Category: Politics

On Robert F. Kennedy

As all who care are aware, the first week in June marked the 55th anniversary of the assassination of U.S. NY Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.  Obviously, Mr. Kennedy is best known as the right hand of his brother, President John F. Kennedy; he managed his brother’s successful 1960 campaign for the presidency and thereafter served as U.S. Attorney General in the Kennedy Administration.  His memory is closer to mind at present due to the recent declaration of his son, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

I was about two months into my first after-school job when Mr. Kennedy was assassinated, and a political junkie even then; thus, I actually have a somewhat clear personal memory of him – much clearer than I have of his brother, who had died five years before.  I would submit that he is one of the most arresting Americans of the second half of the last century, evolving:  from working for the Committee of the Communist scaremonger, U.S. WI Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s; through his years as campaign ramrod for his brother; through his years in the Executive branch, during which he was the president’s closest advisor; to his years after his brother’s assassination, when he reconsidered the American Vietnam policy he had helped fashion and became the most politically potent opponent of the war.  It was because he was a Kennedy, and viewed as a tough guy, that his opposition to the war had particular credibility; no one considered him “soft.”  President Lyndon Johnson only announced that he would not seek another term after Mr. Kennedy declared for the Democratic Party’s 1968 presidential nomination (the two men despised each other). 

During his years as Attorney General and thereafter, Mr. Kennedy had become increasingly aware of and then outraged by the mistreatment of blacks he saw in America, and became African Americans’ most politically powerful advocate.  (Dr. Martin Luther King was obviously their most notable advocate, but Mr. Kennedy had greater influence with America as a whole.)  No white politician since 1900, with the possible exception of President Franklin Roosevelt, has been as intensely loved in African American community as Mr. Kennedy.

By all accounts, Mr. Kennedy wore his emotions on his sleeve – in contrast to his brother, who (similar to comments I’ve read about President Barack Obama) projected warmth on camera but reportedly was coolly analytical in private.

All that said:  I would submit that any commentators you now hear intoning that we would have had a different world had Mr. Kennedy lived may well be missing the mark.  Despite winning a string of 1968 Democratic party primaries after he declared his candidacy, it was a different era; he would have needed significant support of Democratic Party bosses across the country to win the nomination.  The Kennedys, who derived their power from their charisma and their money, were never the favorites of the Democratic machines, who were much more comfortable with organization-dependent candidates such as Vice President Hubert Humphrey. At the same time, by entering the Democratic presidential primary contest after U.S. MN Sen. Eugene McCarthy had just scored heavily on an anti-war platform against Mr. Johnson in the New Hampshire primary – when liberals had turned to Mr. McCarthy only after Mr. Kennedy had rebuffed their earlier pleas to run against Mr. Johnson — he outraged Mr. McCarthy’s supporters [then considered the (Adlai) Stevenson wing of the party; they are today’s progressives].  In The Unfinished Odyssey of Robert Kennedy, David Halberstam wrote: “In the spring of this crucial year [1968, Mr. Kennedy] had managed, because of his delayed entrance, to be at once too ruthless and too gutless for the liberals and the students, too radical for the middle class, too much the party man for some of the intellectuals, and too little the party man for most of the machines.”

Under the candidate selection process in place at the time, after Mr. Johnson’s withdrawal it was Mr. Humphrey who had the inside track to the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, not Mr. Kennedy.

Even if Mr. Kennedy had won the Democratic nomination, I would suggest that it was by no means assured that he would have defeated then-former Vice President Richard Nixon in the fall.  While the nation’s grief about and warm feelings for his brother would have helped him, his opposition to the war would have cost him support among the then-core Democratic working class voters who have since morphed into Trump supporters, and he would have lost support among the liberal elites angered at what they perceived as his usurpation of Mr. McCarthy’s rightful place (a close parallel is the dynamic between the camps of U.S. NY Sen. Hillary Clinton and U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016).  In their respective times, Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Clinton shared an unfortunate and crucial attribute:  a high Antipathy Quotient.  Most politicians need to get known.  In their cases, everyone in America already knew them; their problem was that a notable segment of Americans actively didn’t like them.  That said, perhaps — perhaps – the Kennedy nostalgia and charisma would have been enough to hold enough of the white working class and the African Americans and the Democratic Party machines and the liberal intellectuals (the latter two both detested Mr. Nixon) to win the White House; but it would have been close.

Of one thing I am as sure as I can be about the inclinations of someone I never met:  Mr. Kennedy would be distressed beyond all bounds by his son’s declaration for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.  It is patently obvious that any criticisms that Mr. Kennedy, Jr. makes of President Joe Biden in the coming months have the potential to ultimately redound to the benefit of the candidate of a Republican party that is now dominated by MAGA concepts of division and exclusion – diametrically contrasted with the positions his father was espousing the day he was shot.

