Government God

The Buffalo Springfield, circa 1966 :There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

There is something going on, probably not exclusively in Pennsylvania.

Voters of the State of Pennsylvania, after twice voting for Barack Obama for President, rejected (the slightly more religious) Hillary Clinton while opting for Donald J. Trump. Oddly (or appropriately), then, (state) Representative Stephanie Borowicz, forced-birth extremist (quelle surprise!)

was on the ninth “Jesus” of her opening prayer in the Pennsylvania statehouse when other lawmakers started to look uncomfortable.

Speaker Mike Turzai, a fellow Republican, glanced up — but Borowicz carried on, delivering a 100-second ceremonial invocation that some of her colleagues decried as an offensive, divisive and Islamophobic display shortly before the legislature swore in its first Muslim woman.

“God forgive us — Jesus — we’ve lost sight of you, we’ve forgotten you, God, in our country, and we’re asking you to forgive us,” Borowicz said, followed by a quote from the Bible’s second book of Chronicles that implores God’s followers to “turn from their wicked ways.” Then she praised President Trump for his unequivocal support of Israel.

“I claim all these things in the powerful, mighty name of Jesus, the one who, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are Lord, in Jesus’ name,” Borowicz said.

By the time she said “Amen,” Borowicz had invoked Jesus 13 times, deploying the name between prayerful clauses as though it were a comma. She mentioned “Lord” and “God” another six times each and referenced “The Great I Am” and “the one who’s coming back again, the one who came, died and rose again on the third day.”

You are outraged, as you should be, and as many of her fellow legislators were:

As the prayer reached a crescendo, at least one member shouted objections. Turzai, standing behind her, looked up again and nudged her elbow, prompting her to quickly conclude the address. Afterward, the protests only grew louder.

“It blatantly represented the Islamophobia that exists among some leaders — leaders that are supposed to represent the people,” Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell, the newly sworn-in Democrat who is Muslim, told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Monday. “I came to the Capitol to help build bipartisanship and collaborations regardless of race or religion to enhance the quality of life for everyone in the Commonwealth.”

Though not technically "Islamaphobic"- a phobia is a fear- the prayer was an intended rebuke of Islam at a public gathering and intended to offend many people, especially Johnson-Harrell.  We learn that Borowicz's prayer provoked an interesting reaction: 

Johnson-Harrell won a special election earlier this month to fill a seat vacated by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown, who had been re-elected in November after being convicted of bribery. Johnson-Harrell's swearing-in drew 55 guests, a majority of them Muslim. A Muslim prayer was said from the House dais during the ceremony....

Another Muslim lawmaker, Rep. Jason Dawkins, D-Philadelphia, opened the session on Tuesday by reading from the Quran. His invocation was followed by applause.

We have a problem, Harrisburg.  Atheist Deana Weaver already has delivered the invocation/prayer in the state Senate twice but Assembly Speaker Mike

Turzai has blocked atheists from delivering the opening prayer in the chamber, a matter currently tied up in federal court. Last year, when the House lost in federal court – it has appealed – Turzai went to great measures to block nonbelievers from delivering the invocation, abandoning the use of guest chaplains and allowing House members to deliver the opening prayer.

This would have been a great big clue for Turzai, were he not so politically correct as to ignore it. The prayer in these circumstances is anachronistic and should be retired.

The prayer should be eliminated not only because it's obviously an establishment of religion, whatever a court might say.  It need not be eliminated only because there will be an increasing number of Muslims performing, which would offend not only the likes of Borowicz and other narrow-minded Christians, but also open-minded believing Christians.

But it should be excised because it is in fact becoming a performance.  Presumably both Borowicz and Dawkins are sincere in their beliefs, devoted to their religion, usually referred to in polite company as faith.

While a prayer is not technically a performance, it might as well be, when such invocations of "faith" are increasingly cheered, as in "his invocation was met with applause."

Elimination of the "invocation," as it is euphemistically described, would not require elimination of the communal expression of religious faith among lawmakers upon the occasion of a government meeting or other event. 

They could follow the lead of National Football League players, some of whom upon completion of a game swiftly and voluntarily, meet on the field, kneel, and very briefly pray. Public officials could meet either before or after the event, praying as they wish, in combination with or apart from  Christians, Jews, Muslims, members of any other religion, or even as New Age spirit worshipers.

