An American Love Affair

To what extent are ones feelings about a country and their people influenced by their politics? I took made many European trips during my business life, as well as great vacations but got to understand little about the politics of France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland. However, almost from the day I stepped foot in America, I was confronted by its politics. For example, why were security people at Kennedy Airport armed? In the 1970s, we Brits did not see armed police on our streets except in truly exceptional circumstances. But I had no idea then of Second Amendment rights.

My love affair proper with America started rather badly in 1970. I went to New York for three weeks, arriving on a hot, sticky August night. I was not prepared for the sight of policemen guarding the airport with guns. Nor did I appreciate the extreme heat. The car taking me to Sheepshead Bay had no air-conditioning. I opened the passenger window and was blasted. It felt like I had put my head in a furnace.

Things improved rapidly. I loved the people I met. I saw so many astonishing things, including a cricket match in a park in Brooklyn. The players wore whites. The foundations of the World Trade Centre were almost completed. The equipment at the foot looked like toys. The sheer energy of the place was addictive. New York City was the greatest place on earth. I was hooked.

Four years later, I was back. First, I went to the Twin Cities in Minnesota to meet new family and friends. It was August again and the heat at night was unbearable for me. 95 degrees plus at two in the morning is not fun. The moral, I told myself, is don’t visit the States in August. But the people I met were more than compensation. I admit I poked fun at them about their accents. Did you know there is no difference between roof and ruff? Mind you, I came in for a lot of ribbing for the way I spoke. I am delighted to say that many people I met on that trip still remain the closest of good friends.

It was on that trip that I started to understand America’s federal politics. Richard Nixon was coming to the end of his Presidency. The mixture of emotions towards the President that I found in 1970, roused mainly by Vietnam, had changed to mass vilification. Watergate dominated American media and politics, as I found whilst travelling from the Midwest to California and then New York. People had forgotten that this much derided President had a successful domestic policy. He resolved a huge social problem, integrating white and black schools. His concept of ‘busing’ was scorned and unpopular to begin with but the policy worked.

It still staggers me that the Nixon administration would be politically left of a Democratic administration now. It was also on this trip that I began to understand that impeachment was a political, not legal process. Furthermore, the real federal power lies with Congress, not the executive branch, if those elected on the Hill want to take control.

I was in Naples, Florida in 1981, shortly after Reagan was elected, acting for clients who enthused about the new economics of ‘supply side’ and ‘trickle down.’ To me, Reagan’s people were like snake oil salesmen. The middle class and working class Americans were being fooled. My clients would be the beneficiaries of the policy while the poor struggled. But you don’t bite the hands that feed. In the 1980s, I didn’t enjoy my US trips much. Wall Street was all about greed and the mood seemed to extend nationwide. The four years of Bush senior were memorable too for the wrong reasons. I was in Vermont when the Gulf War started. The people I met were not gung-ho in a time when the media was full of “let’s kick-ass.”  

Travelling to America during the Clinton years was usually fun. True, the administration ran into all kinds of road blocks. I was in Miami Beach for the impeachment trial, which was such a farce. However, the President saw off his political enemies in some style. Later, his moves to relegate Speaker Newt Gingrich to the House back benches was a sight to see. It was in those eight years, when I took almost fifty trips to the States that I felt I was coming home every time I landed. I came to realise that America is a vast country of contrasts. You can go to Santa Fe for the opera in the open air and to mid-Florida for women’s coleslaw wrestling, eat in roadside diners or Boston’s Legal Seafood. What a treat!

As for the “W” years, I was in Scottsdale, Arizona on election night when Gore conceded and later challenged the Florida vote. A few days later, I had moved on to Miami where the news was dominated by “chads” and the Supreme Court appeal. I believe the Supremes came up with a unique decision, in that they expressed that it could not be used as a precedent, hence my belief that the Court, too, is as political as legal.

I was fated to be in Grand Central Station on 9/11. The subsequent increased levels of security were expected but America went over the top. I still don’t understand why you can’t bring certain items through security. The rudeness of Homeland Security personnel remains unforgiveable in many ports of call. I would travel through Raleigh, NC, every day if it meant I could avoid New York, Chicago and many other airports. The mood of the country became meaner. It must be worrying to be an American-Muslim now but it can’t have been easy for this group after 9/11. Replace “Red” with “Muslim” before Scare and you have history repeating itself.

I regard America on three levels: a place to make great friends and be with family, a place for exciting vacations and a place to do business and research. The first and second have, by and large, been wonderful and unaffected personally by politics. The third has been patchy when it comes to business but the research trips were mind-blowing. The knowledge of the people who helped me cannot be understated.

America is the most political of places. Voter turnout in important elections is lower than here in UK but pretty well every American I know is politically aware and eloquent in the advocacy of a position. Interest is both federal and local and conversations are lively. I admit to enjoying poking the bear when taking the pro-Second Amendment people on. I may run the risk of having a gun pulled on me but what is life without a little risk. After all, Eleanor Roosevelt was quoted as saying, “every week we should do something that scares us.”

My travelling days to the USA are pretty well over but through the medium of the internet, I keep my many conversations with American friends and relations going. I look forward to having my opinions challenged for a long time to come.

I cannot decide what the Trump years will bring. America is in a brief period of comparative political calm but come 20^th January next year, this will change fast. Will Obama have made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court? What will Trump actually do on his first day in office? Is Obamacare for the trash can? I welcome the short breathing space whilst all we have to work with is guesswork and conjecture.

