An Independent's View of ex-FBI Director Comey's testimony

Prior to reading my following comments, it may be useful to remember that when FBI director James Comey declared that he did not feel that it was appropriate to file charges against Hillary Clinton and again when Comey announced the re-opened investigation shortly before the election, I concluded that Comey is an ethical person in a very difficult position that precluded a perfect response.  He did what he thought was best and I respected him.  (Sadly, most people took opposite views of the incidents, based on their political preferences.)  It is also worth knowing that I was a “Never Trump” Kasich supporter.

Having read Comey’s entire recent prepared and verbal testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I found it surprisingly favorable to President Trump, even suggesting reasonable justification for Trump firing him based on the Russian investigation. 

Before explaining the above surprising statement, I’d like to note that if I had no prior knowledge of Trump, I would have focused on his boorish behavior and inability to understand and deal with people constructively.  However, we already knew about that and the misbehavior cited is not illegal nor grounds for action. 

While Comey’s testimony was not harmful to President Trump, President Trump’s response to Comey’s testimony was damaging to Trump.  If Trump feels that he is the subject of a “witch” hunt, why does he go out of his way to act like a “witch”?

Returning to the biggest surprise for me, from Comey’s testimony.

1. On January 6^th and January 27^th, 2016, Comey volunteered to Trump that Trump was not under investigation.
2. In a March 30^th, 2016 phone call, Comey reported to Trump that he had told the Senate that Trump was not under investigation.  President Trump urged him to make that fact public.  In Comey’s words, “I told him I would see what we could do, and that we would do our investigative work well and as quickly as we could.”  President Trump had reason to expect that the FBI would soon announce that Trump was not under investigation.
3. On April 11^th, 2016, President Trump called Comey specifically to follow up on this issue.  In Comey’s words, “I replied that I had passed his request to the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but I had not heard back.”  Comey subsequently suggested that Trump call the Acting Deputy Attorney General, but made no effort to erase the impression that he was working on the issue, as Trump had suggested.

President Trump’s request that it be announced that he was not under investigation was entirely reasonable.  Comey had two good reasons not to make that announcement:

a)    It would require a duty to correct, if later Trump was a subject of investigation.

b)    It is a slippery slope.  If it is announced that Trump is not under investigation, does that suggest that VP Pence may be under investigation?  If it is announced that Pence also is not under investigation, does that suggest that others are?  Comey was right to fear the slippery slope.

However, there are at least two critical reasons why Comey was wrong to NEVER share these concerns with President Trump:

1)    He left Trump with the impression that Comey would “see what he could do” about such a public announcement.  But, despite Trump’s follow-up, nothing happened in nearly six weeks after the March 30^th request, with no explanation for not having done so.  Such unexplained failure provides acceptable grounds for President Trump to fire Comey.  (Note: I don’t know if this was Trump’s reason.  Trump does an amazing job of representing himself poorly.)

2)    Although Comey had good reasons for thinking it was not a good idea to make Trump’s desired public announcement, the final decision on that issue should sit with President Trump, not with Comey because the risks Comey envisioned were for Trump, not risks for the FBI or the USA.  (Even if you disagree with the previous sentence, how can you justify Comey not telling Trump that he was opposed to the announcement and explaining why?)  If Comey had told President Trump on May 9^th that he had never agreed with President Trump but had chosen not to tell him, Trump would have had grounds to fire him.

Ironically, after Comey’s previous testimony to the Senate, I had commented to my wife that I thought he was going to be fired.  Much as I cherish Comey’s ethics and independence, he tends to rub other people’s nose in it, evincing a “holier-than-thou” attitude.  Conveying a sense that you are superior to others tends to lead to being fired.

It is very arrogant to decide that you’re going to disobey the President’s valid request because you (and your associates) don’t think it is a good idea and that you see no reason to let him know that you’ve made that decision.  Furthermore, hindsight demonstrates that Comey’s fundamental premise was wrong.  He presumed that, if President Trump were to become subject to investigation, such investigation would not be publicly known unless Comey had a duty to correct a prior statement that Trump was not under investigation.  Since then, the Washington Post reported that Trump was under investigation at least as soon as that action occurred.  So Comey’s premise was incorrect.

There were other aspects of Comey’s testimony that were favorable to Trump:

a)    I had suspected that President Trump’s statements that Comey had told him 3 times that he was not under investigation were inaccurate or misleading.  Comey backed him up.

b)    Comey testified that Trump urged him to continue to pursue investigations of his associates’ possible relationships with Russians..

c)    Trump never followed up on his February 14^th expression that he hoped Comey would go easy on Flynn.  Nor did anyone else on Trump’s staff raise the issue to Comey again.  Nor did Trump ever try to stop the Russian investigation according to Comey. 

d)    Comey testified that a February 14^th article by the NYT, and other artices, were grossly inaccurate. thus supporting President Trump’s claims of fake news.  (Such unchallenged false reports probably enflamed Trump’s desire for an announcement.)

e)    Indirectly, it was helpful to President Trump that Comey identified inappropriate behavior by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  She directly ordered him to be misleading in his comments about the Hillary Clinton investigation, deflecting Comey’s question about it.  No one in Trump’s administration ever did that to Comey.

f)     Of course, he also testified that nothing Trump or the White House had done had interfered with the investigation, which is no surprise.  There is no way that Trump’s “Flynn” comment would dissuade any proper FBI director.  If anything, it would cause Comey to be more determined.

I still think Comey was a strong public servant, although I am less confident after reading his testimony.

