James dePreist and writing what would have been the feature in the forthcoming issue of Portland Quarterly, that magazine folded up before publication.

Later, Nancy Russell, a Portland lady who had done more than anyone else to preserve the natural beauty of the Columbia Gorge, asked him to write a book on the subject.  He worked on this for two years, interviewing many people and doing extensive research.  Nancy was suffering from A.L.S. (better known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease), under which you slowly deteriorate.  At some point (I think two years into the project), her son told Peirce that he had taken things over from his failing mother.  But because he wanted a book that would be something different from what he mother had in mind or what Peirce had already written, the latter dropped out of the project, turning over his manuscript with all his notes and files, yielding to a new author.  Not long after, Nancy died.  No book has ever been published.

Still later – he was asked to write a piece that would be an introduction to the catalogue for an exhibition at the Portland Art Museum celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Pacific Northwest College of Art.  They paid him handsomely (by his standards) but the catalogue was never published – they did not have enough money for it.

And, earlier, there were academic setbacks of one kind or another.  Peirce did not do well with languages, even his own, so he was happy when his freshman advisor, who happened to be Dean of Freshmen, told him not to worry until later about taking the language courses needed for graduation.  When “later” arrived, it turned out that the man was wrong: Peirce now was told he would have to stay in school a full year beyond his expected graduation date in order to complete the necessary language requirement.  There was only one language that could qualify him on time and that was Ancient Greek.  That was how, unexpectedly, he landed in the Greek History and Literature Department.

While there, he received another piece of bad advice (academics are not to be trusted).  He enrolled in the summer session of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens partly because he was told he would earn academic credit by doing this.  This too turned out to be false information, as he learned when he got back to the US, yet he had a wonderful summer.

Then, of course, there is the fact known to everyone that Bob Peirce never got married.  Nor do we think he ever had a serious love affair.  Even in a carnal sense, he was never on top.

But there were serious moments of truth in his life.  There was the time – he says he thinks it was 1953 – when, one night, he experienced a kind-of moment of revelation, the sort of thing that Saint Augustine or Moses talked about happening to them, except that in his case, God did not appear and nothing was revealed other than what seemed to be the certain knowledge that the world was good and that no matter what happened to him in future years – no matter how depraved he or it became, all was good.  And yes, there was a blinding light – or not exactly blinding but a real increased illumination of things that stayed with him for some time, diminishing as the days went by.  He remembered that in his vision, he could see that he was near the top of The Mountain, yet that was a far as he would ever go.  He would never get to the top, that that did not seem to matter.

So even though Bob Peirce never got to the top of anything, he had some kind of satisfaction in being where he was, wherever he was, wherever that happened to be, and knowing, in a way, that that’s where he was supposed to be. It’s like always hovering somewhere near ten minutes before the hour on the Buddhist Wheel of Life.  You may forever be below the pinnacle, but as you look ahead, you can have a chance to observe that the people on top of this moving wheel have nowhere to go but down.”

 

Advertisements

An Assault on American Democracy

One of the key – and very expensive at $250 billion or so – components of the GOP tax reform plan is the immediate reduction of the estate tax followed by its complete elimination in five years.  To many people, that sounds reasonable.  After all, isn’t the “death tax” a bad, un-American thing?

Actually, the opposite is true.  Very soon after the signing of the Declaration of Independence – and well before the U.S. Constitution was ratified – the Continental Congress voted overwhelmingly to eliminate certain aristocratic laws that had been inherited from Europe.  First among these was something called “primogeniture and entail,” a strange-sounding term that reflect political reality in Europe at the time.  The reason the “founding fathers” (that sounds sexist, but everyone in the Continental Congress was indeed male – a sign of the times) acted so quickly and decisively to outlaw primogeniture and entail was that it was the basis of the European aristocracy.  What the obscure-sounding term “primogeniture” referred to was the common practice – often enforced by law – of leaving the entire estate of a family to the first-born son.  Everyone else – including, of course, all daughters – were (in more modern parlance) SOL.  The “entail” part refers to the common practice among European aristocracy of including a clause in the will of an aristocrat that forbids his (it was always ‘his’) heirs from ever breaking up the estate.  The idea was to ensure that the family name and family fortune endured for eternity.

