Under Sharia law, mutilating the Koran or any piece of paper with a verse from the Koran is blasphemy. This is a very serious charge. In Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death.
At the State of the Union address this week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi engaged in a political stunt that has Trump supporters up in arms. Prominently seated behind the President, once Trump finished his speech, Pelosi, in a manner visible to television audiences, ripped a written copy of the State of the Union Address Trump had handed her before he started speaking, into pieces.
Let me be clear, I was annoyed by Pelosi’s stunt and the lack of civility it showed. Of course, I was equally annoyed at the lack of civility Trump showed when he refused to take Pelosi’s outstretched hand when he arrived at the podium of the House chamber. Indeed, with the behavior of some Democrats during the speech, and the awarding of Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom, there were enough embarrassing political stunts to go around.
But Trump supporters are going overboard in their criticism of Pelosi. By ripping her copy of the speech, Trump supporters have claimed that she ripped apart the Tuskegee Airman who was a guest of the President, mourning families, a family reunited with their service member’s father, and others who were mentioned in the speech. Indeed, the outrage expressed by Trump supporters is tantamount to the way Muslims treat someone who has ripped the Koran. Get over yourselves. A copy of the State of the Union Address is not a religious text. It is not some revered artifact that deserves praise in and of itself. It’s a set of papers with words written on them that were read out loud by the President. Let’s not start treating the President as some kind of infalible demigod whose every word must be heeded and venerated. That’s not how democracy works. Indeed, our democracy is protected by our Constitution, which includes a First Amendment that protects freedom of speech, particularly political speech. And that is what Pelosi engaged in, even if it were crude and crass.
Likewise, Trump supporters are now citing 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which criminalizes the mutilation or destruction of an official record of the United States. The problem with this argument is that the copy of the State of the Union Address handed to Pelosi was not an official public record. Pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, all documents from the White House are filed with the National Archives. The document filed with the National Archives is the official record. Thus, the copy of the speech Trump handed to Pelosi, while it is given to her out of tradition, is really nothing more than a courtesy copy. The law, 18 U.S.C. § 2071, is meant to protect records filed with U.S. courts and the National Archives from destruction, not every copy of a presidential speech printed out, even if signed by the President.
Quite frankly, the belly-aching over Pelosi’s political stunt is nothing more than political showmanship itself. It represents some of what is wrong with U.S. politics today. U.S. politics has become more about the dog and pony show, instead about the substance of policy. Given the fact that Trump routinely insults, bullies and ridicules his political opponents, it’s not like either he or his supporters have room to complain.
Instead of trying to score mere symbolic points, politicians ought to be deliberating substantively what policy is best for the American people. Wasting this much time and effort over silly political stunts does nobody any good and merely perpetuates the deep division we already have among Americans.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Header Photo
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Trump Will Likely be Acquitted Because the way the United States Chooses the Senate Goes against Democratic Principles.
No one seriously disputes the facts. President Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky to announce that he had started two investigations that would help Trump politically. When he did so, he communicated to Ukraine that he would withhold almost $400 million in military aid approved by Congress until Ukraine complied. The aid was only released to Ukraine once the story broke in the news that a whistleblower had filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, detailing this scheme by the President. This has been confirmed by the Ambassador to Europe under oath. It has been confirmed by Trump's former National Security Adviser in a book.
No one with any degree of intelligence can dispute that using the Office of the President to extract a personal favor from a foreign government is a crime. Furthermore, no one who is being honest can dispute that seeking foreign intervention in a U.S. presidential election is the exact type of behavior that the Founding Fathers feared when it crafted the clauses of the Constitution that address the impeachment and removal of the President from office.
Yet, we stand on the precipice of the U.S. Senate voting to acquit President Trump after holding a trial where no witnesses were called, and no evidence presented. Why? Because the Senate is controlled by the Republican Party, and President Trump is a Republican. The Republicans of the Senate are banding together to protect a criminal from being kicked out of office, solely to ensure that they protect their party's power.
