Friday, May 8, 2020

"Michael Flynn and the FBI"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day
“Michael Flynn and the FBI”
May 8, 2020

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community –
they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
                                                                                                Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
                                                                                                Tuesday, January 3, 2017
                                                                                                MSNBC

On November 19, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg to help consecrate a portion of that battlefield as a new cemetery. He spoke of the government, conceived in liberty, that had been formed eighty-seven years prior, a government in which people are the ultimate power – a government comprised of the people’s elected representatives and the appointees those representatives make; he spoke of the laws and regulations that are made by those elected representatives, and he emphasized that this government is for the people, to ensure the protection of their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Such a government, Lincoln understood, is rare. It relies on trust that those who labor within it work for the people, not for a party, a cabal or an individual. Once that trust is gone, the fragile edifice that comprises democracy crumbles. The Michael Flynn story is one of government servants subverting their role. No matter one’s political affiliation, the story of what happened to General Michael Flynn should frighten any lover of freedom and democracy.

This story has been ably told by Andrew McCarthy in National Review, Kimberly Strassel in The Wall Street Journal and others, but its consequences are worth considering again, as it unravels. On May 1, Ms. Strassel wrote: “…evidence of law enforcement’s abuse keeps emerging in dribs and drabs. To grasp the outrageous conduct fully, the Flynn documents need to be added to what we already know.” Establishment Washington could not believe that the people had elected Mr. Trump – this allegedly insensitive deal maker, a man who speaks frankly and crudely to and about his political opponents. He was demonized as authoritarian. He was an outsider. He had never served in government, nor in the military. He was a television star, famous for saying, “You’re fired!” In a country where leadership had too often descended into elitism, arrogance and hypocrisy, the mercurial Mr. Trump arrived as a disruptor.

To Washington’s establishment, Mr. Trump was naive. He is smart and shrewd, but the intelligence community is a different milieu, as Senator Schumer observed to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. “He was not,” as Andrew McCarthy wrote on May 2, “supported by the Republican foreign-policy and national-security clerisy, which he had gone out of his way to antagonize during the campaign.”

On November 17, 2016, a few days after the election, the newly elected President named General Michael Flynn to be National Security Administration (NSA) chief. The three-star retired General had served in military intelligence since the 9/11 attacks. In 2012, he was named director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the Obama Administration. General Flynn was a scrappy, outspoken officer who at times clashed with subordinates and superiors. Critical of Mr. Obama’s Middle East policies, he was asked to leave in 2014. But he knew how intelligence agencies worked, which is why Donald Trump tapped him as NSA chief, and which was also why his political enemies wanted him out.

The “what” of what happened to Michael Flynn is clear – that the FBI set a perjury trap based on a meeting he, as newly named NSA chief, had had with the Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, a conversation that the FBI had taped, so knew his conversation and knew he had said nothing wrong. In January 2017, the FBI “interviewed” Mr. Flynn, without telling him his rights or without a lawyer present – in fact, telling him one was unnecessary. However, handwritten notes from Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Division from 2015-2018, disclosed two weeks ago, made clear that the FBI “engineered” the “crime:” “What is our goal? Truth/Admissions, or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Without a lawyer present, they got him to contradict some of what he had said earlier to the Russian Ambassador. They got him fired.

The “why” is the question that concerned Andrew McCarthy and which he addressed in his May 2 essay in National Review. The Obama Administration had had a Trump-Russia collusion investigation underway for several months. And the FBI and former members of the Obama Administration wanted it continued after the election. Michael Flynn stood in the way. A new Administration might discover how the intelligence agencies had been weaponized against domestic political enemies. And General Flynn would see what had been done. As well, he was despised by the hubristic James Comey. The latter feared Flynn would hamper the FBI’s ongoing investigation into their contrived story – that Mr. Trump had colluded with Putin about the election. The investigation culminated in Robert Mueller’s query as Special Counsel, which became a persistent and constant nuisance to the Trump Administration. The investigation took two years and consumed $35 million. It ended in finding that no role had been played by Russia in helping Mr. Trump – a conclusion obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Why would Putin want an unknown, supposedly volatile man as President when he could have a woman he had worked with, who had given him a “re-set” button, and from whom he had acquired 20% of U.S uranium deposits in the Uranium One deal? The accusation never made sense. (My guess is that Putin was most interested in sowing seeds of suspicion and doubt about our electoral process. In that, he succeeded.)

