After Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan announced his intent to retire from Congress this past April, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement intended to praise Mr. Ryan, saying in part, “Paul’s speakership has yielded one signature accomplishment after another for his conference, his constituents in Wisconsin’s 1^st Congressional District, and the American people [my emphasis].”

While one can agree or dispute Sen. McConnell’s characterization of Mr. Ryan’s tenure as one of “accomplishment,” it seems to me that the order in which he placed Mr. Ryan’s constituencies was entirely accurate — and (unwittingly) more indictment than tribute.

By all accounts, Mr. Ryan is an upbeat, pleasant man of probity.  His intelligence and grasp of policy detail are legendary.  Even those that vigorously disagree with him on substantive issues like and praise him personally.  Yet, it is hard, as Mr. Ryan’s tenure draws to a close, not to characterize his record as, at best, one of accommodation and enablement, and at worst, one of hypocrisy and timidity.

Any review of Mr. Ryan’s record demonstrates that the issue of greatest concern to him throughout his career has been the ever-growing federal debt.  An internet search yields such a number of the Speaker’s declarations on the issue that if all were recorded here, WordPress would need another couple of servers to hold them.  A brief sampling:

• In March of 2010:

“This debt crisis coming to our country. The wall and tidal wave of debt that is befalling our nation. Medicare and Social Security go bankrupt within ten years, we have a debt that is looming so high that in the last year of President Obama’s budget just the interest payments on our debt is $916 billion dollars.”

• And again, urging a need for fiscal restraint in March, 2013:

“Our debt is already bigger than our economy.”

These are understandable sentiments; a number of thoughtful commentators have suggested that our burgeoning debt may be not only our most important domestic policy issue but also our most dangerous foreign policy challenge.  However, anyone looking at the dates of these and his like comments will note that they all were made while Barack Obama was in the White House.

• In 2001, Mr. Ryan voted for President Bush’s tax cuts [to be fair, at the time of the vote, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting a significant federal budget surplus into the future].
• In the summer of 2003, he voted for President Bush’s second round of tax cuts. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
• In the early winter of 2003, he voted for Medicare Part D. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
• According to news accounts, he voted at least five times to raise the federal debt ceiling during the Bush presidency. Good policy, but I’ve seen no indication that he sounded any alarm in those years — as contrasted with the struggles on this issue during the Obama presidency.

If I understand the reporting correctly, the CBO concluded in 2012 that the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D were the cause of about 30% of the then-current national debt.  No matter how one feels about the substance of these measures, it was apparent by the time that President Trump took office that the Bush laws had significantly added to the deficits that Mr. Ryan never tired of railing about.  Mr. Ryan nevertheless ushered through the House both a tax cut and a budget deal – which USA Today reported that he called the “biggest accomplishments” of his Speakership — that the CBO estimated in April would add $1.6 trillion to the deficit during the next decade … and more if the individual tax cuts (set to expire in 2026) are extended.  This estimate could not have come as a surprise; when Trump tax plan details surfaced in the spring of 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that “not one respondent” in a University of Chicago poll of leading academic economists thought that the plan would pay for itself.

In the final analysis, the Speaker was more interested in obtaining perceived short term political gain for the members of his House Republican caucus than in America’s long term fiscal stability.  The measures he championed placed the entitlements that millions of Americans need and will need on even shakier ground than they were before.  He instead chose to accommodate his members.  A fact is a fact.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the dichotomy between Rep. Ryan’s words and actions is more evidence of political careerism and opportunism than fervently-held policy beliefs.  Even so, I am less troubled by his inconsistency on fiscal issues than by his failure of moral Constitutional leadership.  However, recognizing that this is a blog rather than an endless Word document, it’s time to call a halt.  More in Part II …

Having just brought the site to the attention of a lot of family and friends, I intended the next post to be on some weighty public affairs topic that retirees have time to ponder.  However, a good friend called my attention to a piece that George Will just did in The Washington Post on Vice President Mike Pence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html?utm_term=.d028269e0169

Mr. Will’s piece is, at bottom, a visceral lament at the disintegration of the traditional Republican Party, but he does it through a blistering denunciation of the Vice President’s slavish behavior toward and in support of the President.  Although I love words, Mr. Will’s use of “oleaginous,” “toadyism,” “obsequiousness,” and “lickspittle” all in the introductory paragraph took some doing ;).   (For those that remember William F. Buckley, Jr., I’m wondering whether even he ever used “oleaginous”).