In fact, they already can do so, yet another indication that a public prayer at a government gathering is, in pertinent part, largely a performance.

Blogger's note in the interests of full disclosure: upon request, I once delivered a prayer at the opening of a municipal council meeting. By choice, it was- other than reference to "Father" (a term typically invoked only by Christians)- completely monotheistic and non-sectarian. (Thankfully, no applause.)

Share |

Et Tu, CNN?

William Barr sent a 3 1/2 page alleged summary of the Special Counsel's report to the chairpersons and ranking members of the Senate and the House Judiciary committees on March 24, and the "liberal media" reacted as should have been expected.

The New York Times, though otherwise relatively objective, claimed "the investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government's 2016 election interference."

Politico Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris, on March 27 practicing worse than bothsiderism, lamented "We can’t all seem to agree that it’s a good thing the president didn’t conspire with Russia, nor can we all admit that the Kremlin may have helped elect Trump."

Of course, the President didn't conspire with Russia- but the Kremlin may have helped elected Donald Trump. (And the President at that time was Barack Obama.)

 CNBC's headline of March 24 read "Trump did not collude with Russia, says Mueller, and is cleared of obstruction by the attorney general."

The only problems here are that

1) Barr cleared the campaign of having committed an "obstruction-of-justice" offense not because Donald Trump was found by Mueller not to have obstructed justice. Instead, Barr rationalized, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an underlying crime had been committed, in part because corrupt intent is unlikely when the obstruction took place in public view.

2) Even Barr does not claim that Mueller stated that Trump did not collude with Russia, but rather "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated...." Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

3) Barr carefully referred to the "Russian government" and "Russia," never addressing "Russian actors" or "Russians."  Given that Vladimir Putin's power and influence extend well beyond government officials, that is a significant, if not telling, distinction.

But the worst mangling of the findings came from Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb- not members of an editorial board, columnists, or analysts- but reporters at CNN.

 "Democrats' past statements on Trump and Russia are facing new scrutiny," they maintain, though the only scrutinizers cited are the "Trump campaign." They claim "Special counsel Robert Mueller found that no one in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in 2016," though even Barr chose to claim only that Mueller "did not find" collusion" rather than stating definitively that no one conspired.

Although a determination is "the resolving of a question by argument or reasoning"- and the question has not been resolved- the reporters complain Democrats refuse to believe the "determination" that no collusion transpired. Barr invoked a less definitive "did not establish" for a reason.

Raju and Herb believe Democrats "demanding the full release of the Mueller report" and promising to "continue investigating ties between Trump  and Russia" is a strategy which "risks political backlash for Democrats "if they are viewed as overreaching and probing into an area that has already been exhaustively investigated..."

There is no acknowledgement of (overwhelming) public supportfor release of the report nor of the implied constitutional obligation ofCongress to render oversight of the Executive branch.

This was not Breitbart, Fox News, or even the Washington Examiner. It was CNN, periodically cited by Donald Trump as "fake news." As a former Vermont governor notes

I confess to being disgusted with the American media in general. Just heard again in NPR that “the Mueller report cleared President Trump”. No one in the American media has read the Mueller Report.

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) March 26, 2019

Share |

Russia's Bitch

It's just a thought, an out-of-the-box thought or, as the less generous would put it, eccentric and even a little bizarre. It is prompted by Bill Scher's argument that

By not alleging any illegal collusion, Mueller has liberated Democrats from chasing the impeachment unicorn, which was always a political loser and a substantive dead end. If the Democratic House ever impeached, the Republican Senate was never going to convict, and may not have even held a trial. Impeachment had appeal only to the Democratic base, while doing little for the voters in swing areas who just delivered Democrats the House majority and hold the key to retaking the White House.

Again and again, during the decades since Watergate, opposition parties have tried and failed to exploit scandals for electoral gain....

In all of those cases, regardless of the severity and accuracy of the charges, voters proved less interested in presidential scandals than presidential job performance, especially on the economy. Conversely, when the opposing party parades its investigative zeal, it can look more interested in scoring political points than governing....

Today, Trump barely has a legislative agenda. In turn, Democrats have the opportunity to further the narrative that Trump is a threat to sustainable economic growth, middle-class prosperity and global stability.