1)    Comey chose subterfuge to release his notes about his meetings with Trump.  It is surprising that someone of Comey’s self-described staunch ethics would release the materials in such a disingenuous fashion.  He explained that personally releasing his notes would be like “feeding seagulls at the beach”.  By that, I infer he was concerned that reporters would flock around him.  But isn’t it his responsibility to answer questions about his released notes?  Wouldn’t they flock to him for questions when the notes were released by his friend?  Comey hinted there were other unmentioned reasons.  I can’t reach a conclusion about this but it concerns me.

2)    Comey testified “The administration then chose to defame me and, more importantly the FBI, by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader.  Those were lies, plain and simple.”  But there had been a lot of criticism of the FBI on both sides of the aisle over the past year and of Comey specifically.  There were discussions about the NYC office working independently.  Clearly some people in the FBI were dissatisfied with Comey.  Whether you got the impression that “the FBI was in disarray and that confidence had been lost in the leader” would depend upon with whom you spoke.  Also, one might conclude that the FBI is in disarray if the FBI director tells you he’ll see what he can do to satisfy a simple reasonable request from you and six weeks later has been unable to do anything.  I have no problem with Comey contesting the statements and my opinion is that they were inaccurate, but his “lies, plain and simple” comment is inappropriate, especially for someone who prides himself on his ethics.

There were a few other comments by Comey that caused me to “raise an eyebrow”, but it is very difficult to testify under such circumstances, particularly when people continue asking questions, sometimes modifying their meaning, while you have already started to answer the question.  So I can draw no conclusion.

I have never been a fan of Donald Trump.  His statement "That's what I want - Honest Loyalty" was particularly offensive.  Without suggesting that I should be President, I'll explain my extremely different approach.  When I was a manager, I stressed to my staff that the best service they could provide to me was to advise me if I was doing something wrong.  When staff told me that they had done something because it was good for me, I strongly advised them to reconsider because "I would cut them off at the knees" if they did something because it was good for me instead of being guided by the interests of our many constituents.

Unfortunately, my approach did not work so well upwards.  Based on blind surveys of what other staff thought about me, I was considered to be a nuisance gadfly by management above me (unfortunately, in their eyes, indispensable because of the quality of my work).  When I started a reporting relationship to the President of a major division, I explained my philosophy to him as follows: "When we're at a conference with our brokers, probably one of them will come up to us and say 'Claude, I understand you work for Bill now.'  You'll hear me slightly deflect the concept by responding 'Yes, I report to Bill now.'  The distinction is that I do report to you and I work for you because I work for our insured clients and I believe you are insured by the company.   I work for you because you are a beneficiary on one or more of our policies probably.  I work for you because you are a shareholder.  I work for you because you are an employee.  And I work for you because you are a member of our management team.  When I make decisions, I consider the impact on all of our constituencies including those categories and regulators, our brokers, our suppliers such as reinsurers, etc."  Years later, another officer of the company advised me that Bill's reaction had been "This is as far as Claude will rise in the company."  Unfortunately, that was not my only scrape with management that prized personal loyalty above most everything else.  (On the other hand, my peers and my staff offered glowing blind evaluations.  As a result of the valuable survey, I found more palatable ways to express concerns to management.)

Despite my strong dislike for President Trump's approach, I believe he is entitled to fairness.  Many Democrats, reporters and other citizens have been strongly biased against Trump.  I understand that Trump’s campaign rhetoric (and current tweets) offended them.  But, in my opinion, it is not appropriate to blindly disparage everything that he does.

Written to Max Londberg (jlondberg@kcstar.com) and Mary Kate Metivier (mmetivier@kcstar.com) of the Kansas City Star.

Thank you for managing the KC Star survey on the trustworthiness of the media.  I am writing to you to expand on my response to your survey.

Before I provide specific concerns in this regard, including specific circumstances in which I feel the Kansas City Star has performed poorly, it would be helpful for you to know more about me so that you can judge my comments in context.

I have been a subscriber to the KC Star continuously since I moved to the Kansas City area in 1996 (exception: boycott, explained further later).

I am an Independent voter.  For example, in this century I voted for President Bush and for President Obama the first time each of them were Presidential candidates but against each of them when they ran for re-election.  I voted for Ian McMullen in 2016, having been a very early modified “Never Trump” person.  (Modified because my position was “Never Trump” unless the alternative is Cruz.)

I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  However, as I have aged, my social viewpoints have become less liberal, less so because my opinions have changed as compared to changes in our population at large.  For example, I have always been in favor of gay rights, which was a liberal position in my youth.  But I have not favored redefinition of the word “marriage”, which caused my position during our recent debates to be more middle-of-the-road than liberal.

I perceive myself to be a political moderate.  For example, I respect Hillary Clinton.  I believe she sincerely wants to help people (especially children and women) and is a bright, hard-worker with energy.  However, I don’t agree with her politics and see her as a divider rather than a unifier (albeit not to the unprecedented extent of President Trump).  In my view, she is a sad example of “power corrupts”.  Because she is so convinced that her motives are pure, she does not subject her actions to adequate ethical screens.  (“How could I do anything unethical when I’m just trying to help people?”)  I’m referring to this as a moderate position because so many people seem to either love Hillary or consider her to the devil incarnate.

I am the son of Jewish people who immigrated during World War II.

I have been a professional actuary, which was a suitable career for me because I view issues based on long-term impact.

In my opinion, the greatest contributory factor to the success of the United States has been the separation of powers.  As a youth, I supported strong central government, but less so as I have aged (i.e., I have shifted to what is typically considered to be governmental conservatism).  I often quote Winston Churchill who said something to the effect that “If you are young and not a liberal, you don’t have a heart.  If you are middle-aged and not a conservative, you don’t have a brain.”