If you have an opportunity, pick up The Unfinished Odyssey of Robert Kennedy, Mr. Halberstam’s account of his time traveling with Mr. Kennedy’s last campaign.  It is a short, easy read, published in early 1969.  Mr. Halberstam is as smooth a writer of public affairs as I have ever read.  A New York Times reporter who covered the Vietnam War – and whose reporting of the war incurred the wrath of the Kennedy Administration, including that of Robert Kennedy – he later authored The Best and the Brightest, a study of the tragic progression of America’s Vietnam policy.  (Mr. Halberstam noted years later that he found it ironic that “the best and the brightest” had found its way into the public lexicon as a high compliment, when he had intended the title as a wry reflection on the fact that the intelligent elites had led America so far astray.)  Mr. Halberstam also indicated before his own untimely demise in a car accident that despite some seemingly very positive descriptions of John Kennedy in The Best and the Brightest, he had never had any particular sympathy for the president; but at the same time he conceded that he had developed a deep affinity for Robert Kennedy by the time of Mr. Kennedy’s death. 

On Mr. Trump’s Indictment for Mishandling of Classified Documents: A Postscript

Amid summer chores, I’ve been reflecting further upon some of the comments in this original post.

Let’s start with a name game:  John Sirica.

Doesn’t mean anything to you?  In that case, I suspect that you’re a mere youngster 😉 .  I would venture that that name will ring at least a vague bell for all Americans born in 1960 or before, and is well known to virtually all American lawyers of any age.

Judge John J. Sirica presided over the Watergate trials in the early 1970s in Washington, D.C.  His administration of the trials was widely lauded then and since. 

Judge Sirica died in 1992.  The first sentence of his Washington Post obituary referred to the fact that he had presided over the Watergate trials.

I declared in this original post:  “Judge Aileen M. Cannon, whom [former President Donald] Trump appointed to the bench in 2020, has been assigned to hear his case. … [I]t seems that by her earlier rulings [in the same documents case] Judge Cannon has proven herself to be incompetent, a partisan hack, or both.  The judge’s ability to influence the trial’s course and perhaps outcome is obvious:  it takes no prescience to predict the coming wrangling between Mr. Trump’s attorneys and federal prosecutors over jury selection, admissibility of evidence, and scheduling (with delay obviously favoring Mr. Trump).”

We’ll get back to the ramifications of a prolonged trial schedule below.  As to Judge Cannon, I haven’t been able to find any rating by south Florida lawyers as to how ably she has performed in normal cases in her short judicial tenure – since she’s only been on the bench a couple of years, she obviously doesn’t have a lot of judicial experience – and she may indeed lack the competence to preside over such a high-profile matter.  That’s to be determined, and if she doesn’t feel she’s professionally up to it, she should recuse herself.  But as to predictions – including mine – of her pro-Trump leanings, I’m taking a pause.  It’s seemingly possible that Judge Cannon is more horrified than anyone else by her random selection to hear this case.  She’s in her early 40s – literally at the age of our children and of a number of those that read these pages.  She has a husband and two school-aged kids.  Federal trial judges don’t float upon hallowed pedestals.  She undoubtedly goes to the grocery store.  Her kids probably play soccer or engage in other like activities.  She has the bulk of her career in front of her.  She’s already been reversed in a rather humiliating fashion by United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, a conservative Circuit, for her earlier Trump-friendly rulings in this case.  She can’t escape into the curtained hush the way U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas does.  She may now believe that what looked like a sweet legal gig in 2020 has turned into a nightmare of being engulfed by the Trump Maelstrom.  If advising her, I’d counsel as I would one of our own kids:  You are where you are.  Be careful.  How you handle this case will literally be the first line of your obituary.  Do the best you can.  For your own good, play it straight.

Judge Cannon need look no further than the other defendant in the case – Walt Nauta, Mr. Trump’s “body man” and alleged co-conspirator — to realize that abiding by Mr. Trump’s wishes does not necessarily auger a comfortable life.  Do I think that if Mr. Trump is found guilty by a jury, Judge Cannon will, as some wildly progressive pundits have suggested, disregard the jury verdict and issue a judgement of acquittal to Mr. Trump?  No.  Do I think that Judge Cannon will refuse to admit a lot of the government’s evidence now in the public domain?  Even if she is so inclined, with the Eleventh Circuit looking over her shoulder, I don’t.  (Although the evidence from Mr. Trump’s lawyers, obtained by the government through a piercing the veil of attorney-client privilege, is perhaps on the fence.)  Is there a likelihood that she will provide Mr. Trump more leeway in jury selection and scheduling than the government prefers?  Very possibly — these are areas in which appellate courts generally accord greater deference to trial judges — but the government’s case appears sufficiently strong to withstand these likely hindrances.  If Judge Cannon is savvy – or unless her career aspiration is now to become a Fox News legal analyst — I expect her to play it straight enough.

All those middle-of-the road notions now expressed, I well recall that in February of 2019, considering the Senate’s confirmation process for then-Attorney General Nominee William Barr, I declared in these pages:  “Partisans on both sides are currently all too-ready to impute ulterior motives to those with whom they disagree. … I am willing to believe, unless and until I have evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Barr will do what is necessary to protect the United States while conducting his duty.”  We all saw how those Pollyannaish sentiments fared 😉 .