However, because of the FBI’s entrapment, General Flynn’s days at NSA were numbered. He quit on February 13, 2017 and spent the next two years, and millions of dollars in legal fees, trying to clear his name. When the FBI threatened to go after his son, he relented and admitted to a plea deal, of lying to the FBI. We also know that the FBI used fraudulent means to obtain FISA warrants against two members of Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, George Papadopolous and Carter Page.

Yesterday, the Justice Department dropped all charges against Michael Flynn. While that news is welcome, the facts remain that the FBI exceeded its powers. It had framed General Flynn. He should receive financial restitution for legal costs incurred, and the guilty parties should be punished.

When government servants abuse their powers, when they put politics above the will of the people, democracy shudders. No American citizen should experience what happened to General Flynn. People must be responsible for their actions, and government agencies must be accountable to the elected representatives of the people; they cannot be a law unto themselves. We should all – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – be thankful that Attorney General William Barr is conducting a full investigation into what happened. In this case, the accused was exonerated. Nevertheless, three years of his life were destroyed. Mr. Flynn should be compensated. The guilty parties should not be allowed to retire; they should be jailed. Lincoln would be abashed.



Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 13, 2019

"The Appeal of Donald J. Trump"


Sydney M. Williams
swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day
“The Appeal of Donald J. Trump”
October 13, 2019

“I can’t spare this man. He fights.”
                                                                                                Abraham Lincoln on Ulysses Grant,
                                                                                                after Grant was criticized for
                                                                                                heavy losses at Shiloh, April 1862

Accusations fly furiously around corridors of power in Washington and in newsrooms across the country. Neighbor no longer speaks to neighbor; children are distanced from their parents; colleges promote ideologies rather than encourage debate. Doctors tell us we have become stressed due to harsh and unrelenting political attacks. Serious debate is ignored, yet issues remain: What kind of government do we want? A state whose tentacles reach deep into our lives, or one based on self-rule that values individual independence? Should we tilt toward socialism or rely on free-market capitalism?

For almost a century, the nation has moved away from small government and citizen representatives, toward big government and professional politicians, bureaucrats and administrators – toward a “deep state,” defined by Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, as “consisting of career civil servants who have growing power in the administrative state but work in the shadows.” Both political parties have perpetuated this trend. Even under Reagan, for example, Washington bureaucracy continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace. But the Left has always been more aggressive. Think of FDR and the New Deal, LBJ and the Great Society and Barack Obama “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

As to when and where it began – the trust-busting policies of regulatory reformers in the late 19th Century, the appointment of J. Edgar Hoover as director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924, or the Alphabet Agencies of Franklin Roosevelt’s thirteen-year reign – is less important than recognition that an unfortunate consequence has been the expanding influence and power of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and administrators. It has been cozy, tacit arrangements that allowed both political parties to accommodate their special interests. It has permitted political and personal loyalty to germinate and expand within agencies – loyalty toward those who encourage the growth of their responsibilities and treachery toward those who challenge their positions.

Mr. Trump came to Washington to challenge the status quo. He promised to sweep out corruption and cronyism. From the get-go, his actions created resistance, which has blossomed. The ‘Resistance’ was founded on the belief that Mr. Trump had been illegally elected President, and that he had put democracy at risk. Whereas reality was that cozy, federal jobs were at risk – jobs that on average pay fifty percent more than equivalent private sector jobs, with better benefits and greater job security. Tools of the ‘Resistance’ includes defiance, leaks to the media and intimidation of Trump appointees. They have been abetted by reporters consumed with hatred toward a man who had the gall to question their objectivity.

In no part of government has this been truer than in the intelligence community. On January 3, 2017, newly elected President Trump expressed criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies. That same day Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community – they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” History suggests Senator Schumer’s forecast to be accurate. The backlash against Mr. Trump has been relentless, notably by biased, ethically challenged men like John Brennan, James Comey and James Clapper. In fact, Mr. Comey, the former (and fired) Director of the FBI, told Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times last Saturday that he “pledged to spend the next 13 months working to drive Mr. Trump from power” – not words one would expect from a member of the federal bureaucracy. These are men who claim to have the interests of Country, but are, in fact, seeking to line their own pockets, while doing their utmost to destroy a duly elected President.

