If you frequent American political Twitter, you cannot ignore that right wing accounts have gone crazy in the later hours of Wednesday, repeating a name over and over, claiming that this person is the whistleblower who has brought the Trump presidency to its knees. Indeed, the tweeters have made no secret that they are trying to get the name to trend, thus garnering even greater online publicity. Many of the tweets are angry, and clearly care not that by publishing this name, they are placing this person's life is in jeopardy.
I will not give these tweeters the satisfaction and use the name in my writing. But consider for moment just how sick this is. There is a group of people so deranged that they care more for the fact that their president's corruption has been exposed and corroborated, than for the life of another human being.
Take a step back. President Trump released a memorandum on the telephone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the memorandum is not a complete transcript, it contains enough detail to show that Trump strong-armed Ukraine, reminding Zelensky that the United States provides more assistance to Ukraine than Western European countries, but that the relationship was not entirely reciprocal. Then once Zelensky mentioned Ukraine's desire to purchase more anti-tank missiles, Trump is recorded as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though." The rest of the memorandum details how Trump requested that Zelensky open an investigation to undermine the findings of the Mueller report, and to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. That is, the memorandum of the phone call that Trump claims was perfect clearly established that Trump placed pressure on Zelensky to dig up dirt that would help Trump's personal political agenda.
From the line of witnesses who have been interviewed by the three House committees currently conducting the information gathering phase of the impeachment inquiry, we have learned that Trump circumvented normal State Department procedures by sending his private attorney Rudolph Giuliani across the world to pressure Ukrainian officials into opening these investigations. We have learned that Trump dangled the prospects of a meeting between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian President, but conditioned it on the commencement of those investigations. We learned that Trump did indeed withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, on the condition that Ukraine make a public announcement that it had begun investigating the Bidens. We have learned that Trump's aids wanted to see a draft of any statement by Zelensky before it went public concerning those investigations.
In short, the evidence and testimony presented to the House committees have not only corroborated the allegations made by the whistleblower in his or her complaint, but have gone a few steps beyond what the whistleblower alleged.
The identity of the whistleblower is therefore irrelevant now. The whistleblower provided the information that started the impeachment inquiry. That information has been confirmed, and continues to be confirmed, by other sources. There is no further need to interview the whistleblower.
Yet Trump has continued to harp that he deserves to know the name of the whistleblower. He has accused the whistleblower of treason and espionage. He has threatened the life of the whistelblower, saying that they ought to do with this person what they "used to do" with spies. That is, execute him or her. Trump knows full well that his inflammatory words could inspire the more extreme of his supporters, who could easily attempt to take matters into their own hands.
What's worse is that the name of the whistleblower has alleged been leaked to the Republicans who are part of the impeachment inquiry for some time now. Republicans are reported to have used this name several times in their questions of the witnesses, trying to build a case that the whistleblower had a bias against the President.
Indeed, not only have the most recent tweets revealed the alleged whistleblower's name, they have revealed his or her job and his or her specific employer, they have published photographs alleged to be the whistleblower, they have set out the whistleblower's work history and political leanings, all in an effort to make up an argument that the whistleblower was a partisan and that his or her information could not be trusted.
But again, what could possibly be the purpose of this now? The information in the complaint is consistent with the memorandum of the telephone call, and has been corroborated by other witnesses. The whistleblower's own biases is completely irrelevant, given the corroborating evidence. The only purpose releasing the identity, including work history, political leanings, and photographs is to work up the emotions of the President's base. Because they already oppose the impeachment inquiry, what else are they expected to do with this pent-up emotion if not act on it.
And that is the ultimate goal of the Republican Party. It is not to protect our republic from corruption. It is not to be patriotic. It goes beyond being loyal to the President. It is to send a message to this whistleblower, as well as any other potential whistleblower. That message is that despite laws intended to protect you for exposing allegedly corrupt practices, you will be in danger if you come forward. And isn't that more in line with what an autocrat would do than a leader of a democratic republic. The GOP has indeed fallen far from its roots.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Header Photo
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Friday, October 25, 2019
Justice Department Criminal Probe into Mueller Investigation Reeks of Trump Authoritarianism
The investigation resulted in the indictment of 34 different individuals, including 12 Russian intelligence officers and 13 other Russian nationals. Five of Trump's own associates pleaded guilty to federal crimes, and either spent time in jail, or are currently incarcerated for their crimes. The investigation conclusively demonstrated that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, and tried to influence the outcome. Moreover, the investigation served as a warning to be vigilant over foreign powers planting false stories in social media in order to influence voters and call into question the integrity of the U.S. electoral process.
By most accounts, the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a success, and a much needed warning to the American people. Why, then, has Trump's Justice Department opened a criminal investigation looking into how that investigation was started?
The reason has much to do with President Donald Trump's warped perception of the investigation, and his narcissistic need to be praised and admired.
The investigation began not as a criminal investigation targeting Trump and his associates, but as a counterintelligence investigation based on warnings that Russia was attempting to influence the outcome of the election. When the FBI learned that Russian intelligence officers were having contacts with Trump campaign officials, such as Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, the agency turned to the special court created pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") to apply for a warrant to permit domestic wire taps to determine exactly what Russian spies were doing. Because the Russian spies contacted Trump campaign officials, those wire taps focused on the Trump campaign and Trump properties. The original intention was not to target the Trump campaign for surveillance, but to learn what the Russians were up to and, if possible, thwart Russian intelligence operations in the United States.
Trump's ego, however, distorts his entire world perception, and therefore the reason behind the investigation. To Trump, the the FISA court approval of wire taps of Trump Tower in New York must have meant that the Government was spying on him, not the Russians. He thus saw the investigation into Russian meddling as an attack of him personally, and not on the Russian intelligence services. Because he could not stand to be questioned and criticized, he attempted numerous times, as detailed in the final Mueller Report, to obstruct that investigation. Indeed, because his first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation, Trump attacked his Attorney General repeatedly for being disloyal and failing to be able to stop the investigation. This is despite the fact that as an adviser to the Trump Campaign, Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and had legitimate reasons for the recusal.
Because Trump sees the investigation as an attack on the legitimacy of his presidency, he has been unable to accept its conclusions regarding Russian interference. Trump has continually rejected the verdict, not only of the Mueller investigation, but of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia attempted to influence the outcome of the election, favoring Trump over his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
His compulsive opposition to the investigation of Russia shaped many of his decisions, including the firing of Attorney General Sessions, and the nomination of William Barr as the new Attorney General. Barr was already an outspoken opponent of the Mueller investigation when Trump nominated him. It therefore came as no surprise when, as Attorney General, Barr distorted the findings of the Mueller report, before releasing a redacted version to the public. Through his summary of the report, Barr conveyed that the Mueller team had exonerated the President. In reality, in the report Mueller and his team noted that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians existed, but there was plenty of evidence of the President's multiple attempts to interfere in the investigation itself.
It is Trump's distorted view of the investigation that has, in part, led to the current impeach inquiry. Despite his claims that he was exonerated by the Mueller report, Trump has obsessed over proving the illegitimacy of the investigation. Throughout the investigation, he called it a witch hunt. Indeed, he continues to refer to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt to this day. Trump latched onto a conspiracy theory that it was the Democratic Party that invited foreign interference into the 2016 election, which somehow involved Ukraine. Part of that conspiracy theory is that the server of the Democratic National Committee, which was hacked during the 2016 campaign, somehow ended up in Ukraine. Accordingly, part of the quid pro quo of releasing the congressional approved military aid to Ukraine was an announcement from the Zelensky Government that it was investigating where the DNC server ended up. Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, has been pressuring Ukrainian officials to open investigations, both of the Bidens and of the DNC server, for months.
Indeed, as part of his campaign to discredit the Mueller investigation, Trump has reached out to other foreign countries for help. The Russian investigation began based on a warning from an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who had a conversation with Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos in London. Papadopoulos was bragging that the Russians had thousands of supposedly damaging emails from Hillary Clinton. Trump has asked that Australia cooperate with Attorney General Barr in investigating whether Downer was spying on Papadopoulos. As a result of the investigation into Russia, Papadopoulos served a fourteen day prison term after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Trump has also reportedly sent Barr to Italy seeking information on whether a Maltese professor, Josef Misfud, who also spoke with Papadopoulos concerning Clinton's emails, was somehow connected to Italian intelligence operations.
Given the lengths to which Trump has gone to discredit the Mueller investigation, the fact that the Justice Department may have opened a criminal investigation into how the Russian probe got started should come as no surprise. Trump is no stranger to intimidation tactics. Using the Justice Department against those whom he perceives as disloyal or as part of the deep state opposition to his presidency would be in line with his autocratic tendencies. Barr's demonstrated loyalty to Trump may indeed cause the Attorney General to permit the President to use the Justice Department as a tool to intimidate those who would oppose him.
The use of the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into how the probe of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election started is troubling to say the least. It raises serious concerns of Trump's willingness to use his office to retaliate against people he believes to be his enemies. This is not the act of a leader dedicated to the principles of freedom and democracy. It is more in line with a tactic of a despot attempting to quell opposition to his reign. Let us hope the United States has not slid that far in the direction of autocracy.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
By most accounts, the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a success, and a much needed warning to the American people. Why, then, has Trump's Justice Department opened a criminal investigation looking into how that investigation was started?