As for the Republican Party, Mr. Will’s despair arises from what is apparent to all:  for good or ill, the party’s traditionalists have abdicated to the President and the party’s populists.  (In a future post, we’ll make Noise addressing whether the party’s traditionalists and populists actually even constitute one coherent organization any longer, and the ramifications of that).

As to Mr. Pence, I made Noise last January on the Vice President’s kowtowing toward the President, supposing that Mr. Pence understands that, as with any Vice President, his primary duty is to ready himself to be President, and speculating that given the hyper-partisan circumstances existing in our country today, he and his intimates had spent time calculating whether he will better be able to smoothly ascend to the presidency “if the time comes” by now adhering closely to the President or by putting some daylight between them.  (He is the one member of the Administration that the President can’t fire for disloyalty.)  I concluded that he had decided that if he needs to assume power, the transition will be smoother if he now clings to the President.

Mr. Will’s venting of spleen was undoubtedly emotionally satisfying, and to a certain extent aligns with my own sentiments; however, neither of us has the responsibility of being one step away from the Presidency.  Here’s hoping that Mr. Pence and his team have indeed carefully considered the factors involved if he has to assume the presidency, and have chosen the wisest course by having him so fawningly support the President.  As time passes, I confess that I’m giving less credence to the approach he’s adopted.  Americans like a President to be strong.  Nobody of any political stripe will follow a bootlicker [perhaps the only word of the type that Mr. Will didn’t use  ;)].

As the liberal talking heads yammer on about the latest twists and turns in the Stormy Daniels tale brought about by Rudy Giuliani’s recent utterances, and muse whether Mr. Giuliani’s statements expose President Trump to or help exonerate him from charges that he violated campaign finance laws, I find that … I don’t care.  I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s media critics don’t yet realize that with regard to this aspect of the ongoing Trump Saga, the President, by accident or design (a phrase I use a lot regarding the President’s actions), has out-maneuvered them.

Although I strive to maintain civility while making Noise, certain facts are … facts.  These are three:  Mr. Trump is an admitted philanderer, takes endless liberties with truth, and exults in boorish behavior.  An additional fact so true that it has become cliché:  the vast majority of his followers – who themselves try to be faithful, truthful, and mannerly – don’t approve of his behaviors, but excuse them because they support his themes.

With all the back-and-forth regarding Ms. Daniels, Mr. Trump has acclimated us to their tryst.  I suspect that if you asked an upstanding elderly Evangelical Grandmother, after she’d had a sip of Southern Comfort, whether she thought that the President had a relationship with Ms. Daniels, she’d say, “Of course he did, dear.”  The Rubicon of public perception on Mr. Trump’s amorous forays was probably crossed with the Access Hollywood tape, but the various threads of the Daniels affair have trickled in at a pace that has anaesthetized us such that any charges against the President arising from it will be disregarded as ticky-tack fouls.  I confess that I don’t consider this type of campaign finance violation, even if established, to be sufficient standing alone to warrant his removal from office.  (I further confess that I am disappointed that my own standards have apparently degraded such that I feel so.)

[An aside:  one person for whom the Daniels affair is certainly relevant is Mrs. Trump.  Unless she is more dedicated to the President than her public body language makes it appear, if advising her I would suggest that she seek competent divorce counsel to determine whether she can legally and effectively indicate to the President that she is going to very publicly leave him unless he (1) now deposits a very tidy sum in an individual account in her name, (2) tears up whatever prenuptial agreement the couple has, and (3) executes a new agreement providing that if they ever enter divorce proceedings, the deposited sum would not be taken into account in the property settlement and (most importantly) that he would not contest her right to sole custody of their son.]

