Where Ignorance is Bliss

Until this week, I lived in a wonderful state of ignorance, leading a life that suited me well, being kind to old ladies crossing a road, ruffling the heads of children as they played, rarely speeding, and altogether trying to be a worthwhile member of society. And then, AMT descended upon me, disturbing not only my equilibrium but, as Star Wars fans would term it, “The Force.” I had my Mario Balotelli moment. “Why me?”[1] Why did AMT have to raise its ugly head now when all was right with my world, with the exception of one or two little things, like expenditure exceeding income, not to mention a pain in my back?

If you are still with me, I suspect you’ll be asking, WTF is AMT? The latter stands for “alternative minimum tax.” It is a tax imposed by the American government to ensure the mega wealthy pay a fairer share of tax. We now know in 2005, President Trump was targeted by the AMT police because a two-page section of his tax return has been published by MSNBC. It disclosed that the President paid $38m in federal taxes on more than $150m income. He was then trapped by a tax rule that he has now promised to abolish. If he puts the proposal to Congress, will he be accused of yet another conflict of interest? A point of interest is the level of income he enjoyed twelve years ago and his phenomenal contribution to the US Treasury. If his income has remained at similar levels, by any definition he is an uber-rich man.

Mr Trump took exception to the disclosure, with good reason. The White House accused MSNBC of violating a federal law that prohibits the unauthorised release of tax returns. It is illegal to publish an unauthorised tax return or "return information." Any violation of the law is treated as a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. It is a serious offence. In response, MSNBC claimed First Amendment privilege. If a media organisation has not conspired to steal material or obtain it from government but simply received it from a private citizen, a criminal conviction is uncertain.[2] So if the President wants to take the matter further, an interesting clash would develop. Do federal laws on disclosure trump – pardon the expression - the Bill of Rights?

The President’s tax history has been under scrutiny since he launched his Presidential campaign. Both Democrats and Republicans and more than a million petitioners have demanded to see his tax returns. During the campaign, Mr Trump first said he would release them once an audit was completed. Then he made a U turn and, just two days after his inauguration, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway announced the President was not going to release his tax returns because “people didn’t care.” You have to admit that Conway is nothing but consistent in her daft public announcements. Such an abrupt refusal followed months of Trump dancing around the issue.

This time, Mr.Trump has law on his side. Individual income tax returns are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals. Like all other citizens, U.S. Presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy.

However, it is not Presidential to hide or appear to hide behind the law. The American people look upon their Presidents as people who have climbed above the hurly-burly of politics and whose responsibilities and obligations are much greater than mere compliance with the law. There is a perceived morality to the Presidency. This office has a higher duty than other political offices. Failure to disclose might cause a presumption that Mr Trump has something to hide.

President Obama was excused from disclosure but it was felt unnecessary because his income was known to be solely his government salary and royalties from his books. His capital assets comprised only government bonds. President George W Bush released partial information but before him Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter and Nixon made full disclosure. Oddly, Gerald Ford released only summary data. Neither Presidents Johnson, Kennedy nor Eisenhower released any tax information but Truman made full disclosure. FDR released no returns during his Presidency but returns are made available in the Roosevelt Library.

I feel some sympathy for Mr Trump. He is a successful businessman, a self-proclaimed billionaire whose tax affairs will be complex. I know of no serious allegations that he has cheated on his taxes or has broken any tax laws. Indeed, it seems he is audited regularly, thus the IRS must be satisfied with his compliance. However, if the President maintains his refusal to disclose details of his tax affairs, it could result in another brick in the wall being constructed by his many opponents, a wall in which he, not Mexicans, will be enclosed.

 

  

 

---

[1] Mario Ballotelli was a Premier League footballer, constantly in trouble with the authorities both on and off the pitch. He habitually claimed persecution with the cri de coeur, “why me?”

[2] MSNBC journalist, David Cay Johnson, said he had been sent the two-page tax summary “over the transom”, i.e. unsolicited. No evidence has been produced so far to identify the anonymous sender.

The Lying Liars

Bette Davies, one of the greatest Hollywood actresses to grace the silver screen, once famously said, “Show me a politician who’s a liar and I’ll show you a politician.” In other words, all accomplished politicians are also accomplished liars. Actually, Bette Davies said no such thing but as telling lies seems to be in vogue, this was my alternative fact.