The reason has much to do with President Donald Trump's warped perception of the investigation, and his narcissistic need to be praised and admired.
The investigation began not as a criminal investigation targeting Trump and his associates, but as a counterintelligence investigation based on warnings that Russia was attempting to influence the outcome of the election. When the FBI learned that Russian intelligence officers were having contacts with Trump campaign officials, such as Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, the agency turned to the special court created pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") to apply for a warrant to permit domestic wire taps to determine exactly what Russian spies were doing. Because the Russian spies contacted Trump campaign officials, those wire taps focused on the Trump campaign and Trump properties. The original intention was not to target the Trump campaign for surveillance, but to learn what the Russians were up to and, if possible, thwart Russian intelligence operations in the United States.
Trump's ego, however, distorts his entire world perception, and therefore the reason behind the investigation. To Trump, the the FISA court approval of wire taps of Trump Tower in New York must have meant that the Government was spying on him, not the Russians. He thus saw the investigation into Russian meddling as an attack of him personally, and not on the Russian intelligence services. Because he could not stand to be questioned and criticized, he attempted numerous times, as detailed in the final Mueller Report, to obstruct that investigation. Indeed, because his first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation, Trump attacked his Attorney General repeatedly for being disloyal and failing to be able to stop the investigation. This is despite the fact that as an adviser to the Trump Campaign, Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and had legitimate reasons for the recusal.
Because Trump sees the investigation as an attack on the legitimacy of his presidency, he has been unable to accept its conclusions regarding Russian interference. Trump has continually rejected the verdict, not only of the Mueller investigation, but of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia attempted to influence the outcome of the election, favoring Trump over his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
His compulsive opposition to the investigation of Russia shaped many of his decisions, including the firing of Attorney General Sessions, and the nomination of William Barr as the new Attorney General. Barr was already an outspoken opponent of the Mueller investigation when Trump nominated him. It therefore came as no surprise when, as Attorney General, Barr distorted the findings of the Mueller report, before releasing a redacted version to the public. Through his summary of the report, Barr conveyed that the Mueller team had exonerated the President. In reality, in the report Mueller and his team noted that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians existed, but there was plenty of evidence of the President's multiple attempts to interfere in the investigation itself.
It is Trump's distorted view of the investigation that has, in part, led to the current impeach inquiry. Despite his claims that he was exonerated by the Mueller report, Trump has obsessed over proving the illegitimacy of the investigation. Throughout the investigation, he called it a witch hunt. Indeed, he continues to refer to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt to this day. Trump latched onto a conspiracy theory that it was the Democratic Party that invited foreign interference into the 2016 election, which somehow involved Ukraine. Part of that conspiracy theory is that the server of the Democratic National Committee, which was hacked during the 2016 campaign, somehow ended up in Ukraine. Accordingly, part of the quid pro quo of releasing the congressional approved military aid to Ukraine was an announcement from the Zelensky Government that it was investigating where the DNC server ended up. Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, has been pressuring Ukrainian officials to open investigations, both of the Bidens and of the DNC server, for months.
Indeed, as part of his campaign to discredit the Mueller investigation, Trump has reached out to other foreign countries for help. The Russian investigation began based on a warning from an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who had a conversation with Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos in London. Papadopoulos was bragging that the Russians had thousands of supposedly damaging emails from Hillary Clinton. Trump has asked that Australia cooperate with Attorney General Barr in investigating whether Downer was spying on Papadopoulos. As a result of the investigation into Russia, Papadopoulos served a fourteen day prison term after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Trump has also reportedly sent Barr to Italy seeking information on whether a Maltese professor, Josef Misfud, who also spoke with Papadopoulos concerning Clinton's emails, was somehow connected to Italian intelligence operations.
Given the lengths to which Trump has gone to discredit the Mueller investigation, the fact that the Justice Department may have opened a criminal investigation into how the Russian probe got started should come as no surprise. Trump is no stranger to intimidation tactics. Using the Justice Department against those whom he perceives as disloyal or as part of the deep state opposition to his presidency would be in line with his autocratic tendencies. Barr's demonstrated loyalty to Trump may indeed cause the Attorney General to permit the President to use the Justice Department as a tool to intimidate those who would oppose him.
The use of the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into how the probe of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election started is troubling to say the least. It raises serious concerns of Trump's willingness to use his office to retaliate against people he believes to be his enemies. This is not the act of a leader dedicated to the principles of freedom and democracy. It is more in line with a tactic of a despot attempting to quell opposition to his reign. Let us hope the United States has not slid that far in the direction of autocracy.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Trump Supporters Thrive on the Drama, and Endanger National Security
Today, Florida Representative Matt Gaetz engaged in a political stunt by leading a group of about thirty Republican House members to storm into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ("SCIF") where the House Judiciary Committee was to take the deposition of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Laura Cooper, endangering national security in the process. The SCIF is a facility set up to permit members of Congress to receive classified information concerning national security while keeping the information secure. No electronic devices are permitted inside the hearing room. A special room outside of the hearing room exits so everyone who enters the hearing room can lock up their cell phones and other electronic devices.
Nonetheless, Gaetz and his Republican cohorts violated protocol, storming into the hearing room uninvited without locking up their electronic devices. Indeed, a tweet appeared on Gaetz Twitter account celebrating the intrusion. After Chairman Adam Schiff abruptly ended the proceedings, the SCIF had to be swept to ensure no electronic devices that could spy on the hearings had been left behind. As Mieke Eoyang, Vice President for the Third Way's National Security Program (@MiekeEoyang) reported on her Twitter account, many members of Congress are targets for foreign intelligence due to what they know about national security. Yet, at the same time some Congress members fail to observe strict steps to secure their sensitive conversations. Knowing what is discussed within the SCIF would be a boon to foreign adversaries, says Eoyang, which is why breaching protocol by bringing electronic devices into the hearing room is such a danger to national security.
Despite the threat to national security, Trump supporters are likely to be thrilled with Gaetz's brazen political stunt. Hard core Trump supporters thrive on the drama, regardless of the threat to the nation, both from hostile foreign entities, and from the autocratic tendencies of the chief executive and his administration. Indeed, Trump supporters love the "in your face" combative tactics that Trump and his defenders have adopted in opposition to the current impeachment inquiry.
Trump supporters have long memories. Their unwavering loyalty can be traced back to the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Clinton was, of course, caught lying whiles testifying under oath about a sexual encounter with a White House intern. He was impeached for perjury, however, the Democrats rallied behind their President. As a result, Clinton survived the removal trial in the Senate. Conservative voters decried how the Democrats could continue to support a man, nicknamed Slick Willie for his perceived dishonesty. As successive Republican leaders, such as Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, resigned from Congress amid marital infidelity allegations, conservative talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, lamented that Republicans would rather throw their leaders under the bus than stand up and fight when such allegations were made.
When Trump came along in the middle of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination campaign, he turned the event into a slugfest. He slapped his opponents with derogatory nicknames, like Little Marco Rubio, and Lyin' Ted Cruz, that injected drama for low information voters, who otherwise found the crowded field of candidates uninteresting. Conservative voters had found a candidate who could fight, and who would enjoy their undying support. Trump was, in essence, their Bill Clinton.
Indeed, the support from Trump from these voters was so strong, it didn't matter that his White House was reported to be in chaos, it didn't matter that Trump would blab highly confidential intelligence to Russian officials, and, of course, it didn't matter that Trump was willing to engage in lawlessness, such as obstructing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on several occasions.
Those same supporters blindly defend Trump, despite what factual evidence of his wrong doings emerge. Despite public statements by Trump that he asked a foreign leader for dirt on a political opponent, their support is undying. The release of the memorandum of his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter did not change their minds. Even with evidence piling up indicating that Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress, until the Ukrainian Government would announce that it had opened that investigation, Trump supporters still believe his claims that the phone call was "perfect."
When Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, admitted in a press conference that the flow of funds was held up until Ukraine made steps to combat corruption, which in the President's mind included the investigation, core Trump supporters' loyalty never wavered. After admitting the facts that make up the quid pro quo, Mulvaney infamously told the press corps, "get over it." While Washington pundits continue to buzz about the admission, it has hardly moved any hard core Trump supporters. Within days, Mulvney's admonition to the press to "get over it" found itself emblazoned on t-shirts for sale on Trump's 2020 campaign website. (Research has shown that t-shirt saying, "I voted for Trump, Get Over It" were available through the website even before Mulvaney's press conference. However, I could not find the simple "Get Over It" alone on a t-shirt until after Mulvaney's said it to the press.) Despite Mulvaney's admission of the President's gross illegality and abuse of power, Trump supporters could themselves get "in your face" with a defiant message, indicating Trump was still their man, no matter his outrageous offenses.
