What Would a Flynn Pardon Mean?

There are those, mainly Trump supporters, who declare that former Director of National Security
Michael Flynn has no information that would implicate President Trump in a conspiracy to collude with
the Russians to affect the American presidential election. No proof of collusion, nothing to fear.
Others are convinced that Gen. Flynn must have valuable inculpatory information or he would not
have been allowed the favorable plea deal which involved only a single felony, limited jail exposure
and a free pass for his son.

However, those in the president's camp who believe that Flynn poses a serious threat to Trump's
presidency, or even his liberty, counsel that the risk can be obviated by granting him a pardon. The
opposition warns that such an action would likely provoke a constitutional crisis. A pardon would be
ineffective anyway, say the anti- Trumpists, because Flynn would still be prosecutable by state
attorneys-general for violation of local law, violations beyond the President's power to pardon ..
Besides, they argue, it is reasonable to presume that Flynn, who has been cooperating with the
investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has already given statements under oath and
any significant alteration of his testimony would constitute perjury, a crime which would not be
pardonable. Since the pardon would remove any legal basis for Flynn to invoke his Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination he could be compelled to testify. Anyone hoping that Flynn will take the
stand and give testimony that brings down the Trump presidency should take no comfort in that
scenario.

If President Trump pardons Flynn the general will be relieved of exposure to federal punishment
stemming from his plea. If a state attorney-general then attempts to bring state criminal charges
against Flynn he can refuse to testify by claiming his Fifth Amendment right since the federal pardon
does not shield him from criminal exposure under state law. Thus, if Flynn is pardoned by the
President he will be able to avoid criminal liability under federal law and minimize his exposure under
state law, by refusing to testify (although statements he has already made might well be admissible
against him in state court). Given this virtual immunity Flynn, if he is so inclined, can spare the
President the consequences of his potentially damning testimony. Ultimately, it may come down to
whether Gen. Flynn, for personal or patriotic reasons, elects to tell all he knows or chooses to go silent.

House Rush to Judgment

Representative Trey Gowdy, who bills himself as an experienced and impartial prosecutor in his earlier life, is now spearheading a mad dash to close down the investigation, by the House Intelligence Committee, of Russian interference and Trump campaign collusion in the last election (Dec. 16, p.A14). Stacking multiple interviews on short notice, in different locations, on dates inconvenient to Democratic committee members, Republicans seek to end harmlessly the congressional inquiry even as they badmouth the continuing investigation being conducted so professionally by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Rep. Gowdy, who found it perfectly appropriate to prolong a needless revisitation of Benghazi for the umpteenth time, to badger the Clinton campaign, has now falsely opined , even before all the interviews have been concluded, that no evidence of collusion or conspiracy has been produced. It would seem Mr. Gowdy's sense of timing (and fairness) depend upon the political identity of his subject

House Rush to Judgment

President Trump and Obstruction

I applaud Prof. Alan Dershowitz's decrying the criminalization of political differences (NYT, Nov. 29,2017,P. A23) but strongly disagree with his conclusion that President Trump's attempt to stifle the Flynn investigation was, somehow, lawful. It is a federal crime to attempt to obstruct justice by corrupt persuasion which courts have defined as persuasion motivated by an inappropriate or improper purpose to convince another to engage in a course of behavior that impedes an ongoing investigation. By telling FBI Director Comey to discontinue his investigation of Michael Flynn, President Trump was attempting to impede that investigation for an improper purpose, namely to prevent exposure  of his own misdeeds or those of his campaign.

Yes, a president has vast executive powers but, unless one accepts Nixon's infamous pronouncement, that an act cannot be a crime if done by the president, Trump can be guilty of obstruction of justice and, thus, be subject to impeachment.

VOTE YES FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The justification offered by the editorial board of the New York Times, for its recommendation that New Yorkers vote no to the holding of a constitutional convention, is mealy-mouthed, even shameful. Listing all of the problems that impede effective governance and erode public trust, problems embedded in our archaic and lugubrious constitution that cry out for remedy, the Times, nevertheless, opts to forgo a once in a generation opportunity for change.

The reason? Given the current political climate it is likely that a constitutional convention will be dominated by unsavory hacks who will make no change or just make the document even worse, all at great expense to the taxpayer. Besides, the editorialists say, all the needed changes can more easily be enacted by legislators (provided they are pushed to do the right thing by an aroused electorate).