And why does the Republican Party hold so much power in the U.S. Government? The fact is more people consider themselves Democrats than Republicans in the United States. Indeed, more people consider themselves independent of any political party than Republicans or Democrats. But there are aspects of the U.S. Government that are not truly democratic in nature. That is, there are features of the U.S. Government that are meant to thwart the will of the majority. The Republicans have become experts at manipulating those features.
First, let's consider the House of Representatives. Prior to 2018, the Republicans had held the House for eight straight years. The reason was not because the Republicans were the larger political party. As stated above, it was not. The reason is due to how congressional districts were made up. Republicans worked hard to gain control of as many state legislatures as they could. Then, once the United States held a census, it became time for the states to redraw their districts. Working like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle, Republican state lawmakers found a way to draw those districts so that Republicans had the advantage. This is called gerrymandering.
Next, the Republicans took advantage of the way that the U.S. President is chosen. Pursuant to the Constitution, the President is not directly elected by the people. Instead, the people choose electors to meet in a body called the electoral college to choose the President. Originally, the electoral college was meant to be a deliberative body, that would consider and debate over a number of candidates before choosing who they thought would best run the country. However, the electoral college devolved into a proxy of the state's popular vote. Electors were not chosen individually. Rather, the political parties nominated their presidential candidates, and in most states whichever candidate won the state's popular vote won a full slate of that state's electors.
The problem lay in the fact that the electors were not distributed in direct proportion to the number of citizens in the several states. Rather, each state received the same number of electors as Representatives in the House plus two representing the number of Senators each state has. The additional two electors may create a small deviation from having the electoral college be truly proportional to the distribution of the population in the United States. But in practice, states with smaller populations had an advantage. Their voters had greater weight. Where you have a number of these states voting for the same presidential candidate, they can beat out the states with larger populations, meaning a candidate who loses the popular vote can win the presidency based on the electoral college. Prior to the 21st Century, this had happened in U.S. history. But it was a rare occurrence. Now, it has happened twice in the last five elections. Moreover, there is a danger it will continue to happen in the near future with frequency.
Finally, there is the make-up of the Senate itself. The Senate is the result of a compromise of the Founding Fathers. States with smaller populations were afraid of loosing power to the large population states in the new government. The solution was to create a bicameral legislature, one where the representatives were distributed based on population, and one where states were represented equally as states. That second house of the legislature was the Senate. Each state is guaranteed two Senators, no matter the state's population.
As stated, the reasoning was to represent the states as states. Originally, state legislatures chose the Senators from their states. It was only through the progressive movement of the 19th Century that the election of Senators by the people of the state became the law.
Nonetheless, this means that there is one body of Congress where states has power disproportionate to their population. That is, states with fewer people living in it has the same power in the Senate as states with large populations. To put it in tangible terms, a Senator from South Dakota represents about 429,000 voters, while a Senator from California represents 19 million voters. that means that in the Senate, South Dakota voters possess about 45 times the voting power than California voters. Thus, representation in the Senate works against democratic principles, such as the equality of all citizens. In practice, South Dakotans are more equal than Californians.
As it turns out, voters who oppose Donald Trump tend to live in densely populated states such as California and New York. While sparsely populated states tend to be populated by Trump supporters. National polls show U.S. voters overwhelmingly favoring the Senate trial of President Trump to include witnesses. National polls also show a majority of U.S. voters supporting the removal of the President. But, due to the distribution of U.S. voters, the Senate is in control of a political party that will do anything to protect its leader.
So, it is very likely that the Senate trial will turn out to be a sham of justice, and a very guilty President will be acquitted and permitted not only to finish out his term, but run for re-election. This is despite poll numbers showing the U.S. population supporting the opposite results. President Trump will likely remain in office, but only because of the features of the U.S. Government that go against the principles of real democracy.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
No one with any degree of intelligence can dispute that using the Office of the President to extract a personal favor from a foreign government is a crime. Furthermore, no one who is being honest can dispute that seeking foreign intervention in a U.S. presidential election is the exact type of behavior that the Founding Fathers feared when it crafted the clauses of the Constitution that address the impeachment and removal of the President from office.