Trump supporters just don't care about the threat to national security when it comes to being loyal to "their man." Trump supporters did not protest Trump's tweeting of a classified spy satellite image taken of an Iranian rocket installation. They do not protest Trump's continual discrediting of the U.S. intelligence community. They don't mind that Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in secret multiple times. Certainly, they won't mind now that Representative Gaetz has led so many Republican representatives to breach security protocol in such an audacious manner. Indeed, his political stunt plays right into their wheelhouse, having show that they prefer the drama and confrontation that is the hallmark of the Trump Administration.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Nonetheless, Gaetz and his Republican cohorts violated protocol, storming into the hearing room uninvited without locking up their electronic devices. Indeed, a tweet appeared on Gaetz Twitter account celebrating the intrusion. After Chairman Adam Schiff abruptly ended the proceedings, the SCIF had to be swept to ensure no electronic devices that could spy on the hearings had been left behind. As Mieke Eoyang, Vice President for the Third Way's National Security Program (@MiekeEoyang) reported on her Twitter account, many members of Congress are targets for foreign intelligence due to what they know about national security. Yet, at the same time some Congress members fail to observe strict steps to secure their sensitive conversations. Knowing what is discussed within the SCIF would be a boon to foreign adversaries, says Eoyang, which is why breaching protocol by bringing electronic devices into the hearing room is such a danger to national security.
Despite the threat to national security, Trump supporters are likely to be thrilled with Gaetz's brazen political stunt. Hard core Trump supporters thrive on the drama, regardless of the threat to the nation, both from hostile foreign entities, and from the autocratic tendencies of the chief executive and his administration. Indeed, Trump supporters love the "in your face" combative tactics that Trump and his defenders have adopted in opposition to the current impeachment inquiry.
Trump supporters have long memories. Their unwavering loyalty can be traced back to the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Clinton was, of course, caught lying whiles testifying under oath about a sexual encounter with a White House intern. He was impeached for perjury, however, the Democrats rallied behind their President. As a result, Clinton survived the removal trial in the Senate. Conservative voters decried how the Democrats could continue to support a man, nicknamed Slick Willie for his perceived dishonesty. As successive Republican leaders, such as Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, resigned from Congress amid marital infidelity allegations, conservative talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, lamented that Republicans would rather throw their leaders under the bus than stand up and fight when such allegations were made.
When Trump came along in the middle of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination campaign, he turned the event into a slugfest. He slapped his opponents with derogatory nicknames, like Little Marco Rubio, and Lyin' Ted Cruz, that injected drama for low information voters, who otherwise found the crowded field of candidates uninteresting. Conservative voters had found a candidate who could fight, and who would enjoy their undying support. Trump was, in essence, their Bill Clinton.
Indeed, the support from Trump from these voters was so strong, it didn't matter that his White House was reported to be in chaos, it didn't matter that Trump would blab highly confidential intelligence to Russian officials, and, of course, it didn't matter that Trump was willing to engage in lawlessness, such as obstructing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on several occasions.
Those same supporters blindly defend Trump, despite what factual evidence of his wrong doings emerge. Despite public statements by Trump that he asked a foreign leader for dirt on a political opponent, their support is undying. The release of the memorandum of his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter did not change their minds. Even with evidence piling up indicating that Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress, until the Ukrainian Government would announce that it had opened that investigation, Trump supporters still believe his claims that the phone call was "perfect."
When Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, admitted in a press conference that the flow of funds was held up until Ukraine made steps to combat corruption, which in the President's mind included the investigation, core Trump supporters' loyalty never wavered. After admitting the facts that make up the quid pro quo, Mulvaney infamously told the press corps, "get over it." While Washington pundits continue to buzz about the admission, it has hardly moved any hard core Trump supporters. Within days, Mulvney's admonition to the press to "get over it" found itself emblazoned on t-shirts for sale on Trump's 2020 campaign website. (Research has shown that t-shirt saying, "I voted for Trump, Get Over It" were available through the website even before Mulvaney's press conference. However, I could not find the simple "Get Over It" alone on a t-shirt until after Mulvaney's said it to the press.) Despite Mulvaney's admission of the President's gross illegality and abuse of power, Trump supporters could themselves get "in your face" with a defiant message, indicating Trump was still their man, no matter his outrageous offenses.Trump supporters just don't care about the threat to national security when it comes to being loyal to "their man." Trump supporters did not protest Trump's tweeting of a classified spy satellite image taken of an Iranian rocket installation. They do not protest Trump's continual discrediting of the U.S. intelligence community. They don't mind that Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in secret multiple times. Certainly, they won't mind now that Representative Gaetz has led so many Republican representatives to breach security protocol in such an audacious manner. Indeed, his political stunt plays right into their wheelhouse, having show that they prefer the drama and confrontation that is the hallmark of the Trump Administration.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
There Has to be a Better Way to Choose a President
Twelve people stood on stage last night, each trying to explain why they should be the next President of the United States. But after yet another three hours of back and forth between a dozen candidates, have we learned enough to choose a president?
We were in a similar situation four years ago. At that time, we were fairly certain that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the Republican race, with its multitude of characters, seemed like a farce. No one really stood out. At the time, Donald Trump has a substantial following, but not a majority of Republican voters. He gained his support mostly do to name recognition, and turning the Republican debates into Jerry Springer-like events, that many found entertaining.
Over the next few months, as primaries and caucuses were held, the experienced politicians in the Republican field found that they could not put their egos aside, and Trump racked up the delegates, based on name recognition and his entertainment value. By time the dust settled, and the two major candidates selected, many in the electorate asked, is this the best we could do.
That questions haunts the process of selecting a president to this day. Is this the best we can do? The process is easy to criticize. It takes too long. It’s tiring for potential voters. It’s superficial. It’s too expensive. It’s too divisive. It gives a small minority of people way too much power in influencing the outcome. And in the end, it is just way too possible for the choice of most American voters to be ignored, as the person losing the popular vote can still wind up being the president.
It’s no mystery why in many elections, voters complain that they are choosing the lesser of two evils.
Surely, we can do better.
While the Democrats were engaging in their debates here in the United States, a fascinating crisis of leadership unfolded in the United Kingdom. A new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has failed to convince fellow members of Parliament that leaving the European Union without concluding a deal upon which both the U.K. and the E.U. could agree would be a satisfactory outcome of Brexit. As a result, Johnson lost vote after vote in Parliament, and even saw enough of his party’s members defect to the opposition to rob him of a majority in Parliament. There was discussion of holding an election to choose a new Parliament. What was astonishing was that no one in the United Kingdom even questioned that such an election could be completed in five weeks.
Five weeks to choose an entirely new government in the U.K.; meanwhile, the campaign to choose a new president in the United States persists for more than two years. How can that possibly be? Do we really need all that time to make a reasoned decision? Some might even argue that the U.S. presidential campaign is never-ending. Indeed, President Trump continued to hold political rallies almost immediately after being sworn into office.
Is this really the best we can do?
Richard Nixon once said of running for president, that first one had to run to the right as far as he could to court Republican voters to nominate him. Then, during the general election, that same person had to run to the center as fast as he could, to convince independent voters to choose him over his Democratic rival.
It’s no wonder why American politicians are accused of flip-flopping.
To fix the system would go beyond tweaking what the United States already has. Indeed, simply abolishing the Electoral College would not be enough. The problem with the U.S. system includes our primary system, which takes too long, gives too much influence to two states with small populations, entrenches the two party system, and leaves a large number of voters without a voice in nominating the presidential candidates.
The first big contest of the nomination season is the Iowa Caucuses. Iowa represents less than one percent of the total U.S. population. Yet, presidential candidates flock to Iowa early every four years to court the state’s voters. Especially when a candidate trails in the national polls, if that candidate can somehow convince Iowa voters to choose him or her, that candidate can experience a huge burst in popularity and news coverage. At times, a win in Iowa can create enough momentum to propel a candidate to the nomination.
Similarly, the first primary election takes place in New Hampshire, where the population is roughly one-third that of Iowa. An victory in the first election of the primary season can be as equally powerful, especially for a dark horse candidate.
But why do states with such small populations have such a big influence over the major parties’ nomination? The short answer is tradition. Other states have tried to schedule their contests before Iowa and New Hampshire. But each time, the major parties threaten to discipline those states if they do so. For example, the major parties have threatened not to recognize any delegates selected in contests that occur before Iowa and New Hampshire.
The argument is that small states would otherwise get lost in the shuffle, if states with larger populations, such as California and Florida, have all of the influence over the nominations. But why is that a good thing? Some may even argue that giving states with lower populations so much influence over the presidential nominations goes against the democratic principle of majority rule.
Moreover, the current nomination system is built around the assumption of two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, of course, tend to lean left, or liberal, in their political views, while Republicans lean right, or conservative. But in the last few decades, the number of U.S. voters who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans has fallen. A 2017 Gallup poll showed 31% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 24% as Republicans, and 42% as independent of any political party. Confining the nomination process to just the Democratic and Republican parties means an extremely large percentage of the U.S. electorate has no say in that process. Moreover, because each party has a definite leaning on the political spectrum, this means the more extreme voters in each party have a disproportionate say in who gets nominated. The nominees, then, tend to be more liberal or more conservative than the population at large. Centrist candidates are at a big disadvantage in the current system, even though most American voters tend to be more moderate than liberal or conservative.
It’s no wonder, then, why there is often wide-spread disappointment in the two major nominees for president.
Those who may favor third party candidates get ridiculed. A nominee from the Libertarian or Green Party has no chance to win. So why waste your vote on a third party the argument goes. And so, independent voters, who make up the largest block of voters, are the ones who have to compromise the most when choosing between the two major parties’ nominees.
Why does it have to be like this?