These arguments do not withstand scrutiny. Would it make sense to urge the citizenry not to vote in an election because the polls suggest that charlatans are likely to win? That because the road to realization of a just cause is burdensome and freighted with risk, the journey should not be undertaken?

I suggest that the right approach would be to fight to change the process by which constitutional delegates are chosen and organize to promote progressive and much needed changes to our outdated and hopelessly wordy foundational document. Trying to work around, by legislative action, the existing constitutional roadblocks is not doable. Constitutional prohibitions and prescriptions are not susceptible to statutory override. For example, the constitution requires that judges step down when they become 70, just when their experience and sagacity are at their peak and legislators cannot alter that hoary deadline.

As the editorial acknowledges, voters are already apathetic to change and have consistently rejected convening a constitutional convention. It will hardly awaken their civic conscience to urge yet another negative vote, especially since the opportunity to effect change will not come again for twenty years.     

Which is press-worthy, the truth of the dossier or who paid for it?

During the 2016 presidential election campaign the Republicans and the conservative media cowed the mainstream press into treating the Clinton email issue as having the same significance as the many disclosures about Trump’s unfitness for the presidency, treating each with equal attention and gravity. Eventually, though too late, the press seemed to recover its backbone and gave due attention to President Trump’s lies, ignorance and utter inability to govern.

Unfortunately, the media seems to have succumbed recently to its former fearfulness of right-wing criticism. Thus, it has signed on to raising the importance of who, among the Clinton campaign leadership, paid for or knew about the opposition research which resulted in compilation of the notorious Steele dossier. That meaningless issue, which has no relevance to whether the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia, is being used by Republicans and their allies in the conservative media, to obscure their failure to seriously address the Russian attack on our democracy and divert attention from the impending indictments being brought by the special prosecutor

Supreme Court and the First Amendment

The Supreme Court has accepted for decision a case which raises the right of public employees to refrain from paying any union dues, even for essentially non-political union activities such as collective bargaining and contract administration, from which they directly benefit. The objectors are non-union employees who oppose the political activities and/or contributions of the union, yet accept wage increases won by the union for all employees.
The case is part of a campaign to destroy public employee unions. Given the philosophic make up of the current court, the result is a foregone conclusion but the underlying rationale is deeply troubling. Apparently, the conservative majority elevates certain First Amendment protections over others, depending upon whose ox is being gored.
If Americans have a First Amendment right to object to being compelled to contribute to causes they abhor, why must they pay that portion of their taxes earmarked for war materiel or nuclear arms production? If they are not entitled to a corresponding tax reduction, they should, at the least, be permitted to require that their payments be allocated to governmental services they support.
Similarly, corporate shareholders should have the constitutional right to be compensated to the extent that the value of their shares are diminished by contributions made by the corporation to political action committees who support candidates or causes anathema to the shareholder. Taxpayers and shareholders are no less entitled to First Amendment protection than are non-union workers.

Conservative Professors

In his op-ed (NYTimes, 9/15 A.27), Arthur Brooks attempts to make the case that university culture would be better served by welcoming and promoting to leadership roles academics who are ideologically conservative. He justifies his proposal by arguing that intellectual diversity on campus promotes a good university's primary mission, debate and the unconstrained pursuit of truth. Such an approach, he contends, would be consistent with the progressive movement's long-held credo that it is the duty of the majority (ie. liberals who predominate on campus) to fight for the minority even when that contravenes self-interest.


Although Mr. Brooks convincingly establishes that conservatives are marginalized in academia, his argument misses the point. The soul of true scholarship is a search for new meaning and a rigorous testing of old bromides. Conservatives, by definition, are committed to upholding or returning to the status quo and to resisting groundbreaking change. That is hardly a mindset to be celebrated and rewarded at institutions dedicated to inquiry and pursuit of new challenges.