Being a holocaust descendant may also influence my concern regarding potential long-term effects and for process.  I cringe when people tell me “that could never happen here” because such sentiments increase our risk, in my opinion.

Our society believes “the ends justifies the means”, endorsing inappropriate action by their political party while excoriating the same actions by the other side.  Such lack of integrity is very damaging to our country.  Furthermore, in general, “the ends justifies the means” is a slippery slope.

As a former inner city school teacher, I have traditionally maintained that our under-performing education system is our country’s biggest problem.  I now consider fake news to be our biggest risk.

In 1994, I saw the movie “Forrest Gump”.  It was a wonderful story, but I am the only person I know who hated the movie.  It sent chills up and down my body as I saw pictures of Forrest Gump with Marilyn Monroe and JFK.  Such technology was new to me.  It terrified me that people could be convinced of false information with doctored pictures and would develop distrust of accurate evidence on the belief that it might be false.

********************

Moving to your survey, the problem is not “typically not trusting media”.  Most information in the media (and the KC Star in particular) is correct.  The problem is the minority of material that is either inaccurate, misleading, biased, or irresponsible.

For example, the KC Star recently commented on Trump’s stance relative to Russia, contrasting it to President Obama’s administration by referring to “after eight years of being tough on Russia”.  I think that is an accurate quote and apologize if it is not.  I had two problems with that statement:

1)     My biggest problem was the characterization that President Obama had been tough on Russia, particularly for 8 years.  He had an extended “reset” philosophy and mocked Mitt Romney in 2012 for identifying Russia as a threat.  I give President Obama credit for creating meaningful sanctions on Russia as a result of the Russian annexation of Crimea and actions in Ukraine, but he arguably could have done more.  He was weak in Syria.  President Obama did not appear to get extremely upset with Russia until Russia revealed accurate information about his favored successor.

2)     The media seems to be anxious to cast Trump as a pawn of Russia.  Initially, he said that Putin was a stronger leader than President Obama.  That was not praise for Putin, it was criticism of President Obama and was entirely related to foreign policy, not domestic action.  Unfortunately, with President Trump’s personality, mischaracterizing his actions can push him in the wrong direction.  Nonetheless, when has Trump ever been a pawn of anybody?  In some respects, Trump has already been tougher on Russia than President Obama ever was.  Trump has selected strongly anti-Russia people for his cabinet (e.g., Mike Pompeo) and threatened Russia with a nuclear build-up if Russia grew its nuclear weapons.

In the above-mentioned situation, the KC Star reporting was clearly inaccurate and misleading.  I wondered how that “after 8 years” comment could get printed.

******************************

My following correspondence from 2016 discusses another occurrence which undermines trust in the KC Star.  As noted above, I cherish process.  Free speech is very important to me.  The KC Star took a strong position against free speech and at the same time took steps to re-write history (a very scary action).  By the way, I did not boycott at the time, but I blame myself for not having gone to the trouble of doing so at that time.

From: Claude Thau
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2016 9:15 PM
To: Tony Berg (tberg@kcstar.com) <tberg@kcstar.com>; Derek Donovan (readerrep@kcstar.com) <readerrep@kcstar.com>; oped@kcstar.com
Subject: Article about rape

Dear Mr. Berg,

When I read Saturday’s “Midwest Voices” article about rape, I was uncomfortable with it, as explained below.  However it can be valuable to read things that make you uncomfortable. 

My wife and I did not discuss it until she showed me your commentary today (http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article88705437.html), expressing her disagreement with your stance.

At the time you published Ms. Herrick’s article, you could have published an editorial comment that the KC Star does not agree with it.  Your Sunday opinion would have been acceptable if it had been limited to such a comment or apologizing for not having included such a comment on Saturday.  I think a “Midwest Voices” article, by its nature, reflects the writer’s thoughts, not those of the Star.  So I don’t think such an editorial comment was necessary, but, as noted, I would not object to such a comment.

However, in my strong opinion, you did not give adequate reason for censorship and re-inventing history by purging Ms. Herrick’s article.  Your justification is largely based on “If a person is incapacitated and someone takes advantage of them sexually, the law considers that rape or sexual assault and the victim is blameless”.  Does that mean if I disagree with a law, I have no right to be heard?

My above comments would apply had Ms. Herrick suggested that the man was somewhat less responsible because of the woman being intoxicated.  However, it is worth noting that her second and third paragraphs made it clear that her stance is that the man is not absolved at all! 

In the middle of her fourth paragraph, she appears to segue from rape to situations of consensual sex that are regretted by the female later.  That transition troubled me because it is not well-written.  It would have been good for the Star to encourage her to clarify her writing.  It is conceivable that the Star may have contributed to the confusion by failing to start a new paragraph when she wrote “And if you wake up…”, but I don’t know that she intended a new paragraph. 

I strongly disagreed with what I inferred she was saying when she wrote “If a woman was too drunk to know what she was doing and should be excused for what happened, then why are men not allowed to be too drunk to make good decisions?”  A state of created incapacity cannot absolve someone of a violent crime against another person.

I also disagreed with her suggestion that her son should run the other direction rather than help a drunk, unconscious woman.  But recently a man was victimized in just such an occurrence.  Her advice is improper in my opinion, but the issue is real and is important.