Yet, we stand on the precipice of the U.S. Senate voting to acquit President Trump after holding a trial where no witnesses were called, and no evidence presented. Why? Because the Senate is controlled by the Republican Party, and President Trump is a Republican. The Republicans of the Senate are banding together to protect a criminal from being kicked out of office, solely to ensure that they protect their party's power.
And why does the Republican Party hold so much power in the U.S. Government? The fact is more people consider themselves Democrats than Republicans in the United States. Indeed, more people consider themselves independent of any political party than Republicans or Democrats. But there are aspects of the U.S. Government that are not truly democratic in nature. That is, there are features of the U.S. Government that are meant to thwart the will of the majority. The Republicans have become experts at manipulating those features.
First, let's consider the House of Representatives. Prior to 2018, the Republicans had held the House for eight straight years. The reason was not because the Republicans were the larger political party. As stated above, it was not. The reason is due to how congressional districts were made up. Republicans worked hard to gain control of as many state legislatures as they could. Then, once the United States held a census, it became time for the states to redraw their districts. Working like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle, Republican state lawmakers found a way to draw those districts so that Republicans had the advantage. This is called gerrymandering.
Next, the Republicans took advantage of the way that the U.S. President is chosen. Pursuant to the Constitution, the President is not directly elected by the people. Instead, the people choose electors to meet in a body called the electoral college to choose the President. Originally, the electoral college was meant to be a deliberative body, that would consider and debate over a number of candidates before choosing who they thought would best run the country. However, the electoral college devolved into a proxy of the state's popular vote. Electors were not chosen individually. Rather, the political parties nominated their presidential candidates, and in most states whichever candidate won the state's popular vote won a full slate of that state's electors.
The problem lay in the fact that the electors were not distributed in direct proportion to the number of citizens in the several states. Rather, each state received the same number of electors as Representatives in the House plus two representing the number of Senators each state has. The additional two electors may create a small deviation from having the electoral college be truly proportional to the distribution of the population in the United States. But in practice, states with smaller populations had an advantage. Their voters had greater weight. Where you have a number of these states voting for the same presidential candidate, they can beat out the states with larger populations, meaning a candidate who loses the popular vote can win the presidency based on the electoral college. Prior to the 21st Century, this had happened in U.S. history. But it was a rare occurrence. Now, it has happened twice in the last five elections. Moreover, there is a danger it will continue to happen in the near future with frequency.
Finally, there is the make-up of the Senate itself. The Senate is the result of a compromise of the Founding Fathers. States with smaller populations were afraid of loosing power to the large population states in the new government. The solution was to create a bicameral legislature, one where the representatives were distributed based on population, and one where states were represented equally as states. That second house of the legislature was the Senate. Each state is guaranteed two Senators, no matter the state's population.
As stated, the reasoning was to represent the states as states. Originally, state legislatures chose the Senators from their states. It was only through the progressive movement of the 19th Century that the election of Senators by the people of the state became the law.
Nonetheless, this means that there is one body of Congress where states has power disproportionate to their population. That is, states with fewer people living in it has the same power in the Senate as states with large populations. To put it in tangible terms, a Senator from South Dakota represents about 429,000 voters, while a Senator from California represents 19 million voters. that means that in the Senate, South Dakota voters possess about 45 times the voting power than California voters. Thus, representation in the Senate works against democratic principles, such as the equality of all citizens. In practice, South Dakotans are more equal than Californians.
As it turns out, voters who oppose Donald Trump tend to live in densely populated states such as California and New York. While sparsely populated states tend to be populated by Trump supporters. National polls show U.S. voters overwhelmingly favoring the Senate trial of President Trump to include witnesses. National polls also show a majority of U.S. voters supporting the removal of the President. But, due to the distribution of U.S. voters, the Senate is in control of a political party that will do anything to protect its leader.
