The Judge’s ruling ironically favors both Willis and Trump

Judge Scott McAfee issued his decision this morning about the Georgia trial regarding former president Trump’s election interference. On the one hand, the judge decided that the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue on the case in spite of her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor. Ironically, his ruling favors both Willis and Trump, but is a setback for the American people.

The good news for Willis is that she can continue her legal career, although the judge criticized her for using poor judgment.

The good news for Trump is that his lawyers now have more fodder to delay this and the other trials until after the November election. Trump knows that a significant number of citizens would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony. It should be obvious to all that his strategy is to stall, stall, stall. If he could just stall until the election, and if he would win, he could make all the trials disappear. Even if he were guilty, he would be “above the law”.

I am disappointed by everyone who favors this stalling tactic. Our citizens deserve to know whether Trump is found to be “guilty” or “not guilty” by a jury of his peers… before the election. In our country, nobody is supposed to be above the law, not even a president. Stalling is an attempt to distort justice.

The trial is to decide whether Trump tried to steal the 2020 election in Georgia. He officially lost the election in Georgia by 11,779 votes. We have a recording of the phone call from Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a conservative Republican) on January 2, 2021. I suggest listening to the entire conversation, but here are the pertinent quotes:

Raffensperger – “Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong…. We believe that we do have an accurate election.”

Trump – “Look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes.”

Most objective people who listen to the tape acknowledge that the former president attempted to steal the election. Listen to his own words… and you be judge.

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Getting older! It happens to all of us. Although increased wisdom can come with added years, many of us also experience a decline in our physical and mental abilities. It can be difficult to contemplate intentionally reducing our public activities due to this decline.

This is the situation before us in our national political situation. A week ago, special counsel Robert Hur issued his report in which he concluded that President Joe Biden was not guilty of any criminal activity in his handling of sensitive government documents. Nevertheless, he also wrote that Biden was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”. Biden’s mental gaffes are well-known. In his attempt to refute the poor memory accusation, he gave a talk in which he confused the leaders of Egypt and Mexico.

On the other hand, former President Donald Trump has also committed his share of memory gaffes. The most recent was a campaign speech in which he confused Republican Nikki Haley with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi. Both men are of advanced age and make many mental mistakes. So do I. Although I am not as old as Biden and Trump, I am not far behind. I show the wear and tear of my years in my body and in my mind.

Should Biden or Trump drop out of the race for the presidency at this late date? Is there a precedent? Yes, there is. Back in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson dropped out of his race for re-election in March. I personally believe that the two main political parties (and therefore, the nation itself) would be better off, if Trump or Biden (or both) would drop out. Age and mental acuity are not the only issues. Biden’s handling of the border crisis has not been great (although Republican representatives in Congress are also at fault). Trump’s legal problems are even worse. He has already been found guilty of sexual assault/rape and financial fraud. If the other trials take place this year, he will likely be convicted of other, serious crimes.

Who do I suggest take the place of these men? Although I disagree with some of her policy proposals, Nikki Haley would do a far, far better job as president than Trump. In my opinion, he is morally repugnant, at all levels. On the Democrat side, among the many potential candidates, I would like to see Michelle Obama. She is smart, and of even more importance, very wise due to her life experiences. In addition, her life partner would make a great first “First Gentleman”.

Why do White Evangelicals prefer Trump when they have Better Options?

Why do White Evangelicals Prefer Trump when they Have Better Options?

In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, approximately 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Since then, they have remained some of Trump’s strongest supporters. This is somewhat strange, because his life runs contrary to evangelicals’ most cherished virtues. This must be unpacked a bit. Evangelicals are a subsection of Protestant Christianity which claim that their lives are guided by Biblical principles. Although this is somewhat true at an individual level (honest, hard-working, dedicated to their family, etc.), this is not accurate at a political level. Numerous surveys reveal that fewer than 15% of evangelicals have their political positions shaped by Scripture on important issues of our day (immigration, foreign policy, environment, health care, etc.). Their most important political concern has been to reduce the number of abortions taking place. Since Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have promised to re-shape the Supreme Court with enough conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court, and as a result, Roe was overturned, and the legal status of abortion has been returned to the states.