I understand that in McClenahan v. Cooley, the Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that “"Leaving a key in the ignition of an unattended automobile in an area where the public has access, be it public or private property, could be found by a reasonable jury to be negligent, whether or not a prohibitory statute is involved."  This theory of negligence seems related to the position taken by Ms. Herrick.  I don’t think that any such “negligence” reduces the responsibility of the person committing either crime.  But I don’t think someone who would consider such action to be negligence should be censored.

I experienced two ironies related to your opinion today:

1.     Just prior to my wife showing me your commentary, I had sent off an email related to a university which had published papers with dramatically inaccurate conclusions based on atrocious methodology.  Nonetheless, while criticizing them, I gave them credit for good points they made.  I suggest that in disagreeing with Ms. Herrick, you should have made more effort to recognize the good points she made.

2.     This morning I considered canceling my subscription because I did not get paper delivery twice this past week and did not get a Home Section/Classified today.  I quickly decided that the poor service did not justify cancellation.  However, I am considering cancelling in protest of your censorship.  (Note: I have been subscribing to the Star since I moved to KC in 1996.)

Why should I not cancel my subscription as a protest for your commentary today?

Respectfully,

Claude Thau
Phone direct: 913-403-5824

**********************

The KC Star is clearly left-leaning.  Its left-leaning attitude comes across regularly, without generally being acknowledged by the Star.  A striking example occurred in 2015 as documented by my correspondence below. Steve Kraske chose not to respond to my email of August 8^th, 2015 nor to a second email from me 3 days later, after I received a response from Derek Donovan.  (Kudos to Derek, by the way.)

From: Claude Thau
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 4:20 PM
To: Steve Kraske (skraske@kcstar.com) <skraske@kcstar.com>; Derek Donovan (ddonovan@kcstar.com) <ddonovan@kcstar.com>
Subject: A Striking Contrast between two recent articles of yours

Thanks for the articles you write in the KC Star and your KCUR and UMKC contributions, etc.

Today, you discussed a study by Patrick Miller and wrote that “Miller’s research… showed that 38 percent of partisans from both parties agreed that their parties should use any tactics necessary to win elections.  Brace yourself: That includes voter suppression, stealing and even lying.  It includes cheating and physical violence.”  You wrote other appropriate (in my opinion) critical comments about such behavior.

In contrast, a couple of days ago you explained Democrat Claire McCaskill’s substantial investment of money and effort to help Todd Akin win the Republican nomination to run against her, because she felt that he was the only potential Republican candidate that she could defeat.  I did not notice any criticism of her behavior.   Generally, I think Claire McCaskill is a good person.  But I think it is extremely unethical to interfere with the political process in the way she did.  Good people can do bad things, especially if others lack the courage to challenge their behavior.   The press, in particular, has such responsibility.

Why did you not express a value judgment regarding her behavior?  People reading the two columns consecutively might well conclude that you are one of the dangerous partisans of whom you wrote today.

I hope you will explain what I’m missing here.  If you criticized Claire McCaskill and I missed it, I apologize and will be very happy to be so informed.

Thank you.

Claude Thau

Phone direct: 913-403-5824

*********************

I boycotted the KC Star after it printed front-page (color, if I remember correctly) photos of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold after the Columbine shootings.  I don’t think their pictures belong in the paper at all and I don’t think their names belong on page 1.  I could compromise to accept front-page names with small pictures on distant back pages.  Newspapers justify such actions by saying their customers demand such sensationalism but I think that is partly because newspapers train readers to expect such material and I think newspapers should use better judgment.  In my opinion, the publicity which the KC Star accorded these perpetrators was irresponsible and encourages copy-cats.

*********************
Nationwide, there has been a lot of poor reporting related to Trump.  One example is the big hullabaloo about him accepting a call from Taiwan.  Trump was assailed for violating protocol by accepting that call.  Much more importantly, when President Obama then broke protocol by taking significant unnecessary foreign policy steps on the eve of Trump taking over apparently without discussion with Trump, I saw no media reports questioning President Obama for having failed to consult Trump.  It is possible that there were some private backroom discussions, but I think you’d also believe that is very unlikely.

Regardless of whether you support abstaining from the UN vote on Israel and the sanctions on Russia, it is hard to imagine anyone really believing that a President should take such actions in the last few weeks of his tenure without discussion with the incoming President.

*********************

I am opposed to President Trump’s travel ban.  At least parts of it were unnecessary.  It was not properly vetted (as I tell people, executive orders, as well as immigrants, need to be vetted).  Key members of the administration were not informed and it was poorly written.

It has run into legal difficulties, probably due to the ambiguity as to its applicability to green card holders, etc.

Many people opined that it was unconstitutional and/or illegal to favor minority religions over the major religions of the 7 primarily-Muslim countries cited.  However, NONE of the news reports I heard or read acknowledged that that wording in the executive order was immediately preceded by “to the extent permitted by law”.  NPR posted a highlighted and annotated copy of the law on their web-site.  Their highlighting in this area started with the first word after “to the extent permitted by law”.  I don’t understand how a provision can be unconstitutional or illegal if it contains such wording.  The implementation of the law may be illegal, but the provision can’t be illegal.

 

You can understand now why I wanted you to know that I was a “never Trump” person.   I still am very disappointed that he is president and am scared of the impact he might have on the world.  But the press has sometimes egged President Trump to be more extreme and has sadly made his anti-media statements into exaggerations rather than falsehoods.

Rebuke of Senator Warren & the Travel Ban

I added my name to the petition below my signature block.  In doing so, I was able to add this comment: “I am not a PFAW member.  I generally don't agree with them nor with Elizabeth Warren.  But I strongly agree with them regarding this incident.  Ms. Warren was discussing a potential Cabinet appointment.  Had she disparaged another senator who favored Sessions, silencing would have been appropriate, but not when critiquing a proposed Cabinet appointment.”