As noted above, in the original post I also suggested that a delay in the trial helps Mr. Trump politically – a sentiment echoed by others.  I would now add a bit of a qualifier, at least in my own thinking.  A delay seemingly aids Mr. Trump’s campaign during the Republican presidential nomination process and it certainly helps him if he wins the election and the case hasn’t been resolved prior to Inauguration Day, 2025.  (I suspect that reelection is now at least as important to the former president as a way to avoid having jail be the final culmination of a 2016 branding exercise that went WAY wrong – from his perspective and our democracy’s – than it is for the actual return to power it represents.)  At the same time, I have come to believe that any still-pending charges against him for the mishandling of classified documents will weaken his support in the general election among swing and moderate Republican voters in swing states.

Enough.  The weekend is upon us.  May all Dads, and those of any gender who provide fatherly love and guidance to others, have a wonderful Father’s Day.

On Mr. Trump’s Indictment for Mishandling of Classified Documents

“For this man, who is basically a nihilistic moron, to go to jail, potentially for a long time – these Espionage Act charges bring very heavy sentences – to potentially go to jail for something so stupid and pointless and silly and useless is actually kind of fitting.”

  • George Conway, MSNBC’S Morning Joe, June 6, 2023

As all are aware, former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a grand jury of Floridians for criminal mishandling of classified documents at his Florida Mar-a-Lago estate.  The counts include violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.  In the past, Mr. Trump has gone so far as to famously declare that a president can declassify documents “even by thinking about it” – the first reliance on the Think System I can recall since that of the fictional Professor Harold Hill in The Music Man.  A few impressions, likely none you haven’t had yourself.

First, the Wall Street Journal was quick to note that the indictment “mark[s] the first time in history that the federal government has brought charges against a former president.”  While true, this is irrelevant.  Federal charges would almost certainly have been brought against then-former President Richard Nixon for his part in the cover-up of the Watergate break-in had he not been pardoned by then-President Gerald Ford.  (Mr. Ford presumably wouldn’t have subjected himself to what he knew would be the ensuing political firestorm if he didn’t think federal charges against Mr. Nixon were in the offing.) 

Next – and as anyone with the barest modicum of knowledge about our criminal justice system understands — Mr. Trump was not – as Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy tweeted after the indictment was announced – indicted by President Joe Biden.  Mr. Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury of ordinary (an adjective which I concede sounds inaptly deprecating) Floridians who determined from the evidence presented by Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team that there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Trump committed the crimes for which he will be arraigned.  Mr. McCarthy and other Republican officeholders are shamelessly and gutlessly pandering to a rabid and willfully ill-informed political base.  Their assertions about the “weaponization” of our legal system are a despicable betrayal of their official trust.  For Mr. McCarthy to pronounce in the same tweet that he believes in “the rule of law” is execrable hypocrisy.

I have seen liberal legal pundits bemoan the fact that the case has been brought in Florida, since the jury pool will be more favorable to Mr. Trump in Florida than in Washington, D.C.  I’m glad that it has been brought in the Sunshine State.  Since most of the allegedly illegal activities took place in Florida, Florida is obviously the more appropriate jurisdiction from a legal perspective (which is really what matters) but what will also make sense to the average citizen.  From a larger perspective, this prosecution must maintain credibility with the majority of Americans in the face of what will be a concerted effort by Mr. Trump and his cult to discredit it.  Mr. Trump not only has a right to, but America needs him to have, a trial in front of a jury that most Americans will consider balanced (presidents, present and past, have no “peers”).  Mr. Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty.  I will venture that a notably larger percentage of our citizens would harbor doubts about the fairness of any guilty verdict issued by a Washington, D.C. jury than they will about one rendered by a Florida jury. 

Judge Aileen M. Cannon, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the bench in 2020, has been assigned to hear his case.  You may recall that Judge Cannon issued a number of rulings early in the documents investigation inappropriately favorable to Mr. Trump that were later sharply overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, a conservative Circuit.  I find her selection highly unfortunate.  This case deserved the best that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida had to offer.  While I saw one legal pundit opine that he considered her suitable, it seems that by her earlier rulings Judge Cannon has proven herself to be incompetent, a partisan hack, or both.  The judge’s ability to influence the trial’s course and perhaps outcome is obvious:  it takes no prescience to predict the coming wrangling between Mr. Trump’s attorneys and federal prosecutors over jury selection, admissibility of evidence, and scheduling (with delay obviously favoring Mr. Trump).  While some legal analysts have suggested that Judge Cannon might be “chastened” by the harsh manner in which the Eleventh Circuit dispatched her earlier rulings favoring Mr. Trump, I am pretty confident that Mr. Smith and his team were disappointed that she has been assigned to preside.

