Trump is guilty of “treason” against democracy, and so are his defenders

In the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate, a Joseph McCarthy-like, red-baiting senator was sitting at the dinner table with his wife bemoaning the fact that he looked ridiculous not settling on a figure he should give out concerning the number of communists in the Defense Department; the number they settled on  was on the label of a bottle of ketchup. The senator, as it turned out, was a weakling who was being used by his wife, who was working for a foreign entity in order undermine democracy in this country. Not only that, but she was willing to sacrifice her own son to the “cause,” after he had been brainwashed by the foreign entity in order to carry-out the assassination of a presidential nominee, whose running mate happened to be her husband. 

We might not see that exact scenario being played out today, but certainly many of the elements are. We have a president apparently working with at least one foreign entity to undermine democracy in this country. We have right-wing conspiracy theorists inventing “facts” whole cloth to suit a narrative. We have a president willing to use as sacrificial lambs his supporters and aids who choose to be brainwashed by their own hate to help him achieve his nefarious ends. And we have a president willing to sacrifice the whole country for his own idea of his power, which appears to be in conformance with the anti-democratic dictators he so admires. 

It is bad enough that Trump has gone completely off the rails in his smear campaigns in the last few days, but Trump defenders like Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jim Jordan, Stephen Miller and the like have taken to the air and cableways to spout absolute nonsense that can easily be disputed; one has to admire the refusal of Fox News' Chris Wallace to allow Miller to obfuscate the issues. Trump had been told by his own aids that there was no evidence of wrong-doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden in the Ukraine, and that country’s former chief prosecutor told the BBC that there was no case to investigate them. Yet Trump has decided—as he was taught by former McCarthy and personal counsel Roy Cohn—that the best “defense” is to shout out absurdities and lies so loud that listeners spend more time debating his inanities than the actual facts. To this purpose, fanatics like anti-immigrant impresario Miller and mindless pit bull Jordan have made fools of themselves trying to conceal from view Trump’s crimes by engaging in what John Oliver derisively referred to as right’s frequent resort to “whataboutism.” Trump, who despite the Mueller investigation finding that Russia did interfere with the 2016 election on his behalf, has been confounding national security advisors who have tried and failed to convince him that there is no evidence that the Ukrainians were the “real” culprits, naturally to help Hillary Clinton. 

Trump’s demand that Rep. Adam Schiff resign and be investigated at the “highest level” for paraphrasing the phone call he made to the Ukrainian president is typical of Trump’s lack of a sense of proportionality. Late night talk show hosts have been having a field day deriding Trump’s repeated claim that his phone call was “perfect,” which of course is part of Trump’s personal narrative that everything he does is “great.” The problem for Trump is that there is plenty of audio-visual evidence of his rambling, often incoherent speech when forced to provide details to explain his policy decisions, and his phone call was apparently whittled down by his lawyers for reasons of “coherence”—likely meaning that Schiff’s version of the conversation was probably closer to its basic “essence.” After all, we can all “add,” can’t we? A few days before the phone call, Trump put a hold on assistance to the Ukraine, and then he requests assistance for investigating his political enemies. Trump defenders keep saying that there technically was no “quid pro quo” here, but there is every indication that it was implied. We’d have to assume that no compromising statements were deleted from the rough transcript of Trump’s “perfect” call, and past evidence suggests we have no reason to believe that. We’d also have to assume that the Ukraine’s president was too hollow-headed to see the connection between the withholding of aid and the “request” that he investigate the Bidens. 

The phone call came right after Robert Mueller’s testimony, which was again trumpeted by Trump supporters as “proof” he didn’t collude with Russia, which apparently led to in Trump’s mind the idea that he is immune from consequence—and like the concept of obstruction, “colluding” with a foreign entity out in the open was the obvious next step in testing whether the Constitution means anything at all to Trump supporters. Trump had already insisted that he would “listen” to dirt from a foreign entity on a political rival, which is by definition “collusion,” and the Ukrainian call could certainly be looked upon in that way. Trump, Rudy Giuliani and William Barr have claimed up and down that Russian collusion was “fake,” but they can’t have it both ways. Trump and Giuliani have all but openly admitted to collusion with the Ukraine; there is no reason to disbelieve Trump and his associates attempted to collude with Russians in “secret.”