Of course, the final blow to democratic principles occurs when in the end, the choice of most U.S. voters is ignored, and the loser winds of becoming the president. This is the result of the Electoral College. To summarize, the reality of the presidential election is that there are 51 separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. Each state is given an amount of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives that states send to Congress, with the District of Columbia receiving three. The result of this system is to give voters in states with smaller populations a greater say in who becomes the president. Thus, the loser of the popular vote can still become president provided he or she can win in enough states. This has happened five times in the history of the United States. But the last two times have happened within 16 years of each other. With Republicans having appeal to many of those smaller states, they have something of an advantage in the Electoral College system. Therefore, what was once thought of as a rare oddity of the American system threatens to become the norm in elections to come.
In sum, for a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic, its method of choosing a chief executive goes against many democratic principles.
In recent years, there has been a growing cry to eliminate the Electoral College. Some states have passed laws to give their states’ electors to whomever wins the national popular vote. The problem with concentrating on the Electoral College is that it fails to address all of the issues with the entire process.
A far more satisfying approach is to do away with the entire nomination system and Electoral College. The United States should adopt a system much like Louisiana’s non-partisan primary. In such a system, two elections are held. The first is a primary, in which every candidate runs, regardless of party affiliation. If somebody receives a majority (greater than 50%) of the vote, then we have our winner and the second election is cancelled. But if no one wins a majority in the primary, then the top two candidates face each other in the general election, held about one month later. Several countries, such as France, employ a system like this.
Such a system cuts down on the length of the presidential campaign, thus ending the non-stop campaigning we have today. Because it is a national election, no one region would have greater influence over the others. Because it is non-partisan, centrists and third party candidates have a greater chance of winning, meaning voters can freely vote their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a more democratic system, and likely to result in candidates that reflect the views of a larger proportion of the U.S. population.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
We were in a similar situation four years ago. At that time, we were fairly certain that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the Republican race, with its multitude of characters, seemed like a farce. No one really stood out. At the time, Donald Trump has a substantial following, but not a majority of Republican voters. He gained his support mostly do to name recognition, and turning the Republican debates into Jerry Springer-like events, that many found entertaining.
Over the next few months, as primaries and caucuses were held, the experienced politicians in the Republican field found that they could not put their egos aside, and Trump racked up the delegates, based on name recognition and his entertainment value. By time the dust settled, and the two major candidates selected, many in the electorate asked, is this the best we could do.
That questions haunts the process of selecting a president to this day. Is this the best we can do? The process is easy to criticize. It takes too long. It’s tiring for potential voters. It’s superficial. It’s too expensive. It’s too divisive. It gives a small minority of people way too much power in influencing the outcome. And in the end, it is just way too possible for the choice of most American voters to be ignored, as the person losing the popular vote can still wind up being the president.
It’s no mystery why in many elections, voters complain that they are choosing the lesser of two evils.
Surely, we can do better.
While the Democrats were engaging in their debates here in the United States, a fascinating crisis of leadership unfolded in the United Kingdom. A new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has failed to convince fellow members of Parliament that leaving the European Union without concluding a deal upon which both the U.K. and the E.U. could agree would be a satisfactory outcome of Brexit. As a result, Johnson lost vote after vote in Parliament, and even saw enough of his party’s members defect to the opposition to rob him of a majority in Parliament. There was discussion of holding an election to choose a new Parliament. What was astonishing was that no one in the United Kingdom even questioned that such an election could be completed in five weeks.
Five weeks to choose an entirely new government in the U.K.; meanwhile, the campaign to choose a new president in the United States persists for more than two years. How can that possibly be? Do we really need all that time to make a reasoned decision? Some might even argue that the U.S. presidential campaign is never-ending. Indeed, President Trump continued to hold political rallies almost immediately after being sworn into office.
Is this really the best we can do?
Richard Nixon once said of running for president, that first one had to run to the right as far as he could to court Republican voters to nominate him. Then, during the general election, that same person had to run to the center as fast as he could, to convince independent voters to choose him over his Democratic rival.
It’s no wonder why American politicians are accused of flip-flopping.
To fix the system would go beyond tweaking what the United States already has. Indeed, simply abolishing the Electoral College would not be enough. The problem with the U.S. system includes our primary system, which takes too long, gives too much influence to two states with small populations, entrenches the two party system, and leaves a large number of voters without a voice in nominating the presidential candidates.
The first big contest of the nomination season is the Iowa Caucuses. Iowa represents less than one percent of the total U.S. population. Yet, presidential candidates flock to Iowa early every four years to court the state’s voters. Especially when a candidate trails in the national polls, if that candidate can somehow convince Iowa voters to choose him or her, that candidate can experience a huge burst in popularity and news coverage. At times, a win in Iowa can create enough momentum to propel a candidate to the nomination.
Similarly, the first primary election takes place in New Hampshire, where the population is roughly one-third that of Iowa. An victory in the first election of the primary season can be as equally powerful, especially for a dark horse candidate.
But why do states with such small populations have such a big influence over the major parties’ nomination? The short answer is tradition. Other states have tried to schedule their contests before Iowa and New Hampshire. But each time, the major parties threaten to discipline those states if they do so. For example, the major parties have threatened not to recognize any delegates selected in contests that occur before Iowa and New Hampshire.
The argument is that small states would otherwise get lost in the shuffle, if states with larger populations, such as California and Florida, have all of the influence over the nominations. But why is that a good thing? Some may even argue that giving states with lower populations so much influence over the presidential nominations goes against the democratic principle of majority rule.
Moreover, the current nomination system is built around the assumption of two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, of course, tend to lean left, or liberal, in their political views, while Republicans lean right, or conservative. But in the last few decades, the number of U.S. voters who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans has fallen. A 2017 Gallup poll showed 31% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 24% as Republicans, and 42% as independent of any political party. Confining the nomination process to just the Democratic and Republican parties means an extremely large percentage of the U.S. electorate has no say in that process. Moreover, because each party has a definite leaning on the political spectrum, this means the more extreme voters in each party have a disproportionate say in who gets nominated. The nominees, then, tend to be more liberal or more conservative than the population at large. Centrist candidates are at a big disadvantage in the current system, even though most American voters tend to be more moderate than liberal or conservative.
It’s no wonder, then, why there is often wide-spread disappointment in the two major nominees for president.
Those who may favor third party candidates get ridiculed. A nominee from the Libertarian or Green Party has no chance to win. So why waste your vote on a third party the argument goes. And so, independent voters, who make up the largest block of voters, are the ones who have to compromise the most when choosing between the two major parties’ nominees.
Why does it have to be like this?
Of course, the final blow to democratic principles occurs when in the end, the choice of most U.S. voters is ignored, and the loser winds of becoming the president. This is the result of the Electoral College. To summarize, the reality of the presidential election is that there are 51 separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. Each state is given an amount of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives that states send to Congress, with the District of Columbia receiving three. The result of this system is to give voters in states with smaller populations a greater say in who becomes the president. Thus, the loser of the popular vote can still become president provided he or she can win in enough states. This has happened five times in the history of the United States. But the last two times have happened within 16 years of each other. With Republicans having appeal to many of those smaller states, they have something of an advantage in the Electoral College system. Therefore, what was once thought of as a rare oddity of the American system threatens to become the norm in elections to come.
In sum, for a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic, its method of choosing a chief executive goes against many democratic principles.
In recent years, there has been a growing cry to eliminate the Electoral College. Some states have passed laws to give their states’ electors to whomever wins the national popular vote. The problem with concentrating on the Electoral College is that it fails to address all of the issues with the entire process.
A far more satisfying approach is to do away with the entire nomination system and Electoral College. The United States should adopt a system much like Louisiana’s non-partisan primary. In such a system, two elections are held. The first is a primary, in which every candidate runs, regardless of party affiliation. If somebody receives a majority (greater than 50%) of the vote, then we have our winner and the second election is cancelled. But if no one wins a majority in the primary, then the top two candidates face each other in the general election, held about one month later. Several countries, such as France, employ a system like this.
Such a system cuts down on the length of the presidential campaign, thus ending the non-stop campaigning we have today. Because it is a national election, no one region would have greater influence over the others. Because it is non-partisan, centrists and third party candidates have a greater chance of winning, meaning voters can freely vote their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a more democratic system, and likely to result in candidates that reflect the views of a larger proportion of the U.S. population.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
Refusing to Cooperate with the Impeachment Inquiry, Trump Shows His Disdain for the House of Representatives
Throwing down a gauntlet in front of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Donald Trump announced that he will no longer permit his Administration to cooperate with the House of Representative's impeachment inquiry. In furtherance of Trump's defiance of the House, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, who played a key role in Trump's pressuring of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate political rival Joe Biden, failed to testify at a House hearing. Sondland skipped the hearing at the instruction of Trump's State Department. Counsel to the President, Pat Cippollone confirmed the decision to impede the House investigation through a letter to Democratic House leaders, written on the President's behalf on White House stationary.
While this move to escalate the tension between the Democratically-controlled House and the Trump Administration will play well with Trump's supporters, who revel in the idea of a no-holds-bar fight with ideologically opposed parties, Trump's outward contempt for the House risks a more aggressive push for his impeachment.
Although Trump holds the Democratic leaders in Congress in disdain, congress is obliged to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch. This is all part of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, which seeks to ensure that no one branch of government dominates over the other two. It is a power meant to guard against tyranny and authoritarianism.