My greatest concern is for the safety and protection of the jury panel.  An article appearing on uscourts.gov, “How Courts Care for Jurors in High Profile Cases,” states, “Federal judges have adopted a wide range of precautions to ensure that juries are protected from threats or harassment in high-profile cases.”  All precautions ever taken to protect federal jurors – and I suspect some new ones – should be employed to provide the panel the most stringent protections in the history of the federal judicial system.  The trial judge should make clear at the outset of the process that anyone that publishes or facilitates the publication of the name of any member of the jury or jury panel will be held in contempt of court – and slapped in jail until the judge would see fit to release them.  (If I were the judge, that would be as long as I could legally justify.) 

Both Mr. Trump and the Republican propaganda machine are in high gear, claiming that Mr. Trump is being treated unfairly as compared to President Joe Biden, whose staff discovered classified documents from Mr. Biden’s days as Vice President at Mr. Biden’s Delaware estate and in his Washington, D.C. office.  I’ve noted earlier in these pages the likelihood that the average citizen will tend to conflate the actions of Messrs. Trump and Biden.  I think there is a substantive difference in the behavior of the two men, but my notions could not be any more irrelevant.  Since Mr. Biden’s activities are being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Hur, a former U.S. Attorney appointed by Mr. Trump, Mr. Biden’s circumstances should be left to Mr. Hur and his team.  I would submit that if Mr. Hur determines that there is evidence that Mr. Biden committed a crime and issues a report, similar to the Mueller Report, implying that he would seek a federal grand jury indictment against Mr. Biden if Mr. Biden was not president, so be it.  If evidence is presented to a federal grand jury after Mr. Biden leaves office and a federal indictment is thereupon issued against Mr. Biden, Mr. Biden will then face a jury.  That’s the way the system works.

But as to Mr. Trump:  Make no mistake; the game is now on.  While the Wall Street Journal declared in a weekend editorial that federal prosecutors “fail to understand what they’ve unleashed,” I – unlike Mr. McCarthy — do believe in the rule of law, and there was obviously enough evidence against Mr. Trump to bring this prosecution.  (On Fox News over the weekend, Trump Administration Attorney General William Barr, who unconscionably defended Mr. Trump in various ways for years, called the indictment “damning.”)  That said, I agree with the Journal that we have now entered a perilous period, but not for the reason it cites.  Assuming that Mr. Trump doesn’t enter a plea bargain – seemingly highly unlikely, given his character – there will ultimately be one of three outcomes here:  a conviction, which probably removes any possibility of his gaining the votes of a sufficient number of swing state swing voters to win the presidency; a hung jury, which I suspect will marginally help him – which, if it does, could be decisive in a close presidential contest; or an acquittal, which will afford him both vindication and seeming proof that the system was, as he has claimed, rigged against him.  The last of these could well win him re-election.  Mr. Conway’s wry observation aside, remember O.J. Simpson; now that Mr. Simpson is on parole after completing his minimum nine-year sentence for armed robbery and kidnapping, I am sure that we are all confident that he has resumed his search for the “real killers” of his wife, Nicole.      

Enough.  As Mr. Trump himself has probably already observed:  We’ll see what happens.   

Perhaps a Bungled Opportunity on the Debt Ceiling

I haven’t posted much in recent weeks about the growing debt ceiling crisis; it is what it is and we are where we are.  What prompts this note is a May 20 Politico report:

“Looking back on the first two years of [President] Joe Biden’s presidency, [U.S. VA Sen.] Tim Kaine has one big regret about a largely successful stretch of Democratic rule: That his party didn’t try to raise the debt ceiling on its own last year.

The Virginia senator believes that if Democrats had tried to hike the debt limit before the House GOP swept into a majority, even Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) might have gone along with it. But Biden’s party never moved on the issue. And six months later, Democrats are stuck doing exactly what they said they wouldn’t — negotiating on the debt ceiling with Republicans.

‘If I could do one thing different,’ Kaine lamented this week, it would have been a late-2022 debt hike. ‘And I was saying it at the time … “‘hey, we got the votes.”’”

I noted in these pages on November 17, 2022:

“Given the paralysis and partisan histrionics that see overwhelmingly likely to ensue when Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, I would hope that for the good of the nation, during the upcoming lame duck Congressional session Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (due to the power of the filibuster) can agree to pass measures that have received or could garner bipartisan support to blunt some of the most destructive future MAGA impulses. … Below is a short list of such potential measures. …

  1. Raising the federal debt limit to an amount projected to carry the United States through to April 1, 2025.  Our citizenry will really decide the future direction it wishes the nation to take based upon whom it elects president in 2024.  In the meantime, the full faith and credit of the United States should not be held hostage to partisan rabble. …”

Since I don’t claim expertise in the nuances of the U.S. Senate’s filibuster rule, it’s not clear to me, given Mr. Kaine’s comments quoted by Politico, whether Democrats, as I suggested in my post, needed a number of Republican Senators’ support to have raised the debt ceiling in late 2022.  I’ve been assuming that they needed Republican Senate votes, and couldn’t get them.  One could infer from Mr. Kaine’s comments that they didn’t need Republican help.  If six months ago, I – an old retired Midwesterner —  could predict the debt ceiling train wreck we are now facing, it makes one blink to think that Democratic Congressional leadership didn’t see it coming.  If Democrats failed to raise the debt ceiling although they had the votes (alone or with Republican Senate help) to do so — a point I’d like to see definitively addressed – such failure can at best be characterized as shockingly naïve, and arguably more appropriately as startlingly obtuse legislative malpractice.