I would offer that except for Ms. Trump, we as a people should not allow the circumstances involved in Mr. Trump’s amorous peccadillos to become entangled with matters that would warrant his removal from office if appropriately established:  use of his position to obstruct justice; knowing collaboration (directly, or through knowledge of collaborative activities by members of his campaign team) with agents of the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election; or commission of crimes before he was in office that can be used by the Russian government to influence his conduct of the presidency (e.g., the laundering of money for Russian interests in violation of then-existing U.S. sanctions).

Until the fruits of the Mueller investigation are brought to the public, we wait.  But let’s have a little less Stormy.  Please.

Yesterday I heard Michael Steele, the former R.N.C. Chair, comment that the President’s behavior in the last weeks indicates that he doesn’t care who his political opponents are – Democrats or Republicans — and that keeping the House in Republican hands is not his interest.  Given Mr. Steele’s comment, I can’t resist posting excerpts from a letter I wrote in September, 2017   [maybe I should have been a pundit  😉 ]  : 

I wonder if the President – whether or not he consciously realizes it – really cares whether he achieves any substantive legislative goals (save, perhaps, a change in the tax code that puts money in his and his family’s pockets).  He clearly has come to realize that his supporters love him because of what he is and says – as [some] have said, the symbolic middle finger to the elites and establishment – not for what he does.

As a uniquely-skilled showman that seemingly craves adulation even more than money, the President clearly understands that any good show needs struggle and an antagonist.  This has and will enable him to rail against Congress – no matter which party controls it – “for failing to get things done.” Change of control of either or both Houses of Congress will be devastating to people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, but – aside from impeachment concerns — will the President really care?  It will simply allow him to make Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi his antagonists – to blame them for the fact nothing is getting done to help his supporters.

Ms. Hicks’ departure has made me reflect on her in a way that I hadn’t when I posted the last piece.  Given her continuous close physical proximity to the President from the beginning of the campaign through now, and her obvious great affection for him (and his for her), any evidence she would present regarding his activities would seemingly have great weight with a jury.  Since Ms. Hicks is younger than my youngest child, it would be my advice to her not only as a lawyer but also as a father:  You’re 29.  You’ll likely live 50 years after the President dies.  Don’t let this ruin your life as Monica Lewinsky’s life has been irreparably harmed.  Tell Mueller’s people everything you know.  You certainly seem likely to be characterized as a witness to, rather than an actor in, whatever went on, so if you play it straight, you will probably walk away from this with no legal ramifications and plenty of opportunities.  If you don’t, there’s a better than even chance you’ll end up bitterly regretting it for the rest of your life …

Lawyers like to play out scenarios; a few premises followed by a reference to the operational wisdom of the fictional Don Vito Corleone.

If I were Mr. Mueller, and I was trying to obtain evidence of wrong doing against President Trump, I think I’d have reached the following conclusions:

1. Even assuming that a President can be indicted or tried, any case against the President would certainly involve a credibility contest between the President and the prosecution’s witnesses. Any one person’s word against the President’s would be insufficient to warrant bringing a case against him; there would be no realistic expectation of obtaining a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This would certainly be true of any case brought on the uncorroborated testimony of Michael Flynn, who’s already pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

 

2. Rick Gates has also now pled guilty to lying to the FBI; he may or may not have been sufficiently part of the Trump inner circle to provide corroborating evidence against the President, but he was certainly close enough to implicate Paul Manafort. Testimony by Mr. Manafort, corroborating Mr. Flynn’s, would be a nice arrow in the quiver … but I’d still consider it too chancy.

 

3. Despite Steve Bannon’s dismissive assessment that Donald Trump, Jr., can be “cracked like an egg,” I would not primarily focus my efforts on Mr. Trump, Jr. in seeking corroboration for any evidence against the President. I’d assume that Mr. Trump, Jr. will never turn on his father since — I think any observer would agree — such disloyalty would cause the President to entirely disinherit him and his children.