I am taking a break from the Blog until the New Year. May I wish all my readers the compliments of the Season.

 

Impeach Trump!

The question I am often asked these days is: “Will Trump be impeached?” My answer has been “for what?” Impeachment is a remedy reserved to Congress to remove a President (and other government officers) found guilty of “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors committed whilst in office.”  So, until Trump takes over on 20^th January next year, the question is moot and he is free and clear.

Last week, the President-Elect met with reporters from The New York Times. When questioned about how his business interests would be run, he stated that conflict of interest laws did not apply to him and he could run his businesses from The White House. “In theory,” Trump said, “I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly.” This was Trumpese at its best but his assertion came as a surprise to me. Trump’s interpretation of the law is wrong. The law does not permit a President to have a conflict of interest as of right. Whilst it is correct that Congress has exempted the President and Vice President from conflict-of-interest laws in general, it has reserved the right to judge individual conflicts.

In 1974, uber-wealthy Nelson Rockefeller, heir to a fortune and the presumptive VP for Gerald Ford, agreed to Congressional hearings when his multitude of business interests were examined closely. The Justice Department subsequently confirmed Rockefeller’s right to conflict exemption. Four years later, the Ethics of Government Act and then the 1989 Ethics Reform Act codified the principle, effectively that where conflicts of interest were concerned, Congress could assume the President and Vice President can be trusted to do the right thing. However both statutes reserved to Congress the right to examine any situation where the chief executive or his second in command might have done the wrong thing, especially if it amounted to a ‘high crime and misdemeanour.’

When Rockefeller received his exemption, he offered to put his assets into a blind trust but Congress decided this was unnecessary in his case. A blind trust is one where trustees independently administer the private business interests of a person in public office to prevent or avoid conflict of interest. Trustees cannot be family members. Former Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each placed their personal assets in a blind trust, even though they may have had no legal obligation to do so. In none of these cases did family members act as trustees because this would be a breach of federal law. Incidentally, President Obama did not follow the blind trust example but all his assets were invested in mutual funds and Treasury bonds, thus there was no need for trustee administration.

Much of Trump’s wealth is contained within his corporations and tied in with the Trump brand. Trump’s choice for chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has promised that White House counsel will review all potential areas that could pose a conflict: “I can assure the American people that there wouldn’t be any wrongdoing or any sort of undue influence over any decision-making.” But how can this assurance be worth anything if White House counsel are not aware of all the facts? Neither Trump nor Priebus has undertaken to ensure full disclosure of Trump assets to the lawyers. One only has to remember Richard Nixon and his failure to tell his lawyer, James St. Clair, about the full extent of his participation in the Watergate scandal. As a result, in court St. Clair was hung out to dry.

Trump’s Achilles heel might be his refusal to disclose his tax returns. The Washington Post reported this week that Congressional Democrats are calling for an investigation into Trump’s ‘business entanglements.’ Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have called on the chairman, Jason Chaffetz, to review Trump’s financial arrangements in order to identify and protect against potential conflicts of interest. To date, Chaffetz has not responded. Probably, there is little in the Trump’s tax returns which will discomfort him, save that he may have over-stated his wealth. Politically, however, he will face trouble if he continues to refuse disclosure. The media will ask what he is hiding and will not give up until they get what they want. Eventually Trump will be forced to publish so the best thing he can do is disclose the returns right away.

There is little point in my examining further the legalities of conflicts of interest and blind trusts as I suspect these issues will occupy the time of countless numbers of attorneys all over the United States for many months. Conflict of interest law suits against Trump interests are hovering. Trump’s nature will make him want to defend all such suits vigorously. However, after the Inauguration, he will be a politician first, one who, according to American myth, is vested with enormous powers. Every action he takes will be scrutinised. And I mean every action. There is a log kept by White House officials called “the ticker” which records all the President’s actions on a three minute basis. Every call, every conversation and everything he does will be committed to paper. He will have no privacy. Even if Trump behaves within the letter of the law, politically his Presidency will be damaged, perhaps permanently, if the voters believe he is hiding his financial moves and using Presidential power to further his personal interests.

I am certain that in America’s criminal code there is an offence which prevents a President from using his office for personal financial benefit. However, referring back to the impeachment proceedings against Nixon and Clinton, it was never suggested that either man had acted in this way. None of Nixon’s men who were imprisoned over Watergate sought wrongful financial gain from their actions. As for Clinton, he did nothing at all wrong in the Whitewater affair. In fact, his investment proved to be a total loss.

It is clear from the impeachments of Nixon and Clinton that the process is far more political than legal. For example, Ronald Reagan was caught red-handed in the Iran-Contra affair when he twice knowingly broke Acts of Congress, clearly impeachable offences. But there was no political will within Congress to pursue him. Did Trump’s recent encouragement of an Argentine delegation to use his new Washington hotel cross a line? If so and if this type of action is left unchecked after Inauguration, such behaviour could put the new President into serious hot water.

Will Trump be impeached? Much depends on whether Trump’s Presidency is perceived as a success or a failure. For example, if his economic policies result in a boost for US manufacturing, improved wages for US workers and a better tax take, the voters will not encourage their legislators to try to remove him, even for cause. However, D.C. politics tells me Trump is regarded as an Independent, not a Republican. Congressional Republicans might leap at any opportunity to remove Trump from office because he would be replaced by VP Mike Pence, a politician who fits the current Republican blueprint so much better than his boss. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who'd Be a Democrat?