On A Fox Hunt

I often watch Sean Hannity on Fox Network to get my blood boiling but mainly so I can see what alternative reality looks like. He repeats a regular pattern of lambasting the "deranged, destroy Trump media", assuring his viewers that only he tells "you, the American people " the real news in a fair and balanced manner.
He is addicted to the use of bullet points and checklists by which he purports to demonstrate that Trump has a host of accomplishments ignored by the left-wing, fascist press. Of course, many of these so-called achievements are, in reality, earmarks of Trump's assault on good government, ethnic minorities, and a healthy environment.
Thus, the leading entries on this hit parade invariably include jeopardizing the global climate (withdrawing from the Paris Accords),promoting financial recklessness (weakening Dodd-Frank), gender bashing (banning transgender soldiers), immigration "reform " (travel bans and wall building) and so on.
Then he parades his Amen chorus consisting of Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Simeon Gorka
and Pat Buchanan to corroborate the correctness of his conclusions.
His other itemizations often include the many reasons Robert Mueller is biased and must be fired and the panoply of sins committed by Hillary Clinton which have gone unpunished and warrant her incarceration.
His former compatriots in this offensive, notably Bill O'Reilly, have either left in disgrace or moved on to new positions and new philosophies. More recently, he has been abetted by Tucker Carlson, who makes known his disbelief of views expressed by his left-leaning guests by sneering, smirking, laughing or widening his eyes before talking over or cutting them off.
One can confidently predict that, when it is indisputably proven that Trump collaborated with Russian interference in the recent election, Hannity will, instead, be reporting on the misuse of her email server by Hillary Clinton.

Slogan

In just over six months the Trump administration has seriously eroded 250 years of American traditions including regard for the truth, respect for our countrymen, honor, and common decency. Our fundamental shibboleths of equality, justice, rule of law and common good have been supplanted by "America First" and, even more insidiously, "Me First". These xenophobic and selfish credos must be rejected before they destroy the foundation of our democracy.
The proposed motto for Democrats, "A Better Deal", smacks too much of self-interest. Besides, we've had our fill of "deal" makers. Democrats should , instead, rally behind the slogan "Restore America's Values".

Pre-Trial Release Without Bail

Legislation proposed by Senators Kamala Harris and Rand Paul (To Shrink Our Jails, Let's Reform Bail, NYT 7/21/17, p.21) is a laudable attempt to humanize and make more effective and equitable this country's flawed system of imprisoning persons pre-trial simply because they or their families are too poor to post bail. What is remarkable is that the remedies they propose were proven effective more than half a century ago yet are still underutilized.
In 1961 the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, conducted in New York City jails, demonstrated that persons accused of crimes and released on their own recognizance were more likely to return to court than those who posted bail. Factors such as community ties, supportive families, and having jobs were better predictors of low risk of flight than monetary deposits.
The real problem is that too many judges, fearful of public rebuke, fail to exercise their authority to release defendants without bail pending trial. The horror of prolonged , unnecessary incarceration will not be overcome until judges are better informed and act more courageously.

"Russia, Russia, Russia" So What?

Almost every day more proof emerges of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin's Government, to affect the election and deliver the presidency to Donald Trump. Republican politicians counter, with a fair degree of accuracy, that American's are not interested in the "Russia connection" and seem to care less about the implications of that unholy alliance. Think about that. Our country has been, and will continue to be, attacked in the cybersphere  by a hostile foreign power whose actions threaten to undermine the conduct of our elections and destroy the foundation of our democracy and our fellow citizens are tired of hearing about it.
Does this make it, as Republican's insist,  an unimportant, non-issue unworthy of further investigation? On the contrary, this apparent lack of public interest is an indictment of today's politicians who fail to sound the alarm, put country before party and mount a defense to this existential challenge.

Which President was a Russian Agent?

So now the cat is out of the bag. As explained by President Trump and his Fox Cable echo chamber, it is former President Obama who is guilty of colluding with the Russians to rig the last election. How could we have missed it. As the intelligence community disclosed, Putin and the Russians were attempting to aid the Trump campaign and this fact was made known to President Obama.
Apparently concerned that Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election and preserve his legacy, President Obama said nothing and took no action, thus furthering the Russian scheme to make Trump president and enable him to dismantle all that President Obama had put in place. Get it? Sad!

Putin's Continuing Intervention in American Politics

There can no longer be any doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin is attempting to protect Donald Trump's presidency, for whatever reason. His attack on the credibility of former FBI Director James Comey, by sarcastically offering him "asylum", equating him with the leaker Eric Snowden and labeling him a "civil activist", is but his latest effort to meddle in American politics. This most recent intrusion apparently has flown under the radar, failing to evoke the outrage it warrants.
It is an obvious attempt to blunt or deflect the just disclosed probability that Special Counsel Mueller's investigation may be examining whether President Trump has obstructed justice. Trump defenders are trying to block that inquiry at its outset by questioning Mueller's impartiality and accusing Comey of criminal misconduct. Putin seems to have joined forces with Sean Hannity and the Trump defense team, fueling the suspicion already surrounding the strange relationship between the two leaders.

President Trump's Tweets; Gospel or Gossip?