Given the gravity of the current situation, the President must be willing to provide information to Congress, and make members of his Administration available for testimony.
In this regard, some communications with the President may be privileged due to national security or the public interest. But a wholesale refusal to cooperate with congressionally issued subpoenas can hardly be justified, especially after the President himself released a memorandum of a telephone call between Trump and Zelensky where Trump clearly requested the Ukrainian President's help in gathering dirt against Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. As the head of the Federal Elections Commission confirmed in June of this year, the act of soliciting something of value (in this case research on an opponent) in connection with a federal election is in and of itself a violation of law. If the President pressured Ukraine by withholding congressionally approved military aid, his behavior becomes all the more egregious.
In the middle of this situation stands the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Trump dismissed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, because she stood in the way of Trump's efforts to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, Sondland took over the role of coordinating the U.S. Government's policy with respect to the Ukraine. Recently, text messages involving Sondland surfaced, strongly suggesting that Trump was using the military aid to pressure Ukraine. Sondland's testimony, therefore, is important to determine the extent of the President's malfeasance.
Trump's refusal to permit Sondland, or any other member of the Administration, to cooperate with the House inquiry appears as a powerful indication that Trump has something to hide. Moreover, given that Robert Mueller and his team of investigators have already documented Trump's tendency to obstruct official investigations, the President is courting yet another reason for his impeachment; that is obstruction of Congress.
In this regard, the President's Counsel charges that the impeachment inquiry violates the President's due process rights, and fails to follow accepted procedures from prior impeachment inquiries. Cipollone's criticism of the House is misguided as he fails to recognize the purpose behind the separate steps of the impeachment and removal process, as well as the breadth of authority the Constitution grants the House over impeachment proceedings.
The Constitution is not concerned with the personal rights and interests of the person who happens to occupy the Office of President. Nor should it be. The Constitution is concerned with the well-being of the Republic. In this regard, the President acts as a fiduciary, a person who is required to suppress his or her own personal interests, in favor of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people of the United States.
This is why impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, nor should it be treated as one. Impeachment is about the integrity of the U.S. Government. At one point in his political career, the President's staunchest defender in the Senate agreed with this principle. Senator Lindsey Graham, serving as a Representative in the House of Representative in 1999, said of impeachment:
While this move to escalate the tension between the Democratically-controlled House and the Trump Administration will play well with Trump's supporters, who revel in the idea of a no-holds-bar fight with ideologically opposed parties, Trump's outward contempt for the House risks a more aggressive push for his impeachment.
Although Trump holds the Democratic leaders in Congress in disdain, congress is obliged to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch. This is all part of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, which seeks to ensure that no one branch of government dominates over the other two. It is a power meant to guard against tyranny and authoritarianism.
Given the gravity of the current situation, the President must be willing to provide information to Congress, and make members of his Administration available for testimony.
In this regard, some communications with the President may be privileged due to national security or the public interest. But a wholesale refusal to cooperate with congressionally issued subpoenas can hardly be justified, especially after the President himself released a memorandum of a telephone call between Trump and Zelensky where Trump clearly requested the Ukrainian President's help in gathering dirt against Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. As the head of the Federal Elections Commission confirmed in June of this year, the act of soliciting something of value (in this case research on an opponent) in connection with a federal election is in and of itself a violation of law. If the President pressured Ukraine by withholding congressionally approved military aid, his behavior becomes all the more egregious.
In the middle of this situation stands the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Trump dismissed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, because she stood in the way of Trump's efforts to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, Sondland took over the role of coordinating the U.S. Government's policy with respect to the Ukraine. Recently, text messages involving Sondland surfaced, strongly suggesting that Trump was using the military aid to pressure Ukraine. Sondland's testimony, therefore, is important to determine the extent of the President's malfeasance.
Trump's refusal to permit Sondland, or any other member of the Administration, to cooperate with the House inquiry appears as a powerful indication that Trump has something to hide. Moreover, given that Robert Mueller and his team of investigators have already documented Trump's tendency to obstruct official investigations, the President is courting yet another reason for his impeachment; that is obstruction of Congress.
In this regard, the President's Counsel charges that the impeachment inquiry violates the President's due process rights, and fails to follow accepted procedures from prior impeachment inquiries. Cipollone's criticism of the House is misguided as he fails to recognize the purpose behind the separate steps of the impeachment and removal process, as well as the breadth of authority the Constitution grants the House over impeachment proceedings.
The Constitution is not concerned with the personal rights and interests of the person who happens to occupy the Office of President. Nor should it be. The Constitution is concerned with the well-being of the Republic. In this regard, the President acts as a fiduciary, a person who is required to suppress his or her own personal interests, in favor of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people of the United States.
This is why impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, nor should it be treated as one. Impeachment is about the integrity of the U.S. Government. At one point in his political career, the President's staunchest defender in the Senate agreed with this principle. Senator Lindsey Graham, serving as a Representative in the House of Representative in 1999, said of impeachment:
- You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body[, the House of Representatives,] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. . . . Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.
At the time, Graham was arguing in favor of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, who lied while under oath about a sexual relationship he had with a White House intern. Graham not only pressed for Clinton's impeachment in the House, but also served as a House Manager during Clinton's trial in the Senate. As Manager, Graham was tasked with presenting the reasons why the House concluded Clinton should be removed from office.
Yet, consistent with the President's narcissism, Trump's public defense against impeachment has, many times, focused on Trump's personal interests, and not the best interests of the United States. Thus, Trump makes claims concerning personal legal rights, like the argument that his lawyers should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses and call witnesses of their own.
But impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political one. Article I of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives "the sole Power of Impeachment." There are no other provisions in the Constitution which define the role of the House in impeachment, or the procedures that the House must follow. It is therefore up to the House itself to define its own rules and proceed accordingly.
The Constitution is very specific on effects of an impeachment. It stands as but the first step in a process to determine whether to remove a person from civil office. Pursuant to Article II, once the House has impeached the President, the Senate then holds a trial, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. The Senate can only convict with a two-thirds majority. Article II, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution limits the effect of impeachment:
- Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.
The Constitution may use words such as "trial" and "conviction" which are reminiscent of criminal law. But it is clear that impeachment is not meant to be punishment. The Constitution reserves the decision on whether a person removed from office will be subject to any criminal proceeding and criminal punishment to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
Nonetheless, analogies can be made between criminal process and the impeachment and removal of a president. In this regard, impeachment can be seen as similar to a grand jury proceeding, through which a prosecutor can seek an indictment. This is the decision to charge a person with a crime and hold a trial. But even in criminal law, at that first stage of a criminal prosecution, not all of the personal rights enumerated in the Constitution apply. A person subject to a grand jury proceeding is not entitled to the right of legal counsel or the right to cross-examine witnesses. Moreover, the Government in a grand jury proceeding is not required to present evidence that favors the accused.
To support the argument that the House is proceeding unfairly, the White House relies on certain procedures followed in prior impeachment processes. But again, this fails to recognize that the House has the "sole Power of Impeachment." The House is not bound to follow any procedures established in prior impeachment proceedings. In addition, because impeachment is a political act, not a criminal law proceeding, it is not subject to judicial review. Under the political questions doctrine, the courts will not hear a case when the Constitution textually commits the issue to one of the political branches of government, that is Congress or the Executive. Because the text of the Constitution unequivocally gives the power over impeachment to the House, the courts will not review the exercise of that power. What process the House will follow that leads up to a vote on articles of impeachment is simply up to the discretion of the House and its leaders.
Another argument that Trump uses to support his decision to thwart the impeachment inquiry is that the Democrats in the House are attempting to overturn the 2016 presidential election. He likens impeachment to a coup. But again, impeachment and removal from office are powers granted the House and Senate in order to protect against the abuse of office by the President. It is an entirely appropriate procedure to invoke when a president uses his authority to conduct foreign policy in manner that benefits himself privately. The Constitution protects against the abuse of the impeachment and removal power by dividing authority between the House and the Senate. Thus, impeachment itself does not remove a president from office. Rather, he must be convicted after a trial in the Senate. Moreover, in order to convict, the Constitution requires a super-majority of two-thirds before a president can be removed from office. Safeguards therefore exist to ensure that the process is a deliberative one, and not merely a negation of an election.
Indeed, even if the President is impeached, his Vice President will assume the Office of President. The President and Vice President run together on the same ticket. Presumably, with both the President and Vice President coming from the same political party. the Vice President will agree with the major policy objectives of the President. An impeachment, therefore, does not overturn an election. It simply is one step in removing a person who has shown an unfitness to hold the Office, leaving the President's political party in charge of Executive Branch.