Last weekend, at the end of the show Hamilton, a member of the cast addressed Vice-President-Elect Pence:

            “We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us — our planet, our children, our parents — or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.”

Pence, himself, did not react but his future puppet master went wild on Twitter, suggesting harassment on the part of the cast while conveniently forgetting the First Amendment. Mr. Trump, some would say your Vice-President-Elect got off a lot lighter than your post-Civil War predecessor at the Ford Theater!

Democrats throughout America have taken quite a beating for the past week or so. Democratic supporters have looked on the wreckage of the Party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson and wept openly. Hillary Clinton said she just wanted to curl up with a good book and President Obama drowned his sorrows by travelling the world, meeting up with other world leaders whose careers, too, will end in tears. Everyone he met knew the future former President cannot do a thing except have “nice rides” in the Presidential plane and helicopter before he leaves office. But is this right. Can he really do nothing?

In my last blog, I wondered why no law suit had been commenced against the Senate for refusing to give a hearing for Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court vacancy. I have found out that Steve Michel, a New Mexico lawyer, filed a suit to force the US Senate Republican leaders to act on Obama’s nomination. Michel argued that US Senators’ powers were diminished by their leaders’ denial to vote on a vacancy for the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, the federal judge dismissed the case. I suspect the suit was doomed from the start.

The recent election results mean that after 20^th January, 2017, the Republicans will control the executive and legislative branches of the American federal government. They will soon have a Republican ideological majority on the Supreme Court bench, assuming Trump’s nominee gets the Senate’s post 20^th January nod.

However, there is a way for Mr Obama to get Judge Garland on the bench. Indeed, the President has the legal right to take action which would thwart the Republicans for a year and possibly prevent the Court ruling in aid of right wing and anti-feminist causes.

Article II of the Constitution grants to the President power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. I make no claim to expertise in American constitutional law but it seems Obama does have power to force through Garland’s appointment to the Court for a limited period. What an act of defiance that would be by a man who has been mauled by Republican congressional majorities for years.

New Republic recently published an article setting out the rules, pros and cons of such an action. There is time between the old and new Congress sessions in January, 2017, to make the appointment. If made, Garland would remain on the bench until the end of the first session of the 115^th Congress in December, 2017. But the appointment would have to be made on 3^rd January, 2017. The president’s recess appointment powers were significantly constrained by a 2014 Supreme Court ruling under which the President cannot appoint individuals to fill vacancies if the Senate holds “pro forma” sessions every three days. These sessions merely gavel in and gavel out the Senate chamber but have the practical effect of keeping the Senate active, thereby blocking the presidential recess appointment power. Well, rules are rules. However, the decision does not apply to the congressional inter-session period.

There is precedent for a Supreme Court recess appointment, for example, in 1856, when William Brennan began his court tenure with a recess appointment. But would the President become political and take the opportunity? The downside is it would make the new President and the new majority in Congress angry, unwilling to compromise or to seek any accommodation with congressional Democrats. But is there evidence that the Republicans will reach across the aisle? Recent precedent seems to say no. In 2006, the Republicans seized power in both Houses of Congress at a time when it held the White House and had an ideological majority on the Supreme Court. President Bush spoke of spending his “political capital” without reference to the sensibilities of those on the opposite aisle. The Democrats could take heart. The 2008 elections gave the Republicans a black eye!

There is another factor. In the unlikely event that the President decides to make the recess appointment, would Garland accept it? He is only 64 and his career as a judge would end if and when the Republicans removed him at the end of the Session in December, 2017. One wonders if America’s media will uncover any recent exchanges between the President and the Judge. If so, look out for fireworks.

If no recess appointment is made, that is not the end. To keep a vacancy on the Court, the Democrats could wait until the new Senate is asked to approve a nomination and filibusters Trump’s pick. Problem: there is a Republican majority in the Senate. The right to filibuster could be lost in the future if there is an up and down majority vote on the Senate floor to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court appointments.

I have gained a clear impression that Americans have elected sulky teenagers to Congress, immature men and women who have forgotten they are elected for all the people and should act likewise. Instead, there is noise indicating yet another fearsome, partisan period where, for example, minority and female rights will be attacked. Americans have surely elected an over-sensitive, bullying, non-politician to the White House, one who, in his initial cabinet and adviser choices, is showing a desire to make America white again.

No doubt, Mr. Obama would infuriate many if Garland is appointed but it would help keep the more rapacious Republicans at bay for a year. It will also endear President Obama, a fine and dignified man, to at least half the country and help shore up a legacy that needs some defending.

 

 

PS. The 2016 election isn’t over yet. In Louisiana, there is a run-off race for the Senate seat next month. The Democratic candidate is behind in the polls but were he to win, the Republican majority would be a razor thin 51-49, with the VP having a casting vote, if needed. The politics never ends.

The Supreme Court: "That's My Vacancy."

 

Presidents come and Presidents go. Some leave a lasting impression. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, continued by Harry Truman, still remains a popular topic of discussion, although much of it was dismantled by the Eisenhower administration. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society built a socialist-looking America. Many programs such as black civil rights and government sponsored healthcare for the young and old, have survived but Nixon’s Republicans could not wait to tear down much of the Great Society and the wrecking ball continued under Reagan to remove even more.