Back in 2003, comedian and soon to be politician, Al Franken, now the US Senator for Minnesota, published a book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” Franken challenged media conservative opinion of the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in a liberal backlash to right wing opinion. Franken was sued by Fox News because his book headlined the phrase, “fair and balanced reporting,” which Fox was using to advertise its News program. I am delighted to say that the courts threw out the law suit, as the litmus test for newspaper reporting since the year dot has been “fair and balanced.” Ironic,” as Mr Trump might say! But I digress.

Lying is part and parcel of a politician’s armoury, although the art was arguably best expressed by the UK’s most senior civil servant, former Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong, who spoke of “being economical with the truth.” At present, President Trump is being pilloried for his constant untruthful allegations, often made via Twitter. The most recent (at time of publication) is the assertion that President Obama had Trump’s New York HQ wiretapped. A reader of my blog has asked whether there is a coincidence that Trump’s most shocking tweets are made on the Sabbath, when Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is not available to lend a calming hand. It is a fair point.

In the interests of fair and balanced blogging, there is a crop of American Presidents who, over the past decades, have lied to the public. Let’s start with the Democrats. Arguably, the most famous lie of all was told by Bill Clinton when he looked fair and square into the lens of a television camera and told viewers, “I did not have intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinski.” Technically, he told the truth, but only if you accept that oral sex does not count as intercourse.

The most highly regarded 20^th century President, Franklin Roosevelt, lied about keeping America out of World War II. After the outbreak of war in 1939, FDR advocated publicly the policy of keeping the United States at peace. He did this when also engaging in a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill about the US entering the War. The President's pledges of keeping the US out of the conflict reached a crescendo during the last days of the 1940 election campaign. For example, at Boston in October, he said: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Yet secret American-British talks were held in Washington in 1940/1 when extraordinary care was taken to conceal from Congress not only the contents of the talks but the fact that they were taking place at all. FDR was preparing for America to go to the aid of its GB ally at the same time when FDR was telling the voters they would not find America as a participant. Mind you, in this he could point to a precedent, that of his Democratic predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, who in 1916 did the self-same thing in relation to World War I.

There are two other Democratic US Presidents who were patently untruthful. In the 1960 Presidential campaign, John Kennedy accused the Eisenhower administration of allowing a “missile gap” to have developed and that the Soviets were a long way ahead of US in both quality and quantity of ICBMs and nuclear warheads. This was a barefaced lie, intended to embarrass his opponent, VP Richard Nixon, and to lay grounds for a massive military expenditure if JFK won.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson seized on an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin when, he told the American public, the US gunboat Pueblo had been fired upon by the North Vietnamese. There had indeed been a gunfight but the Americans had fired first. Using the lie, LBJ persuaded Congress to pass a resolution, giving him authority without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of conventional military force in Southeast Asia and “to do whatever necessary in order to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defence Treaty .” The Resolution came to be called ‘the open check.’ It gave LBJ immense power to involve American armed forces in Vietnam without recourse to Congress.

The Republican Presidents post 1968 are no slouches in the lying department. Ronald Reagan was caught red-handed in the Iran-Contra affair, breaking two Acts of Congress. The 1987 Senate investigation chaired by Senator John Tower, a Reagan fan, reached a neutral conclusion but did not clear the President. Reagan’s apology was a masterpiece of obfuscation: “A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true………..but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. There are reasons why it happened but no excuses. It was a mistake.”

President George W. Bush regarded himself as “a war President” and said so publicly. He also castigated Iran, Iraq and North Korea as “the axis of evil” in the 2002 State of the Union address. He lied to the American people about Iraq’s ownership of weapons of mass destruction, but so did his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “W” had a precedent set by his own father who, in the 1988 election campaign, told the press and, by extension, the voters: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Sooner than two years after becoming the 41^st President, Bush raised taxes.