And if the call itself wasn’t enough to induce impeachment proceedings and public opinion against Trump, then what he has done since only confirms his unfitness to be president. He has called for an investigation into the identity and punishment of the whistleblower, an illegal act. He has called the whistleblower and those who provided him with information “spies” and “traitors”—even suggesting that they should be dealt with the “old” way, meaning execution. And now he tweets out a quote from a Texas megachurch pastor and one of his staunchest supporters, Robert Jeffress—who claims that Christians who do not support Trump are the next thing to devil worshippers—that impeaching the president, let alone criticizing him at all, would cause a “Civil War-like fracture.” That is where Trump has led us, not just giving “mainstream” voice to the most dangerous elements in this country, but offering his support for views that advocate just short of violence. But as we saw in the El Paso massacre, it only takes one fanatic willing to take the next step over the line to turn the rhetoric of implied violence into action. 

All this and more only underlines the fact that Trump only sees the world within his own narrow sphere of existence. When he says “America First,” how does that square with his secret dealings with foreign leaders—particularly those who are essentially dictators—to undermine American democracy? People are not as stupid as he thinks, at least those outside his “base.” Every indication is that Trump’s “America first” initiatives have weakened the country. Why do you think that Chinese negotiators have suddenly decided to stop by in a few weeks to make a trade “deal”? Because they know that in his weakened political state, Trump is willing to call anything that says “agreement” a “victory.” The bottom line is that Trump is willing to destroy what makes America “great” for his own perceived “benefit.” If anyone is guilty of “treason” against this country, it is Trump and his enablers. The sooner he is out of office, the greater the likelihood this country becomes “great” again.

Aaron Rodgers giveth and taketh away as Packers’ defense is exposed in loss to Eagles

Through the first three weeks of the NFL season, questions abounded whether Aaron Rodgers and Matt LaFleur’s offensive scheme were a good “fit”—especially when one recalls the sometimes acrimonious relations between Rodgers and Mike McCarthy the past few seasons in regard to the latter’s handling of the offense. Thursday’s game appeared to be an opportunity for Rodgers to either get more “comfortable” in LaFleur’s “system” against an Eagles’ defense that had not recorded a single sack all season and had a suspect secondary—either that, or Rodgers would simply revert to instinct and play his own game. Whichever scenario was played out—I suspect the latter—the result was a more typical Rodgers performance for the most part statistically. But with a still suspect running game that LaFleur’s offensive philosophy is largely predicated on, Rodgers clearly felt the need to carry the entire offense on his shoulders, throwing for 422 yards and rushing for a team high 46 yards. On paper, he was the Aaron Rodgers that Packer fans know and love.

Yet this game also bore out the frustration that Packer fans have with a team that simply hasn’t played at a consistently high level on both sides of the ball since the 2010 team, or perhaps more accurately the 1996 team. The 2011 team that won 15 games mostly just outscored their opponents than having a good defense, and since then the Packers’ fortunes mostly depended on Rodgers and his health status. Through the first three games of this season, it was the defense that kept the team afloat while Rodgers has been fitfully attempting to adjust his thinking to a new style of play. The problem is that for an offensive scheme that relies on a consistent running game (unlike New England, which largely uses short passes to compensate for the lack of one), the Packers haven’t had much success despite doggedly trying to make it work. Ahman Green was really the only consistently dependable running back the Packers have had since Jim Taylor, and they have been plagued with backs who played well one year and then tanked. In the past two games Aaron Jones has rushed for 40 yards on 23 carries; with Jamaal Williams knocked out of the game early, Rodgers at critical moments in this game apparently did not trust Jones to get the job done.

