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process by which constitutional delegates are chosen and organize to promote progressive and much needed changes to our outdated and hopelessly wordy foundational document.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".