None of this has deterred Donald Trump. He ran (and won), at least in part, on his promise to “drain the swamp.” Like an energizer bunny, he went to work. He increased employment while decreasing unemployment. He put through a tax bill that hurt the wealthy in high-income states, while lowering taxes for low-and-middle-income people. He moved the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and made NATO nations pay a higher percentage of their own defense. He took on China for its unfair trade practices and for stealing our technology, and he abandoned the Paris Peace Treaty whose only purpose was to make signatories feel good about themselves. He re-fashioned NAFTA, while bringing home thousands of manufacturing jobs. He helped make the U.S. energy independent for the first time in decades. And he has told no foreign leader that he “will have more flexibility after the next election.”

Mr. Trump does not speak in the sophisticated, euphonious tones of his predecessor. He doesn’t exhibit the gentlemanly, effete attitude of so many of his fellow Republicans. He is crude and uncouth; he exaggerates. His words clash, and his metaphors get mixed; he uses too many adverbs and adjectives and, at times, appears incoherent. He does not always seem to think through what he is saying or doing. Referring to his decision to leave Syria, the Wall Street Journal editorialized that his foreign policy is “tactical,” not “strategic.” I am not so sure. After being criticized by all sides for announcing the withdrawal of the remaining 1000 U.S. troops in Syria, consider his explanation at a rally in Minneapolis  – after eighteen years, with 4,400 dead and almost eight trillion U.S. tax dollars spent, the Middle East is “less safe, less stable and less secure than it was.” He might also have mentioned the flood of refugees that inundated Europe. So, whose policy displayed the better strategy – his, or that of the two previous Administrations?

Perhaps because of his successes and despite the constant battering he receives, Mr. Trump retains one trait his supporters admire: He does not give up. Like Ulysses S. Grant, he fights. He is not part of the establishment and his loyalty is not to the elite; it is to the people who elected him. Until he became President, he had never been a politician. He has no embedded, loyal bureaucrats to protect, or to protect him. Unlike most of his predecessors, but like most of his constituents, he did not build a career in public service. Amidst a pack of professional politicians, he is a citizen President. He does not use identity politics to separate voters into segregated camps. Like most of his supporters, he looks upon people as individuals. He believes in old fashioned concepts, like aspiration, ability, diligence, hard work, meritocracy, independence and family. He shuns dependency, sloth and excuses. He understands that success and failure are natural aspects of life, and he recognizes that luck plays a critical goal.

A good character is always preferable to a bad one. Not knowing Mr. Trump, I cannot vouch for his, but I suspect it does not fit my ideal. But elections are not about discovering perfection but seeking the best alternative. I have seen nothing in any of the candidates now campaigning for their Party’s nomination that suggests a more honest, forthright individual. Certainly, we did not have that in 2016. With Mr. Trump, there is no hidden agenda. That truth was expressed by none other than Hillary Clinton on a recent PBS News Hour: “I said during the campaign, there was no other Donald Trump. What you saw was what you were going to get.” Mrs. Clinton inadvertently touched on another reason for Mr. Trump’s appeal. He is without deceit, a quality one could not apply to Mrs. Clinton. With Mr. Trump you do get what you pay for. Most important, though, he fights. He fights for all those forgotten, working, “deplorable” Americans, those who live apart from the coasts and the elite denizens who inhabit their murky waters. Love him or hate him, that is the appeal of Donald J. Trump.   

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 1, 2018

"The Month That Was - June 2018"

Sydney M. Williams

The Month That Was – June 2018
July 1, 2018

“I went to Cannes – leaving Jeeves behind, he having intimated that
he did not wish to miss Ascot – round about the beginning of June.”
                                                                                                P.G. Wodehouse (1881-1975)
                                                                                                Right Ho, Jeeves, 1934

Perhaps the universe operates according to a plan? I don’t know. But life on earth is in constant and unpredictable flux. Change is ever-present, whether caused by nature or man. What is needed are pilots to help navigate treacherous shoals, not whether to move left or right, but to plot courses based on a moral compass, in accordance with the ideals laid down by the Founding Fathers and one dependent on simple, proven principles of right and wrong, like common sense, the Ten Commandments, or Jordan Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life.”