President Trump and his spokespersons have often touted his frequent use of Twitter as an effective means of communicating important issues directly to the American people free of the biased filter of a hostile media. Yet, when his messages provoke criticism and even outrage, those same spokespersons chide the critics, accuse them of paying too much attention and caution that this President is merely resorting to social media. His postings, they advise, are not to be taken seriously or accepted as statements of policy or conviction.
The reason for these irreconcilable explanations is apparent. Trump's tweets are intended as dog whistles meant to gratify his dedicated base. Everyone else, including the targets of his reckless barbs, the leaders of our allies, the majority of the American public and, in particular, the too inquisitive Press should pay no heed to these middle of the night rants and stop trying to hold the President accountable for their plain and ugly meaning.

SEAN HANNITY'S CALL TO ARMS

A few weeks ago Sean Hannity, on his Fox Network program, declared war on the fascist, liberal, Hollywood establishment. He announced that he has assembled a high-powered legal team to move against all those who, for years, maligned and slandered him and did so with the intent of silencing all conservatives and, in particular, Fox Network, the only media organization that reports fairly and truthfully about President Trump and his stellar, multiple accomplishments.

Using his usual foils and sounding boards, Newt Gingrich and Mishcelle Malkin, Hannity castigated the alt-left, listed Trump’s many underappreciated early triumphs and bemoaned the effort to boycott and destroy conservative outlets. All of this motivated, Hannity maintained, by the fascist left’s rage and disbelief at the outcome of the election.

Apparently, Hannity views with great alarm the toppling of Fox icon Bill O’Reilly and the universal revulsion of sponsors who fled his program. It would seem the adversities suffered by that dignitary have nothing to do with blatant sexual harassment but stem from malicious and false accusations by the left.

More recently, Hannity has asked his loyal following to go to war on behalf of the President who is under assault by five ominous factions of our society; the “Dark State”, the “out-of-control” liberal media, the vengeful Democratic Party, turn-coat Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham and the “Never Trump” movement within the Republican establishment such as the New Republic and the Washington Standard.

By “Dark State” Hannity refers to those currently or recently in government who recognize the national danger posed by Trump and who, putting the country’s interest above party loyalty, “leak” his transgressions to the public or otherwise try to counter his self-serving, tyrannical agenda.

Out-of –control media describes any publication or news- airer that unmasks Trump’s lies, discloses the mushrooming scandals of his administration, replays his inconsistent and constantly shifting sound bites and fails to laud the incredible accomplishments of his first 100 days.

Only by coming out and fighting for the values embodied by Trump and the programs promised by him, for which they voted, can the faithful ensure that America will be made safe and great again.

As a final flourish of his alternative reality, Hannity laments the passing of that giant figure of journalistic integrity, Roger Ailes, whom he credits with enabling him to hold forth on Fox, so that fair and balanced reporting will prevail and the Trump gospel proclaimed.

Trump's War on the Press

President Trump has threatened to end daily press briefings because the media "beats up" on his spokespersons who, in his estimation, are lovely people. Sean Hannity of Fox, taking his cue from the President (or perhaps it's the other way around), urges the President to end the briefings because the "fake" media dissects everything that is said (as opposed to swallowing it?) and uses the information to spin conspiracy theories, gain exposure and enhance its own public image.
Hannity's rationale for discontinuing what has been an American tradition for nearly a century, is that the President no longer needs the press given his access to social media and, in particular, his ability to get his message out on Twitter.
How can this so-called journalist be so ignorant of the time-honored and sacrosanct role of the press as a vital cog in our democratic structure? The press does not exist to serve the needs of presidents but rather to hold them to account and to inform the body politic of the actions and pronouncements of those charged with carrying out the will of the people.
This is an ominous turn of events. First the media is vilified and defamed. Now, there seems to be a movement to silence the press by cutting off its sources of information. Our democracy is in greater peril than it has ever been.

The "Leak" of President Trump's Tax Return

Rachel Maddow, on her television program, disclosed that two pages of President Trump's 2005 federal income tax return had been released by some unknown source. Her guest, a tax expert, speculated that it might have been leaked by Mr. Trump himself to divert attention from other embarrassing disclosures including the lack of evidence for his baseless charge of wire-tapping by his predecessor and the investigation of ties between his campaign and Russian hackers who interfered in the recent election.
Today, during an interview with Tucker Carlson on the Fox network, President Trump labeled the release of his return a crime though he hastened to add that it did not reveal any adverse information about him. Tonight, on Fox, Sean Hannity, in furtherance of his campaign to disparage career civil servants, called the release of the tax return a felony and urged a criminal investigation to uncover and prosecute the leaker. His guest, Newt Gingrich, concurred and denounced the presumed felons within the IRS.
What all of the accusers overlooked, or ignored, is that the tax return is clearly stamped "Client's Copy" (as could be seen when Ms. Maddow held it up to the camera). Since client copies are not filed with the IRS it seems indisputable that no one at IRS was the source of the leak. Indeed, what seems compelling is that either the "client", Mr. Trump, or his tax preparer had to be the source of the disclosure.