Arguably, though, the foremost Presidential liar was Richard Nixon. His political education began in the dirt of California politics. In his run for Congress in 1946, he demonized the Democratic candidate, Helen Geoghan. His lying techniques were keenly honed by June, 1972, five months before his re-election, when the Watergate break-in took place. There has never been proof that Nixon knew of the break-in before the fact but the White House tapes disclosed the President’s involvement in the cover up, a mere four days after the event. From then, Nixon told lie after lie. Worst of all, in a 1973 televised press conference, he claimed: “The people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.” Sadly, he was telling one of the many Watergate lies.

Back to present times. I have no doubt that Trump lied knowingly when he tweeted he had been wiretapped by President Obama. Why did he lie? My money is his desire to keep control of the news cycle. The Obama wiretap story took the heat off Jess Sessions in the weekend media. Then the Obama story reverted to the inside pages with Trump’s new Executive Order on immigration and the Obamacare shinanigans. While Trump is a liar, he is not only in distinguished company, he also seems to be the master of manipulating the news industry!

 

 

McCarthyism is Back!

Last night, President Trump sent the following Tweet:

            “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

I sat there and read the tweet a number of times. The question I asked myself was, “does this President not know anything?” Then I thought some more, coming to the realization that Mr. Trump had actually got it right. Let me explain.

Joseph McCarthy, the Junior Senator for Wisconsin, was facing an election in 1952 which he was likely to lose. So, he came up with a wheeze. At a speech in Wheeling, Virginia, he spoke about the threat of communism. He waved some papers at his audience, stating he had a list of more than 200 names of people employed in the State Department, all of whom were communists and that there was a “spy ring” at State. The story, published in the Virginia and Wisconsin newspapers, took hold and soon it went nationwide, as McCarthy exaggerated his claims. The numbers of communists employed in the federal government increased but McCarthy failed to name anyone.

Senate hearings were convened and McCarthy and his side-kick lawyer, Roy Cohn, harangued and bullied witnesses. He obtained confessions from only two people, a janitor and a secretary. However, he received support from House of Representative members, as the House Un-American Activities Committee wrecked the lives of actors, writers and academics during the “Red Scare.” Meanwhile, McCarthy proved nothing about State Department officials. He knowingly lied and lied about communist infiltration just to get re-elected.

Like McCarthy, President Trump has offered no proof or evidence whatsoever in support of his claim of wire-tapping by President Obama and members of the Obama administration. Does he really believe that a man like Barack Obama would stoop to such a low level? Of course not. What Trump hates is the growth in evidence that members of his cabinet have been lying to Congress. So, he is retaliating in the way he knows, lie and demonize an opponent. In doing so, he is copying the tactics of Joe McCarthy. Shame on you, Mr Trump.

 

The State of the Trump: The Address to Congress.

There is a famous children's book, "Where's Spot?"  The main character, Spot, is hidden on every page and the child reader is asked to find him. On Tuesday night, I felt Mr Trump played the part of Spot. He gave an address to a joint session of Congress, but where was The Donald we had encountered over the past year? The bullying, hectoring, lying, divisive, racially prejudiced, misogynist was hardly visible. Instead we saw a calm, confident, measured President who kept to a carefully worded script which was a sea change from his threatening Inauguration address. Mr Trump set out a program which included aid for women and support for the environment and public education. Ostensibly, even the poor and disadvantaged were in his plans.

This American set-piece occasion is splendid, if not based on a well-established blueprint. Behind the President sit both the Speaker of the House and the Vice-President, in his capacity of President of the Senate. It is much more fun if the two are from different parties. During the Obama Presidency, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi put on quite a show centre stage, as one stayed seated while the other stood and applauded the words of the President.

The Chamber is filled with all members of Congress. The President enters, walking past the Democrat section. There was much bonhomie as Trump shook hands with all and sundry, taking three minutes to reach the podium. But when he started to speak, I worried that the Chamber might topple in a game of one-sided see-saw. One half, the Republicans, often stood, cheered and applauded while the other half, the Democrats, sat silent and stone-faced.

More than once, the President said he wanted to reach out to both sides of the aisle so members of Congress would unite with him in the best interests of all Americans. In this, he said precisely what his recent predecessors in the Oval Office have done. However, the reality of Congressional politics came alive when Trump announced the repeal and reform of Obamacare. The Republicans stood and roared at the prospect of some 22 million Americans, newly insured under Obamacare, losing out because Congress is too mean to care for the health of its nation’s poor.