Break’s Over

I didn’t watch last week’s CNN Town Hall featuring former President Donald Trump; I knew I couldn’t stomach it.  Judging by the clips I’ve seen, the former president showed himself to be who he is:  a delusional, fascist megalomaniac.  Such characterization is obviously inflammatory, highly pejorative, and perhaps melodramatic; I leave it to you to decide whether you agree it is warranted.

While any number of liberal-leaning commentators have intoned that the CNN broadcast was a political gift to President Joe Biden – a claim which would seem to have some merit with regard to the disquieting effect that Mr. Trump’s obvious illiberal instability might well have on Republican-leaning voters in the metropolitan suburbs of swing states – I also sensed a bit of whistling past the graveyard.  The most disconcerting part of the clips I’ve seen isn’t what Mr. Trump said — he is, if nothing else, consistent – but rather the raucous approval his obvious lies and slurs received from a crowd that, while Republican, came from New Hampshire – a state generally considered to be populated by sensible, upright New Englanders who one would have thought would know better.  Although certainly not inconceivable that another candidate could yet wrest the Republican presidential nomination from him, it appears that Mr. Trump, to the enthusiastic alleluias of his cult, is resurrecting. 

We’ve had about 27 months’ respite:  27 months in which we had the luxury (?) of concentrating on the substantive global and domestic challenges we face; 27 months in which we could dream that the spell Mr. Trump has cast over a segment of our citizens would dissipate; 27 months in which we could hope that those who provide Mr. Trump lip service support either out of tribal party loyalty or fear would find the courage to denounce and disassociate themselves from him; 27 month in which we could wish that his legal problems would disqualify him.  We aren’t going to be that lucky.  [Special Counsel Jack Smith’s delay in bringing charges against Mr. Trump either for his part in the January 6th insurrection or for his misappropriation of classified documents has, given Mr. Trump’s maneuvering, now made any future indictment, no matter how strong the evidence, appear a political prosecution.  Mr. Smith – as Special Counsel Robert Mueller before him – has erred (and this is coming from a lawyer, mind you) by being too lawyerlike.  Now, I fear it’s too late.]

All who know me know my fondness for the television series, The West Wing, the account of a fictional President Josiah Bartlet and Mr. Bartlet’s White House staff.  At several points during the series’ multi-year run, the character Bartlet admonished his staff, when their focus had been diverted:  Break’s over.  Time to get back to work.

Mr. Trump has made his objective plain.  He and his supporters intend to institute an American Apartheid.  (I think the same can be said if Republicans nominate another MAGA, such as FL. Gov. Ron DeSantis, who, while lacking Mr. Trump’s animal magnetism, would have the same ultimate goal and carry less baggage to the race.)  They cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be persuaded; they can only be outvoted.  Although I concede unease about a second term for an 82-year-old president, and retain deep misgivings about Vice President Kamala Harris’ readiness for the presidency, these are the cards we’ve been dealt.  Any obvious physical diminishment by Mr. Biden, a deep recession, a perceived border crisis, a pivotal presidential debate moment, or some other notable event could tip a closely-divided electorate in key Electoral College swing states to Mr. Trump or another MAGA.  The crucible appears to be upon us.  It is time for those who believe in American democracy to get back to work.

Break’s over.

The Great Task

I have indicated before in these pages why I believe former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney could be well positioned to derail the presidential aspirations of former President Donald Trump and any other MAGAs who subscribe to illiberal views.  Given her courageous efforts on behalf of American democracy in her last years in Congress, Ms. Cheney has my wholehearted support, although I am pretty confident that our views on many domestic issues are at odds.  (I am equally confident that our views are pretty closely aligned on foreign policy.)  During her 2022 unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination for her Wyoming Congressional seat, Ms. Cheney launched a Political Action Committee (PAC) entitled, “The Great Task,” its title drawn from a phrase in President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.  The Great Task has continued to post video clips since she left office.

Below is a link to a YouTube video which I understand that The Great Task is beginning to run on New Hampshire media outlets dealing with Mr. Trump.

I continue to harbor doubts that Ms. Cheney will have much impact on the electoral fortunes of Mr. Trump or any other MAGA unless she attracts major media attention by declaring for the Republican presidential nomination – a step which would have little chance of ultimate success while involving the clear risk of physical danger to herself in our current toxic and violent environment, and thus, one that any advisor would be understandably reluctant to recommend.  That said, this video shows that she does not intend to leave the stage.  I suspect that this is not the last we’ll hear from Ms. Cheney; I certainly hope it is not.