It's not an either-or choice, though, especially given that President Trump presents a threat to global stability precisely because of his ties to Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Democrats obviously must emphasize important issues such as health care, immigration, the hollowing-out of the economy, and potential cuts to earned benefits. However, they can address "Russiagate" in the context of a failed presidency.

Richard Painter:

The President’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, top national security advisor, personal lawyer and fixer, and even the “coffee boy”, all convicted of felonies. Roger Stone arrested and indicted. And @PressSec calls that vindication?
Is she high, or does she just lie?

— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) March 26, 2019

The President’s campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, top national security advisor, personal lawyer and fixer, and even the “coffee boy”, all convicted of felonies. Roger Stone arrested and indicted. And @PressSec calls that vindication?

Is she high, or does she just lie?

Imagine that prior to the 2016 election we had been told that six individuals associated with the candidate- whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton- elected President would be convicted of felonies (as Stone probably will be). We would conclude that the President is either a really corrupt person or an incompetent leader.

If neither President Trump nor his campaign colluded with the Kremlin- as Attorney General Barr suggests Mueller has found- there nonetheless was a profound, ultimately successful, effort by the Kremlin to turn an American election. It was done, in the unlikely effort we are not being snookered, without the Trump campaign and the candidate sufficiently able and strong to resist it.

That is the hallmark of a president who, because his dishonesty and outrageous tweets have distracted us, has been a very weak President. 

He finds it difficult to fire people, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, John Kelly, and Jeff Sessions being among those who left the Administration well after their expiration date. James Comey was fired while visiting an FBI field office, and without hearing from the President himself. Trump further

has revealed a weakness that is unprecedented in recent history. The president of the United States is now repeatedly ignored and rebuffed by his own staff, party, and the rest of the federal government. Trump declared the U.S. was leaving Syria, and now hundreds of troops are staying. When he demanded his fellow Republicans prioritize the border wall, they instead pursued tax cuts and health care repeal. Trump can’t even get the military to hold the authoritarian-style parade he’s long demanded.

"Being Saudi Arabia's bitch," Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has pointed out, "is not America First.'"

Still, there persists the image of Trump the Winner and Trump the Man of Strength.  Reminding the electorate that indictments and convictions proceeded because of a foreign conspiracy that took place right underneath Donald Trump's notice might go a long way toward shattering the facade.

Share |

Trump Knew What He Had In Barr

On Wednesday, two days before Robert Mueller gave Attorney General William Barr the report on collusion by Russia in the 2016 election cycle

President Donald Trump said he believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s report should be released to the public, even as he disparaged its very existence as “ridiculous.”

“Let it come out, let people see it,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “Let’s see whether or not it’s legit"...

Trump said he was personally looking forward to reading the findings, even as he scorned the fact that Mueller was empowered to write the report in the first place.

“I just won one of the greatest elections of all time in the history of this country. ... And now I have somebody writing a report that never got a vote?” Trump said. “It’s called the Mueller report. So explain that because my voters don’t get it. And I don’t get it.”

Now that Barr has given his spin on the Special Counsel's report, Trump has stated of its release "It's up to the Attorney General. It wouldn't bother me at all."

But don't be fooled (and if you're reading this blog, you rarely are).  Mary Ann MacLeod Trump may have raised a crook, sexual predator, and coward, but she didn't raise a fool.  In 2017, as a private attorney and former Bush 43 Attorney General, Mueller staunchly defended President Trump's decision to fire FBI director William Comey. The following year, he wrote that the Special Counsel's inquiry into obstruction of justice was "fatally flawed" and

Mueller should not be able to demand that the President submit to an interrogation about alleged obstruction. If embraced by the Department, this theory would have potentially disastrous implications, not just for the Presidency, but for the Executive branch as a whole and the Department in particular.

Cagey Trump knew what he was getting in William Barr. Thus, when Trump says he would not be bothered by release of the Mueller report, he does so with a nod and a wink.

The President knows there can be so many redactions that the report is blacked out to near irrelevance.  So it was with the eventual release of the "28 pages," previously classified, of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into alleged Saudi involvement in the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. The "pages" came out, but with more than 140 redactions and tens of thousands of documents still classified.