Mr Trump promised all sorts. Vast increases in government expenditure, including a 10% hike in military spending, as well as a huge investment on infrastructure, something Obama proposed and Congressional Republicans rejected. Roads, bridges and airports are to be rebuilt at a cost of a trillion dollars. Is this an annual expenditure? Who knows? I wonder what FDR would have thought. In his first term, he tackled America’s infrastructure, but he did not pay the cost from borrowed funds.

And The Wall is getting built too. Mr Trump did not quantify the numbers of jobs that would be created through all this expenditure but his mantra was ‘American people and American materials’ to complete all the tasks. In fact, Trump promised pretty well everything except a cure for cancer within ten years!

The President mentioned that a substantial tax cut was on its way for corporations and the middle classes. We seem to be returning to Reaganomics. If there is no government surplus and if taxes are reduced, how will he pay for his programs, let alone reduce the American debt? He says his economic proposals will result in massive growth which in turn will pay for the new expenditures. For those of us old enough to recall the heady days of the 1980s, this seems Reagan-like bunk. Reagan hung on to "trickle down" even when the well ran dry.

For now, Mr Trump has an easy task. He has no record to defend yet. However, I suspect his plea for Congress to do its job and govern for all Americans will fall on deaf ears. I have little doubt that the Congressional Democrats will do their best to run Trump programs off the road, much like the Republicans did to Obama. And don't expect Congressional Republicans to lie on their backs and kick their legs. To use an American expression, Trump and his budget might well be given the bum's rush. Already the influential Southern Carolina Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, has announced Trump’s budget as “dead on arrival.”

I was relieved that Mr Trump did not take a pot shot at the Supremes, as he has at other judges. Still, I worried for them. They and the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat in the well of the Chamber almost underneath the President. At any time they might have been struck by the Pinocchio Syndrome: being hit by a liar’s growing nose. The Washington Post reported on numerous fabrications and economies with the truth in the speech, or as the administration puts it, alternative facts.

“We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials — and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.”

There is indeed a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for foreign governments but the five-year ban on lobbying does not extend to Congressional officials, nor does it apply to the lobbying of any other than the official’s former agency. Evidently, Mr Trump has weakened bans made by Presidents Obama and Bush (43), as well as reducing levels of transparency.

“We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter, and will be saving billions more dollars on contracts all across our government.”

Trump took credit for the reduced cost of the F-35 program. The Pentagon announced cost reductions of some $600 million before Trump began his meetings with Lockheed.

By this time, I truly feared for the Supremes and the Chiefs, especially when President Pinocchio announced a real doozy. I would not have blamed them had they headed for the hills.

“Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.”

In 2016, The Bureau of Labor Statistics stated that 94.4 million Americans of sixteen years and older were not in the labor force. The Donald equated this with numbers out of work. True, there is a civilian, non-institutional American population of 254.1 million people, of which 159.7 million are in the labor force. The difference yields the 94.4 million figure. However, the US unemployment rate is 4.8%. 7.6 million are actively but unsuccessfully looking for a job. Who are the 94 million not in the labor force? According to BLS, 93 percent do not want a job at all. The 94 million consists mostly of people who are retired, students, stay-at-home parents or disabled.

So, what can one conclude? First, Trump was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Whilst his style was conciliatory, the substance of his message was “business at all costs.” Second, he had the barefaced cheek to dissemble to Congress. This shows not only disrespect but that the President still doesn’t understand that without the support of Congress, his administration will be on a treadmill with a fierce gradient. Third, America is in for a bumpy political ride as the legislative and executive branches of government clash. My money is on the folks on the Capitol Hill.

 

 

  

Trump: Four Weeks In.

On the 16^th February, President Trump announced: “I don't think there's ever been a President elected who in this short period of time has done what we've done.” After four weeks in the White House, he said "incredible progress" had been made. He had signed more than two dozen Executive Orders, as well as several Bills. He also saw most of his cabinet in place and fired his first choice National Security Adviser, as well as an acting Attorney General for defying the seven-nation travel ban. But what has President Trump actually achieved?