…………………………………………………………………..

No month is without news highlights and June was no different. Certainly, Singapore vied for top billing. However, the story in the winning envelope was the release of the Inspector General’s report on its probe into the actions of the FBI and the Justice Department during the summer of 2016. It tells a story of corruption, collusion and bias within the nation’s premier law enforcement agency. Even The New York Timesreported that it painted a harsh portrait of the FBI during the 2016 presidential election, describing a destructive culture in which James Comey, the former director was “insubordinate… Senior officials privately bashed Donald J. Trump, and agents came to distrust prosecutors.” Current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in a subsequent press conference, appeared in denial: He said he took the report seriously, but nothing in it “impugns the integrity” of the FBI. “Our brand is doing just fine.” The Wall Street Journalreported: “Though IG Michael Horowitz’s conclusions are measured, his facts are damning.” While the report claimed there was no documentary or testimonial evidence to suggest political bias, facts suggested otherwise. Most damning was the text exchange between Peter Strzok, the FBI agent in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation and his paramour, top FBI lawyer Lisa Page. In August 2016, Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok, “[Trump’s]not ever going to become president, right?” Mr. Strzok responded, “No. No, he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

On the day the news broke, the Times gave space for Mr. Comey to respond in an op-ed, which he did, in his familiar, sanctimonious manner, giving lie to the title of his self-serving book. One consequence of the IG report: the Mueller investigation may face a legal obstacle. As David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, the investigation “is tainted by antecedent political bias.”

The reason this story came before the Trump-Kim meeting is that a self-governing democracy, which is the United States, relies on trust in its institutions, especially those that enforce the nation’s laws. The principal threat to democracy is not an external enemy; it is when the foundations of a republic crumble from within – when freedoms give way to the insidious demands of omnipotent government, when emotional outcries supersede rational responses. Its demise can be a function of a people grown too dependent on government’s largesse, when people forego personal freedom for the comfort of assured care. Unscrupulous politicians take advantage of people’s proclivity to be led. Democracies can also end in anarchy, with a loss of trust in leaders and government institutions. The Founder’s concept of liberty held that self-determined government would include checks and balances, a free people but with the constraint of tradition and civil behavior, all bound by the rule of law. Michael Horowitz’s report was an expose that all is not as it should be.

Clues to watch for in faltering democracies and fledgling tyrannies are more government: higher taxes, increased regulations, and spending that rises faster than GDP. Watch for rogue bureaucrats who put politics above the will of the people, smooth-talking politicians who purport to do good, but in fact deceive citizens and deprive them of liberty. Look out for intensification of partisanship, an inability of Congress to function and the refusal of government employees to heed electoral results. Beware of a backlash.

………………………………………………………………..

The other big news during the month was Singapore – the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un. Whether their agreement results in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is anyone’s guess, but it was a step forward. The two participants spoke in glowing terms, despite mutual insults of a few months earlier. Reaction was as expected: Republican lawmakers applauded the summit but were cautious regarding expectations. Democrats said Mr. Trump made too many concessions. Chuck Schumer called it “purely a reality show.” Nancy Pelosi claimed the “hasty” meeting “elevated” the Communist dictator to the world stage. “Never-Trumpers” were silent. The pact to which this agreement is compared is the Iranian deal of 2015. But there are differences. For one, no $400 million in cash has been delivered to Pyongyang on wooden pallets, as was sent to Tehran in 2015. For another, compare Mike Pompeo and John Bolton to John Kerry and Susan Rice. Which team is tougher, more willing to take the harder line? 