Sadly, Trump's presidency has never been about what is best for the American people. It has always been about Trump's self-aggrandizement. He has sought outright flattery from his Cabinet members. He attempts to enforce personal loyalty, and not loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has publicly stated that he sees nothing wrong with accepting help with finding disparaging information on a political opponent from a foreign source. He has viewed an investigation about national security, namely the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as an investigation of himself instead of as the counter-intelligence investigation it was. When he sees an investigation as potential detrimental to his personal interests, he engages in witness tampering and otherwise attempts to obstruct that investigation. His current refusal is simply a continuation of that behavior. His continued willingness to thwart the law and investigations into his conduct should be considered as a violation of the trust he holds from the American people, and featured prominently in the House's deliberations on whether to impeach him.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Another argument that Trump uses to support his decision to thwart the impeachment inquiry is that the Democrats in the House are attempting to overturn the 2016 presidential election. He likens impeachment to a coup. But again, impeachment and removal from office are powers granted the House and Senate in order to protect against the abuse of office by the President. It is an entirely appropriate procedure to invoke when a president uses his authority to conduct foreign policy in manner that benefits himself privately. The Constitution protects against the abuse of the impeachment and removal power by dividing authority between the House and the Senate. Thus, impeachment itself does not remove a president from office. Rather, he must be convicted after a trial in the Senate. Moreover, in order to convict, the Constitution requires a super-majority of two-thirds before a president can be removed from office. Safeguards therefore exist to ensure that the process is a deliberative one, and not merely a negation of an election.
Indeed, even if the President is impeached, his Vice President will assume the Office of President. The President and Vice President run together on the same ticket. Presumably, with both the President and Vice President coming from the same political party. the Vice President will agree with the major policy objectives of the President. An impeachment, therefore, does not overturn an election. It simply is one step in removing a person who has shown an unfitness to hold the Office, leaving the President's political party in charge of Executive Branch.
Sadly, Trump's presidency has never been about what is best for the American people. It has always been about Trump's self-aggrandizement. He has sought outright flattery from his Cabinet members. He attempts to enforce personal loyalty, and not loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has publicly stated that he sees nothing wrong with accepting help with finding disparaging information on a political opponent from a foreign source. He has viewed an investigation about national security, namely the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as an investigation of himself instead of as the counter-intelligence investigation it was. When he sees an investigation as potential detrimental to his personal interests, he engages in witness tampering and otherwise attempts to obstruct that investigation. His current refusal is simply a continuation of that behavior. His continued willingness to thwart the law and investigations into his conduct should be considered as a violation of the trust he holds from the American people, and featured prominently in the House's deliberations on whether to impeach him.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Trump and Giuliana Peddle Conspiracy Theory Pushed by Corrupt Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General
Over the weekend, Rudy Giuliani, acting as Trump's personally lawyer, appeared on Fox News brandishing a print-out from a website that disseminates conservative conspiracy theories, hopelesslypartisan.com. Giuliani claimed that he had evidence of Joe Biden's corruption that was better than a whistleblower, namely affidavits. Intrigued, I did some research, and found an affidavit filed in an Austrian court by none other than the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General at issue in this debacle, Viktor Shokin. After reading the affidavit, and doing more research on its context, I came away even more convinced that Trump and Giuliani are grasping at straws in an effort to throw mud at a political opponent. Specifically, Trump's entire defense rests on self-serving affidavit from a Ukrainian Prosecutor General known for protecting corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians who favor Russia's involvement in Ukrainian affairs.
Viktor Shokin was the Prosecutor General serving under Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during the Obama Administration. At the time, the Ukrainian economy was plagued with oligarchs, allegedly willing to commit crimes such as money laundering and tax evasion. In addition, some of these oligarchs had contacts with Russian officials, and even favored Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.
One such Ukrainian oligarch was Dmitry Firtash. As a businessman, Firtash was accused of funneling money from the Russian natural gas company, Gazprom, into the campaigns of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians. He has also been alleged to have engaged in shady business practices. The United States had charged that Firtash obtained a license to extract titanium from India with about $18.5 million in bribes.
The Ukrainian people eventually grew tired of corrupt businessmen and politicians. In 2014, a revolution occurred in Ukraine against those in power who were permitting Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. It was due to that revolution that many Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt politicians fled Ukraine, in some instances seeking protection in Russia
Firtash was one of those oligarch who fled Ukraine in 2014. He was eventually arrested in Austria. With the charge of bribery hanging over him, the Austrian courts considered whether to extradite Firtash to the United States for trial.
This is where Viktor Shokin comes in. Shokin filed an affidavit in the Austrian court in support of Firtash, arguing that Firtash should not be extradited to the United States. By this time, Shokin had been fired as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Shokin's affidavit was mostly self-serving, blaming U.S. Vide President Joe Biden for his predicament, but without pointing to any specific facts to show that Biden engaged in any wrong-doing.
The United States, and much of Western Europe, wanted Ukraine to clean up rampant corruption in the country, which included the domination of the economy by powerful oligarchs, such as Firtash. However, Shokin stood in the way of cleaning up that corruption, as he dragged his feet in investigations. In his affidavit, for example, Shokin expressed his dismay that Firtash might be detained if he returned to Ukraine, because Shokin was not aware of any crime Firtash had committed. Shokin alleged that the United States had no evidence that Firtash committed a crime, and the true U.S. motive was simply to prevent him from entering public life in Ukraine. The implication of Shokin's allegations was that the United States was being politically motivated. Namely, Shokin was supporting Firtash and his preference that Russia wield a strong influence over Ukraine, and not that Ukraine turn toward the West.
It is at this point that Shokin claims that his dismissal as Prosecutor General was due to interference by Joe Biden. Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the Board of Burism, a Ukrainian gas company Shokin asserted that he was investigation. However, those who served under Shokin have confirmed that the investigation into Burisma, and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been stalled for quite some time when Shokin gave his affidavit.
By letting the investigation against Burisma and Zlochevksy remain dormant, Shokin was once again showing his inclination to protect the very oligarchs responsible for corruption present in both the Ukrainian economy and political system.
Zlochevsky served as a government official during the administration of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, known for favoring close connections between Ukraine and Russia, fled Ukraine during the 2014 revolution, and is currently living in exile in Russia. He is wanted by Ukraine on charges of high treason. Likewise, Zlochevsky fled Russian in 2014 amid charges of self-enrichment while serving in the Ukrainian Government. He has also been charged with tax evasion.
Once Zlovchesky fled Ukraine, the leadership of Burisma decided that they wanted to recreate the company's public image to put as much distance between the allegedly corrupt Zlovchesky and the company. Burisma invited Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, to sit on the company's Board. (Trump and his allies circulated a photograph claiming it shows Joe Biden posing with a Burisma company boss. It turns out that the photograph showed Joe and Hunter playing golf with Archer in the Hamptons in 2014. Archer and Hunter Biden were partners in a consulting firm called Romsemont Seneca Partners.) Burisma also invited former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski to be on its Board. All of the activity that was subject to the investigation occurred before Hunter Biden was invited to join the Board, and concerned Zlovchesky's behavior. Indeed, Joe Biden wanted the investigation of Burisma restarted, which would have been contrary to the interests of his son, Hunter.
Thus, Giuliani's "evidence" against the Bidens, which is Shokin's affidavit, is completely unreliable.
There are at least two instances where Shokin, as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, inhibited the investigation and potential prosecution of alleged Ukrainian oligarchs for corruption (Firtash and Zlochevsky). He even came to the aid of Firtash in an attempt to prevent his extradition to the United States to stand trial for bribery. Shokin wold of course have reason to deflect from his own misfeasance in office, and attempt to pin the blame for his dismissal on Joe Biden.
Yet, Shokin's story has been peddled by conservative websites specializing in spreading outrageous conspiracy theories, either with very little evidence of wrongdoing, or which fail to consider the reliability of sources of those theories.
The fact still remains that Trump has admitted publicly that he asked for Ukraine's assistance in digging up dirt against a political rival. It is a fact confirmed by the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's effort to deflect from his own illegal behavior falls short of credibility when the facts and context behind the effort to eradicate corruption in Ukraine dating back to the Obama Administration are revealed. Trump is simply hoping his supporters will accept the superficial accusations against Biden, without critically considering the source of those accusations.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Viktor Shokin was the Prosecutor General serving under Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during the Obama Administration. At the time, the Ukrainian economy was plagued with oligarchs, allegedly willing to commit crimes such as money laundering and tax evasion. In addition, some of these oligarchs had contacts with Russian officials, and even favored Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.
One such Ukrainian oligarch was Dmitry Firtash. As a businessman, Firtash was accused of funneling money from the Russian natural gas company, Gazprom, into the campaigns of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians. He has also been alleged to have engaged in shady business practices. The United States had charged that Firtash obtained a license to extract titanium from India with about $18.5 million in bribes.
The Ukrainian people eventually grew tired of corrupt businessmen and politicians. In 2014, a revolution occurred in Ukraine against those in power who were permitting Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. It was due to that revolution that many Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt politicians fled Ukraine, in some instances seeking protection in Russia
Firtash was one of those oligarch who fled Ukraine in 2014. He was eventually arrested in Austria. With the charge of bribery hanging over him, the Austrian courts considered whether to extradite Firtash to the United States for trial.
This is where Viktor Shokin comes in. Shokin filed an affidavit in the Austrian court in support of Firtash, arguing that Firtash should not be extradited to the United States. By this time, Shokin had been fired as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Shokin's affidavit was mostly self-serving, blaming U.S. Vide President Joe Biden for his predicament, but without pointing to any specific facts to show that Biden engaged in any wrong-doing.