So, it is very likely that the Senate trial will turn out to be a sham of justice, and a very guilty President will be acquitted and permitted not only to finish out his term, but run for re-election. This is despite poll numbers showing the U.S. population supporting the opposite results. President Trump will likely remain in office, but only because of the features of the U.S. Government that go against the principles of real democracy.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
A Lawyer's Annoyance at Congressional Hearings
I am a lawyer and a trained litigator. I have presented cases before Immigration Courts and the Virginia Circuit Courts. And although I have watched congressional hearings numerous times before, they still annoy me. The main reason is that these hearings are not designed so much to try to get to the truth, so much as to put on a dog and pony show in order to get as many sound bites as possible to make it to the news. These impeachment inquiries are no exception.
Let's start with who presides over the hearings. The Committee Chair is a member of the majority party in the House. In this case, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee is Adam Schiff. But Schiff plays two roles. Not only does he preside over the hearings, but he has a political agenda. In this case, I personally happen to agree with that agenda,which is the impeachment and eventual removal of Donald Trump as President of the United States for his abuse of power. Nonetheless, I do think it is very important that the person conducting the hearings present an image of disinterested fairness. I cringe when Schiff opens up the hearings with his recitation of what he thinks the testimony will show. I wish somehow that the hearings would be presided over by some kind of neutral parliamentarian, who enforces the rules, but does not express an opinion. That would take away much of the argument that the Republicans are making, that Schiff is being unfair to them, when all he is doing is enforcing the rules. It would also free Schiff to pursue his political agenda, without making it appear like a one-sided affair.
Moving on the opening statements of the Ranking Member, Devin Nunes, I've been finding it really hard not to throw something at the TV when he speaks. Yes, I know that the Republicans' strategy is to distract everyone from the facts of the case. When you get down to it, the memorandum of the July 25th phone call is just plain damning. Right there, the President is asking for a favor right after the President of Ukraine refers to his country's desire for defensive assistance. But all of this stuff on how we aren't going to hear from the whistleblower, or the arguments over Joe Biden and his son Hunter, they are just irrelevant to the issue at hand. I keep thinking that if I ever tried to pull that kind of thing in a court of law, I'd have a really annoyed judge in front of me. "Counsel, stick to the facts of this case," I'd likely be lectured.
And if that weren't enough, in the first few hearings, we saw Republicans interrupt with their so-called "point of order." A point of order is supposed to be a complaint over a procedural issue. But the Republicans are trying to use them again to distract from the witnesses scheduled for that day, and raise their inane conspiracy theories. Point of order, we are not going to hear from the whistleblower and whether this personal may have a political agenda. Point of order, you won't let us call Hunter Biden as a witness. None of this has anything to do with the procedure, which was agreed to prior to the hearings. They are all about trying to put the irrelevant conspiracy theories before the public. And when Chairman Schiff recognizes this and cuts them off, they complain that he is not being fair. Dog and pony show.
Now, I know these hearings are not run according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. But for crying out loud, these questions are just the absolute worst. Most of the time, these are just leading questions. That is, the representative, or counsel, simply makes a statement and then asks the witness if he or she agrees with that statement. A times, when the witness tries to answer in his or her own words, the questioner tries to interrupt the answer, and emphasize the questioner's point. Not only that, there have been numerous times that the questioner has tried to characterize the witness' statement with hyperbole or exaggeration, using very loaded or judgmental words. I tell you, if I did that in court, I would get a very strong rebuke from the judge.
More annoying than that are the times that the representative doesn't even ask a question. Instead, he just takes his full time to make a political speech to please the President or his constituency. Jim Jordan, who needs to be wearing a suit jacket during these hearings for goodness sake, is the worst at this. I honestly don't understand why the Republicans put him in the Intelligence Committee specifically for these hearings, because his speeches are just not effective.