But I also have my questions about this year’s defense, which has received many plaudits. I have observed before that the Packer defense has not played well against the run, is prone to give-up big plays, and has largely depended on takeaways to mitigate their lapses. Against the Eagles, the Packer defense again was sieve-like against the run, and after recording 12 sacks in the previous three games, did not record a single one against Carson Wentz. Worse, the defense had no takeaways; this was the recipe of defeat that the Packers had avoided in their victories, particularly against the Vikings when Kirk Cousins basically lost the game for them with just one too many bad plays.

Nevertheless, it is Rodgers who ultimately must own the 34-27 loss to the Eagles. His second quarter fumble led to a short-field touchdown; he failed to convert on six plays from within the Eagles’ five yard line in the fourth quarter, including four incomplete passes from the one-yard line. As unproductive as Jones was playing (just 21 yards on 13 carries), he should have been good for one yard instead of trying to throw into a crowded end zone four times. On the Packers final possession and needing a touchdown to force OT, Rodgers took the opportunity to throw his first interception of the year to end the game. This time it was the opponent who made the opportunistic plays that covered their deficiencies, turning what should have been a loss into victory. The Packers didn’t receive much help from officials, especially on a clear pass interference on third down in the third quarter that wasn’t called and was quickly followed by an Eagle touchdown. But there were other lapses such as settling twice for field goals in the red zone when they could have put more pressure on the Eagles early in the game.

On the “positive” side, the Packers moved the ball evenly well offensively during both halves of the game, but they came away with just six points on four of their red zone opportunities, which just isn’t going to cut it. Defensively, the Packers were exposed as relying too much on takeaways. This was a game that the Packer could have built on from both sides of the ball; instead, it just left different questions to answer.

Is whistleblower report Trump's Watergate moment?

As if this crooked business that is the Trump presidency couldn’t get any “worse,” a slightly redacted version of the whistleblower report revealed that Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr at the very least appear to have been (and perhaps continue to be) involved in a wide-ranging conspiracy to collude with a foreign government for Trump’s re-election purposes. The whistleblower—a CIA officer tasked to the White House as a liaison—expressed concern that the administration’s actions undermined efforts to deter foreign players from interfering with U.S. elections. Trump “requested” that Ukrainian officials cooperate with Giuliani and Barr not just to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, but to turn over DNC server data they allegedly have in order to supposedly uncover Russian interference in the 2016 election—an obvious cover story, since the Trump administration has been busy accusing Hillary Clinton and the DNC of “colluding” with the Ukrainians against Trump. 

It is noted that it was the Ukrainian government that first reported the conversation between Trump and newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensnky that is currently under scrutiny, stating that it was meant as a step to “improve” relations between the two countries; this apparently meant  to  conduct the investigations that Trump was seeking, which according even to the clearly “redacted” White House version of the conversation, obviously meant investigations into the person who at the present time is Trump’s principle political rival in the 2020 election. Trump had just days before suspended previously-approved aid to the Ukraine, so even if not explicitly stated in the Trump version of the conversation, Zelensky could not have been unmindful of the not-so-subtle pressure to “cooperate.” In fact, the aid was only recently released when news of the whistleblower complaint first surfaced; apparently up to that point Trump and his stooges were not receiving the “cooperation” they were expecting—especially since there was apparently nothing to investigate.  

The whistleblower noted that about a dozen people were present during the conversation, all of whom had assumed that it was going to be a “routine” exchange of pleasantries, before it went off the rails. When White House lawyers realized the gravity of Trump’s actions, an effort was made to “lock down” all records of the call, “especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as was customary—by the White House Situation Room” inside a computer normally relegated for sensitive security data.  That begs the question: How many similar communications that are particularly “sensitive” to Trump—rather than that relating to national security—are in “lock down” mode? The whistleblower noted that he had been told that this “was not the first time” that this had occurred—suggesting that evidence of other crimes were being illegally concealed there from public view.