The one area of federal government where a President’s mark can last for decades is in Supreme Court appointments. Since the end of World War II, only two Presidents, Truman and Nixon, have had four picks. Some have none. History may now be repeating itself. Following the death of Justice Scalia, there is a Supreme Court vacancy to fill. During Trump’s four year term, another three seats may become vacant. If so, his choices would influence the interpretation of the American Constitution for the next three or four decades.

The process of Supreme Court appointments is simple enough. The President names the appointee, subject to “the advice and consent” of the Senate. All appointees must go through a vetting procedure by both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. This is no small thing. Every decision, ruling and opinion of the appointee is studied for bias. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings, interviewing the candidate, often with public demonstrations in the background.

An appointee is not chosen for his or her Party affiliations but for ideology. A Democratic appointee is expected to be pro-choice, pro-big government, anti-big business. A Republican appointee is expected to be pro-life, pro-business and support the traditional interpretation of the 1^st and 2^nd Amendments.

After Justice Scalia’s death, the Senate refused to give President Obama’s appointee, Merrick Garland, a hearing, despite his being an uncontroversial pick. The reason given by Senate Majority Leader McConnell was Obama was a lame duck President and the vacancy should be filled by the new President. I know of no precedent for such a proposition. Indeed, I am amazed that in America’s litigious society, no one took the Senate to law. Had a case been brought and taken on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Justices would have had to themselves decide on increasing their number! Suffice it to say the vacancy was not filled and now Trump has a Republican Senate majority to help approve his nomination.

Currently, the Court is divided equally between Democratic and Republican ideologies, so the new Justice will be the swing vote on cases brought. But voting does not always work out the way the nominating Party expects. There is a pertinent story concerning Earl Warren becoming the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1952, as Governor of California, Warren represented Eisenhower’s only serious rival for the Republican nomination for President. The two men struck a deal. If Warren withdrew from the race and if Ike won the Presidency, Ike would nominate Warren for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court.

In 1953, Chief Justice Vinson died and Warren succeeded him. Ike kept his word with no worries: after all, Warren was “one of us.” However, before Vinson’s death, the Court had heard the Brown v Board of Education case on racial segregation but had reached no decision. Warren wanted to be involved and persuaded his fellow judges the case should be re-argued so he could participate. After that hearing, Warren lobbied his fellow judges and, to Ike’s horror, the Court unanimously ruled to desegregate public schools as soon as reasonably possible. When Ike heard the verdict, he was heard to yell, “If I had known what that bastard would do, I never would have appointed him.”

Under Democrat Senator Harry Reid, then the Senate Majority Leader, the right of the Senate to filibuster judicial appointments was reduced. Now it only applies to the Supreme Court. If you are a Democrat, this might appear a relief because it means the Senate Democrats can block Trump’s choice through a filibuster which can only be defeated by a vote of 60 Senators.

Incoming Democrat Minority Leader, Charles Schumer, and his fellow Democrats have some political calculations to make.  If they filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court pick, McConnell and the Senate Republicans could use the so-called nuclear option to change Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster for the Supreme Court. That would mean in future a simple Senate majority would be sufficient for a confirmation vote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – may her bright eyes continue to shine - made headlines this summer for saying she feared for the country and the Supreme Court should Donald Trump be elected. She has now acknowledged the inevitable. In a short question-and-answer session before the Jewish Federations of North America, Ginsburg said the most immediate impact of last week’s election on the Supreme Court is that it will get a new ninth member. “There is an existing vacancy, and President Trump will fill it,” she said. “Then, perhaps, Congress will do some work.” She could have added, “Be careful what you wish for.”

 

 

 

President-Elect Trump: Deja Vu? Here We Go Again.

After last week's shock result in America's presidential election, some reactions were not surprising. Street demonstrations from Oregon, through Minnesota to New York State allowed people to vent. By and large, the protests were peaceful. One complaint was that “Hillary won the popular vote.” So what? It is the Electoral College, a device of the Founding Fathers to ensure the there was a safety valve on the people’s decision, who decide. I heard nothing about a Constitutional change during the election race.

The media blamed Trump’s win on everything and everyone except themselves. The much vaunted web sites, Five Thirty Eight and Crystal Ball, came up with convoluted reasons for their inaccurate forecasts. I'm still waiting to read how the Huffington Post explains away its forecast that President-Elect Trump had a less than 2% chance of winning.

My American friends and relations are in both despair and denial. The voters' choice has rocked them to their very core. They cannot understand how a man who is a proven liar and cheat, a misogynist, xenophobe and womaniser, a racist who wants to remove millions of people and prevent entry to others because of their religion, could become chief executive. “He is also a bankrupt,” one friend observed, forgetting that American bankruptcy laws are a weapon in the hands of the bankrupt.

This has happened before. In the 1980 election, a week before voting the polls had Jimmy Carter well in the lead. Reagan was toast. The polls were wrong. I was in Florida with a group of Republican-leaning lawyers two weeks after the election. They were in despair. They could not understand how such a bozo could make it to the White House. They forgot or ignored that Reagan had been a union negotiator and a two term Governor of California. And he was the man who indeed made America great again in the minds of many Americans.

Both Reagan and Trump had reached the age of 70 when elected. Reagan had retained his life-saver physique. Within two days of major surgery after being shot, Reagan appeared at a hospital window in a photo opportunity that made him resemble Tarzan. Trump is clearly overweight and apparently not at the peak of physical fitness. This may well operate to his detriment. The Presidency is not just mentally gruelling.