As for me, I am from Missouri, skeptical but hopeful, despite Mr. Trump’s propensity for braggadocio. What makes me skeptical are Mr. Trump’s egotism, his imperviousness to criticism and the history of two prior Kim regimes. What makes me hopeful is the overwhelming negative reaction on the part of mainstream media. For example, an article in the June 13 issue of the Financial Times, a once esteemed and unbiased paper, was headlined: “Kim judged clear winner even before ink dries on Trump deal.” The article quoted six “experts,” none of whom had anything positive to say. They claimed Mr. Trump had made “big concessions,” which included a “security guaranty,” but they didn’t say which ones and from whom. The only concession was the announcement that the U.S. would halt joint military exercises with South Korea – something that could be re-started in a matter of months, as our troop level in South Korea is to remain the same. No mention was made that sanctions, which includes ones from China, would remain in place, sanctions that drove Mr. Kim to the bargaining table. No mention was made of Mr. Trump’s own skepticism, embodied in his observation, “we’ll see.” With expectations so low victory may be possible.

…………………………………………………………………..

Important for the preservation of the separation of powers was the announced resignation of Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. His doing so provides Mr. Trump the opportunity to appoint another individual who will help put the Constitution above politics. An overblown, hyped story was one of children being separated from their parents at our southern border, a subject addressed in a TOTD on June 20. I use the word “overblown” because such separations, while never desirable, are nothing new and have been used by Presidents since at least the mid 1990s. The difference is that Mr. Trump was vocal in issuing a “zero tolerance” order regarding illegal crossings. Other Presidents have hidden such draconian actions behind deceptive, sweet-smelling words of inclusion. Until the border is secured, the problem of illegal crossings will persist. One recommendation worth pursuing was made by Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute at Stamford: Illegals and their families could be housed temporarily in under-used college and university housing during summer months. College dorms are better decorated, beds more comfortable and meals tastier and more nutritious than those found on Army bases. Besides, it would provide elites a chance to get to know people they know now only as symbols and see only at a distance. 

The U.S. withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council, which has become a platform for authoritarian countries, like Cuba, Rwanda and Venezuela. It has little to do with human rights. The Group of 7 met in Quebec City and ended with school-yard taunts in which all leaders looked ridiculous, especially the six who decided not to accept Mr. Trump’s recommendation that all tariffs be abandoned. In Colombia, the pro-business candidate Iván Duque Márquez beat former guerilla Gustavo Petro for the Presidency. Italy’s new coalition government will be comprised of the right-wing League, which won 37% of the vote and the left-wing Five-Star Movement, which won 32%. Spain unveiled a new government led by Socialist Pedro Sánchez but could be short-lived as his party has only a quarter of the seats in Parliament. He introduced his “pro-gender-equality, cross-generational” cabinet, which hopefully includes the best and the brightest. Mexico’s election will be held today, July 1. It is widely expected that the left-leaning anti-American Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) will win. President Trump announced he would meet with Vladimir Putin on July 15 in Finland. “Remainders” in the UK, taking their cue from “Resistors” in the U.S., blamed Russian interference for Brexit, not free and democratic elections.

Five people were killed when Jarrod Ramos, a man with a grudge against Annapolis’Capital Gazette, blasted his way into the newsroom, killing five and wounding two. Four Supreme Court decisions will have long-lasting effect. All were 5-4 decisions, indicating the political polarization of a court that should be above politics. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court decided for the plaintiff – that unions cannot force members to pay for political activities with which the individual disagrees. In South Dakota v. Wayfair, the Court determined that state and local taxes must be collected by on-line sellers, regardless of whether the seller has an operation within the state. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the State of California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court upheld the President’s right to impose a travel ban on those countries he deems a threat to national security. Primaries were held in a number of states. While generalizations are famously inaccurate, Trump-backed Republicans did well, while Democrats swung further left, reminding one of Yeats: “…Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.”  
   
In financial markets, the most noteworthy changes during the second quarter were the rise in short rates, accompanied by a flattening of the yield curve – from 104 basis points to 92; declines in the price of gold and Bitcoins, and rises in oil prices and the U.S. Dollar. The TED spread – the difference between 3-Month Libor and 3-Month US Treasuries – narrowed, indicating less perceived credit risk. Bucking modestly positive stock market trends were the Shanghai Index and the Emerging Market Index, both down about ten percent. For the month, stocks in the U.S. were generally flat – the DJIA closed down 0.006% and the S&P 500 closed up 0.005%. Volatility ebbed. The Federal Reserve, as expected, raised Fed Funds Rates by a quarter point. The Institute for Supply Management released its report for the non-manufacturing sector, which suggested aggregate demand is overtaking aggregate supply, which, could lead to higher prices and stronger wages. The University of Michigan’s measure of consumer sentiment rose to 99.3 in June, from 98.0 in May. Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway named Atul Gawande, a prominent surgeon and writer, to become CEO of their joint venture to tackle US-employee healthcare. Trade and tariff wars remained on center stage, affecting market commentators more than markets. Whether they reflect a game of chicken, blind-man’s bluff, or the hard-ball negotiating tactics of the Trump Administration remains to be seen. (I suspect the latter.)   