While the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko had suggested that Joe and Hunter Biden may have been involved in potentially corrupt activities along with other Ukrainian officials, and that the then U.S. ambassador was working to undermine Trump in the Ukraine, he would later “walk back” his claims; the whistleblower notes that it appears that Lutsenko’s charges were politically motivated, aimed principally at his political rivals in order to harm them. 

The whistleblower also reported that the Ukrainian government was experiencing “confusion” over mixed messages from the U.S. government. On one hand, the Trump administration was publicly claiming to be seeking “normal” relations without seeking any special “favors” in return; but behind the scenes, Giuliani and Barr were pressuring the Ukrainians to “cooperate” with the Trump administration in its efforts to insure Trump’s re-election. Zelensky was told that Trump would refuse to  “play ball” with him unless he cooperated; it was just a few weeks after being warned this that Trump suspended the previously-approved aid to the Ukraine, an obvious attempt to “subtly” pressure Zelensky. 

The attempt to damage who Trump sees as his main obstacle to re-election is clear enough, and rises to the level of Watergate. But even more intriguing is the revelation that other similarly compromising “conversations” are being concealed in that secret electronic hideaway. Speaking of Watergate, when I first read about this I immediately thought to myself that this was the equivalent of the infamous Nixon tapes, when Richard Nixon had secretly “bugged” his offices to record for posterity White House communications. Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox obtained a subpoena for the release of the tapes, but he was personally fired by Nixon along with the Attorney General Elliot Richardson (who had replaced the disgraced John Mitchell) and his deputy after they had refused to fire Cox over the matter. Public outrage was such that Nixon was obliged to select another special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who was able to force Nixon to release the tapes; much of it revealed a president who was paranoid and a bigot, but it also revealed him to be actively involved in the Watergate break-in cover-up. The infamous missing 18-minutes—Nixon’s personal secretary famously demonstrated how her foot “accidentally” pushed the “erase” button—likely was a conversation directing the cover-up. It would be less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release the tapes that he would resign the presidency.  

Everyone knows that Trump is a blowhard, and the assumption is that he shoots his mouth off inappropriately because he is just a child who doesn’t know any better. He is just like any average Joe Blow who is at bottom “harmless” and what he says is “inconsequential.” Unfortunately, “Joe Blow” is not president, Trump is. It is one thing to pop-off stupidly; it is quite another thing to pressure foreign governments, and collude with foreign governments, to undermine democracy in this country. But what else is in “lock down” mode, that is too “sensitive” to be revealed? Evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct the Mueller investigation? Remember that Trump’s first reaction to it was that his presidency was “over.” Why did he think that? What about the motivations of Trump on a wide-range of policy initiatives that may have included unethical and illegal actions? What about questionable conversations he may have had with Russia and North Korea that compromised U.S. interests? Who knows what we might discover.

There is a difference between then and now, however. In the days of Watergate, the U.S. Supreme Court was ideologically structured in such a way that ruthless partisanship from the right did not get in the way of the enforcement of the law and respect for the Constitution. But today’s Supreme Court is politically partisan, and has clearly been so since 2000, when the five conservative justices voted to stop the Florida recount and insure the installing of an illegitimate president. But not only is it unlikely that the present Supreme Court would approve the release of the “locked” documentation of wrongdoing, but it could use the excuse that it would be too arduous a task to separate the evidence of criminal activity from legitimate national security information; doubtless this is the reason why the evidence of this activity was placed in a “secure” location in the first place—clear evidence of obstruction and a conspiracy to elude the law. One wonders if any of those on the right of the Supreme Court are mindful of how such activities undermine the Constitution they claim to "respect."

Nevertheless, the revelation that the Trump administration is apparently actively engaged at the very least in the concealment of evidence of obstruction and conspiracy to collude with foreign governments against the national interest is there for all to ponder. It would be criminal to let it end there. Trump is accusing the whistleblower of being a "spy" and guilty of "treason." The reality is that those accusations  are far better suited to describe Trump's own activities.