President Trump signed Executive Orders at a seemingly unprecedented rate, often using a photo opportunity of a President at work, yet according to The Washington Post, President Obama signed more EOs during his same first weeks in office. The contrast doesn’t stop there. On entering office, Obama had a major economic crisis to face and he dealt with it in a serious but calm manner. Trump has no major crisis. Instead, he is treating the White House as if it is a television stage for a reality star. Gold curtains as a back drop for press conferences is not a good look, unless you happen to be tacky and want to be awash with the colour.

I have two particular issues that concern me. First, the American media. It chooses to analyse Trump the man, rather than the policies he is espousing. Some American newspapers are even providing a mental picture of the new President. ‘Experts’ trot out their views on the demonic and megalomaniac nature of the new man in the White House. I have to ask, have any of these experts examined him? Indeed, have any even spoken to him? I must conclude this is a media exercise of form over substance. Forget the body language and focus on the policies!

Having said this, in the administration’s first few days, Trump acted as if he was back on The Apprentice. ‘Look at me, look at what I’m doing, look at what I’m signing,’ seemed to be the desired message, followed by “you’re fired” when his NSA adviser, Michael Flynn, admitted lying to VP Pence over discussions with the Russians.

Where US relations with Russia are concerned, the American press is on a witch hunt. Did Trump know Flynn had talked to Putin's people about sanctions before the Inauguration? The D.C. media went into "shock horror" mode, but apparently forgot what Nixon allegedly did shortly before the 1968 election. He had a message sent to North Vietnamese leaders not to agree a peace deal with the Johnson administration because better terms would be on offer from him once he was elected. So, I feel the press itself has some questions to answer about its lack of balance on US/Russia reportage.

What of America's relations with NATO and Israel? Is it wrong for the Americans to tell its NATO partners to pay their fair share? Trump may not succeed but it's worth a try. As for peace in Israel, raising the proposition that a two state solution is off the table seems to me to be disingenuous. Is Trump trying to divide and rule in the Middle East, setting Iran against its neighbours? I suspect the policy will fail but there is no suggestion yet that Trump is embarked on a Middle East venture with all guns blazing. Yet the American press paints a different and adverse picture of Trump’s policy, criticizing him for overturning and terminating peace initiatives and alienating Palestinians in an effort to heat up the Middle East.

In previous blogs, I have alluded to parallels between the Trump and FDR administrations. However, where relations with the press are concerned, you could not find a greater difference. FDR operated on the premise that you catch more flies with honey. He knew he needed the newspapers to support his radical economic policies. He courted reporters, provided a press room in the White House and reaped the benefit. Trump’s declaration of war on the Fake News Media, even as he peddles it, will surely rebound. If he forgets or fights against the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the Chief Executive and the media, he will surely regret it.

My second issue is the apparent lack of understanding in the many Brits I talk with as to how America government works. I am told that Trump is a braggart, a self-obsessed, thin skinned man with a short attention-span who “lies like a hairy egg.” But I am weary with being asked how Americans could elect such a person. Can ‘the most powerful man in the world’ be this way? My answer is to point to the American Constitution. America handles separation of powers differently to the British. The President is not in any way like a British Prime Minister. When Presidential authority is analysed, he may be Commander in Chief but what are his other powers? He cannot declare war nor even appoint cabinet members, ambassadors or judges unless the Senate “advises and consents.” 

I suggest that currently, the most powerful man in D.C. is Paul Ryan. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ryan decides on passage of legislation through the House and particularly he controls the path of money bills. Trump will not be able to buy one brick for his acclaimed Mexican Wall unless Ryan gets his House colleagues to give the thumbs up.

The new administration appears to be chaotic. Numerous Presidencies have been shambolic from the get-go. Take a look at the first weeks of the Carter and Clinton administrations. At the latter's first State of the Union, he reneged on a middle class tax cut, saying, "you play the cards you're dealt." Effectively, Wall Street had given the finger to Clinton, telling him the tax cut would create an economic disaster.