 

4. Instead, I’d focus on Jared Kushner. Unlike Mr. Trump, Jr., Mr. Kushner doesn’t need the President’s money.  If the Mueller Team assembled sufficient evidence against Mr. Kushner to credibly threaten him with conviction of crimes that could result in his spending decades in prison, and I believed that Mr. Kushner could provide corroborating evidence against the President, I’d propose to Mr. Kushner that in return such evidence, Mr. Kushner himself might only have to plead guilty to crimes involving months in a minimum security prison — enabling him to thereafter return to his family and his New York billionaire life.  Mr. Kushner’s marriage to the President’s daughter would create a complication, but Ms. Trump might be persuaded to support her husband’s decision to testify if she understood that it was likely that her children might otherwise not see their father, apart from prison visits, until he was eligible for Medicare.

As aptly noted in the movie, You’ve Got Mail, The Godfather is … the I Ching; the sum of all wisdom; the answer to any question.

Not specifically called out in the film, Mario Puzo wrote in the novel:

“[The fictional Don Corleone] … put layers of insulation between himself and any operational act.  When he gave an order it was to [the Consigliore] or to one of the caporegimes alone.  Rarely did he have a witness to any order he gave any particular one of them …

Between the head of the family, Don Corleone, who dictated policy, and the operating level of men who actually carried out the orders of the Don, there were three layers, or buffers … each link of the chain would have to turn traitor for the Don to be involved …”

If Mr. Mueller and his team are seeking high-level corroboration of evidence against the President, whether they secure it may come down to whether Mr. Trump read The Godfather, or merely saw the movie …

Probably my favorite piece of political commentary during the 2016 presidential campaign came in August, 2016, from an MSNBC commentator (don’t recall the name — not one of the anchors):  ” ‘I am who I am, and that’s who I am’ worked for Popeye the Sailor Man; it remains to be seen whether it will work for Donald Trump.”

Obviously, it did — at least as far as being elected …

Although many may disagree, I think that there is a better than even chance that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team will present genuine evidence of wrong doing by the President and/or his aides.  Assuming for a moment that this prediction is accurate, each of us citizens will have to assess – critically and impartially – whether the evidence is sufficient, in light of our national value system and the rule of law, to warrant Mr. Trump’s impeachment and/or the conviction of his associates.  I consider Republican Senator Barry Goldwater’s advising President Nixon that based on the tapes’ evidence, he would vote to impeach Mr. Nixon, one of America’s finest moments — provided by someone that was an American first, a Republican second.

In making our individual assessments as citizens, we will need to think critically.  We need to work to get accurate information.  Too many of our people spend all their time in propaganda silos.  We need to not only passively absorb information, but to assess its quality – in part, by assessing the motives behind the purveyors of the reports.

I am concerned that among the significant hazards we will face as this process unfolds are the shows that purport to be news.  I once heard a liberal commentator call Fox News “comfort food for the Right” – and he’s correct.  Fox stirs up its viewers’ emotions by telling them what they want to hear:  “It’s all the Left’s and Democrats’ fault.”  What the liberal talking head didn’t say is that MSNBC has made itself “comfort food for the Left.”  MSNBC, like Fox, stirs up its viewers’ emotions by telling them what they want to hear:  “It’s all the Right’s and President Trump’s fault.”

Why do these outlets do this?  For the money. I don’t suggest that their senior managements are not respectively fundamentally liberal or conservative, but they exaggerate any point to stir up their constituencies because they’re in the entertainment business.  Like ESPN and the Hallmark Channel, they give their viewers what they want to see (nobody wants to see a wrestling match on the Hallmark Channel).  The alt-right and far-left sources are even more dependent on feeding their followers what they want to hear – fair or not.

Too many of our politicians are now no better.  I think that Americans of all political persuasions mostly agree that what has come to drive too many of our representatives over the last decades is not what’s good for America, but what will keep them in their hallowed jobs (if they lose, they again become regular folks like the rest of us).  What keeps them in office is … campaign money.  Unfortunately, the most partisan rich on both sides primarily fund these campaigns.  As we’ve seen over the last year, a disturbing – to me, terrifying – number of our politicians will spout virtually anything, will denigrate anything, in favor of a particular partisan view – for their good, not ours.