The reason that America’s “founding fathers” put such great emphasis on outlawing these practices was that they realized that not just the aristocracy but the entire concept of a class-based society rested on such laws.  Thomas Jefferson went farther than his peers in this regard, arguing that all wealth should be redistributed equally every 50 years.  His hope was that this frequent redistribution would keep democracy alive and fresh and allow what he called the “natural aristocracy” – those individuals that, for whatever reason, are more intelligent, capable and public-minded than all others – to rise to the top of society and lead our nation.  As Jefferson’s one-time adversary and life-long friend politely explained to him, the proposal might have merits but was utterly impractical, if not impossible, to implement.  Despite not agreeing with Jefferson on one of his more audacious proposals, there was essentially zero dissention among the leading figures of the American Revolution that preventing the rise of a hereditary aristocracy was one of the most important tasks facing the young United States of America.

Then, as now, the idea was not to prevent children from inheriting the family farm or continuing the family business.  The goal was to prevent the emergence of a class of wealthy overlords capable of controlling the political process in America for their own benefit.  That’s why Benjamin Franklin pushed (unsuccessfully) for the constitution of the Pennsylvania to declare concentrated wealth “a danger to the happiness of mankind.”

While neither Jefferson nor Franklin were successful, that does not mean that leaders of the Revolutionary Era disagreed with their goals.  The method for avoiding the possible disaster of American Democracy being overthrown by a European-style aristocracy was the inheritance tax.  Over the ensuing two hundred-plus years, the exact implementation of the tax has changed, as has the rate.  At times, it reach 90% on large estates, but at other times it was much lower.  Today, it is as low as it has ever been in American history.

Under current law, only estates with a net value of over roughly $5.5 million for an individual or $11 million for a couple are subject to any taxes at all.  “Net value” means that farms and small business are not taxed on the value of land or the value or all assets, but on the net value of assets minus all encumbrances such as loans, other debt, contractual obligations, etc.  What this means in practice is that 99.8% of Americans’ estates pass to heirs without any estate taxes.  Zero.  Of the remaining 0.2%, most pay relatively little.  Even though the top rate for the estate tax is 40%, the average tax paid by those who paid estate taxes is just 17%.  In 2012, total receipts from the estate tax equaled less than 1% of the $1.2 trillion inherited that year.  1%.  Another way of looking at this question is to realize that in a nation composed of roughly 325,000,000 Americans, just 400 families stand to reap 80% of the benefit from the elimination of the inheritance tax.  That’s right, the top 0.0001% of the population reaps 80% of the gains.  Looking back at the correspondence between Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the other founders of American democracy, there can be no question that this is exactly the type of concentration of wealth that they all agreed should be avoided.

In the eyes of the people who literally wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the GOP “tax reform” is nothing less than a frontal assault on American democracy itself.

 

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

Note:  This is a post I wrote back on Feb 19.  I thought I had posted it, but I guess I didn’t press the right combination of buttons.  In light of recent developments, I thought I would post it despite the long delay.  The only changes I made today (Aug 1) were to add this comment and to correct two typos that I saw.  (Sadly, everything I do has typos.)

The conventional wisdom among many analysts not happy with the direction of President Trump’s administration is that Russian President Vladimir Putin supported candidate (now President) Donald Trump because Putin expected that Mr. Trump would follow more “Moscow friendly” policies that Hillary Clinton would.  While that explanation might have a grain of truth, I do not believe that it is correct since it misses the primary reason why Putin behaved the way he did and, more importantly, why the Putin-Trump “bromance” is destined to end acrimoniously.

Early in the primary season, before Donald Trump had emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Moscow was already following its well-established policy of attempting to undermine faith in the American electoral system and the American system of government in general.  Moscow followed these decades-old policy initiatives with a modern twist, supplementing traditional propaganda tools such as fabricated anti-American rumors and news with an aggressive social media campaign backed by a veritable army of human and robotic “trolls” to help ensure that Moscow-created and Moscow-approved propaganda reached the maximum number of Americans as well as others around the world.  After all, the traditional target of anti-American propaganda is not just American citizens but pro-democracy activists around the world – and particularly those in Russia or in its sphere of influence.  In Putin’s world view, making Russia great involves making America weak since the world is a zero sum game.

As the primary season progressed, not only did Mr. Trump emerge as the front runner, he emerged as the perfect example of what Russian intelligence services have referred to for decades as the “useful idiot” – the individual who willingly and without payment spouts the exact false propaganda that Russian intelligence agencies devised in Moscow.  Given that Moscow’s traditional role was to “throw bombs” in an ongoing attempt to undermine faith in American democracy, the Kremlin’s attraction to a political “bomb thrower” such as Mr. Trump who cast aspersions on both parties and on U.S. government as a whole was clear.  The repeated assertions that American cities are collapsing under the weight of an unprecedented crime wave, that patriotism is under siege, that American government institutions are actively working to take away American’s basic rights and freedoms were right out of Moscow’s playbook.