In a World Where Hacking is Good and Leaks about Hacking are Bad

Trump and his supporters are very sensitive and much offended whenever the subject of  Russian hacking is raised. That unprecedented incursion into the conduct of an American election is no big deal because, they argue, there is no proof that the Russians penetrated voting machines and actually changed how ballots were recorded or tallied. Besides, the information about Clinton was true, so there is no reason to complain about its disclosure. As the Trumpites see it, the focus of the press on this historic breach constitutes an unjustified assault upon the legitimacy of the president's election.

While the absence of vote count manipulation is not disputed, the real concern, which has not been measured, is the extent to which, if at all, the disclosure of hurtful information about the Clinton campaign may have influenced the way citizens voted. Given the closeness of the election in many key states, even a small shift in voter sentiment driven by the Russian leaks could well have altered the outcome. Obviously, Trump and his minions believed the hacked information was significant as demonstrated by their incessant invocation of that material in the course of the campaign.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and leaks from US government sources suggest the likelihood that Trump aides conspired with the Russians to affect the election, the Republicans are in full throat decrying the dastardly practice of disclosing information without authorization and, perhaps, in violation of law. Never mind that the information may be true, that the Trump campaign may have broken laws and time-honored precedents in bargaining for Russian assistance by among other things,  promising relief from sanctions in exchange for that assistance. Now the authenticity of the information is unimportant. The only thing that matters is the manner in which it was obtained. Thus, Republicans demand an investigation, not into Russian meddling but into who in the intelligence community made public the existence of evidence pointing to the involvement of the Trump campaign with the Russian hackers or those directing them.

Can one cite a better example of the old adage, "it all depends on whose ox is being gored"

President Trump and the Courts

Re "White House: Judge Did Not Chide Trump" (front page, Feb. 10):
To his credit, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch expressed, though rather mildly, his displeasure with President Trump's disparagement of the judiciary. Typically, Donald Trump's first reaction was to accuse Senator Blumenthal of lying when he quoted Judge Gorsuch and to raise the issue of the senator's past fabrication of military service. When it was established that Judge Gorsuch had, indeed, made the quoted comments, the president's next tack was to deny that the comments were directed at his demeaning of jurists and the judicial process. Now, a spokesman for Judge Gorsuch has confirmed that the judge was addressing the president's tweets when he described himself as demoralized and disheartened.
So, once again, President Trump has demonstrated his disregard for the truth and his knee-jerk response to criticism by levying personal attacks and offering disingenuous explanations. This president, almost daily, provides proof of his lack of judgment, veracity and presidential demeanor. What's to come can only be imagined.


Gerald Harris

The Trump Inaugural

Granted Trump was not yet born when the expression "America First" described a movement which was sympathetic to fascism, isolationist and smacked of anti-Semitism, so he can't be expected to have learned, first-hand, its ominous undertone. What is troubling, however, is that his adoption of that credo, and its invocation as a theme of his inaugural address, demonstrates either his ignorance of history or, worse, a willful conveyance of a hateful philosophy.
It is of little comfort that Trump may use the concept not to call up its original connotation, though it does, but rather to describe his vision of an America that would elevate self-gain and close-mindedness over traditional values of generosity and openness which underlie this country's greatness.

Trump, Russia and Sanctions

Although Russia's unprecedented and dangerous meddling in the US election has been proven to the satisfaction of most open-minded Americans, Trump continues to express doubt and claims to be awaiting the findings of his own investigative team (probably the same team that looked into Obama's citizenship and "found things they can't believe").
While many suggest that Trump's reluctance to confront Russian misconduct is driven by his economic entanglement with Kremlin figures, I believe his principal motivation is his egotistical concern that his election may be seen as having been aided (and tainted) by Russian hacking thus, once again, putting petulant pride before national interest.
Most Republicans, true to form, are attempting to divert attention from Trump's unseemly stance by attacking President Obama, accusing him of imposing weak sanctions after waiting too long to act.