On the 20th January, 2017, Trump will be inaugurated. (Please note this correction. Last week, I wrote 9th January.) He has already indicated watering down some policies. For example, Obamacare is likely to be amended, not repealed. But he has many an albatross around his neck. The Wall, Banning Entry to Muslims, The Tax Cut, ending America’s participation in NATO. The State of the Union Address in January will be an interesting guide to Trump’s thoughts about the future.

No matter how big a business Trump has run, he is going to find governing is a major step up by a factor of 100. Will he manage? Well, preliminary indications are that he will be supported by former administrators of the Bush era and consultants and lobbyists from K Street. "He is meant to be draining the swap,” is a point forcefully made. Maybe his choices show the need for insiders to resolve the many problems that exist in dealing with special interests. What legislation will he seek introduced in Congress? Does he really expect the legislators to vote against receipt of funding from lobbyists?

I have also heard it said that with a Republican Congress, Trump can do what he likes. This shows a lack of understanding of the American political system by those advocating the point. The Republican controlled Congress may seek to legislate on programs to which Trump is opposed. How does he propose to wrangle Congress when he has never played the game? He does not have a track record as a team player.

I am keeping an open mind on the Trump administration but I believe the Achilles heel will be The Trump Corporation. From 20th January, 2017, all Trump’s assets will be placed in a blind trust and Trump will be barred from taking any action at all in relation to his businesses. Whoever he appoints or chooses to run the business, even his sons, cannot discuss the businesses with him, let alone allow him to make decisions. Will Trump be able to stop himself from doing the wrong thing? If he breaks the law, the Democrats will be onto him, demanding impeachment.

I am not saying that under Trump all will be well. It won't but is it ever? I suspect that what we saw of Trump in the campaign is the real Trump and he is more likely than not to upset the apple cart both at home and abroad. I expect this time around, the 100 day honeymoon afforded to new presidents will be more myth than reality. But let's examine the administration’s proposals and consider the 4,000 plus political appointees before condemning Trump out of hand.

But You Said!

The American people, in their infinite wisdom, have spoken. Less than 60 million of the 200 million eligible voters have chosen Donald Trump as their President and have also elected sufficient numbers of Republicans to Congress to hold majorities in both Houses. So I got one prediction right, that there would be no change in the House of Representatives.

To explain, I read daily The Washington Post and The Huffington Post. I also follow Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Five Thirty Eight, Election Projection and Real Clear Politics. Yesterday The Huffington Post stated that Trump’s chances of success was less than 2%. The Washington Post was not so bullish. They put Trump’s chances in the low 20% range. The election web sites all had Hillary Clinton well ahead. Also, all these publications had the Democrats taking control of the Senate, save one which had it as a dead heat. Yes, I was wrong but so were all these professionals and pretty well every other professional pundit and web site.

It is dangerous to have a knee-jerk reaction to this type of news. Immediately, there is nothing that Trump can do. He is President-Elect. He has no legal powers during Transition; he has to wait until he swears the oath of office. But on 8^th January, 2017, he will be sworn in, by which time he will have appointees for all cabinet posts as well as many senior civil service and political posts. There are some 4,000 jobs within his patronage, most subject to Senate approval but with a Senate majority, most confirmation hearings will be formalities. Trump must be ready to hit the ground running.

Who were the winners and losers last night? The list is endless. Beginning with the losers, here are three. Trump is on record that on his first day in office, he will repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. The Affordable Care Act is an Act of Congress which only Congress can repeal but the Congressional Republicans want the Act scrapped. They don’t want it replaced. There are more than 20 million Americans signed up to Obamacare. They must be very worried about how they will pay for healthcare if Trump keeps only half his word and Congress limits itself to repeal only.

Next on the list is women. I’m not talking about Trump’s sleaziness and misogyny. I’m thinking about the new Supreme Court Justice appointee, the ideological majority of the Court and the probable onslaught by pro-life interests to water down or repeal Roe v Wade, which legalises abortion in the United States. Trump has said that women should receive some sort of punishment if they abort a foetus. Have no doubt that the religious right will seek to hold Trump’s feet to the fire on this one. Finally, one woman might suffer personally. Trump supporters want to “lock up” Hillary Clinton and Trump has encouraged the hatred. Will he seek to have her prosecuted? He has said so on many occasions. I am unaware of any crime committed by this hard-working but unpopular lady. I truly hope this idea dies a death.

Are there winners? Trump has campaigned on “drain the swamp.” He refers to the powers of special interests in Washington, the lobbyists on K Street who wield enormous power, although not elected. It would be interesting to see how Trump approaches the problem, which really is just a process issue. Since most members of Congress rely on lobbyists for funding, will they follow Trump’s lead and become turkeys voting for Christmas? And if they refuse Trump, what will he do about “the swamp”?

The construction business will be lining up for contracts to repair and rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and the rest of American infrastructure. This is sorely needed. However, how will Trump finance the vast cost? He says the national debt is too large. At $20 trillion, the debt is a figure that I, as an ordinary mortal, can’t contemplate. If he borrows to pay for the works, while keeping debt at its present level, other areas of the US budget will be cut. That’s a recipe to hurt the poor, the very people he has said he will support. “Campaign in poetry, govern in prose,” is a well-known saying. Let’s face it, governing American style means someone gets screwed.