Certain elements in the Kremlin may have also believed that Mr. Trump would pursue more “Russian friendly” policies than would Ms. Clinton, but that was secondary.  The main rationale for supporting Mr. Trump was almost certainly to support the person whose stump speeches denigrated American democratic institutions as vociferously as the Kremlin’s paid propagandists did.

It is alleged, but not proven, that Russian intelligence agencies have additional compromising information, or kompromat, on Mr. Trump and his inner circle.  While I have no inside knowledge, even if the dossier complied by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele is wildly inaccurate it is highly unlikely that Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page were the only three Trump insiders in touch with Moscow and that no one else in the entire Trump campaign organization and administration knew anything about those contacts.

Even if such kompromat exists in Kremlin vaults, however, that does not mean that Putin ever intended to use the material to blackmail or manipulate the White House into adopting pro-Moscow policies that are antithetical to American interests, whether those policies involve ceding Ukraine to Russia or turning a blind eye to Russian violations of treaties limiting intermediate nuclear forces. Neither Mr. Putin nor his top propaganda experts are stupid.  They understand that the American “establishment” – the Congress, the courts, public opinion, the media and even President Trump’s own party – would have very limited patience for abrupt changes in U.S. policy that favored Russian actions at the expense of American interests.

Putin’s motive was never to control the White House.  Instead, he was always playing (quite effectively) an old game to undermine faith in the U.S. government and thereby to weaken the U.S. government’s ability to act to check Russian expansionism.  Until very late in the campaign – likely on Election Day itself – Putin did not even expect Trump to win.  Putin supported Trump solely to give more voice to Trump’s almost apocalyptic view of American society and government.  When Trump actually won the election, Mr. Putin and his intelligence/propaganda services were almost certainly as surprised as anyone.

While I certainly do not rule out that President Putin will take a few stabs at coercing the Trump Administration into adopting policies that favor Russia’s drive to recreate an empire, I seriously doubt he anticipates a continued string of successes.  Instead, each attempt to manipulate the Trump Administration will simply add to the Kremlin’s stockpile of kompromat that will eventually be utilized to undermine both Americans’ and the world’s faith in American democracy.

According to this theory of Russian actions, it has always been a given that Russian President Putin would not only cease supporting Donald Trump once he became President but Putin would use all of his intelligence assets to actively undermine the newly-inaugurated President.  This is because the goal has never been to support a “Russia friendly” President of the USA but to undermine the very basis of American democracy such as respect for the rule of law, the separation of powers and equality under the constitution.

If this view is correct, the only reason Putin has not yet begun to dole out kompromat against President Trump and his inner circle is that U.S. media, law enforcement and intelligence have already been highlighting the grievous shortcomings of both the President and his inner circle.  Should U.S. domestic criticism of President Trump being to die down – either due to fatigue or an active anti-media, anti-dissent campaign orchestrated by the White House – President Putin is waiting to fill in the gap because, in Putin’s world view, there is no better way to advance his desire to create a new Russian empire than to undermine faith in American democracy and to render the American government so internally conflicted that it is unable to take meaningful again against Russian aggression.

In this view, the only real question is when, not if, President Putin will turn against President Trump.

 

Oh! What A Tangled Web They Weave When First They Practice To Deceive: A Trump – Russia Chronology

I suspect that I am not alone in feeling overwhelmed by the flood of information (revelations, accusations, denials, counter-denials, statements, revised statements, etc.) surrounding allegations of collusion and/or conspiracy between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Government of Russia.  Tracking the whole web is beyond my abilities (Robert Mueller and his team is working on that), so I therefore attempted to assemble a chronology with complete original sources surrounding just one aspect of this complex saga: the events starting with June 3, 2016, when Donald Trump Jr. received an email proposing a meeting with a group of Russians through today, August 1, 2017.

I was tempted to try to create sort of wiring diagram to go along with the statements to highlight the myriad ways in which statements from the President, his family and various officials and spokespersons have “evolved” (or contradicted each other) over time.  In end the, I gave that up both because there were just too many lines to draw and because I felt readers could form their own views.