Although Trump lost the 2020 election, he is running again and is way ahead of his Republican rivals: Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy. My question for white evangelicals is the following: Why do you continue to support Trump when his lifestyle runs contrary to core Christian values and you have better options? Here is a small sample of his character flaws.

Trump is a racist. He began his campaign in 2015 by declaring that Mexicans were drug pushers, criminals, and rapists. In 2018 he called African countries, plus Haiti and El Salvador “shithole” countries.
Trump is a womanizer and treats women as objects. In his Access Hollywood tape, Trump affirmed “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
He is a bully. In his rallies, he demeans others based on their physical handicaps, their looks, etc. instead of using reasonable, logical arguments.
He is a compulsive liar. On the day of his inauguration, he lied about the size of the crowd, then told hundreds of significant lies during his presidency, including the allegation that he won the 2020 election. You can google “Trump and lies” for a long list with evidence.
He is narcissistic. His demands for “loyalty” required people to violate the Constitution and their conscience. For those who violated their religious convictions, they have brought shame and disrepute to their faith.
His vanity has led him to make false predictions. He predicted that under his leadership, Republicans would win so many elections, they would “get tired of winning”. That turned out to be false. Republicans lost the 2018 midterm election, the 2020 presidential election, and the special election in Georgia. They underperformed in 2022. Republicans are, in fact, tired of losing with Trump.
His many crimes have led him to be charged with 91 counts in federal courts. It is likely that he will be found guilty of some felonies by the time of the election in November, 2024.

I know people who refuse to acknowledge any of these defects. This was understandable during the heat of the 2016 and 2020 elections, but is totally unreasonable today. There are better options: Haley, DeSantis, and Christie. They are fallen human beings (just like me). They have their own defects (just like me). They probably have skeletons in their closets (just like me). I have significant disagreements with each of them and some of their policies. Nevertheless, they all have been governors and have experience in constitutional positions of leadership. Each of them has a basic minimum integrity as public servants. Each of them would be a better option than Trump.

For further reading, I suggest the new book by Tim Alberta: The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory. American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.

I Agree with Donald Trump (regarding his earlier position on the Fifth Amendment)

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains several rights, including the right to “remain silent” in court and not provide evidence that is “self-incriminating”. Its original intent was to limit the government’s power to coerce people to make false confessions of guilt. The common use today of “taking the Fifth” or “pleading the Fifth” is that guilty persons can remain silent and not provide answers that would incriminate them.

I have always had problems about people who “take the Fifth”. If they are truly innocent, what is the problem in answering questions with truthful answers? In other words, only people who are guilty use this amendment, and they do so with the hope of evading or postponing the truth about their guilt. The truth usually wins out. Guilty actions eventually come into the light and appropriate punishment is meted out.

Back in 2016 when Donald Trump was running for president, he pronounced his opinion about those who take the Fifth. At a rally in Iowa, he criticized some of Hillary Clinton’s staff who had utilized the amendment to remain silent: “Her staffers taking the Fifth Amendment, how about that? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” During a presidential debate, Trump affirmed that “taking the Fifth” was “disgraceful”. I agree with Trump. When people are innocent, they should answer court questions and answer with the truth.

On Wednesday of this week, Trump appeared in a deposition with the New York Attorney General who is leading a civil investigation of the Trump organization’s finances. It is alleged that the organization overestimated the value of the company’s assets in order to obtain loans at low interest rates. At the same time, it seems that the company underestimated the value of those same assets in order to pay lower taxes. Two of Trump’s children (Ivanka and Don, Jr., who hold positions of leadership in the organization) appeared in depositions recently and gave answers to the questions. Nevertheless, former president Trump “pled the Fifth” over 440 times on Wednesday and refused to answer simple questions regarding the company’s financial assets. More than 440 times! Clear answers could have proved his innocence if that were the true situation. The refusal to answer legitimate question, at the very least, gives the impression of guilt.

Noted legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz, who served as attorney for Trump, yesterday told reporters that he was shocked upon hearing that the former president used the Fifth Amendment 440 times if he has “nothing to hide”.

Given that there exist financial documents from the Trump organization, its innocence or guilt will soon come to light. A Scriptural maxim is that “we will be judged by our own words”. Consistency between our words and our deeds is important for our ethical integrity. I agree with Trump’s words six years ago regarding the Fifth Amendment, and therefore, and based upon his own words, I do not approve of his refusal to answer the deposition questions on Wednesday.