The petition automatically identifies you as a PFAW member but I was able to uncheck that box.

You can call your senator at 202-224-3121 if you want to protest the rebuke of Ms. Warren or if you want to support it.

I haven’t emailed you for a long time.  From my past writings, you can surmise that I am not happy with President Trump.  You probably also won’t be surprised that I am unhappy with the response of the Democrats, the press and many of the public.  I support protests but I don’t support a lot of the protest messaging.  Specifically relative to the travel ban:

1.    I think it was not necessary to ban refugees while creating stricter vetting, because existing vetting is, at worst, pretty good and, because, as it is a two-year process, there was no way refugees could rush in before the tougher vetting was implemented.

2.    It was poorly written and discussed.  (Executive orders, like refugees, need an appropriate vetting process.)  President Trump’s cabinet includes people who seem likely to express their opinion if they disagree with him.  If he proceeds without informing them, we all suffer and they may quit their posts.

3.    It is inconsistent with our values and heritage.  Of course there is risk in admitting refugees.  But as a nation and as individuals, we can’t lead our lives in accordance with our principles, without accepting some risk.

4.    By being unnecessarily (at least in some ways) divisive and offensive, it damages our country by making us more divided internally and more disliked externally.

5.    However, I think restrictions on immigration of foreign citizens don’t violate our constitution.  (I think the constitution doesn’t apply to them.  I haven’t checked this out, so I’m admittedly unprepared, but I’m commenting as I’m writing about this petition.)

6.    I also don’t think it is illegal discrimination.  (If it is illegal discrimination, then President Obama’s action against these same 7 countries would seem to be illegal discrimination.)

7.    So why did I agree with President Obama’s action but not this one?  I think it comes down to my support of what I consider to be appropriate profiling. as long as it is done respectfully.  President Obama essentially profiled people from these countries but treated them with respect.  President Trump has profiled them but is treating them disrespectfully.  As noted above, I disagree with President Trump but don’t think this action is unconstitutional or illegal.

8.    In NPR's annotated version of the travel ban executive order (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated), please scroll down to the fourth section of underlined wording.  It is preceded by the words “to the extent permitted by law” which apply to prioritizing “refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is  a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality”.  Although I don’t like that wording, I do not understand how it can be illegal or unconstitutional to instruct people to do something to the extent permitted by law.  If it is implemented in an illegal fashion, the implementation can be challenged but how can that wording in the law be illegal?  I am concerned that none of the many news reports I’ve seen or heard about the travel ban have mentioned this wording in the executive order.  In discussing this with a friend, I understood him to tell me that the wording is unconstitutional, despite “to the extent permitted by law”, because we all know what was meant.  If we permit laws and actions to be interpreted in that fashion, I believe we have destroyed our country.  That interpretation is very scary to me.

Claude

 From: Ben Betz, PFAW [mailto:alerts@pfaw.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:47 PM
To: Claude Thau <ClaudeT@targetins.com>
Subject: Shame on GOP Senators! Stand with Elizabeth Warren >>

Claude, Last night, Senate Republicans misused a rarely enforced senate rule (Rule XIX) to SHUT DOWN criticism of Trump attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It was a shocking power play by Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans to SILENCE DISSENT within the chamber in their effort to steamroll opposition to Sessions and ram through his confirmation. Sen. Warren read a quote from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1986, when Sessions was rejected by the majority Republican Senate for a federal judgeship, in which Kennedy called Sessions a “throwback to a shameful era.” Then, Warren began to read a letter from Coretta Scott King that was submitted to the Senate in opposition to Sessions’ 1986 nomination, which stated that Sessions had "used the power of his office as United States Attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens" and "to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters." At that point, Sen. Warren was interrupted and reprimanded. Republicans then upheld the rule violation with a 49-43 party-line vote, sidelining Sen. Warren from the rest of the debate and barring her from speaking on the Senate floor until the final vote on Sessions takes place. This is outrageous. Please add your name to our petition now rebuking Senate Republicans and saying you stand with Sen. Warren>> This inappropriate enforcement of this Senate rule is both extreme and hypocritical. All Sen. Warren was doing was quoting a former senator and reading from a letter by the widow of Martin Luther King that had already been in the Senate’s own records. By McConnell’s purported interpretation of this Senate rule, any time a sitting senator is nominated to an executive branch position or court seat, no other senator in the constitutional advise-and-consent process could ever criticize or make a case against that nominee using damaging evidence from the nominee’s own record.  And, in a statement calling out McConnell’s move, Minority Leader Schumer cited these examples of when Republican senators had recently “impugned” their colleagues far worse than Sen. Warren’s accurate reading of others’ quotes about Jeff Sessions: In floor remarks on July 24, 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused McConnell himself of telling “a flat out lie,” accusing his party’s own Majority Leader of repeatedly lying to every Republican senators as well as the press. In floor remarks on February 1, 2017 -- just one week ago -- Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) “impugned” Sen. Schumer, saying his “tear-jerking performance over the past weekend belongs at the Screen Actors Guild awards, not in a serious discussion of what it takes to keep America safe,” and accused Schumer of “stirring up global hysteria to score political points.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) viciously went after then-Minority Leader Harry Reid in  his floor remarks on May 25, 2016, lamenting how he is “forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings of the minority leader,” and went on: “Normally, like every other American, I ignore [Sen. Reid’s remarks]. I can't ignore them today, however ... We are delaying it for one reason and one reason only: to protect his own sad, sorry legacy. He now complains in the mornings that the Senate is not in session enough, that our calendar is too short. Whatever you think about that, the happy byproduct of fewer days in session in the Senate is that this institution will be cursed less with his cancerous leadership." Stand up to Senate Republicans’ hypocrisy now -- tell them “shame on you” and that you stand with Sen. Warren>> Sen. Schumer noted, "If the average American heard someone read a letter from Coretta Scott King ... they would not be offended." Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) tweeted, “It is demeaning to the memory of Coretta Scott King and harmful to the process for the Republicans to silence @SenWarren. #LetLizSpeak" Republicans need to hear loud and clear that Americans are watching and we do not accept their shameful abuse of power. Please sign the petition now>> Thanks for speaking out! -- Ben Betz, Online Engagement Director