There is a reason 193 of the Republicans in the House of Representatives joined last week with their Democratic colleagues to call for release of the Special Counsel's report.  There is release, and there is release, and the likelihood that Trump's man at the Justice Department is going to allow the public to see all the evidence accumulated by Robert Mueller's team against Donald Trump's inner circle is minimal.

Share |

English Translator Needed

Attorney General William Barr has sent to the chairperson and ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary committees a letter summarizing Robert Mueller's report. Malcolm Nance, conceding error, gets down to brass tacks:

Maybe I was wrong when I said “There is no way [Barr] will commit he greatest scandal in history to coverup the greatest scandal in history.” It looks like it just happened. #MuellerReport https://t.co/PZvLsLWcjl

— Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) March 24, 2019

Oh, yes. The apparent cover up, or attempt thereof, has begun.with the money quote

The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

"The Russian government" herein presumably means the Russian government de jure- Vladimir Putin and other officials with a title- rather than de facto. Russian plutocrats, operating only with President Putin's approval and many of them closely connected with Putin, are not officially part of the "Russian government." David Cay Johnston notes

May turn out to be very significant that AGBarr's letter refers to Russian "government," but not to Vladimir's gang of oligarchs?

Legally the oligarchs are not the Kremlin, but they are Putin's useful tools for undermining democracy.

— David Cay Johnston (@DavidCayJ) March 24, 2019

Aside from Nance, Johnston, and a few others, the response to this critical sentence has been pitiful, and telling. We expect President Trump, who tweeted "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!," to lie. Ditto Sarah Sanders, who added "The Special Counsel did not find any collusion and did not find any obstruction. AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein further determined there was no obstruction. The findings of the Department of Justice are a total and complete exoneration of the President of the United States.”

In Sunday's 5:00 p.m. hour, CNN's  lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer and Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez concluded that the investigation established that the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russian government in election interference.  This is from the network Trump most closely associates with "fake news" and attacked by the right as being anti-Trump.

Fooled also was NBC's justice correspondent, Ken Dilanian, who comments "Folks, this is a total legal exoneration of the president. Congress will want to know more, of course. But the topline: no conspiracy, no obstruction." Also fooled, almost unbelievably (in the actual meaning of the word) was the reliable Will Bunch, who responded to Dilanian with "except for the part that says he wasn't exonerated on obstruction."

Except that he wasn't exonerated even on collusion/conspiracy.

Assuming Barr's quote is accurate, Mueller did not conclude that the campaign did not coordinate with the Russian government. Mueller wrote that his people did not establish coordination. If Mueller were convinced, or the investigation had concluded, that the campaign did not conspire or coordinate he would have said so. Instead, he maintained that the Special Counsel's Office did not establish....

Of the many people who don't understand English, that "did not establish" does not mean "established that it didn't," are: a great, liberal/progressive journalist; at CNN, derided by hopelessly left-wing and "fake news":  a multi-millionaire news anchor taking down a multi-million dollar salary and a justice correspondent: and at NBC/MSNBC, another part of the alleged "liberal media," a justice correspondent.

The evening is young and there is plenty of time to reinforce what President Trump wants us to believe Mueller wrote rather than what he evidently did.  Surely there are many other men and women in journalism who do not understand the English language and hence serve as foils for Donald J. Trump. This does not bode well for America or its representative democracy.

Share |

No Time For Neutrality

On Thursday, Joy Behar asked her fellow panelists (co-hosts? conversationalists?) on The View

... and his claim about having to "approve" the McCain funeral is a flat-out lie. I'm glad the crowd stayed pretty silent. You'll notice they weren't screaming and giving him support like they usually do.But why are so many Republicans silent about this, too?why are these cowards siding with a draft dodger over a war hero?

It's a good question, though largely a rhetorical one because we know why GOP politicians are silent about this, as they are about virtually every Trump evil: the President's endorsement is gold in a Repub primary, his opposition a lump of coal. They are intimidated by him, and most of them will consistently choose personal ambition over country.

As expected, each individual (Navarro, Hostin, Huntsman, and  Behar) on ABC's program criticized Trump's attacks against the McCain family, with Meghan McCain stating "there's a lot of power on this show" (actually, influence, but whatever).