Idolatry and Politics

The current political situation in the United States is quite troubling and sad. This can be illustrated by looking at an identifiable group on each side of the political spectrum. On the “right” are the “always Trumpers”. They repeat the White House’s talking points on every issue. A clear example is the current spike in the Covid-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths. President Trump has downplayed the severity of the pandemic. He has repeatedly claimed that the high numbers are due to the greater number of tests the United States has administered and that the U.S. has a low Covid-19 rate. The “always Trumpers” have echoed these claims even though they are absolutely false. On a per capita basis, the U.S. has NOT administered more coronavirus tests than most European countries, and the European Covid-19 rate is much less that the rate in the US. In fact, the U.S. has the fourth worst per capita rate in the world. In their desire to support the president, the “always Trumpers” are in denial of reality.

On the other side of the political spectrum are the “never Trumpers”. For them, Trump is so detestable that everythihng he says or does is false and evil. They have such a knee jerk reaction to Trump that they must be against everything Trumpian. For example, Trump has pushed a ¨Warp Speed¨ vaccine for Covid-19 for rapid research and actual production of millions of vaccines. Although it is obvious that Trump is urging this project largely for election purposes, the ¨never Trumpers¨ are unwilling to acknowledge that moving swiftly toward the development and distribution of a safe vaccines is good and necessary.

If people are totally “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump”, they have abandoned their use of logic and reason. Their absolute political loyalty distorts the use of their minds. From a Biblical point of view, an absolute commitment to any human or institution is idolatry because we are worshiping the creation and not the Creator.

Unless people want to be classified as “pro-Trumpers” or “anti-Trumpers”, it is easy but not helpful to put our “opponents” in one of these categories. It is easy because we can then dismiss any evidence they offer without examining it. Because too many of us categorize others in this way, we are becoming ever more polarized. When our favorite political party or politician receives a criticism, our default mode becomes a defensive posture. Instead of seeking and acknowledging the points of truth in the criticism, we grasp for any argument that helps our position, no matter how flimsy.

Since both of these extremes are dangerous for the advance of truth in our world, I suggest the following. Identify the three strongest criticisms against your favorite politician or political party. Are there any grains of truth in these criticisms? If so, do we acknowledge and act on them? If not, we are treading on dangerous ground.

Let´s keep seeking the truth and it will set us free.

Figures Never Lie… but Liars do Figure

My father would frequently repeat this quote to me, “Figures never lie… but liars do figure”. During my many decades of life, I have found that this phrase quite accurately describes human nature. In fact, it is logical. We usually try to defend our actions with reasons that we hope are persuasive (if not persuasive to others, at least to ourselves). Sometimes these arguments are valid, but at other times they are illogical rationalizations.

What we do on a personal level also occurs in the broader society. In healthy societies, opposing or alternative points of view are defended and debated in the public arena. These arguments frequently use statistics. Citizens need to think hard to evaluate the merits of the various arguments. In times of deep polarization, like our current situation, we must avoid knee/jerk reactions if we want to reach the truth. How do we evaluate these competing points of view when they involve figures, percentages, and statistics? I have found the following questions quite helpful.

Are the figures accurate?
What do these figures reveal (the merits and purposes of the argument)?
What do these figures omit or hide (the flaws of the argument)?

The Covid-19 pandemic is a good case study, because statistics play such an important role in the national debate. For example, President Trump has often stated, “We do more Covid-19 testing than any other country.” At one level, this is a true statement. Because the United States is a large nation with a sizeable population (roughly 330 million people), the total number of tests administered here (about 40 million tests) is larger than any other country. The intention of the statement is to create confidence in the government, that our political leaders are adequately managing the pandemic, and that the large number of infections is to be expected.

At a more important level, this statement is quite false and misleading. We should compare the percentage of people who have been tested with the total population, in other words, “per capita”.[1] We could then compare “apples with apples”. At a per capita level, the United States is testing for Covid-19 at about the middle of the pack of industrialized nations. Depending on the exact date of comparison, the U.S. has tested more per capita than France, Japan and Sweden, but fewer than Australia, Russia, and Spain. The purpose of this misleading information is to paint a more positive picture of our government leadership than is warranted.