No matter whether we’re liberal or conservative, we’re letting them – the cable TV networks, the social media blasts, the politicians – anaesthetize us with what we want to believe.  When visiting a car dealership, how much more prone is one to believe the salesman when he says, “I’m giving you a really good deal,” when you want that car that he’s selling?  When you have two or three models/dealerships in mind, how much more objective are you?  When those salesmen say, “It’s a great deal,” how much more likely are you to say to yourself, “This guy is just selling me because it puts money in his pocket.”?  In politics as in car sales, why should our people uncritically accept the word of somebody whose livelihood is directly tied to telling them what they want to hear?  Those of us with a few years behind us are painfully aware that many times, the person that tells us what we don’t want to hear … is right.

None of this is particularly controversial.  What follows might be.

What makes us best able to exercise and protect our rights as citizens?  I would submit that freedom of the press, fair criminal justice mechanisms, and a respected independent judicial system are paramount.

The Press first:  Although I have little good to say above about TV cable and social media outlets, I believe we need to trust in reputable newspapers.  A newspaper’s lifeblood is information, not entertainment.  While local papers necessarily specialize in reporting on community affairs, we Americans are fortunate to have three great national publications:  The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.  On their opinion pages, obviously two skew liberal and one conservative.  That said, on their news pages, each can be wrong – but each has too much at stake to intentionally deviate from the truth.

The Times has been the chronicler of the American experience since 1851.  At bottom, it cares most about its tradition for comprehensive accuracy.  By maintaining its tradition, it will survive Mr. Trump as it has his 31 immediate predecessors.  The Post most cares about maintaining quality commensurate to the Times.  In its last historic dispute with a President about the accuracy of its reporting, the Post was correct, and the President was lying.  The Journal’s readers demand accuracy to effectively run their businesses.  Although the Murdoch family controls both the Journal and Fox News, the family obviously understands that Journal readers are seeking information, while Fox News viewers are seeking entertainment.

I would offer that it doesn’t matter which of the three a citizen chooses to follow – but the citizen needs to carefully read the news accounts of one to competently assess the Constitutional challenges that our nation may soon face.

Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Agencies Next:  I have found the Right’s recent attacks on Mr. Mueller and the FBI to be extremely disappointing and dangerous.

Putting aside the facts that Mr. Mueller is a Republican, that he was appointed FBI Director by a Republican, that he was appointed to his current post by an official of the Trump Administration, that no credible anti-Trump motive has been attributed to him, and that his team has already obtained two guilty pleas, place yourself in Mr. Mueller’s position:  What would be most important to you if you had to discharge his duties?  For me, the enormity of the importance of the task would immediately extinguish any personal feelings, pro or con, I had about the President, his aides, or his policies.  Since the way I performed this task would be my legacy — the first line in my obituary — what would drive me wouldn’t be the result, but whether History (and my grandchildren) would be able to look back and say that I had performed my responsibilities competently, impartially, honorably, and honestly.  If that reaction resonates, why would one think that Mr. Mueller would feel differently?  I would suggest that only absolute partisans are unable to attribute other than partisan motivations to others.

As to the FBI, I am concerned that we have become so toxic and tribal that only winning matters – that either side is willing to try to make “black equal white” if it suits its particular narrative.  While one can certainly argue that James Comey made missteps as Director, presumably even the President’s most ardent defenders recognize that Mr. Comey’s announcement, 10 days before the election, that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation helped Mr. Trump and harmed Ms. Clinton.  This was clearly not the action of a Clinton/Democratic loyalist.  At a larger level, I would submit that any citizen that pauses to reflect will recognize that people attracted to positions at the FBI place a high store on law and order – generally Republican inclinations.  To think that the FBI is populated with politically partisan liberal do-gooder Democratic loyalists defies everything that those of us with a bit of gray in our hair viscerally know to be true.  I believe that we would be best served by letting the FBI do its job, and objectively assess the evidence it gathers.