The first order of business on 8^th January should be the Continuing Resolution, which has kept America’s federal government funded until 9^th January. I expect the CR will be extended while the Trump administration and Congress agree a budget. However, there is Trump’s promised and much vaunted tax cut to 15%. Of course, Trump will not benefit personally. He doesn’t pay federal income tax. Smart! Even with Republican majorities in Congress, there could still be blood on the floor on this one.

I don’t want to consider America’s relations with the rest of the world. Abandoning NATO, tearing up trade treaties, building a wall on the Mexican border, banning Muslim visitors and removing “illegals” could turn the US into a pariah state. I hope not. The free world needs America. However, this leads me to the biggest winner of the night, Vladimir Putin, who must be laughing in his vodka.

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics. The next two years until the 2018 mid-terms will feel like an aeon.

 

Do We Really Need American Culture?

I don’t know about you but I am Trumped-out, Clintoned-out, Congressed-out and pretty well everything-to-do-with-American-politics-out. I don’t want to think about it, write about it, teach it or pontificate about it. I don’t even want to bore my mates to tears anymore about it.

The thing is we, i.e. us Brits, can’t seem to move without bumping into some form of Americana. Back in the 80s, I was in South Florida. It was my first time in the States on Halloween. I needed to draw some cash. In those days, ATMs were mere science fiction, so in I went to a Wells Fargo Bank on Key Biscayne – a wonderful area that has now been more over-developed than Sandbanks. I opened the bank door, entered and was accosted by a six foot frog, who guided me to a teller, dressed as Snow White. It was a hoot.

We were staying with friends who had a two-year old. We went trick or treating and I heard about the costumes my wife wore for Halloween such as naughty Eloise from the books by Kay Thompson. Halloween has now been adopted by the Brits. I don’t mind groups of small children, accompanied by adults, knocking at the door, especially if they ask, “Trick or treat, money or eats?”  I do object to smelly teenagers, not in costume, ringing the door-bell with menace and demanding to be fed. Still, what’s the point of being an older man if you can’t be grumpy?

Black Friday, the annual retail shopping bonanza after Thanksgiving in the States, recently copied by the Brits, falls on Friday November 25 this year. For centuries, the adjective "black" was applied to days upon which calamities occurred. The phrase, “look at what I’ve saved” might be justified because prices have been slashed? But Black Friday feeds retail addictions and craziness.

I understand the earliest known use of "Black Friday" referred to the day after Thanksgiving in 1951 when workers called in sick so they could enjoy a four-day weekend. Then, in the 1960s, "Black Friday" came to be used by the Philadelphia police to describe the crowds and traffic congestion accompanying the start of the Christmas shopping season. One group of persons – retailers - must love Black Friday but whether their workers do is a different matter. Yet here we are, adopting another slice of American culture which is capitalist inspired. Give the people what they want.

I have been musing about other areas of American culture which the Brits have adopted. Since when did our school-leavers have a Prom? I gather this is now par for the course. Thank heavens my daughters left school before I had to witness them wearing Prom dresses, corsages on their wrists and being collected by boys wearing ‘tuxedos’, or black tie evening dress to the rest of us mortals, and going off to an evening of dance, drink and loss of virginity. Come on, John, it’s a tradition!

Naturally, I don’t object to American Football being played at Wembley and Twickenham but give me a game of football – not soccer – any time and not Major League Soccer. We have imported all kinds of reality television shows. Big Brother and I’m a Celebrity are home grown but do we have to have the Kardashians?  From what I gather, they are pains to many. I don’t watch. What is real about reality TV anyway?

I could go on……so I will. Calling everybody by their shortened first name, fast food, chewing gum, dress down Fridays and my bete noire of bete noires, the truly insincere ‘have a nice day', although I have always felt it is a pleasure being served by people who are pleasant and take pride in their work.

Back in the 1950s, I had no objection to the import of Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and early rock ‘n roll. A decade later, Motown toured the UK. It went largely un-noticed but made a huge impression on me. By the 1970s, I wore American jeans and T-shirts bought in America. I kept my coffee hot in a Styrofoam mug. This kind of culture imported from the US was great. And I still indulge. A while back, I was in Spearfish, South Dakota, and visited the local college, Black Hills State University. My black sweat shirt is emblazoned with the initials, BHSU. I enjoyed telling people that this was how President No 43 spelled his name.

On our many trips to the US, I had to giggle at the habit by men out west to wear a cowboy hat inside a restaurant or diner at dinner time. Three years ago in Cody, Wyoming, things had changed. Headwear was now baseball hats. At pretty well every table, men were sitting and eating wearing those hats, many with the peak on backwards. I’ve seen the habit creeping into London eateries. There’s a saying, “in Rome, do what the Romans do.” In Cody, I didn’t have a baseball hat!

Do we in old Blighty really need to adopt everything American? If so, in the next general election, should we expect Mr. Corbyn to call our PM “Crooked Teresa?” I have no objection to American culture in America. In fact, I love most of it. Many of our values are shared with our American cousins. I just like our British culture. It’s right to pour the milk before the tea! So could we be more selective about what we adopt from America and what we keep at arm’s length?

 

Supplemental:

Tuesday night could be a long one for those of us who stay up to watch election results. I have no better idea of the likely outcome than any of you. I read two American newspapers and watch four web sites, including fivethiryeight and Larry Zabato’s Crystal Ball.