Readers be ware:  Having complied this, I can see why the various press attempts at a similar timeline are so incomplete – there is just too much information.  Nonetheless, I thought some people might be interested in reading the full, overly long, version.  If anyone believes that I have left out important dates/events/statements, please send a comment so that I can update accordingly!

 June 3, 2016: Trump Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone stating that Trump associates Emin and Aras Agalarov had arranged for the delivery of “information that would incriminate Hillary” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

June 7, 2016: In a primary-night speech at the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester, New York, Donald Trump announces that he will reveal “big news” about Hillary Clinton “probably” on June 13.

June 8, 2016: Trump Jr. forwards the email thread to Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner and to his Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort.  (The exact forwarding addresses and time are in the e-mail chain.)

June 9, 2016: The promised meeting took place.  Representing the Trump Campaign are Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, Trump Senior Advisor and Son-in-Law Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr.  Donald Trump Jr. now says the information offered was not of interest and that the meeting focused on the lawyer’s desire to change adoption-related sanctions against Russia.  Because adoptions were suspended in response to US sanctions over Russian human rights abuses, “discussing adoption” means discussing sanctions.

June 15, 2016: The Democratic National Committee’s Trump opposition research file is released online. The software firm CrowdStrike releases an analysis indicating that the DNC had been hacked by “Russian intelligence-related adversaries.”

July 22, 2016: On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks releases hacked DNC emails.

July 24, 2016: Donald Trump Jr. tells CNN’s Jake Tapper that the Clinton campaign’s suggestion that Russia was trying to intervene in the election on behalf of Trump is “disgusting” and “phony.”  He goes on to state that “It just goes to show you their exact moral compass. They’ll say anything to be able to win this. I mean this is time and time again, lie after lie. … It’s disgusting. It’s so phony. … These lies and the perpetuating of that kind of nonsense to try to gain some political capital is just outrageous.” Paul Manafort similarly denies any links between Russia and the Trump campaign, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that such a suggestion is “absurd and there’s no basis to it.”

July 27, 2016: Paul Manafort again denies any relationship with the Russians and again says it’s “absurd” to suggest Russia was working on behalf of the Trump campaign.  (Note: He knew he was lying since he received a copy of the full e-mail chain with Rob Goldstone explaining Russia’s efforts to support Trump.)

July 27, 2016: Donald Trump publicly asks Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Oct. 7, 2016:  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russian intelligence services had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.

Oct. 19, 2016:  During the final debate of the 2016 Presidential season, Donald Trump rejects the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies and instead declares that “the U.S. has no idea” who was behind election interference.

Oct. 31, 2016: U.S. President Barack Obama directly warned Putin to stop interfering or face “serious consequences”.

Nov. 8, 2016: Donald Trump wins the 2016 Presidential election with a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the Electoral College.

Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump’s election, his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, denied a report in the Washington Post that the Russians and the campaign had communicated, saying the campaign had “no contact with Russian officials.”

Nov. 11, 2016: Hicks issues another denial. “It never happened,” she said. “There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

Dec. 16, 2016:  The FBI officially concurs with other U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia hacked both the DNC and John Podesta’s personal e-mails as part of an overall campaign to influence the U.S. election.

Dec. 18, 2016: Kellyanne Conway, a campaign and eventual White House official, denies outright any contact between the campaign and the Russians. “Absolutely not,” she told CBS’s John Dickerson. “And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened. I hear people saying it like it’s a fact on television. That is just not only inaccurate and false, but it’s dangerous.”

Jan. 10, 2017: Manafort denies a report alleging collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. “I have never had any ties to Russia or Putin,” Manafort told NPR.  (Note: Paul Manafort received millions of dollars from Russian government sources for his efforts to elect Viktor Yanukovich, a pro-Putin candidate, in the Ukrainian presidential election.  When widespread protests over election fraud forced Yanukovich from office, he fled straight to Moscow where he remains under Vladimir Putin’s protection.)

Jan. 15, 2017: Five days before the inauguration, Vice President Mike Pence went on Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday and stated unequivocally that there had been no contact between Trump campaign officials and Russians seeking to meddle in the election. “I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy,” Pence told Dickerson.

Jan. 19, 2017: The day before the inauguration, Manafort again vigorously denies that any contact ever took place. From the New York Times: “In an emailed statement Thursday evening, Mr. Manafort called allegations that he had interactions with the Russian government a ‘Democrat Party dirty trick and completely false.’  “I have never had any relationship with the Russian government or any Russian officials. I was never in contact with anyone, or directed anyone to be in contact with anyone,” he said.  “On the ‘Russian hacking of the D.N.C.,’ ” he said, “my only knowledge of it is what I have read in the papers.”