Putting a new US government together is a gargantuan and difficult task, which is why most Presidents get a honeymoon period from the press. In 1952, America elected its first non-political President since Grant in 1868. Ike was a professional soldier but he had held positions of enormous power in the military, requiring political savvy and the press loved him. For sure, he knew his way around Washington. Now, America has a businessman, Donald J. Trump. No honeymoon period for him. His refusal to disclose tax returns must give cause to doubt his business dealings, let alone his honesty. But his political sensibilities are the real cause for concern. Does he really expect conflict of interest issues to go away? How does he expect to govern with a hostile media looking at his every move?

And Trump likes to equate all his actions with combative business deals. Having seen Congress repeal an Obama EO on gun registration for people with mental problems, what kind of deal is that? Also, the administration has withdrawn a federal guideline requiring transgender students to have unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity. In doing so, it has signalled that the administration does not interpret current federal civil rights protections as prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

This is not just a Trump thing. It is 21^st century Republican ideology which opposes not only any restriction on 2^nd Amendment rights but also LGBT. It suspect it will not be long before new federal restrictions on abortion come front and centre. I find it particularly distressing that Trump referred to “a so-called judge” when the seven nation Muslim ban EO was ruled unlawful. At the end of the day, seeing the executive branch of American government attack the legislative branch serves to undermine the rule of law on which western democracy is based. 

But should we Brits not get a better understanding how the executive branch government is often subservient not only to both Houses of Congress and the Courts but also the voters? In the 2018 mid-terms Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress may shrink and even disappear. The Constitution is based strictly on the doctrine of separation of powers and woe betide any President who seeks to contravene the rules. In 1937, FDR sought to pack a hostile Supreme Court bench with judges who would be more accommodating. An overwhelming Democratic Congress threw out the proposal in short shrift.

Let me be clear. I don't like Trump's politics, his style or pretty well anything else about him for that matter. I didn't vote for him, nor did any other Brits. To an extent, his election is none of our business. But the man in the White House could damage British interests with his overt ‘America First’ policy. It doubt it will do us on this side of the pond any good if our Prime Minister continues to fawn over Mr Trump.

The Deadly Variables

 

The late British Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, when asked what he feared most politically, allegedly replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” I am not sure I would have agreed with him. Instead, I would have turned to the Greek legend of Achilles, which holds that he was dipped into the river Styx by his mother in order to make him invulnerable. His heel wasn't covered by the water and he died from an arrow wound to his heel. For me, the Achilles heel of politics is variables, the “what ifs” which, if not properly and fully explored and planned for, can bite you in the bum, never mind the heel.

The best recent example of a variable ignored is “Brexit.” Ex-Prime Minister Cameron, agreed to a referendum on the European Community, believing it would result in a strong Remain vote. Allegedly, he ordered the Civil Service not to waste time planning for a Leave vote. Some eight months after the referendum, the UK government remains in disarray, struggling to find a way through the intensely dangerous mine field of Brexit.

In America, the new President is wielding a broad sword as he wades into government. He is ruling by one Executive Order after another, seemingly in the belief that he is supreme and need not consider the legality of his actions. But he has come up against “an event,” in the guise of a federal judge who has told the Trump administration that the travel ban on Muslims seeking to travel to USA from specified countries is prima facie unlawful and will be stayed. The Federal Court of Appeal has refused an application by the administration to lift the stay. There was a full hearing yesterday. At the time of writing this Blog, the Appeals Court has reached no decision. Regardless of the ruling, the issue will not be resolved for weeks if not months, as the case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court.

I doubt Trump considered there was even a variable. He seems to follow the dictum of Richard Nixon who, in the Frost/Nixon interviews, told David Frost that “the law is what the President says it is.” I have no doubt that in the months before the election, Trump told his billionaire friends that once he was in the White House, he would knock America into shape. What is it that makes Republican Presidents believe that being harsh and uncompromising equates with being smart? George W Bush bombed sand in Afghanistan as he embarked on the War Against Terror, something no longer mentioned. Ronald Reagan lied to Congress and the American public over the Iran/Contra affair, backing “freedom fighters” along the way.