The United States, and much of Western Europe, wanted Ukraine to clean up rampant corruption in the country, which included the domination of the economy by powerful oligarchs, such as Firtash. However, Shokin stood in the way of cleaning up that corruption, as he dragged his feet in investigations. In his affidavit, for example, Shokin expressed his dismay that Firtash might be detained if he returned to Ukraine, because Shokin was not aware of any crime Firtash had committed. Shokin alleged that the United States had no evidence that Firtash committed a crime, and the true U.S. motive was simply to prevent him from entering public life in Ukraine. The implication of Shokin's allegations was that the United States was being politically motivated. Namely, Shokin was supporting Firtash and his preference that Russia wield a strong influence over Ukraine, and not that Ukraine turn toward the West.
It is at this point that Shokin claims that his dismissal as Prosecutor General was due to interference by Joe Biden. Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the Board of Burism, a Ukrainian gas company Shokin asserted that he was investigation. However, those who served under Shokin have confirmed that the investigation into Burisma, and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been stalled for quite some time when Shokin gave his affidavit.
By letting the investigation against Burisma and Zlochevksy remain dormant, Shokin was once again showing his inclination to protect the very oligarchs responsible for corruption present in both the Ukrainian economy and political system.
Zlochevsky served as a government official during the administration of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, known for favoring close connections between Ukraine and Russia, fled Ukraine during the 2014 revolution, and is currently living in exile in Russia. He is wanted by Ukraine on charges of high treason. Likewise, Zlochevsky fled Russian in 2014 amid charges of self-enrichment while serving in the Ukrainian Government. He has also been charged with tax evasion.
Once Zlovchesky fled Ukraine, the leadership of Burisma decided that they wanted to recreate the company's public image to put as much distance between the allegedly corrupt Zlovchesky and the company. Burisma invited Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, to sit on the company's Board. (Trump and his allies circulated a photograph claiming it shows Joe Biden posing with a Burisma company boss. It turns out that the photograph showed Joe and Hunter playing golf with Archer in the Hamptons in 2014. Archer and Hunter Biden were partners in a consulting firm called Romsemont Seneca Partners.) Burisma also invited former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski to be on its Board. All of the activity that was subject to the investigation occurred before Hunter Biden was invited to join the Board, and concerned Zlovchesky's behavior. Indeed, Joe Biden wanted the investigation of Burisma restarted, which would have been contrary to the interests of his son, Hunter.
Thus, Giuliani's "evidence" against the Bidens, which is Shokin's affidavit, is completely unreliable.
There are at least two instances where Shokin, as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, inhibited the investigation and potential prosecution of alleged Ukrainian oligarchs for corruption (Firtash and Zlochevsky). He even came to the aid of Firtash in an attempt to prevent his extradition to the United States to stand trial for bribery. Shokin wold of course have reason to deflect from his own misfeasance in office, and attempt to pin the blame for his dismissal on Joe Biden.
Yet, Shokin's story has been peddled by conservative websites specializing in spreading outrageous conspiracy theories, either with very little evidence of wrongdoing, or which fail to consider the reliability of sources of those theories.
The fact still remains that Trump has admitted publicly that he asked for Ukraine's assistance in digging up dirt against a political rival. It is a fact confirmed by the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's effort to deflect from his own illegal behavior falls short of credibility when the facts and context behind the effort to eradicate corruption in Ukraine dating back to the Obama Administration are revealed. Trump is simply hoping his supporters will accept the superficial accusations against Biden, without critically considering the source of those accusations.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Thursday, October 3, 2019
AOC Ruffles Conservatives' Feathers
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, affectionately known as AOC, has conservatives so agitated that they are foaming at the mouth. She has become their favorite target. Whenever Ocasio-Cortez is in the news, conservatives fall all over themselves trying to find new ways to attack her intelligence.
Ocasio-Cortez should be flattered by this. When else has a freshman Representative in Congress engendered so much fear from her opposition that they spend so much time and effort trying to insult her whenever she happens to make the news?
That is exactly what is going on here. Conservatives fear Ocasio-Cortez. That is because she represents a threat to the political establishment.
Coming seemingly from nowhere, Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, defeated a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership, Joseph Crowley, in the congressional primary for a district representing parts of Queens and the Bronx. Crowley had been rumored to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi eventually steps down from her role as Speaker of the House.
At the time of her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a waitress in a taqueria in New York. She has been described as a political novice. However, she had worked as an intern for Ted Kennedy, an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, and for an organization that supported leadership in the Hispanic community, the National Hispanic Institute. Her education includes a bachelor of arts degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston College.
Ocasio-Cortez, who emphasized her working class background, captured national attention running a grass-roots campaign. She won the general election, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
Her agenda is unabashedly progressive. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and represents a very liberal congressional district.
When preparing to join Congress, Ocasio-Cortez complained of the orientation program for new members hosted by Harvard. She expressed exasperation that guests included corporate CEOs and lobbyists, but no one from labor unions, no activists and no community leaders. In doing so, she exposed the bias the pervades the American political system to the detriment of the working class.
Ocasio-Cortez boldly spoke out about the disadvantages and unfair images that the working class, and in particular minorities, face. She criticized the use of unpaid interns by congressional members, noting that it prevented working class students from receiving valuable experience during their education, since such students often had to find paying jobs to support their education. She rallied against the image that the poor were responsible for their own position in life, panning a Chase Bank tweet that implied that the poor should skip coffee houses, restaurants and taxi cabs.
Ocasio-Cortez noted that before she became a Representative in Congress, she would wake up n the middle of the night worried if she had paid a certain bill on time. This was not because she was irresponsible. It was because she was not being paid a living wage. Now she had a congressional salary and government health insurance, eliminating a major expense from her former life. She wanted all Americans to be able to avoid the anxiety caused by low wages.
In sum, Ocasio-Cortez bucked the system, and exposed its biases against minorities and the working class, commanding media attention along the way. She defeated a powerful incumbent, and then won a general election without relying heavily on corporate donations to her campaign. She freely exposes how intertwined corporate special interests and the government are, and how freshman members are expected to continue with system. She decries the situation of the working class poor, and debunks the myths that lead to their stigmatization.
It is because she bucks the system, and does so successfully, while representing views to which conservatives are diametrically opposed, that conservatives feel the need to attack her. In doing so, conservatives have, at times, shown how ridiculous and petty their criticisms are.
Ocasio-Cortez uses social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, to reach her constituency directly. She takes advantage of social media's platform, which emphasizes the use of video, to present herself talking about issues in informal settings. Conservatives have scoured over this video repeatedly in an attempt to find what they consider to be gaffes in order to question her intelligence.
On the campaign trail, for example, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at her alma matter, Boston College. She cautioned supporters that even if the Democrats won big in the election, they would not get everything they wanted right away. "[A]s much as I would love that. I would like to get inaugurated January 3, January 4 we’re signing health care, we’re signing this, we’re signing de-incarceration. But really, it is that we have a duty to always fight and maintain the strength of our values."
Taking Ocasio-Cortez's words out of context, Fox and Friends presented the video, saying to their audience that she lacks the requisite knowledge of how government works. Specifically, they laughed, it is only the President who is inaugurated and signs bills into law.
First, while members of Congress are technically "sworn-in," the dictionary definition of "inauguration" includes "the formal admission of someone to office." Indeed, when she was sworn-in, news media, including NBC, referred her speech that followed as an "inaugural address." Nit-picking over a word that conveys the same meaning just made Fox News, and others who repeated the criticism, look silly.
Second, when viewed in context, it is clear that Ocasio-Cortez was tempering the expectations of her supporters, and noting that progressives like herself have a lot of work to do before legislation could be passed. The use of the word "we're" indicates that she was not speaking of signing bills herself, but of progressives like her passing legislation into law consistent with their agenda, such as expanding health care coverage and addressing criminal justice reform.
Likewise, conservatives attempted to attack her working class background. A video showing how she dressed in the first days of the new Congress were meant to show that despite her claims that she personally had little money in the bank, that somehow she could afford expensive clothes. A video showing Ocasio-Cortez dancing with friends while attending Boston College was used in an attempt to argue that her self-portrayal of understanding the struggling of the working class was inaccurate. These attempts failed to convince a wider audience, and only demonstrated the pettiness of conservative criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez represents a political movement where women of color have started to gain inroads to governmental positions. She joins Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, affectionately known as "the Squad," as freshman Representatives of color who vocally oppose President Trump and the Republican agenda. Members of the Squad have not been shy in exposing the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies. Upon visiting detention centers along the southern border, the Squad exposed abuses asylum-seeking families faced, such as lack of medical care and being forced to find drinking water from a cell's toilet. Threatened by this revelation, Trump infamously responded that members of the Squad should "go back to where they came from." Never mind that three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, and Ilham Omar was a Somali refugee who earned U.S. citizenship. Opposing Trump earned the Squad racist criticism from the President.
Concerning her policy positions, conservatives love to remind the public that they amount to "socialism," a word meant to invoke fear in the electorate. The conservative's playbook is to label a proposal they oppose as "socialism," and then cite a country, such as Venezuela, as their proof that socialism is bad. Never mind that socialism is an economic system, not a political one, and that the political instability in Venezuela is due to authoritative overreaching of the executive. Conservatives ignore that popular programs in the United States are socialistic in nature, such as social security and subsidies to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war. President Trump loves to cite Norway as a model country. Yet Norway implements socialist policies, such a free secondary education.