Please President-Elect Trump, close your Twitter account

On November 10th, 2016, President-elect Trump tweeted: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"

 

On November 11th, President-elect Trump tweeted: "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!"

 

I hope Trump can be persuaded to close his Twitter account.  His tweets demonstrate visceral reactions that are not well-thought-out and will undermine his goals.

 

He has said that he wants to be the President of everyone.  These protests gave him an opportunity to demonstrate his intent.  His second tweet would have been OK if it had been his only tweet.  It would have been even better had he left out the words "small groups of".

 

These protesters and passionate and in some cases idealistic.  They have reason to be very concerned.  They have been almost entirely peaceful.  Unfortunately, many have chosen wrong messages.  (Let's see... who might be their model in that regard??)  It would be much better to stay focused on issues (such as "Don't Deport My Relatives") than to say "He's Not My President", profanities or other such messages.

 

Hopefully we can encourage protests to be short, peaceful and on-topic.  And hopefully we can all be sensitive to their concerns.

 

If President Trump does not abandon tweeting, I'm afraid he'll alienate a lot of people.

Why Did Trump Win?

I’ve been asked to comment on the following 3 issues. 

      1)      Where do we go from here?

2)      Why did Trump win?

3)      What caused the change at the end of the campaign?

I’ve addressed #1 already.  In this post, I’ll address #2.  Please remember these are just one person’s thoughts.

Why Did Trump Win?  (If you want to skip to what I think were the reasons Trump won, go to the top of page 3.)

Like many elections, this election was so close that you could argue that a large number of different issues “made the difference”.   There is a tendency for people who lose an election to grab on to a relatively minor reason that makes them feel justified in thinking that their side was cheated or was defeated by people who lack positive values.

Donald Trump set up such an excuse for himself by arguing that the elections were rigged.

I think Hillary Clinton supporters are making similar mistakes when they attribute her loss to people being anti-immigrant, racist, against women, etc. or to FBI Chief Comey.

It seems undeniable that a high Caucasian turn-out helped Trump succeed.  A couple of things worth noting in that regard:

1)      From a political perspective, most third-party votes were more aligned with Republican views than Democratic views.  Adding Jill Stein’s vote to Clinton’s vote and Gary Johnson’s and Evan McMillin’s votes to Trump’s total, the Republicans secured 51.4% of the vote.

2)      We had 4 million fewer voters in 2016 than in 2012. The vote distribution shifted more rural, even though it is generally agreed that Democrats are better organized to “get out the vote”, that Trump did a poor job of creating a “get out the vote” support network and that it seems easier to do so in urban areas than rural areas.  It seems that Trump voters were personally more determined than Clinton voters.

In those senses, Clinton’s defeat was a bit larger than many people think.

Typically, people would argue that non-voters lean Democrat.  So if we had 100% participation, Clinton may have won.  We could have raging debates, however, as to whether it is good to have elections decided by unengaged voters who have not considered the issues carefully.

Immigration: Liberals have mis-framed the immigration debate.  Few people are anti-immigrant; most are opposed to illegal immigration.  There is a big difference here. 

• I would agree that illegal immigration played a meaningful role in this election.  Hopefully the liberals will understand that many people fear that amnesty without well-managed borders is a disastrous approach, encouraging more illegal immigration.  If we can convince people that our borders are adequately protected, amnesty will be much easier to support. 
• Legal immigration was a tremendously smaller issue.  Many people favor easier immigration for people who have skills critical to our economy.  Such people were more likely to vote for Trump.  In this sense, Trump’s voters could be viewed as more pro-(legal)-immigrant than Clinton’s voters.

Racism: Some people cite that Trump did better than Romney among African-Americans.  13% of black men and 6% of black women voted for Trump compared to 6% of all African-Americans voting for Romney.  That’s not much of a tribute to Trump, recognizing that Romney ran against an African-American whereas Trump did not.  The possibility of an African-American president had a dramatic effect.  George Bush got 11% of the African-American vote.  Compared to Bush, Trump did worse.

I have not perceived racism to be a problem for President Obama during his 8 years in office.  Surely there are some people who were opposed to having an African-American president but they were few.  Furthermore, they lacked influence.  While there were loud “birther” people, they were ignored or rejected by almost everyone.  (Note: birthers were not necessarily motivated by racism; some may have been motivated by politics and others by wanting disclosure.)

When people tell me they are not racist, I wonder whether they are being dishonest or are trying to fool themselves.  It is extremely difficult not to be racist to some degree in our society.  But a great many Caucasians want to convince themselves that they are not racist.  Voting for President Obama and speaking well of him provided a great way for them to show that they are “not racist”.  President Obama benefited from that during his campaigns and his two terms as President.  It also extended to the press, who seemed very reluctant to criticize President Obama.