The announcement by Harley Davidson, the iconic American manufacturer of motorcycles, that they would move some production to Thailand caused an uproar, a manifestation of the hyperbole on the part of politicians and the press, and indicative of the political chasm that seems unbridgeable. Both sides exaggerated the planned move. First, the company initially announced the decision in January, to little fanfare. Second, Harley already has manufacturing facilities in Australia, Brazil, India and Thailand. Keep in mind, companies have four constituents: customers, employees, shareholders and communities. To the best of their ability they must satisfy all, which is what Harley Davidson is attempting. Michael Bloomberg said he would spend $80 million on behalf of Democrat candidates in the mid-term elections. Some Amazon employees said they will not be involved in selling face-recognition equipment to law enforcement agencies. (Ironically, it was face recognition technology that led to the identification of Jarrod Ramos in Annapolis.) A team of medical researchers at Mt. Sinai in New York City concluded that certain viruses, including Herpes, affect the behavior of genes involved in Alzheimer’s. The photograph “crying child,” used as a cover on Time Magazineto highlight the Trump Administration’s separation of children from their parents at our southern border, was phony. The child was with her mother. Wildfires in Colorado destroyed over 1000 homes and twenty-six square miles. The morally-challenged Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a “c—t”, with Sally Fields seconding the description. Not to be outdone, the verbally-challenged Robert De Niro, at the Tony Awards, twice repeated his call for action: “f—k Trump.”  “The Band’s Visit” won the Tony for the best new musical. “Koko,” the gorilla who charmed Mr. Rogers, died at age forty-six. New York City Mayor de Blasio chose to water down admission criteria at the City’s elite public school, swapping intellect for a more representational balance of race and ethnicity. Kathleen Kraninger, of the White House Office of Management and Budget, was nominated to lead the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFBP.) Inexplicably, the FDA decided that “pure” maple syrup must carry the label, “Sugar added.”

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gave birth to a baby girl, the second elected leader in modern times to give birth while in office. (In 1990, Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto gave birth to a daughter.) Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan was returned to office with 53% of the vote. The long-running dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia looked like it came to an end with the naming of the country just north of Greece as the Republic of North Macedonia, but not all i’s are dotted, or t’s crossed. Spain accepted 629 migrants stranded when Italy’s new government refused them entry. (Over the past four years, Italy, a country of 60 million, has taken in 640,000 migrants.) Pope Francis met with a group of oil company executives to discuss climate change. An earthquake in Guatemala’s left 300 dead or missing. Studies published in the Journal of Science indicated that discoveries by NASA’s “Curiosity Rover” showed traces of Methane on Mars, indicating that life might once have existed there. In a case of political correctness carried too far, Tommy Robinson, a British journalist was jailed for live-streaming activities outside a courthouse in Leeds where some Muslim men were facing trial on charges of child rape and sex trafficking, “grooming” is the euphemism used for such mendacious behavior by the British courts, when it applies to Muslim men. 

In sports, the Golden State Warriors won the NBA championship and the Washington Capitals won the Stanley Cup. The French Open was won by Simona Halep (Romania) and Rafael Nadal (Spain). “Justify” won the Belmont Stakes, the 13th three-year-old to win the Triple Crown. Brooks Koepka won the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills. Yale beat Harvard in the 153rdBoat Race on the Thames in New London, CT. 

The Grim Reaper made his appearance and took away a number of our finest: Gena Turgel, a Holocaust survivor who helped Anne Frank in her final days and who found love with a British soldier-liberator. She died at 95. Ellan Brennan, matriarch of one of the nation’s premier restaurants, Commander’s Palace in New Orleans, died at 92. Poet Laureate and New Hampshire resident Donald Hall died at 89. Sadly, suicide took Kate Spade at 55 and Anthony Bourdain at 61. A neighbor and friend In Essex, Douglas Bennet, who led both NPR and Wesleyan University, died at 79. And my good friend Harold Rubin died of Multiple Myeloma, at age 76.