March 18, 2017: Trump Jr. tells the Times: “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.” Asked at that time whether he had ever discussed government policies related to Russia, the younger Mr. Trump replied, “A hundred percent no.”

March 27, 2017: Under scrutiny for a transition meeting with the Russian ambassador, the White House describes Kushner’s meetings with Russians as follows: “Throughout the campaign and transition, Jared Kushner served as the official primary point of contact with foreign governments and officials.”

April 6, 2017: The New York Times reports that Kushner failed to disclose meetings with Russians on his security clearance forms. His lawyer said he told the FBI the following about those meetings: “During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity.”

May 6, 2017: Trump Jr. tweets out a New York Post story titled “Bad news for the Trump-Russia tinfoil-hat brigade” denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, adding his own comment .

May 8, 2017: Trump makes the header image of his Twitter account an image that incorrectly states that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had “reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows – there is ‘no evidence’ of collusion w/Russia and Trump.”

May 9, 2017: President Trump dismisses FBI Director James Comey without even warning Comey in advance.

 May 18, 2017: President Trump repeatedly denies collusion during a press conference, but then seems to hedge on whether any of his campaign officials might have colluded. “The entire thing has been a witch hunt. And there is no collusion between, certainly, myself and my campaign, but I can only speak for myself and the Russians—zero.”

May 30, 2017: Trump Jr. tweets another denial of collusion, this time including a story from TownHall.com, a conservative site that consistently backs the Trump administration.  The TownHall.com story repeated President Trump’s mischaracterization of Director Clapper’s remarks.  Trump Jr. added his own comment that “You mean nothing has changed in the 10 month witch hunt?

June 8, 2017: On the day of James Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Trump Jr. sends out a series of tweets denying collusion.  One thanking former FBI Director Comey read “Thanks James: Comey Debunks NYT report about Trump Campaign having repeated Russian contacts.”  The other referenced a report on the right-wing “Drudge Report with Trump’s Jr.’s added comment “If Chris Matthews is willing to say it, it’s over folks. Now can we get to work to ???”

June 27, 2017:  The “Trump 2020” campaign fund pays the law firm of criminal defense attorney (who is best known for defending Mafia figures) Alan S. Futerfas $50,000 to represent Donald Trump Jr.

 July 8, 2017: The first story about Trump Jr.’s meeting with lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya went up on the New York Times website.

 July 8, 2017: In response to the New York Times article, Trump Jr. states that campaign issues were not discussed in the meeting and that he didn’t know the identity of the person he was meeting.  He specifically stated that “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”

July 9, 2017: Donald Trump Jr. gives the following new and greatly revised statement about the meeting:  “I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting. I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office. The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events.”

July 10, 2017: Trump Jr. sends two tweets.  The first states “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent… went nowhere but had to listen.”  The second denied that there were any inconsistencies between the multiple evolving statements he had issued describing the June 9, 2016 meeting with Russian representatives.

July 11, 2017: Trump Jr. sends a tweet at 5:27 AM stating “Media & Dems are extremely invested in the Russia story. If this nonsense meeting is all they have after a yr, I understand the desperation!”

July 11, 2017: A few hours after the tweet above, the New York Times informed Donald Trump Jr. that they had obtained copies of the actual e-mail exchanges that led up to the July 8, 2016, meeting with the group of Russians and planned to publish them.  Trump Jr. himself released the an image of the e-mail chain via twitter at the exact time deadline set by the NYT for comments.  The full e-mails in readable form can be found on the NYT website.

July 11, 2017:  On afternoon after Trump Jr. pre-empted the NYT story by releasing the e-mails himself at the very last minute, the White House issued a statement from President Trump is statement from President Trump stating that “My son is a high-quality person and I applaud his transparency.”

July 12, 2017:  Jay Sekulow, the lawyer on President Trump’s personal legal team charged with handling all press relations appeared on Good Morning Americaand stated categorically that “the president didn’t sign off on anything” and “wasn’t involved” with the statement in any way.

July 16, 2017: Jay Sekulow reaffirmed that statement on NBC’sMeet the Press”, stating “I want to be clear – that the President was not involved in the drafting of the statement.

July 31, 2017:  The Washington Post breaks the story that President Trump personally dictated the initial (July 8) statement issued in the name of Donald Trump Jr. concerning the meeting with multiple campaign officials and Russians in Trump tower.  This contradicts every previous statement made by the White House and Trump’s lawyers.