“… The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.  It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November 19, 1863

Treason Doth Never Prosper

Yesterday, four members of the Proud Boys, including their leader, Enrique Tarrio, were found guilty of seditious conspiracy arising from their actions before and related to the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, joining members of the Oath Keepers, including their founder, Stewart Rhodes, who have previously been found guilty of seditious conspiracy related to the insurrection.

I understand that a number of these defendants claimed as part of their defense that they were not guilty of sedition because they were called to action by former President Donald Trump.  Put aside the patent culpability of Mr. Trump; such obviously provides these traitors no excuse.  They are responsible for their own actions.  They forgot their English literature:

“Treason doth never prosper.” English poet John Harrington; Alcilia.

“Men at times are masters of their own fates; the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”  Cassius to Marcus Brutus; William Shakespeare; Julius Caesar. 

Those who cherish American democracy can draw some reassurance from these convictions.  Even so, while Mr. Trump and other MAGAs continue in their endeavors, we cannot let our guard down; but for the actions of former Vice President Mike Pence and a few others, the insurrection incited by Mr. Trump on January 6th might well have succeeded.  The threat to our way of life has not gone away.  When the thought of this note occurred to me, I was pretty sure of my Shakespeare, but looked up Mr. Harrington’s declaration to check my memory.  I found that I had actually only recalled part of it.  The rest constitutes a caution:

“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason [Emphasis Added]”.

That said, today Joe Biden remains president and it’s a warm and sunny Friday in the Midwest. While we need to remain cognizant of Mr. Harrington’s vital warning, one might be excused from also embracing a more pleasant perspective for this early spring weekend.  If so, in addition to outdoor pursuits, one can contemplate the potpourri of television viewing available tomorrow:  commencing with an early champagne cocktail, toasting the coronation of King Charles III; then enjoying several Cherry Cokes with Warren Buffett throughout the day as CNBC – seemingly inordinately proudly, considering the promotion it has offered this week — broadcasts the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting; and watching the sun start to set with a Mint Julep as one witnesses the Kentucky Derby.

If the weather holds, we ourselves plan to stain a retaining wall.  We will celebrate any successful conclusion with the appropriate refresher – perhaps even a Schlitz  😉 . 

Stay well.   

On Tanking and Other Random April Notions

A few disparate impressions as we move further into spring:

“Tanking is the art of creating a purposefully bad team with the intention of losing games to gain high draft picks. … Tanking aims to … ultimately win a championship with the core constructed while tanking.”

  • What Are The Odds: A Statistical Analysis of Tanking in The NBA; towardsdatascience.com; Brayden Gerrard, March 11, 2019

If there was a Mr. Republican who controlled the party’s national strategy – and if there were such a being, he would, being a Republican, obviously be a white male 😉 – he might well be thinking that having former President Donald Trump as the party’s 2024 nominee would be in the best long term interests of the party:  “Let Trump and [FOX News Commentator Tucker] Carlson take the party over the edge to what is currently looking like it will be a general election shellacking.  After winning the culture war for years with many moderate Americans who are alienated by what they perceive as progressives’ obsession on Americans’ gender, ethnic, religious, and sexual preference identities and disregard for traditional American values and hallmarks, now it is we who are on the wrong side of the American middle with our positions on abortion, health care, book banning, guns and climate; we even seem poised to put ourselves on the wrong side of the American majority on the debt ceiling and perhaps Ukraine.”  Mr. Republican might reason:  “The GOP can’t win in 2024 without the MAGAs, but Trump can’t win without the traditional Republicans; let’s tank and concede a Biden re-election.  We still have the majority of Americans with us on many issues such as immigration and crime [note that at the same time Wisconsinites were providing liberal Judge Janet Protasiewicz an 11-point victory this past April on the strength of abortion rights, they were voting in higher percentages for referenda in favor of tightening state welfare eligibility and keeping criminal defendants in jail before trial].  A Trump debacle will give us years to develop and test positions in areas in which we are now considered too extreme, and we’ll have a great chance to win in 2028 when Americans will be ready for a change, with a fresh candidate against a Democrat almost certainly more progressive than Biden.”

(Is there a Republican master strategist?  Nah.  Are MAGA diehards such as U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan seeking to prop up Mr. Trump as part of some long term Republican strategy?  Nah; I know, I know.  They’re just blackguards.)

Next:  There are obviously all different types of smarts.  Since FL Gov. Ron DeSantis went to Yale, and is widely reported to study issues, he seemingly has what might be called, “academic smarts.”  That said, Mr. DeSantis appears to be too politically dumb to be president.  Turning hard to the right on abortion in the face of recent nationwide polls and electoral results is inept enough for a candidate who will need to win swing states to win the general presidential election; but his fight with The Walt Disney Company, the signature employer in his state, over culture issues is so egregiously politically stupid for a Republican that it makes one blink.  Say what you will about Mr. Trump and former WI Gov. Scott Walker [and I’ve said plenty 😉 ]; these men, while campaigning as populists, were politically savvy enough to cultivate and maintain great relationships with the business community.  For Mr. DeSantis to seek to use his office to punish the Disney organization over culture issues is akin to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s crackdown over the last couple of years on mighty Chinese conglomerates perceived by Mr. Xi as being too powerful.  I am confident that many major American CEOs are calculating that if Mr. DeSantis is using his gubernatorial power to go after Disney today, he could use presidential power to go after them for perceived slights tomorrow.  Since I consider Mr. DeSantis every bit as dangerous to America as Mr. Trump, I’m happy to see that he seems to be as politically obtuse as he is boring.