Recent polls indicate that President Obama has a 56% approval rating.  Yet Trump won because he represented change.  The “change” people wanted is from politicians in general, not President Obama solely.  However, if the populace wanted change from Republican politicians but not Democratic politicians, they would have voted for Clinton.  Therefore it appears to me that the voters were repudiating President Obama’s politics to a significant degree while they favor him personally.  That does not demonstrate racism in my opinion.

Supreme Court: I think the Supreme Court was a factor.  Hillary Clinton scared a lot of people by having a long list of litmus tests (see my comments in my “Where do we go from here?” post) that she would use to vet Supreme Court candidates to assure that they would serve as advocates rather than judges when appointed to the Supreme Court.

Rejection of President Obama: I think the biggest reason Trump won was the rejection of President Obama’s policies.  Clinton tied herself to President Obama and Trump tied Clinton to President Obama.  Clinton’s ties to President Obama were the single issue that both campaigns agreed upon.  Each candidate encouraged voters to decide based on this issue and the voters complied.

People wanted change primarily because President Obama divided our country (even though some may not have blamed him for it) and weakened us internationally.  They disliked “Obamacare” to a lesser degree and only some of the Obamacare dislike led to Trump (those who had wanted a government single-payer system were less likely to be Trump voters).  The deception involved in passing Obamacare helped Trump somewhat.

When President Obama got elected, the country was mostly elated.  People were excited to have an African-American president and hoped to see him succeed.  Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell made a stupid comment (“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”).

President Obama is a great speaker and motivator.  Had President Obama acknowledged the contributions and sufferings of various groups and asked them all to make sacrifices, I believe he could have had an extremely successful Presidency and a great legacy.    

Unfortunately, Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, and Barney Franks pressured President Obama to ram legislation through without any consideration of Republican ideas.  (Pelosi has publicly taken credit for this.)  They used McConnell’s statement and outright lies to trick their supporters into thinking that President Obama had reached out to Republicans but been rejected. 

Over the past six years, many friends have argued strenuously to me that President Obama reached out to Republicans.  But when I ask for evidence, they cite that President Obama said he reached out or they cite McConnell’s comment (which of course does not even address whether President Obama reached out).  I’ve been able to cite one example of “reaching out”, but Democratic internal correspondence has shown that effort was insincere, intended to entrap Republicans rather than reach out.  (Please note that I have never taken the position that the Republicans would have responded positively had President Obama reached out to them.  I don’t know and harbor significant doubts.  But I believe that he did not do so.)

Because he spurned working with Republicans and/or because Republicans did not like his proposed health care program, he was dependent on every Democrat vote.  Unfortunately, the “blue-dog” Democrats did not like PPACA because they believed it would drive up the debt.  So President Obama tried strong inducements (some were rolled back because they were determined to be illegal) and other pressure to get those Democrats to vote for his health plan.  The result was that the blue-dog Democrats were voted out of Congress because they abandoned the principles cherished by their constituents.  They were replaced by Tea Party Republicans. 

Before I heard anyone else complain about President Obama inciting class warfare, I registered complaints about that to my wife and perhaps friends.  (Note: I had voted for President Obama in 2008, so this complaint was coming from a supporter at that time).  Instead of recognizing that business people pay a large percentage of our taxes and create a large number of jobs, yet appealing to them for sacrifices, President Obama chose to try to mobilize the country against business people.  Instead of strongly encouraging students to apply themselves to get a good education, he fostered the idea that they were being abused by the system and encouraged them to occupy Wall Street.

I’ve cited this legacy of President Obama for 6 years now, but it has not been obvious to people.  Most people have perceived that his health care program would be his legacy.

 But this election proved that many people are unhappy with President Obama’s presidency.  Our surprising election result seems likely to wipe out his health care program and some of his other legislation, leaving his divisiveness as one of this two greatest legacies.

The other legacy is his preference for a weak United States.  He took the position that we had wielded strength inappropriately and should withdraw from international influence.  While I disagreed with the foreign policy of George W. Bush, the world had a relatively peaceful second half of the 20^th-century, much of which was attributable to USA strength and leadership.

President Obama wanted to use more diplomacy than President George W. Bush.  More diplomacy would have been a good idea, if President Obama had been a strong negotiator internationally.  Unfortunately, he abandoned negotiation points unilaterally before negotiations started and made it clear that reaching agreement was more important to him than to the people on the “other side of the table”.  He seemed to have a “Pollyanna” belief that other countries would respond favorably to his sincere weak posture, rather than taking advantage of it.

He backed away repeatedly from our staunchest mid-eastern ally (Israel), confusing the Palestinians into thinking he would support their entry into the UN, then upsetting them when he did not do so.  He went “all in” on the Arab Spring, for example insisting that Egypt’s President Mubarak step down immediately rather than manage a peaceful transition.  He drew a red line in Syria then backed down.  These actions exposed a lack of understanding of his adversaries. 

I think President Obama’s two main legacies will be that he divided our country and weakened us internationally, opening the door to Trump’s success.  In other words, Trump is President Obama’s legacy.

Now that Trump is President-elect, where do we go from here?

I’ve been asked to comment on the following issues. 

1)      Where do we go from here?

2)      Why did Trump win?

3)      What caused the change at the end of the campaign?

In this post, I’ll address #1.  In another post, I’ve addressed #2.  I’m not sure if I will address #3.  Please remember these are just one person’s thoughts.

Where do we go from here?