August 1, 2017: While being careful to avoid confirming the details of the July 31 Washington Post story, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders indirectly confirms the gist of the report during an official press briefing by stating “Look, the statement that Don Jr. issued is true. There’s no inaccuracy in the statement. The president weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had.

 

 

 

A Nation of Laws

Nearly a year ago, I wrote a blog post on the “Clinton e-mail server” fiasco in which I argued that while I certainly would not defend former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account for official purposes, the reality is that every Secretary of State since the dawn of e-mail has done more or less the same.  More broadly, I argued, the very real and dangerous problem we face as a nation is that elected officials and senior political appointees of both parties almost routinely flaunt laws and regulations.  Just as the old nobility of Europe were not held to the same standards as the peasants, America’s political class has come to view itself as above the law.  If you don’t believe that, just think of what would have happened if a “normal person” (the modern counterpart to a feudal peasant) did what the politicians did.  If a career member of the State Department had done what Hillary Clinton did, he/she would have been fired and maybe even jailed.  If a career officer at the CIA has ‘outed’ Valery Plame the way former VP Cheney did, he/she would have been sent to jail for a very, very long time.  The list of examples is (unfortunately), endlessly long.

If anyone had any hope that President Trump’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric meant that these sorts of abuses would stop, now is the time to wake up.  The Attorney General of the United States himself failed to disclose required information on his security form (known as a DS-86 or EQIP).  If a career civil servant of any branch of service – State Department, military, intelligence agency – did that, he/she would have his/her security clearance pulled in a heartbeat and would likely spend the next five years in jail.  It does not matter how ‘material’ the information was.  Withholding information on a security form is a crime.  Period.  Lying to or misleading the FBI officers who personally interview candidates for security clearances is a crime.  Period.  The list of senior Trump administration officials who have knowingly violated these laws is growing daily:  AG Sessions, former National Security Advisor Flynn, and Presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner, just to name a few.  On top of those, the Trump administration is now refusing to release the (evidently extensive) list of lobbyists who were granted special Presidential waivers from ethics rules so that they can now manage or oversee the exact same government bodies they once lobbied.

This post may sound to some as “anti-Trump,” but that is not my intent.  Instead, I deeply believe that we as a nation must reaffirm our commitment to equality and justice.   After all, America has survived rough times before because we are a nation a laws – laws that apply to everyone.  At its heart, that is the idea of America – a nation based on the belief that all people are equal and should be treated accordingly.  Not only are Trump administration officials continuing a decades-long practice of assuming that the laws don’t apply to political appointees, they are doing so in an unprecedentedly public and decisive manner.  The clear message is:  this Administration is above the law.  For anyone of any political party or political stripe, the time has come to stand up for America.  If we are not a nation of laws, then our Constitution is reduced to merely words on a scrap of paper.

Where Next?

To understand what is likely to happen next in the sad but widening scandal of contacts (at a minimum) between President Trump’s inner circle of advisors and Russian officials (including intelligence officers), we need to back up to ask: “Why?”

As is so often the case when dealing with Russia, the obvious (to American audiences) answer is not the correct one.  The almost universal explanation about why Russian operatives reached out to leading campaign insiders such as Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Flynn is that Russian President Putin wanted to help Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States.  Often, this rationale is followed by further details on topics such as how Putin personally hates Hillary Clinton for her role in imposing sanctions or that Putin believed Donald Trump would adopt a more friendly approach toward Moscow.  I believe that those explanations may seem obvious, but they are (to quote one of President Trump’s famous debate lines) “WRONG.”

To understand why the conventional wisdom is so wrong, we need to remember that while Putin may be playing a different offensive strategy, he is playing an old game.  Following a pattern established over generations, President Putin interfered in the U.S. election in order to discredit American democracy.  While Putin upped the game quite significantly, the basic playbook of undermining faith in American democratic institutions has been followed by his predecessors for a century.  The first target audience for these attacks on American democracy has not necessarily always been the United States but the citizens of Russia, of the former Soviet Union and of countries in transition around the globe.  Since the time of the October Revolution, leaders in Moscow have been attempting to convince their own citizens and the world that American (and other Western) democracies are hollow and that their much-vaunted institutions are so riddled by cronyism and corruption that that they are, at best, no better than Moscow’s authoritarian model.