Even a church, albeit the renowned Washington National Cathedral,stepped up:

The National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. clapped back at President Donald Trump Thursday, with a spokesman clarifying that no funerals held there, including the late Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ), require the approval of a President.

“Washington National Cathedral was honored to host the funeral service for Senator John McCain. All funerals and memorial services at the Cathedral are organized by the family of the deceased; only a state funeral for a former President involves consultation with government officials,” said Chief Communications Officer Kevin Eckstrom in a statement. “No funeral at the Cathedral requires the approval of the President or any other government official.”

 Trump took credit for giving McCain the “funeral he wanted” during a speech on Wednesday, proceeding to complain that he wasn’t thanked for the ceremony.

There is, however, one major institution which so far has punted on the controversy. That would be the United States Congress- and not only its Republicans.

When Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) recently let her anti-Semitic flag show, House Democrats responded, albeit with a resolution which condemned hatred across-the-board rather than by addressing the sentiment which forced their hand. When Representative Steve King (R-IA) endorsed white nationalism, he was taken off House committees by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

But President Trump has remained completely unscathed, as he usually does, in this latest display of the Trump signature combination of anger, self-congratulation and dishonesty.

This should not stand. There is little the United States Congress can do, yet there is a little. The Senate, controlled by the GOP, will do as it invariably has. It will do nothing, and only one individual Republican senator has denounced Trump's remarks.

It is, therefore, up to the House of Representatives to take action, if only symbolic. A motion of disapproval can be placed on the House floor, presumably by a Democratic Representative.  It is wise politically, in part because it paints Republicans in a corner. They would be faced with a Hobson's Choice, either to vote in favor, thereby antagonizing the President- or vote in opposition, thereby laying bare their preference for party over country.

However, it's also simply the right thing to do.  Defending John McCain does not require a positive assessment of everything he did, nor even concluding that the good outweighed the bad. Donald Trump understands. He attacked McCain for his service record, standing for principle in opposing repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and for handing the Steele dossier (as any loyal American would have) over to the FBI.

Saving health care for a few million Americans, demonstrating exceptional courage in wartime, and informing law enforcement of a security threat to the nation are reasons to defend John McCain, especially in death. If the National Cathedral and the women of The View can slap back at President Trump, so, too, can Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Share |

Forever Strong And Wrong

Host Nicole Wallace posed an excellent question (at approximately 5:52 of the video here) on Wednesday's Deadline: White House,. Discussing President Trump's recent tweets about the late John McCain, she asked "why isn't there a political price to pay for being a wuss?"

The President pays no political price for being a "wuss" because he doesn't seem to be a wuss. Looked at objectively, of course, he is weak; but rationality and objectivity often are thwarted by subjective impression.  Among the reasons that Donald Trump has been able to convey the image of strength rather than being recognized as a "wuss" are:

1) Trump's praise frequently emphasizes strength. The President described Putin as "very, very strong" after the two spoke together and and Trump has said admiringly that Putin "has very strong control" over Russia. Kim JongUn "is the head of a country and I mean he is the strong head."  In regard to Egyptian strongman el-Sisi, "the United States has, believe me, backing, and we have strong backing." It's part of the reason that Trump recently warned "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.'

2) Trump's criticism often pertains to weakness, as when Senator Graham in January 2016 endorsed John Edward Bush ("JEB") and Trump responded in part "His thinking. He says, ‘I know so much.’ He knows about the military? I could push him over with a little thimble.”  More famous was Trump remarking, while campaigning the previous summer for the Iowa primary "He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” The implicit message: "John McCain is a loser. I like winners like myself."

3) Trump is big. He is 6'3" and not skinny, and is an imposing figure physically. (Supporters of Pete Buttigieg, take notice.)  Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41, and Obama all have been tall. George W. Bush was short- but with his swagger knew how to wear a flak suit far more effectively than, say, Michael Dukakis knew how to sit in a tank.

Having died, John McCain has (in the common phrasing) "lost his life." He cannot defend himself just as none of us will be able to once we have lost our lives. For a weak man whose popularity is founded on an appearance of strength, there can be no more inviting target than an individual who cannot defend himself.

Donald Trump realizes his best strategy is to punch down, and in so doing he not only demeans the late Arizona senator, but reinforces a facade of strength. For America's finest actor- perhaps ever- it his his greatest role.

Share |