 

In case you believe I am biased, I can point to one of the greatest Democratic Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, who, in his first 100 days in office, ran roughshod over the American Constitution. Numerous government Bills and Executive Orders, such as the grant of monopolies and price controls, habitually offended the doctrine of Separation of Powers. It took two years for the Supreme Court to hear appeals and effectively destroy the First New Deal. Perhaps what is not so well known is that FDR’s Attorney General Joseph Jackson, the same man who prosecuted at Nuremberg, advised FDR and his cabinet that the New Deal laws were unlawful. The administration took a chance on the programs standing because they believed the country was in dire straits, much like Trump & Co seem to believe today.

 

I have to say I don’t “get” Republican Presidents. Reagan took offence at the partitioning of Berlin and constantly told the Russians, “tear down that wall.” Now Trump takes offence at Mexico and Mexicans who come into America as illegals but who keep the produce economy of America going. He has told them, “We will build a wall, a beautiful wall.” I for one would appreciate more consistency.

I’m turning to another matter which may cause Trump trouble. The President’s nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, Neil Gorsuch, may find his confirmation hearings hazardous because the Senate Republicans may not have thought through the variables. I should say I know very little about Justice Gorsuch, therefore I shall not offer a view about his likely rulings if he is confirmed to the Court.

Usually, a candidate is carefully scrutinised by the White House before nomination. Gorsuch has received the usual Presidential accolades, telling the public he is “totally qualified” for the Bench. But don’t forget George W. Bush told the American public the same thing when he tried to get his family lawyer, Harriet Miers, onto the Supreme Court.

Gorsuch has been making the rounds of Capitol Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee examines him in public. Assuming he passes, he will be the subject of a confirmation vote by the full Senate, where the Republicans hold a 52/48 majority. Thus Gorsuch’s nomination looks likely to succeed. What could prevent it? If the Judiciary Committee hearings disclose something seriously adverse, for example that Justice Gorsuch had an extra-marital affair, the nomination would probably fail. But this kind of disclosure is highly unlikely.

To defeat the nomination, the Senate Democrats will have to mount a filibuster and talk the nomination out. To defeat a filibuster, a cloture vote of 60 Senators is needed. Could the Republicans find eight Senate Democrats to cross the aisle? Doubtful, so will the Republicans activate what the media calls “the nuclear option,” changing Senate rules outlawing the filibuster and allowing instead a simple majority vote on the Senate floor to confirm the nomination? Such a change of rules could set a disastrous precedent because it would open the way for justices with extreme views, left and right, onto the high court. 

There is Republican chutzpah afoot. The Senate Republicans blocked an Obama hopeful, Merrick Garland, from a seat on the Court because, they said, the vacancy occurred in Obama’s last year in office and the seat should be filled by the new President and Senate. Now, Vice-President Pence says the vote must be allowed because the voice of the people would otherwise be denied. Talk about double standards.

Wise heads say Senate Republicans will not have to change the rules to get rid of the filibuster because the Democrats will not fight. Instead, they will give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.  It is not that the Democrats do not have the spine to filibuster, although some suggest Democrats lack the will to fight as hard as the Republicans. It is concern for the future which will stop them. They will want to keep their filibuster powder dry because two Democratic-leaning Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer, are elderly and nearing the end of their terms of office. Two vacancies might occur during Trump’s incumbency and it may be better for the Senate Democrats to run away and fight another day. There is also the variable of the mid-term Senate election in 2018.

Like I said, in politics it’s the variables that will get you. President Trump must recognise he presides over a nation of laws, that Executive Orders are the weakest form of law and that he needs to work with Congress and be more respectful of the Supreme Court and lower court judges if he wants his program to get anywhere. If he fails to heed this lesson, keeps making references to “so-called judges” and expects members of Congress to do his bidding as they doff their caps, he is in for a rude awakening.

 

I will be taking a short break and will blog again at the end of the month.

Barack Obama: Reflections on a Presidency.

Arguably, the cruellest aspect of politics is that once a leader has left office, neither the media nor the public he or she has served want to know or care. Since the recent Inauguration, it has been Trump, Trump, Trump – no surprise there – and the Obamas might as well not have existed.

The question is being asked, did the Obama administration leave a legacy? Will President Obama be remembered and, if so, for what?  He inherited an economic Armageddon but handed over America with a much stronger balance sheet and the car industry restored to life and health. However, failure to tackle the multi-trillion dollar debt must leave an area of concern. “Kicking the can down the road” was practiced by both the executive and legislative branches of government. 