In light of this frequent misuse of numbers and statistics, what should we expect of each other? I hope that fair minded people will treat the figures accurately and not jump to inaccurate conclusions. Both those who support and those who oppose Trump (or any other leader or policy) should be honest enough to acknowledge all valid and pertinent figures and statistics, in other words, to find common ground. I also expect that people of all sides of an issue would disavow figures that are obviously wrong.[2] We must hold each other and our leaders to the high standard of truth-telling.

We are living in difficult times. The Covid pandemic is just one of our many challenges. If we want to overcome these problems, we must treat each other with serious respect, affirming what is true, rejecting what is not.

[1] Other more useful criteria would be per capita measurements of hospitalizations, ICU usage, and mortality rates.

[2] The president has made claims that are clearly false such as “We test for Covid-19 more than all other countries combined” and, more recently, “99% of Covid cases are totally harmless”. His supporters should have the courage to reject and distance themselves from these outlandish affirmations.

Enough is Enough! Senator Mitch McConnell, Bring the Bill Up for a Vote!

This past Saturday our country suffered another mass shooting, this time in El Paso, Texas. A 21-year-old white supremacist opened fire at a Walmart store and killed 22 people and seriously wounded others. Then, early Sunday morning, another mass shooting took place in downtown Dayton, Ohio and nine civilians were killed.

Time and time again we have witnessed mass killings in our country: Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Orlando, Gilroy, and the list goes on and on. These massacres are in the news for a while, but nothing happens. Our Congress has let us down. 90% of our citizens are in favor of requiring a universal background check before people can purchase guns. This would reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them (felons, domestic abusers, mentally ill people, etc.) Currently there are many loopholes (sales at gun shows, online gun sales, etc.) that allow guns to get into the wrong hands.

There is one man who has blocked legislation that would require a universal background check: Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. He has repeatedly refused to bring legislation passed by the House of Representatives to a vote in the Senate. On a wide variety of issues this has contributed to the deadlock and polarization of our Congress, as moderate measures are not even given a chance. This is especially troubling regarding background checks. Last month, a bipartisan bill passed the House (240 to 190) that would require a universal background check prior to the purchase of guns and would eliminate the loopholes. It was co-sponsored by Republican Representative Pete King who affirmed, “When background checks are used, they keep guns out of the hands of people that we all agree shouldn’t have guns. As government officials it is our responsibility to protect our citizens, and when it comes to gun violence, we must do more. The overwhelming majority of Americans want to see action and we owe it to the victims and their families to prevent such tragedies from occurring again.” Senator McConnell has not even brought this bill up for a vote in the Senate. The fact that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has given millions of dollars in contributions to his election campaigns clearly suggests that McConnell is in the NRA’s back pocket.

This bill is not perfect and will not end all gun violence in our country. McConnell does not have to vote in favor of this bill, but he does have the moral and legal responsibility to bring it up for discussion and a vote in the Senate. I urge my readers to communicate with Senator McConnell and to urge him to bring the bill to the Senate. This is not a left/right issue. Even President Trump has urged a bipartisan response that would include “stricter background checks”. Enough is enough. We, the people of the United States, need to demand action by those in Congress who represent us. The lives of our neighbors are in the balance.

Mueller has spoken. So has Barr. Is it time for an impeachment inquiry?

As everyone knows, Special Counsel Robert Mueller headed up the investigation on alleged Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election. The twenty-two-month long investigation resulted in the Mueller Report with the following conclusions:

There was definite interference by Russia in our election.
The was not enough evidence to bring charges of conspiracy between the Trump election campaign and Russian officials.
There were ten episodes of alleged obstruction of justice. The Report laid out the evidence in favor and against obstruction, but did not state a conclusion. It suggested that the Congress has this responsibility.
The Report did not exonerate the President.

Within 48 hours, Attorney General Barr wrote a four-page document that summarized the report. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein made a decision to affirm that President Trump was innocent of the allegations of obstruction of justice. Trump went even further and claimed that there was no obstruction and that he was fully exonerated.