One tactic that came out more clearly during Lt. Colonel Vidman's testimony was this attempt by Republicans to unmask the whistleblower. We all know, or should know, that this is illegal. Like it or not, we need to protect the identity of a whistleblower for the very reasons that are unfolding here, before our eyes. We want people to be able to come forward with information of potential wrong-doing, without fear of reprisals. It's bad enough that the Army had announced its readiness to protect Lt. Colonel Vidman if necessary, because of all of the threats he has received. Imagine if the name of the whistleblower had gotten out. With all of those people who blindly support Trump, the whistleblower's life would most assuredly be in jeopardy. And yet, we saw Devin Nunes time and again ask Vindman to identify with whom he spoke, with whom he met, and then criticize Vindman when he refuses to name some people either based on counsel's advice or Chairman Schiff's instructions. Nunes even tried to argue that if Vindman was not asserting a Fifth Amendment right (which is the right against self-incrimination), he couldn't refuse to answer the question.
Look, while I want to be careful comparing this to a criminal action, many times criminal investigations or police action is spurred by unidentified informants. If the investigations or police action independently uncover criminal activity, the identity and motivations of the informant are irrelevant. What is relevant is the information that the investigation or police activity uncovered. The same concept applies here. Independent sources, such as the phone call memo and the witnesses who have testified so far, have corroborated what was reported in the whistleblower's complaint. The only reason to pursue the identity of the whistleblower any further, is to intimidate that person and others who may come forward to report official wrongdoing.
Let's now talk about this theme we are hearing from Republicans that the witnesses cannot identify a specific crime, or have not said words like bribery, extortion or quid pro quo. That is not the witnesses' role. The witnesses are supposed to be there to present factual testimony. Most of the witnesses are not lawyers. It is not their role to conclude that the behavior they witnessed or about which they testified amounts to any specific crime. That's a legal conclusion. It's the job of the House to determine if the facts amount to an impeachable event, regardless of how one may label it.
As I watch Devin Nunes deliver his afternoon opening statement, I have to agree with his statement that these hearings are "not serious" or "sober," but not for the reasons he has stated. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. But so far, the most egregious abuses have been from the Republicans, who are doing all they can to prevent the disclosure of facts, and hijack the hearings for their political agenda of pleasing the President and their constituents.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Let's start with who presides over the hearings. The Committee Chair is a member of the majority party in the House. In this case, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee is Adam Schiff. But Schiff plays two roles. Not only does he preside over the hearings, but he has a political agenda. In this case, I personally happen to agree with that agenda,which is the impeachment and eventual removal of Donald Trump as President of the United States for his abuse of power. Nonetheless, I do think it is very important that the person conducting the hearings present an image of disinterested fairness. I cringe when Schiff opens up the hearings with his recitation of what he thinks the testimony will show. I wish somehow that the hearings would be presided over by some kind of neutral parliamentarian, who enforces the rules, but does not express an opinion. That would take away much of the argument that the Republicans are making, that Schiff is being unfair to them, when all he is doing is enforcing the rules. It would also free Schiff to pursue his political agenda, without making it appear like a one-sided affair.
Moving on the opening statements of the Ranking Member, Devin Nunes, I've been finding it really hard not to throw something at the TV when he speaks. Yes, I know that the Republicans' strategy is to distract everyone from the facts of the case. When you get down to it, the memorandum of the July 25th phone call is just plain damning. Right there, the President is asking for a favor right after the President of Ukraine refers to his country's desire for defensive assistance. But all of this stuff on how we aren't going to hear from the whistleblower, or the arguments over Joe Biden and his son Hunter, they are just irrelevant to the issue at hand. I keep thinking that if I ever tried to pull that kind of thing in a court of law, I'd have a really annoyed judge in front of me. "Counsel, stick to the facts of this case," I'd likely be lectured.
And if that weren't enough, in the first few hearings, we saw Republicans interrupt with their so-called "point of order." A point of order is supposed to be a complaint over a procedural issue. But the Republicans are trying to use them again to distract from the witnesses scheduled for that day, and raise their inane conspiracy theories. Point of order, we are not going to hear from the whistleblower and whether this personal may have a political agenda. Point of order, you won't let us call Hunter Biden as a witness. None of this has anything to do with the procedure, which was agreed to prior to the hearings. They are all about trying to put the irrelevant conspiracy theories before the public. And when Chairman Schiff recognizes this and cuts them off, they complain that he is not being fair. Dog and pony show.