……………………………………………………………….

Not all the news was dramatic, horrific or just plain bad. Three items during the month suggest a nascent, positive change in higher education: The first was an interview on C-Span with Yale Professor John Lewis Gaddis, author of On Grand Strategy. Professor Gaddis discussed the Yale-sponsored sojourns he requests of his students, to spend time in small towns across the U.S. The idea is to immerse themselves in the world outside the ivied walls within which they are privileged to study. Another example: Salena Zito, a political journalist, was recently invited to teach a class on small-town America at Harvard. The students spend two or three days in towns in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Despite myriad ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, most students in both colleges came from coastal urban and suburban areas, with similar political viewpoints. The lesson learned is that the wisdom of the people is a far better arbiter of principles of democracy than the dictates of those who have been spent careers in ivory towers. The third item suggesting the possible beginnings of a positive change in higher education was an op-ed in The Wall Street Journalby Emily Esfahani Smith. Ms. Smith is with the Hoover Institute. She wrote of Heterodox Academy, an organization founded in 2015 to promote viewpoint-diversity on campus. The Academy now numbers more than 2000 professors and graduate students in the U.S., and includes such luminaries as Steven Pinker of Harvard, John McWhorter of Columbia and Robert George of Princeton. In 2015, the University of Chicago issued a statement validating the importance of free speech. To date, forty-two colleges, from Columbia to the University of Minnesota, have adopted the Chicago principles. It is true that these examples represent a small fraction of our educational institutions, but, as the saying goes, from little acorns giant Oak trees grow. It is a start.

…………………………………………………………………

June was a month of remembrances. Seventy-eight years ago, on June 4-12, 1940, 338,000 British soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk, because thousands of civilians risked their lives to save their fellow countrymen. Four years later, on June 6, 1944, a full complement of Allied soldiers returned to the beaches at Normandy; the re-taking of Europe began.

We enter July, the start of the second half of the year and the month we celebrate our Declaration of Independence. It is a fitting time to consider the hard-fought unity that brought forth that document and to recognize the civility that permitted its issuance, and which is necessary for our democracy to survive.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, June 19, 2017

"The Dystopian World of James Comey"

Sydney M. Williams
swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day
“The Dystopian World of James Comey”
June 19, 2017

“I am one of the few honest people I have ever known.”
                                                                                                          Nick Carroway, narrator
                                                                                                          The Great Gatsby
                                                                                                          F. Scott Fitzgerald

Substitute Comey for Carroway and you have a sense of the arrogance and hypocrisy embedded in the former’s testimony. James Comey is expert at navigating the obstacles that constitute Washington’s politics. The former FBI Director came across as more of a prosecutor than an investigator and public servant. Having used bait-and-switch tactics over the past year, Mr. Comey gladdened, infuriated and appeased Democrats, while he irritated, enthused and angered Republicans. Like his predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover, he thought himself invincible.

His testimony was Orwellian. Words meant what he wanted them to mean. To “leak” a memo about a private meeting with the President, via a third party, to The New York Times was okay. Yet, it was not alright to tell the press that the President was not under investigation regarding Russian interference in the election, even though he wasn’t. It was his duty, he alleged last July, to lay out the prosecutorial case against Hillary Clinton for using a private e-mail server while Secretary of State, but he felt it his responsibility to determine that no reasonable jury would convict her. Nevertheless, he felt bound, in October, to say she was still under investigation. He said he had no doubt that Russia interfered in the election, yet offered no evidence.

Mr. Comey told Senators that Mr. Trump lied as to why he (Mr. Comey) was fired, but was less direct with the President. He construed the word “hope,” as uttered by Mr. Trump regarding Michael Flynn, as implying obstruction, knowing full well it would mean his good friend, special counsel Robert Mueller, would have to investigate the allegation. (If “hope” becomes standard for obstruction of justice charges, all of Washington will be under indictment, as will most Americans.) James Comey testified that he agreed to accept (then) Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s request that the investigation into Mrs. Clinton be referred to as a “matter,” last July, knowing that to do so was wrong. Yet he did not feel obliged to disagree. His performance throughout his testimony suggested he was being either devious or he was a poltroon… or perhaps both. If he truly felt wronged, a courageous, honorable man would have resigned.