Although I was an early and consistent “never Trump” person, I am taking an optimistic view.  As Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech, “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

In his victory speech, Trump voiced some encouraging intentions:

• He urged us to “dream big and bold and daring”
• He said he would seek “common ground, not hostility”, “partnership, not conflict” and would “deal fairly with everyone”.
• My favorite words from his victory speech were when he said he had “spent my entire life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world.  That is now what I want to do for our country.”  “Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential.”
• He also vowed to fix inner cities and infrastructure.

Would anyone disagree with those intentions?

As I noted in earlier writings during this campaign, I did not vote for some presidents who subsequently did quite well, in my opinion.  Many candidates change when they become president, most often shifting toward the center, which enables them to accomplish more and makes them more acceptable to people who voted against them.

Trump seems more unpredictable than any previous president-elect in my lifetime because he is a pragmatist and inexperienced in politics.  Past inconsistencies make it harder to anticipate his actions.  Until now, he has not had to put together a political administration and develop a comprehensive program.  However, he has much more management experience than many past presidents.  Whether we voted for him or not, we owe it to our country to give him the benefit of the doubt and to help fulfill the admirable goals of his victory speech.

With a Republican Senate and House, Trump has a stronger chance to be able to affect change.  However, it is important to recognize that many of the Republican legislators were not Trump supporters and that Trump is quite independent himself, often supporting positions which have typically been Democratic rather than Republican.  As a pragmatist, Trump may be more concerned results than how goals are achieved.  For these reasons, there may be an opportunity for vigorous discussion which may stimulate more creativity and healthy cross-party votes on legislation. 

Separation of Powers may be less at risk.  Many of the Republicans in Congress have been staunch defenders of the Constitution.  Trump will likely roll back President Obama’s aggressive executive orders.  Hopefully, Trump will not issue new executive orders of that type.  With a Republican legislature, he has less reason to do so and he may want to set a good example for the future.  I suspect that my friends who supported President Obama’s power grabs despite my protests are now more accepting that such power grabs are wrong regardless of which side is doing the grabbing.

The Supreme Court should have fewer vacancies under Trump than would have been the case under Clinton.  Ginsburg, in particular, is likely to try to hold on until another Democratic president comes to office.  Breyer and Kennedy may take a similar approach. 

Unfortunately, with our aging Supreme Court, we could have a constitutional crisis if one of the judges shows signs of dementia.  The only option to remove a judge is to impeach the judge for bad behavior.  Particularly because of the momentous impact of selecting a new judge, there would likely be strong disagreement as to whether the judge had dementia and whether his/her condition justified impeachment.

Although Trump did not adopt Clinton’s position that the nature of the court should be changed from judges to advocates, he did cite two “litmus tests” – pro-life and pro-gun. 

I hope litmus tests will not be applied.  Litmus tests are inappropriate because justices should not decide cases until they have heard the evidence and the pleadings of the attorneys and have discussed the principles with each other.

Relative to particular issues:

·         In foreign policy, Trump seems much less likely to ignore a “red line” he has drawn.  I hope he is wise in identifying when and how to draw such lines.  I am a strong believer in diplomacy, but diplomacy works best when there is strength behind it.  (Teddy Roosevelt’s “walk softly but carry a big stick”.)  Trump seems to believe in having clear strength.

·         Relative to international trade, it is easier to negotiate a good deal when your leader has limited the other side’s expectations, which Trump has already done.  I hope we can negotiate good deals and maintain them without rupturing relationships.  Renegotiating past deals is risker, because it can undermine trust that lasting deals can be reached with the USA.  I hope Trump proves wise in such efforts.

·         I have always felt that the vast majority of citizens can be satisfied if we stem illegal immigration and then address amnesty.  Amnesty with leaky borders encourages more illegal entries.  I’d guess that Trump will support more visas for people with vital skills needed by an organization.  I can imagine significant progress on the immigration issue during a Trump presidency.

·         Relative to guns, I believe some politicians spurned widely-accepted legislation because they feared less public support for their more extreme goals if some restrictions were put in place.  Their peers might abandon politicians taking such a stance.  I’m hopeful progress can be made that will satisfy most people.

·         Trump should be able to stimulate a positive turn-around in the formation of small businesses and more hiring in large businesses.  But it is really up to all of us.  A healthy culture, including an emphasis on education and hard work, and a strong economy should stimulate business development, hence more jobs.  My impression is that Reagan’s trickle-down approach did not work optimally because too many employers reaped benefits, rather than finding ways to support “trickle down”.  We should have another chance now and hopefully will manage the economy in a way that instills hope among those of us who have not yet achieved economic success.

People often tell me that those who are financially poor will always vote for hand-outs.  I don’t think that is true.  Over the course of our history, such people have had hope to improve themselves and have supported the capitalist system.  We must foster hope rather than a welfare mentality, by reducing the need for a safety net and maintaining a safety net in a fashion which rewards productivity.  Ms. Clinton’s ideas to encourage employee-owned companies deserve consideration.

·         The national debt is a particularly important issue to me.  I was a big fan of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles proposal.  Unfortunately, I do not foresee this issue being effectively addressed in the new administration.  I pray I am wrong in that regard.

·         I hope President Trump decides not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.  Her mishandling of her emails has already cost her the election, which is punishment enough.  She has learned her lesson and will not be receiving classified information in the future anyway.  There is little to gain and much to lose from prosecuting her.

I believe peaceful protests are the right of our citizens and can be healthy expressions of opinion.  However, I believe they should be focused on issues.  Calls for impeachment before Trump takes office are inappropriate.  “He’s not my president” is inaccurate and rudeness is counter-productive.  Regardless of which presidential candidate we favored, we can perhaps help people channel their frustrations in a positive fashion.