Before I make my predictions, I need to give a health warning. Polls are unreliable in a tight race, especially because this year some pollsters give themselves a 4% plus or minus margin of error. Also, results from the better pollsters are three or four days in arrears, so polls next Tuesday reflect questions asked on Friday.

That being said, I believe the following:

President: A Clinton win. I can’t predict Electoral College numbers but no landslide.

Senate: A Democrat win by 51 to 49 or 52 to 48. Even a 50/50 tie would work for the Democrats if Clinton wins.

House: A Republican hold with an approximate 20 seat majority.  

If you decide to place a bet based on my beliefs, I am not responsible! The one thing certain in every election is anything could happen.

 

 

 

Another October Surprise

I had intended to write about the Supreme Court vacancy and the politics which would put the issue front and centre immediately after the inauguration of the new president. However, yesterday's revelation that the FBI is re-opening its investigation of the Clinton private email server matter is another staggering October surprise in this extraordinary election.

James Comey, the FBI director, wrote a bland but explosive letter to the chairs of various Congressional committees:

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server. Due to recent developments, 1 am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.

Hours later, John Podesta, chairman of Mrs Clinton’s 2016 Campaign, wrote:

Upon completing this investigation more than three months ago, FBI Director Comey declared no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with a case like this and added that it was not even a close call. In the months since, Donald Trump and his Republican allies have been baselessly second-guessing the FBI and, in both public and private, browbeating the career officials there to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen. Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is “reopening” an investigation but Comey’s words do not match that characterization. Director Comey’s letter refers to emails that came to light in an unrelated case, but we have no idea what those emails are and the Director himself notes they may not even be significant.

It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.

 

The action stems from an FBI investigation of Anthony Weiner, a former Congressman, who resigned amid a sexting scandal.  His ex-wife, Huma Anedin, is a Clinton insider and confidante. There seems to be a suspicion that she may have passed on confidential emails to her husband.  Whether Mrs Clinton is directly involved is unsaid by the FBI.

In July, the FBI closed its year-long investigation of Mrs Clinton, saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her. This is a legal euphemism for “we’ve got nothing.”  Assuming there is no politics involved in the FBI’s move last night, the Bureau had a difficult decision on the lines of ‘damned if we do and damned if we don’t.’ Had the FBI done nothing and it was discovered weeks or months later that there were indeed further questions for Mrs Clinton to answer, Republicans would scream “foul”, call the election a sham and seek to impeach the new President.

What I find positive is that the FBI, which is part of Homeland Security whose director reports to the President, was not prevented by political forces from taking this action. However, there must be concern that the new investigation is politically inspired by those who wish to damage Mrs Clinton, as well as harming the election process. Trump's reaction last night, gloating at Mrs Clinton's predicament, is truly appalling. After all, if Mrs Clinton has indeed broken national security rules, it is hardly a case for levity and high-fiving.

I doubt the outcome of the Presidential election will be much affected by what has happened. Most voters have already made up their minds. Clinton may drop some votes in the Presidential election but they won’t go to Trump. I cannot say the same for the Congressional elections, where people may decide to reject Democratic candidates because their leader may be flawed. If both Houses of Congress remain in Republican control because would-be Democratic voters were scared off, America will face two more years of gridlock government.

 

It is incumbent on the FBI to move quickly and express the extent to which the new investigation is germane to criminal or civil proceedings against Mrs Clinton. In addition, the evidence on which the FBI relies should be placed in the public arena. Only then would voters know what charges, if any, Mrs Clinton might face. The FBI will probably reject political and media pressure and say a criminal investigation cannot be influenced by an election. However, if it does not make adequate disclosure in the very near future, the voters, let alone Mrs Clinton, will have been treated unfairly.

 

 

 

 

Sailor Trump Fouls The Rigging.

Almost 50 years ago, Hunter Thomson wrote “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” In Wednesday night’s debate, there was certainly a lot of loathing on display. In a memorable outburst, Rotten Donald refused to say whether he would accept the result of the election, should he be the loser.  Hillary Clinton riposted, “Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, it is rigged against him. The FBI conducted a yearlong investigation into my emails that concluded there was no case. Trump has said the FBI was investigation was rigged. When Trump lost the Iowa caucus, he said that was rigged. When he lost the Wisconsin primary, he said that was rigged too. When he got sued over fraud for Trump University, he alleged the court system was rigged. There was even a time when he failed to win an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row. He tweeted that the Emmys were rigged.”

Had Trump live a hundred years ago in Kansas City and run for office as a Republican in the City election, or a few years later had he sought office as a US Senator for Missouri, I would have felt sympathy for him because it was predictable he would lose. Boss Tom Pendergast had the state tied up. For twenty years, Boss Tom won city elections for the Democrats with consummate ease. He used all manner of election tricks to do so. In 1934, Harry Truman benefited from Tom’s patronage when winning the US Senate seat. The saying locally was that Tom watched the returns from St. Louis and decided how many votes would be needed in Kansas City to win!

Fast forward to 2000 when Al Gore lost Florida’s Electoral College votes through Republican rigging. Since then there have been a few localized electoral frauds. However, the days are over when election fraud is wholesale. Furthermore, even in the 1930s, Missouri had comprehensive election laws. Every state has them. The reason they weren’t enforced against the Pendergast Machine was simple. The judges were members of the machine!