Mr. Comey has abused his position as Director of the FBI, certainly since last July. But, while he may have the ethics of a warthog, he is not stupid. For the last nine months, like Uriah Heep, the unctuous Mr. Comey bobbed and weaved around the Scylla of Washington politics and the Charybdis of ethical behavior – that is until he encountered Mr. Trump, an outsider to Washington politics, a man who had promised to “drain the swamp,” a place where he (Mr. Comey) was one of its most prominent denizens. Whether you hate him or love him, all agree that Mr. Trump is no master of subtlety. The President fired Mr. Comey unceremoniously, something unexpected by a man who felt untouchable. As one who tried to please everyone, Mr. Comey would have been well served to have re-read the story in Aesop’s Fables of “The man, the boy and the donkey” – the moral of which is, you can’t please everyone.

Once fired by Mr. Trump, Democrats forgave Mr. Comey his transgressions regarding Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch. Since his firing, Mr. Comey has cast his lot with those who see Mr. Trump as an illegitimate President, an autocrat, they claim, with a far-right agenda – a President who should be hastened from office, regardless of the cost to our democracy. In testimony, Mr. Comey offered the excuse that the leaking of his memo was for self-protection against a President he did not trust. He said it was justified if the consequence was the hiring of a special counsel. Since Mr. Comey was unable to bring the President down on charges of colluding with the Russians over last November’s election, he now hopes his friend Mr. Mueller will find obstruction of justice as cause for impeachment.

The failure of Democrats to accept last November’s election results reinforced the vitriol that consumes our country. It worsened the culture of incivility and violence. It is manifested in many ways: in the use of crude (and cruel) language by late night comedians and talk-show hosts, like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon; in Madonna calling for the White House to be bombed, and in a mask of Mr. Trump’s bloodied, severed head held up by Kathy Griffin; it is visible in a publically-funded Shakespearean play in New York’s Central Park that showed the stabbing of a blond, blue-suited Trump-lookalike as Julius Caesar. And, five days ago, we saw it in the shooting of four Republicans on a ball field in Alexandria, Virginia. While no one political party has an exclusive in terms of foul language and heinous acts, we cannot ignore the role played by social media, i.e. the posting by James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Republican House Whip Steve Scalise, to his Facebook page in March: “Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It’s time to destroy Trump & Co.”

But icons from Hollywood, the media and Washington take no responsibility for the culture of hatred they have helped inspire. Instead, when a CNN host calls the President a piece of s**t, they cite First Amendment rights; or, in the instance of Congressman Scalise, they employ the Trojan horse of gun control, as did Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe within moments of the shooting in Arlington.

Politics has long been a blood sport, but incivility has reached heights last seen in the Vietnam era. Science fiction writer, Robert Heinlein, once wrote that dying cultures invariably exhibit “personal rudeness, bad manners and a lack of consideration for others in minor matters.” That is a current cultural trend that no one can deny. Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, said civilizations die from suicide, not murder. Social media has become a medium for the venting of passionate hatred. I post photographs of my grandchildren and wildlife, and an occasional non-political essay. But what we see are venomous outpourings of those who see this venue as a forum for political hyperbole. Like Joseph Welch, chief counsel for the United States Army when it was under investigation by Senator Joseph McCarthy, we ask those who post such partisan comments on social media, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

As a friend in Europe recently wrote, the attempt to find a Russian connection to Mr. Trump’s campaign of last year has created an Austin Powers-like atmosphere of looking for a crime to fit a predetermined judgement. In his self-serving testimony before the Senate, Mr. Comey did nothing to reduce the hate-filled tenor that permeates Washington and our nation. Could he have helped? He is a smart man, a man who has been around corridors of power for a long time. Honesty, fairness and straight-forward answers would have brought some succor to a divided country. However, it was his reputation he was interested in saving, not bandaging wounds or revealing truth. He knew what he was doing. He chose the dystopian way.






Labels: , , , ,