Next:  Unless U.S. CA Sen. Dianne Feinstein can return to Washington by the end of April, she should resign.  There have been plenty of credible reports to indicate that Sen. Feinstein, 89, is no longer physically able to fulfill the duties of her office.  I consider the claims that the calls for her resignation are gender-based – i.e., if she was a man, no one would be calling for her to resign – a progressive spasm irrelevant to the main point:  getting President Joe Biden’s judicial appointments confirmed.  [I would understand the reluctance to pressure Ms. Feinstein if California had a Republican governor; but I’d make the same call for resignation if it involved U.S. MD Sen. Ben Cardin (to be 80 this year, representing a state with a Democratic governor), if it was obvious that Mr. Cardin could no longer serve and his continuance in the Senate was blocking the President’s judicial appointments.]  Someone Ms. Feinstein trusts should go to the Senator and advise her to step down.  Democratic CA Gov. Gavin Newsom will appoint Ms. Feinstein’s successor, and given the already-hotly contested 2024 California Democratic primary battle for Ms. Feinstein’s seat, the appointee should be a “caretaker.”

Two final notes, arguably more significant: 

First, those chortling – and there is a fair amount of chortling in this note – about the Republicans’ seemingly dimming prospects to win the White House in 2024 with Mr. Trump as their nominee, need to keep one thing in mind:  Mr. Biden’s health.  If he appears hale all the way to Election Day in a race against Mr. Trump, I think he wins.  If he has a significant health reversal in the last few weeks before the election – the worst kind of “October Surprise” (recall that U.S. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just couldn’t quite make it to Inauguration Day, 2021, and the havoc her truly untimely death has caused) – Mr. Trump can win.  Those who believe in democracy should hold their breaths that the octogenarian Mr. Biden remains healthy at least until Wednesday, November 6, 2024.  (I doubt U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ readiness for the presidency, but even if my estimation is correct, we will muddle through; Mr. Trump’s illiberalism is an existential threat to our way of life.)

Finally, the debt ceiling.  There is no substantive issue – Ukraine, race, abortion, guns, Social Security/Medicare, climate, election reform, or anything else – I consider as important as maintaining the full faith and credit of the United States.  For us to be able to continue to pay our debts, Congress must pass a law raising the debt ceiling by sometime this summer.  U.S. House Republicans, led by Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are posturing (as they always do when a Democrat is president) about budget restrictions they will require in order to vote to raise the debt ceiling.  Safeguarding America’s democracy from provocateurs is existential, more important than any substantive issue, including maintaining its full faith and credit.  If counseling the President, I’d recommend that he get this blunt message to Mr. McCarthy  (if he hasn’t already):  “Kevin, I’m not compromising with you.  I’m not going to accept any budget limitations in order to get your votes on the debt ceiling.  I’m going to sit here and talk about Social Security, Medicare, and our need to protect our troops and our veterans.  There are enough votes in both houses to pass an unrestricted debt ceiling.  If we default, Americans won’t blame me; they’ll blame you and your extremists for the fallout.  In 2025, any Kwik Trip will be big enough to hold the entire Republican House Caucus; and you won’t be there.  You know it.  I know it.  Have a nice day.”

Mr. McCarthy has shown himself to be a gutless hypocrite; I think he’ll cave.  Whether he does or not, and although I am deeply concerned about a U.S. default today and the effect that the mounting U.S. debt will have on our children and grandchildren tomorrow, one cannot appease political terrorists.

More than long enough.  (Could have cut the paragraph on Mr. DeSantis, which added nothing you haven’t already seen, heard, or thought; but just couldn’t resist piling on 🙂 ).  Have a good week.

On the Trump New York Indictment: A Postscript

In the original of this note, I declared:  “If the counts brought against Mr. Trump ultimately amount to no more than falsification of business records under New York law … such charges are highly likely to be seen … as ticky-tack fouls.  Such an impression helps Mr. Trump.”  I have no background in criminal law.  I have seen it reported that the 34 charges brought against Mr. Trump will amount to NY law misdemeanor counts, not felony counts, unless the prosecution can persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump falsified his business records in order to evade apprehension for a separate felony crime.  Judging by the muted tones I heard from NY District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr., during a CNN interview about the indictment, and by the reserved commentary I have heard from some of the legal experts on MSNBC’s decidedly-liberal Morning Joe, I’d venture that they consider Mr. Bragg to have brought … a whole lotta ho-hum.  (I know, I know; Al Capone.  Even so ….)  Whether this indictment ultimately helps Mr. Trump politically – more on that below — remains to be seen.