Early in the election campaign, the trickle of leaks on topics such as U.S. domestic spying and the much larger flood of Russian propaganda designed to undermine faith in the American government by emboldening and amplifying conspiracy theorists all fit the traditional model of Kremlin interference in U.S. elections.  While the tone and content of much of the Russian-origin propaganda was clearly intended to play to the far right-wing of America’s political spectrum, the intent was to undermine Americans’ – and the world’s – faith in American democratic institutions. Fifty or seventy years ago, Moscow believed that the best way to undermine American democracy was by supporting the far left.  Today, Putin believes the best way to accomplish that same goal is to embolden the far right.  The methods may change but the goal remains the same.

Shortly before the Democratic National Convention, Moscow’s campaign against American democracy embarked on a new tactic of supporting one candidate – Donald Trump – over the other.  The dominant explanation (particularly among left-leaning reporters and pundits) is that Putin favored Trump over Clinton because he felt that Trump would be more sympathetic to Russian interests and viewpoints.  I believe the majority is wrong.  What Putin hoped to accomplish was the same thing his predecessors had strived to do for 100 years – undermine the very concept of democracy.  Putin’s goal was not to elect a “Russia friendly” President but to undermine faith in American democracy so as to demoralize democratic movements around the world and paralyze the United States’ ability to act decisively on the world stage.

I am not disagreeing the US Intelligence Community’s report which concluded that President Putin personally directed Russian intelligence and propaganda organs to actively support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.  The report is excellent and I believe that the authors are correct.  Instead, I am asking a different question – and one not addressed by the report – which is why did Putin support Donald J. Trump?

Possible answers to that question include “Putin hates Hillary Clinton”, “Putin believed Trump will be more accommodating to Russian positions” and even that “Putin has blackmail materials on Trump and/or his inner circle and therefore believed he could direct US policy in a Trump Administration.”  While those answers all sound plausible, I believe they are all wrong.

The first, that Putin hates Clinton, can be dismissed based on the objective reality that Putin is a very intelligent tactical and strategic planner who would not risk  international condemnation and ridicule at home by interfering in US elections just to spite someone, even someone as outspoken as Hillary Clinton.  The second possible answer, that Putin believed Donald Trump would be more accommodating to Russian positions, should also be rejected on the grounds that Donald Trump is, first and foremost, unpredictable.  That is his political trademark.  He has a long history of first supporting and then attacking people and ideas.  He was a huge fan of both Bill and Hillary Clinton before becoming their most strident critic.  He was a defender of Planned Parenthood before vowing to defund the organization.  The list goes on and on.  Like most world leaders, Vladimir Putin values stability to the point that he would prefer an intractable but predictable enemy to an unreliable and unpredictable “friend.”

But what about the third possibility – the one that posits that Putin believed he could blackmail or otherwise control President Trump and/or senior members of his inner circle?  Media speculation is exploding – but misdirected.  The answer is that whether the basis for the blackmail is as sensational and salacious as some of the material contained in Christopher Steele’s now infamous dossier or as mundane as some embarrassing (and potentially illegal) conversations between Russian operatives and Trump insiders such as Michael Flynn, Carter Page and Paul Manafort, the outcome would be the same.  President Putin is knowledgeable enough to understand that he could never blackmail senior U.S. government officials into consistently taking actions clearly at odds with U.S. interests.  The U.S. Congress (including the President’s own party), the courts and the professional bureaucracy of the U.S. government and military would thwart any such actions.

While Vladimir Putin is smart enough to understand that he could never succeed at a blacking mailing the U.S. government into consistently taking actions antithetical to U.S. interests, he could use whatever information he has – whether it is mundane but embarrassing conversations or salacious video tapes – to undermine faith in the American government and thus render the U.S. incapable of taking decisive action on the world stage.  This undermining of American citizens’ – and the world’s – faith in U.S. democracy is the true “Holy Grail” of Russian intelligence operations.  My sad (to again quote President Trump) conclusion is that Putin is succeeding.  If you doubt that assertion, just ask yourself what being a “patriot” means in today’s political environment.  Somehow, “patriot” has become the term applied to people who question American democracy, support armed insurrection and long for an American leader who is more like Putin (or Kim Jong Un or another dictator).

It is hard to doubt the depressing realization that Putin’s carefully orchestrated manipulation of the U.S. election and his careful nurturing of right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists have already taken their toll on faith in American democracy.  Over the coming months, we’ll all be witnesses as Putin continues his crusade by artfully doling out whatever “Kompromat” he has on President Trump and his inner circle to further undermine faith in a system of government that has endured for over 240 years.