Now, I know these hearings are not run according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. But for crying out loud, these questions are just the absolute worst. Most of the time, these are just leading questions. That is, the representative, or counsel, simply makes a statement and then asks the witness if he or she agrees with that statement. A times, when the witness tries to answer in his or her own words, the questioner tries to interrupt the answer, and emphasize the questioner's point. Not only that, there have been numerous times that the questioner has tried to characterize the witness' statement with hyperbole or exaggeration, using very loaded or judgmental words. I tell you, if I did that in court, I would get a very strong rebuke from the judge.
More annoying than that are the times that the representative doesn't even ask a question. Instead, he just takes his full time to make a political speech to please the President or his constituency. Jim Jordan, who needs to be wearing a suit jacket during these hearings for goodness sake, is the worst at this. I honestly don't understand why the Republicans put him in the Intelligence Committee specifically for these hearings, because his speeches are just not effective.
One tactic that came out more clearly during Lt. Colonel Vidman's testimony was this attempt by Republicans to unmask the whistleblower. We all know, or should know, that this is illegal. Like it or not, we need to protect the identity of a whistleblower for the very reasons that are unfolding here, before our eyes. We want people to be able to come forward with information of potential wrong-doing, without fear of reprisals. It's bad enough that the Army had announced its readiness to protect Lt. Colonel Vidman if necessary, because of all of the threats he has received. Imagine if the name of the whistleblower had gotten out. With all of those people who blindly support Trump, the whistleblower's life would most assuredly be in jeopardy. And yet, we saw Devin Nunes time and again ask Vindman to identify with whom he spoke, with whom he met, and then criticize Vindman when he refuses to name some people either based on counsel's advice or Chairman Schiff's instructions. Nunes even tried to argue that if Vindman was not asserting a Fifth Amendment right (which is the right against self-incrimination), he couldn't refuse to answer the question.
Look, while I want to be careful comparing this to a criminal action, many times criminal investigations or police action is spurred by unidentified informants. If the investigations or police action independently uncover criminal activity, the identity and motivations of the informant are irrelevant. What is relevant is the information that the investigation or police activity uncovered. The same concept applies here. Independent sources, such as the phone call memo and the witnesses who have testified so far, have corroborated what was reported in the whistleblower's complaint. The only reason to pursue the identity of the whistleblower any further, is to intimidate that person and others who may come forward to report official wrongdoing.
Let's now talk about this theme we are hearing from Republicans that the witnesses cannot identify a specific crime, or have not said words like bribery, extortion or quid pro quo. That is not the witnesses' role. The witnesses are supposed to be there to present factual testimony. Most of the witnesses are not lawyers. It is not their role to conclude that the behavior they witnessed or about which they testified amounts to any specific crime. That's a legal conclusion. It's the job of the House to determine if the facts amount to an impeachable event, regardless of how one may label it.
As I watch Devin Nunes deliver his afternoon opening statement, I have to agree with his statement that these hearings are "not serious" or "sober," but not for the reasons he has stated. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. But so far, the most egregious abuses have been from the Republicans, who are doing all they can to prevent the disclosure of facts, and hijack the hearings for their political agenda of pleasing the President and their constituents.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Open Enrollment for Health Insurance through the Marketplace is Here, and May Bring a Pleasant Surprise
Open enrollment is among us, if you need to buy your health insurance from your state’s marketplace pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare. Today, I went to healthcare.gov to choose which plan I wanted for 2020. As some of you may know, I am currently fighting cancer, and incur a lot of health care expenses. I have one of the top of the line gold plans for 2019, and have been very happy with it. I was thrilled to see that not only is the same plan available for 2020, but the premiums went down by about $100 a month for me. I can’t promise the same results for you, but by all means, if you need health insurance check out what is available through your state’s marketplace on healthcare.gov. You have until December 15, 2019 to enroll.