Mueller disagreed with the Barr summary and wrote two letters to Barr to rectify that misleading conclusion. Not obtaining the rectification that he sought, Mueller broke his public silence on the investigation and gave a nine-minute public address (May 29, 2019) when he also announced his resignation from the Department of Justice. Regarding the investigation, he made the following affirmations:

His Special Counsel investigation was not legally permitted to bring charges against Trump due to Department of Justice tradition and policy that would not allow a sitting president to be indicted.
Since the Department of Justice cannot bring charges against a sitting president, the only other option is political. The Congress would need to bring charges of impeachment against the President.
Regarding the claims of no obstruction and exoneration, Mueller spoke quite clearly, “If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination, as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

A few days later, Barr stated his disagreement with Mueller’s comments. Meanwhile, various committees in the Democrat controlled House of Representatives have subpoenaed various documents (Trump’s tax returns) and witnesses (Don McGahn, Hope Hicks, etc.). The Trump administration has refused to turn over documents and has pressured the witnesses not to appear before the House committees.

We are at an impasse. Both sides have their partisan political reasons for their positions. Democrats claim that Trump has obstructed justice and he is doing everything he can to prevent the truth from coming out. Trump claims that the Democrats lost in the investigation and want a “re-do” in a type of witch hunt against the President.

More than partisanship, what we really need is to come to a conclusion regarding the truth on these issues. A full-blown impeachment process would probably not obtain the needed two/thirds majority in the Senate due to the Republican control there, and therefore could be a strategic mistake for the Democrats. Nevertheless, given the White House actions of stalling and stonewalling, I believe an “impeachment inquiry” is now the only way to obtain a clearer understanding of what happened. If Trump is truly innocent, he should turn over the documents and permit McGahn and Hicks to bear witness to the truth, whatever the consequences. Democrats should be courageous enough to begin the inquiry in order to fulfill their Constitutional oversight responsibilities. Let the truth win out!

Let me be as clear as possible. An impeachment inquiry is not the same as articles of impeachment. An inquiry is a first step to gather sufficient evidence to see whether impeachment proceedings should go forward or not. If the White House is not willing to relinquish key documents and allow witnesses to testify, an impeachment inquiry is the next step forward.

The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report…What do we know now?

A week ago, on Thursday, April 18, Attorney General Bill Barr held a press conference about the Mueller Report. He then sent a redacted version of that report to congressional members which he also made available for public view.

Let us not be naïve. Both political sides are putting their “spin” on the Report and the analyzed events. These spins range from one extreme, “This is the best day so far in the Trump presidency” to the other extreme, “He should be impeached!” Trump himself exclaimed at first, “No collusion! No obstruction!” Nevertheless, upon becoming aware of the details of the Report that portray him in a negative light, he has claimed that the Report is full of lies.

As seekers of truth, we need to work hard to filter out the spin. This means we need to read with great care the Mueller Report for ourselves and to not accept blindly the “Cliff Notes” of secondary sources. It also means reading and listening to various points of view. I have forced myself to listen to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and PBS, plus going on line to view additional sources.

Original purpose of the Mueller investigation

What has been overlooked by most news outlets is the conclusion that Mueller arrived at regarding the main purpose of his investigation: Did Russia interfere in our 2016 presidential election? Mueller’s answer was a resounding “Yes!” He provided pages and pages of evidence showing the multiple ways Russia tried to influence the election on behalf of Trump and against Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, neither the White House, nor the Republicans, nor the Democrats have taken enough steps to block this type of interference in the future.

Attorney General William Barr

Every Attorney General swears to uphold the Constitution and is the highest law enforcement officer in the country. He or she is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of justice and should be above partisan politics. The Attorney General is the attorney for the U.S. people, not the private defense attorney for the president. I believe that Attorney General Barr has lost credibility for the following reasons:

Barr shared the redacted document with the White House and Trump’s lawyers prior to making it available to Congress or to the public. The Attorney General should be committed to equality and to not show favoritism.
In Barr’s four-page summary letter of March 24, 2019 as well as in his press conference last Thursday morning, he distorted the Mueller Report on both the allegations of collusion and obstruction of justice, the right of Congress to evaluate the report, and the supposed eagerness of the President to cooperate with the investigation. (see below)

The Redaction of the Report

Attorney General Barr has emitted a redacted edition of the Mueller Report, not the complete version. Four kinds of information were blacked out. They are the following:

Grand Jury material
Classified information regarding secret intelligence content and sources
Information that could interfere with other ongoing legal investigations
Information that could hurt the privacy and reputation of ´peripheral third parties’