Finally, our Judicial System:  Given my lifetime as a lawyer, Mr. Trump’s treatment of Judge Curiel in the Trump University case – in which the President challenged the Judge’s impartiality simply because of his Mexican heritage — fills me with the deepest foreboding (from more than one perspective).  In this context, the damage that the President and his defenders could do, purely for partisan advantage, by impugning the standing, integrity, impartiality, and competence of our court system and of the judges hearing any cases involving members of the Trump Administration, simply can’t be overstated.  Lawyers know that the vast majority of federal judges – whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats – are competent, diligent, and try their best to “get it right.”  The fact that a judge rules against a litigant doesn’t mean that the judge is wrong or biased.  Our judicial system is the envy of the world – which is why the Russians, the Chinese, and others who don’t adhere to our values invest here.  They know that despite the differences in our respective political systems, they’ll get a fair shake in our courts.  I have seen a commentator on the Right question our Grand Jury system through which prosecutors, including Mr. Mueller, secure indictments; in fact, the Grand Jury system was established in the Fifth Amendment as an additional protection to shield citizens against unfair prosecutions.  Finally, any citizen with common sense will readily realize that a system that some feel is too lenient on defendants – many of them indigent – won’t be unfairly harsh on individuals with millions to spend on excellent defense lawyers and a cohort of people pressing their innocence.

In High Crimes and Misdemeanors, written in the late ‘90’s regarding President Clinton’s behavior while in office, conservative pundit Ann Coulter argued persuasively that the Founding Fathers considered grounds for impeachment in the American system to be primarily related to a moral standard, not necessarily linked or limited to legally criminal behavior, and that the bar for impeachable behavior was pretty low – that the official “simply behave amiss.”  The argument can fairly be made that according to the standard Ms. Coulter outlined, a number of the undisputed actions that Mr. Trump has taken while in office would be grounds for impeachment.  President Trump was validly elected in 2016.  Should he be impeached?  Should any of his associates claiming innocence be found guilty of crimes?  Today, I … have no opinion.  Although it will be up to members of Congress and juries to make the official determinations respectively regarding impeachment and criminal culpability, I’ll form my own opinion when, based upon reports provided by reputable news sources, I’ve had a chance to critically consider any evidence presented by our competent and honorable prosecutors and law enforcement agencies and the fruits of any judicial due process conducted through our envied court system.  I hope all of our citizens, regardless of political leanings, will do the same.  The future of our nation may depend on it.

Over the last few days, I’ve read most of Michael Wolff’s book.  Although it’s easy to see why the President is upset about its unflattering portrayals of him and his key aides, the book somewhat ironically also leaves an impression that, if accurate, supports the Administration’s denial of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia:  the key players appear as shady bungling neophytes, not savvy malevolent plotters.  Mr. Wolff notes Steve Bannon’s breezy dismissal of any Russian collusion:  “ … the Trump campaign was not organized enough to collude with its own state organizations…”  (No matter what you think of Mr. Bannon’s politics, he has a wicked wit.)  It will be sadly in keeping with Mr. Wolff’s portraits if the President and his cohorts are ultimately proven to have obstructed justice by trying to impede and mislead law enforcement officials’ investigation of a collusion that never existed …

I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to The Wisconsin State Journal:

A nonpartisan lament:  as I was watching Senators conferring in the hour that led up to the government shutdown, it struck me that neither of Wisconsin’s Senators appeared to be a meaningful player in the debate.  Sen. Baldwin – if, given the grainy images of the Senate’s cameras, it was indeed her wearing a red top and dark slacks – simply meandered around groups of Senators engaged in animated discussions; I didn’t see Sen. Johnson participate even that much, until the Republicans put him in the presiding officer’s chair to declare the impasse.  If the impressions I gathered from watching the Senate scene are accurate, it was a disappointing (lack of) contribution by both, given Wisconsin’s illustrious history of sending Senators to Washington that were difference makers.