Since former WI Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in 2010, I have had a lot of surprises in politics; but rarely have I been stunned.  I was stunned by Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential election victory; and I was stunned by the margin of Judge Janet Protasiewicz’ victory over former WI S. Ct. Justice Daniel Kelly for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — 11 points – in such a closely divided and deeply polarized state.  Ms. Protasiewicz had campaigned primarily on women’s abortion rights and her concerns with Wisconsin’s despicably gerrymandered legislative districts.  We learned the day after the election that a close woman friend who is fairly apolitical, and who had truly significant personal issues literally coming to a head on election day, nonetheless made the time to vote for Ms. Protasiewicz because of the abortion issue.  It would appear that former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has again been proven too smart by half; if he had either allowed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court or chosen not to proceed with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, there would not have been five U.S. Supreme Court votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (recall that conservative Chief Justice John Roberts adopted a more limited rationale that would have upheld Roe).  From Republicans’ perspective, the political milk is now spilt; they are seemingly stuck on the wrong side of an emotive, galvanizing issue that appears likely to be the political gift that keeps on giving for Democrats for years.

That said:  into every life, a little rain must fall (at least for us Irish 😉 ).  As Judge Protasiewicz was winning her Supreme Court seat, Republican state Rep. Dan Knodl won a WI state Senate seat to create a Republican supermajority bloc that now has the votes to remove WI Gov. Tony Evers and other Wisconsin office holders – including judges – from office if the Wisconsin Assembly chooses to impeach them.  (As in the federal system, impeachment charges need only receive a simple majority in the lower house Assembly – now controlled by Republicans – to be referred to the state’s Senate.)  This is not comforting; Mr. Knodl was among state lawmakers who signed a letter in 2020 calling for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification of the 2020 presidential election.  Even so, do I think that the Republican Wisconsin legislature will seek to remove Mr. Evers from office?  I may be too optimistic, and stand ready to be corrected (some who read these notes have forgotten more about the innards of Wisconsin state politics than I’ll ever know), but I actually don’t believe that Wisconsin Republicans – despite what (or perhaps because of) what recently happened in Tennessee – will undertake such an effort; such would too closely smack of a Republican Wisconsin state coup d’etat, and could be predicted to incite too fierce a political backlash.  Do I think that the Republican legislature will seek to impeach liberal WI Supreme Court Justices if they seem likely to rule that women have abortion rights under the Wisconsin Constitution?  Again, particularly given Ms. Protasiewicz’ margin of victory, I’m guessing that Wisconsin Republicans would consider the political repercussions of such an action for such a reason too great to risk.  On the other hand, do I think they’ll consider attempting to remove a liberal WI Supreme Court Justice on some trumped up (if you will 😉 ) charge if such is necessary to avoid having their perniciously gerrymandered legislative districting – the reason some of them have jobs — declared unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution?  You bet.

Back to Mr. Trump’s indictment.  Two notions:

First, I was recently asked by someone aware of my legal background why New York Supreme Court (note:  in New York courts, the Supreme Court is actually the trial court) Justice Juan Merchan doesn’t find the former president in contempt and put him in jail for attacking the judge and his family after the Judge instructed Mr. Trump during his arraignment not to make remarks that could endanger others.  My view:  Justice Merchan confronts the horns of a dilemma.  I suspect that the former president may be goading the judge because in his warped view, Mr. Trump wins either way:  either he can significantly tarnish the credibility of the proceedings by consistently casting aspersions upon the judge and the judicial system, or he gets to play the persecuted martyr if Justice Merchan orders his incarceration for contempt of court.  Ultimately, I think Justice Merchan will have little choice but to jail Mr. Trump for contempt if he continues his outbursts; but I would imagine that he’ll wait a bit.  At least were I in his place, I would feel I needed to.  He just shouldn’t wait too long.

Finally, although Mr. Bragg’s charges against Mr. Trump may well ultimately amount to no more than two-pound walking weights when compared to the baggage he’s already carrying, the notion lingers that as Mr. Trump’s legal woes mount, it might be possible for a Republican moderate to run a bit to his left and surpass him for the nomination.  However, even if that happens, Judge Protasiewicz’ victory margin makes clear what a difficult juggling act any GOP presidential nominee will have with the abortion issue in the swing states in the general presidential election campaign.  If the Republican takes the position that s/he will appoint more judges like Mr. Trump did, it will mobilize those seeking to protect women’s abortion rights; if s/he waffles on the issue, s/he will lose the Evangelicals and other religious conservatives, without whom I will venture no Republican can win the presidency.  This issue even seems to help President Biden blunt the ageism issue facing him; in two years, when asked about his obviously advanced age, he can respond, “Justices Alito and Thomas are our oldest Supreme Court Justices.  If they leave the Court during the next four years, who do you want to have appointing their successors – [the Republican candidate] or me?”