Even if impeachment hearings are only a lies and deceit fest, they still should supply plenty of ammunition for Democrats in 2020 campaign ads

Since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment hearings against Donald Trump are officially underway, there has been some discussion about whether or not this action has any real point—especially given the lack of cooperation by even those technically outside the grasp of Trump’s claws. To “normal” people it seems unfathomable to understand how someone as immoral, unethical and even criminal as Trump can maintain such a grip on people who have worked in his administration; even those who have left under pressure or did so voluntarily because they could no longer square their sense of lawful, moral and ethical behavior with that of Trump’s seem to be unwilling to cross him publically. Even if courts rule that Trump must turn over vital documents or force people to testify against him truthfully, there is every reason to believe that Trump will ignore even those rulings, given the utter lack of penalty for his actions up to this point.

But Democrats need to proceed with these impeachment hearings because given time it will be increasingly more difficult for voters to ignore this administration’s near total contempt of moral, ethical and constitutional norms, let alone of the law or civil discourse. We have seen Corey Lewandowski state flat out that he feels no obligation to tell the truth to the American public, and no doubt few in Trump’s orbit feel any different. To tell the truth would be to reveal the base instincts and contempt for simple human decency that drives the thinking of those formulating policy in this administration. If Lewandowski's does run for the U.S. Senate, by using soundbites of his brazen lying, voters should be continuously reminded of it in campaign ads.

Those persons with experience in government and have respect for lawful behavior have all been driven out of this administration, leaving behind not just a solid core of criminality, but one whose gravitational pull is so strong that even those who believe in what they doing is “right” are corrupted in an environment that cannot distinguish between what is lawful and what is not. Trump has lived his whole life in contempt for what is right and lawful, bullying people or getting them out of the way if they fail to follow his lead.  The only true loyalty he feels is for his own brood, who all seem to be curiously lacking in either personality (Donald Jr. and Eric) or a sense of reality (Ivanka); if you don’t have a family connection, those who are welcomed into Trump’s orbit must abandon all evidence of self-respect; Sen, Lindsey Graham is a case in point.

Can it be that everyone in the Trump administration has something to hide? What kind of gangster empire is he running here? Trump and his stooges have lied or dodged so often that they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt, regardless of what comes out of their mouths. Did we really expect the Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to sit next to Trump and upset him by stating he did feel pressure to “please” Trump by promising to investigate a bogus charge against the Bidens in order to get that U.S. military assistance that was frozen just days before Trump made that one call that we are privy too, now released as a  second-hand transcript that almost certainly is “redacted” by selective memory?  Not only is the phone call transcript Trump released suspect in its particulars, it is only one of other aspects of unethical actions that prompted the whistleblower complaint concerning what is clear evidence of collusion with  a foreign government to damage a political opponent. It is impossible now for Trump to claim “no collusion,” but that must be stated relentlessly and plainly so that people “understand” that what Trump has done and continues to do is beyond the pale.

While Trump’s crimes are real, Rudy Giuliani’s attempts to collude with a foreign government also cannot be ignored, nor should he be allowed to escape unscathed. Ever wonder how he came up with the idea that Joe Biden’s son received $3 million in a money laundering scheme while working in the Ukraine? Isn’t it “coincidental” that if you multiply the $50,000 a month he received as a board member for a Ukrainian company by the 60 months he worked equals $3 million? And you want to know what “fake” news really looks like? Giuliani is the master of ceremonies for that gig.

If nothing else, the impeachment hearings should provide loads and loads of soundbites of Trump’s stooges and flunkies lying and denying even in the face of contrary evidence and testimony, just as Lewandowski continue to arrogantly lie and deny even after being caught red-handed in deceit. All this deceit may not add-up to a conviction and expulsion of this festering pustule of a man who has ensnared himself in a web of lies of his own making before the next election, but if skillfully used during in 2020—particularly in campaign ads—the very weight of it all should be impossible to ignore for all save those who still choose to remain mired in their own ignorance and hate.