Conservatives also like to exaggerate Ocasio-Cortez's policy proposals. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, became a spokesperson for the proposed House Resolution 109, known as the "Green New Deal." The proposal was not legislation, in the sense that it created no legal obligations. Rather, the Green New Deal was simply a list of goals divided into two parts. The first part set goals for the United States to combat climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero within ten years. The second part recognized that this would be a radical change in the economy, and that the Government should do what it could to protect those who would otherwise be displaced by the changes. The resolution made nothing illegal, and contained no proposals on how to reach the goals. It was meant simply to start the serious debate needed to address climate change in the hopes of avoiding catastrophic change.
Critics, of course, represented the resolution as banning popular items of Americana. Thus, the proposal to build high speed rail was represented as a ban on domestic air travel. The goal of eliminating America's dependence on fossil fuels was represented as a ban on cars and office buildings. Proposed reductions in carbon emissions was represented as an attack on bovine flatulence, and thus a ban on hamburgers. Thus, conservatives chose to oppose Ocasio-Cortez's proposals through misrepresentations and scare tactics.
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez has made a new ambitious legislative proposal, addressing the plight of the working class. The proposal includes limiting rent increases, enforcing a living wage, redefining the poverty line to include expenses not originally contemplated such as child care and internet access, and ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These proposals recognize problems that the working class poor face in their daily lives, such as inflated housing expenses, and a minimum wage that has been frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009. To conservatives, they are radical ideas which threaten the interests of big business. Ocasio-Cortez will certainly face strong opposition to her legislation.
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez is serving an important function in U.S. politics. She is using the attention that the media is giving her to start important conversations over policy, and ensuring that the interests of the working class are being addressed. With a divided Congress, it is not likely that her proposals will pass and be implemented. But calling attention to those against whom the deck is stacked is vital if America is to be true to the value of equality before the law.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Ocasio-Cortez should be flattered by this. When else has a freshman Representative in Congress engendered so much fear from her opposition that they spend so much time and effort trying to insult her whenever she happens to make the news?
That is exactly what is going on here. Conservatives fear Ocasio-Cortez. That is because she represents a threat to the political establishment.
Coming seemingly from nowhere, Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, defeated a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership, Joseph Crowley, in the congressional primary for a district representing parts of Queens and the Bronx. Crowley had been rumored to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi eventually steps down from her role as Speaker of the House.
At the time of her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a waitress in a taqueria in New York. She has been described as a political novice. However, she had worked as an intern for Ted Kennedy, an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, and for an organization that supported leadership in the Hispanic community, the National Hispanic Institute. Her education includes a bachelor of arts degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston College.
Ocasio-Cortez, who emphasized her working class background, captured national attention running a grass-roots campaign. She won the general election, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
Her agenda is unabashedly progressive. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and represents a very liberal congressional district.
When preparing to join Congress, Ocasio-Cortez complained of the orientation program for new members hosted by Harvard. She expressed exasperation that guests included corporate CEOs and lobbyists, but no one from labor unions, no activists and no community leaders. In doing so, she exposed the bias the pervades the American political system to the detriment of the working class.
Ocasio-Cortez boldly spoke out about the disadvantages and unfair images that the working class, and in particular minorities, face. She criticized the use of unpaid interns by congressional members, noting that it prevented working class students from receiving valuable experience during their education, since such students often had to find paying jobs to support their education. She rallied against the image that the poor were responsible for their own position in life, panning a Chase Bank tweet that implied that the poor should skip coffee houses, restaurants and taxi cabs.
Ocasio-Cortez noted that before she became a Representative in Congress, she would wake up n the middle of the night worried if she had paid a certain bill on time. This was not because she was irresponsible. It was because she was not being paid a living wage. Now she had a congressional salary and government health insurance, eliminating a major expense from her former life. She wanted all Americans to be able to avoid the anxiety caused by low wages.
In sum, Ocasio-Cortez bucked the system, and exposed its biases against minorities and the working class, commanding media attention along the way. She defeated a powerful incumbent, and then won a general election without relying heavily on corporate donations to her campaign. She freely exposes how intertwined corporate special interests and the government are, and how freshman members are expected to continue with system. She decries the situation of the working class poor, and debunks the myths that lead to their stigmatization.
It is because she bucks the system, and does so successfully, while representing views to which conservatives are diametrically opposed, that conservatives feel the need to attack her. In doing so, conservatives have, at times, shown how ridiculous and petty their criticisms are.
Ocasio-Cortez uses social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, to reach her constituency directly. She takes advantage of social media's platform, which emphasizes the use of video, to present herself talking about issues in informal settings. Conservatives have scoured over this video repeatedly in an attempt to find what they consider to be gaffes in order to question her intelligence.
On the campaign trail, for example, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at her alma matter, Boston College. She cautioned supporters that even if the Democrats won big in the election, they would not get everything they wanted right away. "[A]s much as I would love that. I would like to get inaugurated January 3, January 4 we’re signing health care, we’re signing this, we’re signing de-incarceration. But really, it is that we have a duty to always fight and maintain the strength of our values."
Taking Ocasio-Cortez's words out of context, Fox and Friends presented the video, saying to their audience that she lacks the requisite knowledge of how government works. Specifically, they laughed, it is only the President who is inaugurated and signs bills into law.
First, while members of Congress are technically "sworn-in," the dictionary definition of "inauguration" includes "the formal admission of someone to office." Indeed, when she was sworn-in, news media, including NBC, referred her speech that followed as an "inaugural address." Nit-picking over a word that conveys the same meaning just made Fox News, and others who repeated the criticism, look silly.
Second, when viewed in context, it is clear that Ocasio-Cortez was tempering the expectations of her supporters, and noting that progressives like herself have a lot of work to do before legislation could be passed. The use of the word "we're" indicates that she was not speaking of signing bills herself, but of progressives like her passing legislation into law consistent with their agenda, such as expanding health care coverage and addressing criminal justice reform.
Likewise, conservatives attempted to attack her working class background. A video showing how she dressed in the first days of the new Congress were meant to show that despite her claims that she personally had little money in the bank, that somehow she could afford expensive clothes. A video showing Ocasio-Cortez dancing with friends while attending Boston College was used in an attempt to argue that her self-portrayal of understanding the struggling of the working class was inaccurate. These attempts failed to convince a wider audience, and only demonstrated the pettiness of conservative criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez represents a political movement where women of color have started to gain inroads to governmental positions. She joins Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, affectionately known as "the Squad," as freshman Representatives of color who vocally oppose President Trump and the Republican agenda. Members of the Squad have not been shy in exposing the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies. Upon visiting detention centers along the southern border, the Squad exposed abuses asylum-seeking families faced, such as lack of medical care and being forced to find drinking water from a cell's toilet. Threatened by this revelation, Trump infamously responded that members of the Squad should "go back to where they came from." Never mind that three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, and Ilham Omar was a Somali refugee who earned U.S. citizenship. Opposing Trump earned the Squad racist criticism from the President.
Concerning her policy positions, conservatives love to remind the public that they amount to "socialism," a word meant to invoke fear in the electorate. The conservative's playbook is to label a proposal they oppose as "socialism," and then cite a country, such as Venezuela, as their proof that socialism is bad. Never mind that socialism is an economic system, not a political one, and that the political instability in Venezuela is due to authoritative overreaching of the executive. Conservatives ignore that popular programs in the United States are socialistic in nature, such as social security and subsidies to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war. President Trump loves to cite Norway as a model country. Yet Norway implements socialist policies, such a free secondary education.
Conservatives also like to exaggerate Ocasio-Cortez's policy proposals. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, became a spokesperson for the proposed House Resolution 109, known as the "Green New Deal." The proposal was not legislation, in the sense that it created no legal obligations. Rather, the Green New Deal was simply a list of goals divided into two parts. The first part set goals for the United States to combat climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero within ten years. The second part recognized that this would be a radical change in the economy, and that the Government should do what it could to protect those who would otherwise be displaced by the changes. The resolution made nothing illegal, and contained no proposals on how to reach the goals. It was meant simply to start the serious debate needed to address climate change in the hopes of avoiding catastrophic change.
Critics, of course, represented the resolution as banning popular items of Americana. Thus, the proposal to build high speed rail was represented as a ban on domestic air travel. The goal of eliminating America's dependence on fossil fuels was represented as a ban on cars and office buildings. Proposed reductions in carbon emissions was represented as an attack on bovine flatulence, and thus a ban on hamburgers. Thus, conservatives chose to oppose Ocasio-Cortez's proposals through misrepresentations and scare tactics.
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez has made a new ambitious legislative proposal, addressing the plight of the working class. The proposal includes limiting rent increases, enforcing a living wage, redefining the poverty line to include expenses not originally contemplated such as child care and internet access, and ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These proposals recognize problems that the working class poor face in their daily lives, such as inflated housing expenses, and a minimum wage that has been frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009. To conservatives, they are radical ideas which threaten the interests of big business. Ocasio-Cortez will certainly face strong opposition to her legislation.
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez is serving an important function in U.S. politics. She is using the attention that the media is giving her to start important conversations over policy, and ensuring that the interests of the working class are being addressed. With a divided Congress, it is not likely that her proposals will pass and be implemented. But calling attention to those against whom the deck is stacked is vital if America is to be true to the value of equality before the law.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)