Mr Obama’s flagship legislation, the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, is in danger of being shredded by Trump and his friends but even the doubting Republicans must acknowledge that 20 million more Americans now enjoy healthcare insurance and peace of mind about paying for their health needs.

American foreign policy since 2009 is open to criticism but President Obama was not one to commit American lives by sending ground troops to hot spots without an exit strategy. Mothers of those who served in the armed forces during his Presidency owe him a debt for keeping their sons and daughters as safe as possible. However, the use of drones must be open to question, especially when “collateral damage” has occurred.

Days before the Obama presidency ended, the President was interviewed on 60 Minutes when he said: “I’m proud of the fact that, with two weeks to go, we’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.”

Was the administration indeed scandal free? Of course, “scandal” is in the eye of beholder. President Obama certainly had his share of controversies. What of the hesitant handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Was the handling of the Benghazi attack scandalous? The Benghazi Congressional probes showed serious errors in security arrangements prior to the attack. It was the White House spin after the attack which uncovered the private e-mail server used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Long waiting times at Veterans Affairs hospitals, disclosed in 2014, led to the resignation of the Secretary of Veteran Affairs. I am not aware of any other Obama cabinet official to resign under pressure. In 2012, CIA Director David Petraeus resigned but he was not of cabinet rank and it was for personal reasons, an extramarital affair.

I have compared these comparatively minor issues with recent previous administration scandals. Starting with the George W. Bush administration, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice relating to the outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. Libby’s action, probably Cheney inspired, was revenge for Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, disclosing a serious flaw in the Bush administration’s nuclear policy. Lives of many CIA informers were put in jeopardy as a result of Libby’s action. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence but did not pardon him. Bush and Cheney were also at the heart of the policy to water-board Iraqi suspects. This was tantamount to torture.

President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate. Clinton faced long-running probes concerning a property investment known as ‘Whitewater,’ leading to a perjury case involving Monica Lewinsky. Independent prosecutors appointed during Clinton’s tenure probed Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy who was acquitted and won the conviction of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros

The presidency of George H. W. Bush was relatively scandal-free, though Catalina Villalpando, a U.S. Treasurer, pleaded guilty in 1994 to evading federal income taxes, obstructing an independent counsel’s corruption investigation and conspiring to conceal financial links with her former company while in office. An independent counsel was also appointed to look into allegations that Bush administration officials looked at Clinton’s passport records, but no criminal violations were found.

There were numerous criminal probes of personnel during the Reagan presidency. The Iran-Contra affair led to indictments of Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger, National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser John Poindexter and numerous other officials. Many were pardoned by Bush or had their convictions overturned. That Reagan himself avoided impeachment is often a cause of amazement. A scandal over defence contracts forced Attorney General Edwin Meese to resign. There was also a successful fraud investigation over HUD contracts.

President Jimmy Carter’s Budget Director, Bert Lance, resigned amid allegations of misuse of funds in a bank sale that predated his government service but he was later acquitted. Under Gerald Ford, Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz resigned over racist remarks. Will Mr Trump and his senior executives be subject to the same strictures?

Finally, the Nixon Presidency ended in resignation over the Watergate affair, as well as the conviction of numerous White House aides in arguably the biggest political scandal of the 20^th century which paralyzed the American government for two years.

So when it comes to scandal, President Obama stands well in comparison to his predecessors. And there is much of his Presidency which deserves applause. He showed that a black Chief Executive could govern for all people, black or white, young and old, Christian, Jew or Muslim. Racist attackers were confronted. When handcuffed by Congress, especially on gun control, he was measured and reasoned in response, although you could see anger and frustration in his eyes, especially when he had to cope with mass murders of schoolchildren. I hope Mr Trump will live to rue his mean-spirited and self-serving attacks on the achievements of his predecessor.

More than anything else, after a long absence since the 1950s, President and Mrs Obama brought back a strong sense of dignity and grace to the White House, as well as perseverance, common sense, decency and humour based on self-deprecation. I am saddened that this good man has left public life, at least for the time being. He certainly fulfilled my idea of “presidential.”