So, where do we go from here?

The best scenario for America and the world would be if all contacts between President Trump’s campaign and/or administration were completely unauthorized and unknown by anyone other than former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort and former Foreign Policy Advisor to the Trump Campaign Carter Page.  If those three genuinely acted on their own and with no coordination, approval or even knowledge by President Trump or any of his other top advisors, then it is possible that Putin does not have much more “Kompromat” to dole out and that the damage to the security and interests of the United States  will not escalate significantly.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, however, and admit that it is unlikely that no one else in the Trump campaign or Trump administration knew of the relationships that Flynn, Manafort and Page had with Russian officials and intelligence.  If others knew, it is a safe bet that Russia’s extremely professional and capable intelligence agencies already know every detail and that Vladimir Putin is now preparing to dole those details out in order to maximize the level of disruption and distrust in the American political system.  If others in the Trump camp did know and/or approve of the actions of those three known “rogues,” Putin has plenty of arrows left in his quiver to target the very concept of American democracy – and we’re all in for a very unpleasant ride.  If the allegations of sensational sex tapes are true, then Putin has even more arrows to fire at the very concept of democracy.  In either case, however, Putin’s quiver is full enough to do serious damage to America’s and its allies’ interests.

A Sign of the (End) Times?

As of this writing (Feb 12, 2017), there is a petition on the “We the People” page of the White House web site calling for President Trump to “Issue an International Arrest Warrant for George Soros.”  I became aware of this petition because a couple of Facebook friends are pushing it.

This petition is a reflection of an illness that infects American politics today and should raise a red flag for all Americans, whether aligned with the right or the left of the political spectrum, whether a believer that George Soros is a saint or the devil.  Looking over the “We the People” page on the White House’s web site, there are (not surprisingly) quite a number of petitions that reflect a clear political bias.  Whether calling for the White House to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton or for Donald Trump to be tried under articles of impeachment, the political bias of many petitions is clear – and I don’t object to that.  While I certainly don’t agree with a number of the political views reflected by the various petitions, none is quite as bone-chilling as the petition calling for the summary arrest and imprisonment of an American citizen.

This petition (with its 13,513 signatures thus far) should raise alarm bells with every American because it calls for undermining the most fundamental elements of the U.S. Constitution and underlying American principles.  In effect, petition calls for the President of the United States to assume dictatorial powers.   The supporters of this petition see no need for a court, prosecutor, trial or any other “formalities.”  The supporting text for the petition simple declares George Soros to be “guilty” of a broad range of vaguely defined but ominous sounding “crimes.”  The clear message is that the supporters of this petition also want to jettison the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.   Apparently in their view, a mob rather than a court with its judge and jury is sufficient for determining guilt.  In other words, a modern day lynch mob.

The ability of the head of state to order the summary arrest of people is a hallmark of authoritarian and totalitarian governments everywhere.  One of the key steps in Hitler’s transformation from Chancellor to Fuhrer was his successful bid to sideline Germany’s court system.  A Chancellor’s powers were proscribed by the constitution but a Fuhrer faced no constraints.  He could order the arrest, conviction, imprisonment and even execution of anyone.  There was no need for a trial.  Even in those cases when Hitler or his crowd of confidents decided a trial would be beneficial for propaganda purposes, there was no pretense of fairness, no presumption of innocence and no trial before an impartial jury of peers.  Instead, in Nazi Germany, as in Stalin’s Soviet Union, guilt was a foregone conclusion from the moment that the head of state decided.

This distinction between a duly elected leader and an absolute dictator has been recognized for thousands of years.  Under the Roman Republic, a Consul (the title for the two officials elected to jointly serve as head of state) did not have the authority to arrest or convict anyone, but a dictator did.  After the fall of the Republic and the rise of Emperors, the power of the head of state to arrest, convict and punish any person for any reasons (or none at all) was not questioned.  Emperors were dictators not subject to law or election.

I do not want to see the United States descend into the hell that was the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.  I don’t want it to see our rights and liberties reduced to slogans that are touted in the press but ignored in reality as is the case in Russia today.  I don’t want to abandon the principles upon which our country was founded or the U.S. Constitution that has survived for nearly 220 years.  While many people who signed the petition asking for the summary arrest of George Soros likely did so to express political frustration, others likely knew exactly what they were proposing – and end to Constitutional limits on Presidential power in America and thus an end to American democracy. I hope they are – and remain – a tiny minority.