America’s election system, whilst not perfect, can be compared favorably with those of all other free world nations. It is offensive for Trump to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, to make allegations that the election will be fraudulent without providing a shred of evidence in support may well be indicative of the kind of presidency America would endure under Trump. In many ways, he is the modern version of Joseph McCarthy, the man who demonized innocent Americans, wrongfully and systematically claiming they were communists. Does America really want Trumpism?

At the risk of gilding the lily from my last blog, the elections for President, the US Congress and the many state offices are regulated mostly by state law. The federal law deals with the rules on campaign finance but not the conduct of the elections themselves. The states, not the federal government, decide what happens under its own electoral laws. Which states does Trump say have wrongfully registered millions of voters? If there are indeed that many ‘ghosts’, how is it he is the only one saying so?

It is for each state to decide upon the election process. The 10^th Amendment regulates the process. This is why voting machines are not uniform in all the states. Furthermore, when the media reports results on election night, First Amendment rights permit broadcasts and predictions when the polls close in the east, regardless of the fact that the rest of the country is still voting. In 1980, Jimmy Carter conceded victory to Ronald Reagan when the California, Oregon and Washington polls had not closed.

Trump is hinting creation of post-election turmoil, without a shred of evidence to support his ‘rigging’ claim. What kind of leadership is this? Yet, Trump makes one telling point which should concern all of us, although I do not believe he has a viable solution. Mrs. Clinton’s economic policies indicate an increase in the deficit, although she denies it. At some stage, the American debt, which now runs well into double-digit trillions, will become unsustainable. It’s a bit like the emperor’s new suit of clothes. It can be ignored for only so long. If and when Mrs. Clinton announces her first budget, the brown stuff could well hit the fan if government spending is to rise again based on borrowing. Even if the Democrats regain control of Congress, will the legislators lie on their backs and nod through higher debt? The CR on the budget expires on 9^th January, 2017. A Democratic executive will have to work hard to avoid a government shutdown.

I cannot see any real circumstances where Trump ends up in the White House, except as an invited guest. The Washington Post runs 100 different simulations of the outcome of the election. In 5% Trump wins, which means a 95% probability for Hillary Clinton to be victorious. If this is right, I say a qualified “thank heavens.” But the world is awash with debt and America has to clean its own house. If nothing else, an American bankruptcy would take Brexit off the front pages of the British press.

Ken Bone Is Actually Kind of an Awful Guy

Why Trump Decided Not to Bring Up Monica Lewinsky at the Debate

Robert De Niro Lays Into Donald Trump Yet Again

 

Election Fraud? Prove it, Mr Trump.

Dear Mr Trump or should I say Rotten Donald?

In a recent tweet, you alleged: “The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary – but also at many polling places – SAD.”

Typically, you have not substantiated your claim in any way whatsoever, so let me raise some questions for you. First, do you really believe there will be systemic voting fraud on November 8^th? Are you truly saying this supposed fraud will be widespread throughout all American cities and states? If so, is the fraud campaign led and financed on behalf of Mrs Clinton? If your answer is “yes,” then you have to prove it. After all, you would be suggesting a conspiracy of massive proportions, so easy to prove.

Second, fraud in the administration of elections and voter registration has to be multifaceted. Has there been bullying, such as threats of future tax investigations? Will there be civil disorder and intimidation, where Clinton people have used or will use violence to scare voters? What about illegal voting methods including “ghosting”, where names appeared on the electoral roll even though such persons were ineligible to vote? Do you allege the Democrats are engaging in “repeating”, “personation” and “endless chain”, where voters falsely register themselves to vote, or where they vote more than once, using of false names and impersonating others? Maybe you suggest voters are bribed to vote more than once? Just say what you think is happening.

Third, do you say the election boards, which are state administered agencies, are crooked? If so, which states are involved? How do you know? Does the allegation apply to election judges? If so, how to Republican and Independent judges get hoodwinked by Democratic judges? Do the latter collude with Clinton operatives to alter ballot papers or engage in “ballot-box stuffing”, namely replacing completed boxes with ones already prepared? Are you saying there will be false counting of votes and false certification of results?

Mr Trump, it’s very easy to throw out allegations of fraud but if you don’t back those allegations with anything, how do you expect anyone to believe you? Do you not know that Presidential elections are administered state by state, where rules and processes differ from one state to another? Do you not realise it is for each state to choose the type of voting machine, the design of the ballot paper itself and to enforce that state’s election laws?

If your theory of a fraudulent election had any merit, there would have to be a conspiracy of thousands of people. I challenge you to name two such people in any of the 50 states.

In the past, there have been Presidential election frauds. In 2000, the fraud was committed not just in Florida where Jeb Bush used all sorts of methods to ensure that state’s Electoral College votes went to his big brother but also in D.C where the Supreme Court’s ruling was plain wrong. Why else did the Court express the decision could not serve as a precedent?

Forty years earlier, John Kennedy’s father stole Illinois’ Electoral College votes for his son, securing the win. Richard Nixon was urged strongly by Republican Party leaders to challenge the Illinois result but he rejected the advice. “I won’t put the country in turmoil for weeks on end.”

It’s a pity that you, Mr Trump don’t know your history. The nation comes before personal interests. Mind you, the words, “it’s a pity” seem to apply to so many things for which you stand.        

Faithfully, Dr John Matlin.