My experience buying health insurance through the marketplace has recently been a pleasant surprise, especially considering that one of the main policy goals of the Republican Party has been to repeal Obamacare. Well, technically, the GOP has called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. But if you recall the Spring and Summer of 2017, you may remember that when the GOP had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there seemed to be wide-spread agreement on the repeal part, but not a single Republican could propose a replacement. This was a scary concept for someone like me, who worked as a solo practitioner at the time, and had a pre-existing condition. If the Republicans could repeal Obamacare, but would not replace it, where was that going to leave me? Luckily, the rest of the country and I watched as Republican Senator John McCain strolled to the floor of the Senate, and famously turned his thumb down, going against his party and saving Obamacare from repeal.
Of course, that was not the end of my anxiety. One thing that is clear about President Trump is his obsession with trying to undo everything he can that President Obama accomplished. If his party could not deliver on the promise to repeal Obamacare, then Trump was going to do everything in his power to sabotage it from the inside.
He started by withholding subsidies to the insurance companies for participating in the market place. This created a great deal of panic and uncertainty. It resulted in higher premium prices and fewer choices for those who went through the marketplace. For myself, I noticed that there were only two insurance companies offering plans in my state. When I purchased the plan I thought was the better choice, I suddenly found that many of the doctors I had gotten used to seeing did not accept this insurance. Not only was my choice limited, but getting the insurance company to approve of the care I needed, such as major surgery, suddenly became a challenge. I spent a lot of time learning about peer to peer reviews and asking my doctors to call the insurance company doctors to convince them why the treatment, such as cutting recurrent cancer out of my body, was necessary.
But this was not Trump’s only strategy. He also stopped enforcing the penalty for not complying with the mandate. That is, in order for Obamacare to work, low risk healthy Americans had to purchase health insurance in order to offset the additional costs to insurance companies for being compelled to offer plans to people like me, without considering my pre-existing condition and at the same premium. Without the penalty for not buying health insurance, which was enforced by the IRS, healthy people may choose to forgo buying health insurance, thus increasing the percentage of high risk customers, which in turn would increase premiums. And that is what I experienced. Not only was my choice of plans more limited, the plans that were available were more expensive and had a high deductible.
Trump tried to drive more people out of the marketplace, by approving more short-term insurance plans. These type of plans had less coverage than the plans available on the marketplace, and were far cheaper. A small number of these plans were available before Trump won the election. I needed to utilize this option for a few months in 2016 through the first month of 2017. The premiums were super cheap. But, that was based on the customer not needing to use the plan for major health problems. This was fine for me, until the beginning of 2017 when I started showing some serious symptoms. My cancer had been in remission for several years, and thus was not considered a pre-existing condition for the purposes of this plan. Nonetheless, the insurance company fought with me tooth and nail to cover the treatment I began to need in early 2017. Indeed, the insurance company refused to pay over $36,000 worth of treatment, until I finally reported the company to my state’s insurance commission. Amazingly, after months of denials and fighting, once the insurance commission got involved the insurance company changed its tune, and my expenses once again covered. Still, from my experience with this short-term plan, I will avoid them as much as humanly possible in the future.
But even with Trump’s efforts to sabotage Obamacare, something amazing happened. The health insurance market stabilized after one year. When open enrollment came around in 2018, there were suddenly over twenty plans available to me through the marketplace. With the guidance from my healthcare providers, I was able to choose a plan that was widely accepted by the doctors I already patronized, and that offered a good amount of coverage at a reasonable price. Despite Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare, the system was working well for me.
That trend continued this year. Indeed, it has been reported that in many states, there are more plans available this year, and at lower premiums. For now, Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare without formally repealing it seems to be failing. Yes, there are lawsuits out there challenging the law as unconstitutional. There are lawsuits challenging the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. Given my personal situation, these are developments I worry about and watch closely. But for now, Obamacare is working for me.
