Scott Pruitt and the EPA

So, according to today's front page (NYT Mar. 18), Scott Pruitt intends to use his position as head of the Environmental Protection Agency to run for president in 2024. What is also apparent is that Mr. Pruitt is using his post as a Trojan-horse assault upon the very agency he is charged with leading. Mr. Pruitt has every right to champion deregulation of environmental protections and oppose efforts to combat climate change, as he did when he was attorney-general of Oklahoma, but he should not be permitted to sandbag an agency created by law to accomplish just the opposite. His wholesale dismantling of scientifically-based programs and regulations and his harsh critique of his own agency is subversive and wholly at odds with the obligations of his office. 

That's what happens when you elect a president who puts a fox in charge of the henhouse.

President Trump and Gun Control

Two things became apparent during the "show and tell" gun conference President Trump conducted
today. First, he compulsively {and predictably) blames President Obama for lack of gun regulation,
ignoring that every attempt by his predecessor, to secure a sensible law, was blocked by an NRA-
dominated Republican majority in Congress. Now, only he, an action hero in his own mind, can bring
about true reform, however incremental.

Second, President Trump's insistence, that a potential shooter would not enter any school if he knew
he would be met by a hail of bullets from armed teachers, demonstrates his complete ignorance of the
psychological dynamics underlying these tragedies. The attacker invariably embarks on these
massacres fully believing and intending that he will be killed in the attempt. Indeed, the record shows
that most shooters commit suicide if they are not first gunned down. So arming school personnel is
hardly a deterrent.

A Better Way to Protect Mueller

Do Neal Katyal and Kenneth Starr really believe that the Mueller investigation can best be protected by shaming Donald Trump into agreeing to a "Bork-style" regulation by which he would agree not to exercise his constitutional powers to effect the discharge of the special prosecutor or limit his independence? Gentlemen, get real. President Trump gives proof every day that he is not in the least concerned that his actions demonstrate a guilty conscience and that there is much he wishes to keep hidden.

The only effective way to keep the Mueller investigation going (and it is our only defense to Russian cyber attacks given Trump's abdication of leadership), is for members of Congress, across party lines, to show the fortitude this crisis demands and make clear to the President that interference with Mueller's work will surely bring about his impeachment

Fix the FBI Don't Politicize It

In the guise of chiding President Trump, Professor John Yoo (yes, the same lawyer who, as a George W. Bush public official made the case justifying "enhanced interrogation", ie. torture), now gives cover to the unjustified forcing out of F.B.I. deputy director Andrew McCabe and the release of an apparently one-sided, hatchet-job memo prepared by the staff of the hopelessly conflicted Rep. Devin Nunes.

Prof. Yoo, in substance, applauds the "clearing out" of McCabe because of his wife's political involvement and gives credence to the notion that the use of information obtained from Russian sources by a recognized intelligence professional is, somehow, a "shocking collapse of standards" because it was financed by a political campaign. All of this would be OK, Prof. Yoo suggests, if only President Trump didn't muck it up by taunting McCabe and injecting a claim of conspiracy to eavesdrop by the Obama administration.

Ironically, Prof. Yoo's article invokes Machiavelli without seeming to recognize the Machiavellian nature of his own presentation.

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