So I urge you, if you need health insurance, check out your state’s marketplace. Yes, you will need to input a lot of information, including information about your income. But you just might find yourself pleasantly surprised, as I was this year.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
My experience buying health insurance through the marketplace has recently been a pleasant surprise, especially considering that one of the main policy goals of the Republican Party has been to repeal Obamacare. Well, technically, the GOP has called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. But if you recall the Spring and Summer of 2017, you may remember that when the GOP had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there seemed to be wide-spread agreement on the repeal part, but not a single Republican could propose a replacement. This was a scary concept for someone like me, who worked as a solo practitioner at the time, and had a pre-existing condition. If the Republicans could repeal Obamacare, but would not replace it, where was that going to leave me? Luckily, the rest of the country and I watched as Republican Senator John McCain strolled to the floor of the Senate, and famously turned his thumb down, going against his party and saving Obamacare from repeal.
Of course, that was not the end of my anxiety. One thing that is clear about President Trump is his obsession with trying to undo everything he can that President Obama accomplished. If his party could not deliver on the promise to repeal Obamacare, then Trump was going to do everything in his power to sabotage it from the inside.
He started by withholding subsidies to the insurance companies for participating in the market place. This created a great deal of panic and uncertainty. It resulted in higher premium prices and fewer choices for those who went through the marketplace. For myself, I noticed that there were only two insurance companies offering plans in my state. When I purchased the plan I thought was the better choice, I suddenly found that many of the doctors I had gotten used to seeing did not accept this insurance. Not only was my choice limited, but getting the insurance company to approve of the care I needed, such as major surgery, suddenly became a challenge. I spent a lot of time learning about peer to peer reviews and asking my doctors to call the insurance company doctors to convince them why the treatment, such as cutting recurrent cancer out of my body, was necessary.
But this was not Trump’s only strategy. He also stopped enforcing the penalty for not complying with the mandate. That is, in order for Obamacare to work, low risk healthy Americans had to purchase health insurance in order to offset the additional costs to insurance companies for being compelled to offer plans to people like me, without considering my pre-existing condition and at the same premium. Without the penalty for not buying health insurance, which was enforced by the IRS, healthy people may choose to forgo buying health insurance, thus increasing the percentage of high risk customers, which in turn would increase premiums. And that is what I experienced. Not only was my choice of plans more limited, the plans that were available were more expensive and had a high deductible.
Trump tried to drive more people out of the marketplace, by approving more short-term insurance plans. These type of plans had less coverage than the plans available on the marketplace, and were far cheaper. A small number of these plans were available before Trump won the election. I needed to utilize this option for a few months in 2016 through the first month of 2017. The premiums were super cheap. But, that was based on the customer not needing to use the plan for major health problems. This was fine for me, until the beginning of 2017 when I started showing some serious symptoms. My cancer had been in remission for several years, and thus was not considered a pre-existing condition for the purposes of this plan. Nonetheless, the insurance company fought with me tooth and nail to cover the treatment I began to need in early 2017. Indeed, the insurance company refused to pay over $36,000 worth of treatment, until I finally reported the company to my state’s insurance commission. Amazingly, after months of denials and fighting, once the insurance commission got involved the insurance company changed its tune, and my expenses once again covered. Still, from my experience with this short-term plan, I will avoid them as much as humanly possible in the future.
But even with Trump’s efforts to sabotage Obamacare, something amazing happened. The health insurance market stabilized after one year. When open enrollment came around in 2018, there were suddenly over twenty plans available to me through the marketplace. With the guidance from my healthcare providers, I was able to choose a plan that was widely accepted by the doctors I already patronized, and that offered a good amount of coverage at a reasonable price. Despite Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare, the system was working well for me.
That trend continued this year. Indeed, it has been reported that in many states, there are more plans available this year, and at lower premiums. For now, Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare without formally repealing it seems to be failing. Yes, there are lawsuits out there challenging the law as unconstitutional. There are lawsuits challenging the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. Given my personal situation, these are developments I worry about and watch closely. But for now, Obamacare is working for me.
So I urge you, if you need health insurance, check out your state’s marketplace. Yes, you will need to input a lot of information, including information about your income. But you just might find yourself pleasantly surprised, as I was this year.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Republicans Put Whistleblower's Life in Jeopardy
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)