It seems reasonable to me that the first three types of information should not be revealed to the general public. Because I am committed to the truth, I am not quite so convinced that peripheral third parties need to be protected. Nevertheless, I believe that Republican and Democrat congressional leaders have the right to see the entire non-redacted version plus the evidence that undergirds it. The reason is obvious. Attorney General Barr has lost credibility in the eyes of half of our citizens. He did not let Robert Mueller confirm the veracity of his “Summary” of last month nor the redacted version last week. I do not trust Barr to be the “gatekeeper” of what information is released. I also believe that Barr, Mueller, Don McGahn and others need to appear before Congress to answer important questions so that the truth can be made more public.

Legal Context – A President cannot be indicted but can be impeached

According to the Justice Department’s traditional position and the specific judgment of its Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be indicted while in office. The rationale behind this is that presidents should not be distracted from fulfilling their executive responsibilities due to legal procedures against them. The options are the following:

A president can be accused of a crime, but not indicted. Nevertheless, without being indicted, a president does not have a legal way to respond to the alleged crimes.
A president can be indicted for crimes committed during his/her presidency, but only after leaving office.
If a president’s actions reach the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, Congress has the responsibility to impeach a president. This is essentially the only way to remove a president from office.

In addition, Barr wrote an unsolicited letter to the Justice Department in June 2018 before he had become Attorney General. In that article he wrote that the Mueller investigation was illegal and a waste of time and taxpayer money, and that a sitting president could not commit obstruction of justice. Many people think that Trump chose Barr to be the Attorney General precisely due to these opinions. In essence, Mueller’s only course of action was to lay out the evidence and then let Congress take the next step. He clearly stated this, “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”

No Conspiracy and Cooperation between Russia and the Trump Campaign

The good news for Trump is that Mueller did not find evidence of conspiracy. The word “collusion” is not a legal term, and as a consequence, Mueller chose to hold a rather strict definition of the legal crime of “conspiracy”. Although Russia interfered in the election in support of Trump and against Hillary Clinton, and the Trump Campaign appreciated their support (ex. “We love WikiLeaks!), Mueller did not find that there was actual cooperation between the Russian government and the Campaign.

Obstruction of Justice

In his summary letter a month ago, Barr concluded (together with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein) that Trump was not guilty of obstruction of justice. This is where Barr distorted the facts. The Mueller Report clearly stated that it did not reach that conclusion. The Report reads, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach such a judgment.” It continues, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Thus, Attorney General Barr gave false information when he provided the first “spin” of the Mueller Report in his March 24th letter and then again in his press conference on April 18.

Why didn’t Mueller reach a decision regarding possible obstruction of justice? He investigated 10 episodes of alleged obstruction by the Trump campaign and administration. He then laid out the evidence both in favor and against that possible obstruction. Was the evidence so divided and balanced that Mueller could not reach a decision? No! He believed that his role was not to render a decision. He wanted the evidence to be weighed in the court of public opinion. If there would be a judgment, it would not be made by him nor by the Attorney General. The U.S. Constitution dictates that it is the Congress that should evaluate if impeachment is required for an obstruction of justice. (See comments below on Congress)

Did President Trump eagerly cooperate with the Mueller investigation?

During his press conference and in other moments, Barr affirmed that President Trump willingly and eagerly cooperated with the investigation. The facts do not confirm this claim. Mueller wanted to directly interview the president and so requested. Trump’s lawyers fought this request over and over again. Finally, it was agreed that Mueller would ask questions that Trump would answer in writing. (Mueller considered subpoenaing the president to an oral interview, but finally decided against doing that because the delay tactics of Trump’s lawyers would have caused the Report to have been extended by months or years.)

In his written answers, Trump was not very cooperative nor transparent. Over thirty times, he answered “I do not remember” or “I do not recollect”. Given that he had several days to turn in his answers, he had plenty of time to review emails, his notes, etc. to refresh his memory. (This is particularly ironic given that he has boasted over and over again that he has one of the best memories of anyone in the history of humanity.) During this past week, Trump has again refused to turn over his tax records. He has also demanded that his White House staff (both current and previous) refuse to appear before Congressional committees, even when they have been subpoenaed. It sure seems that he is trying to hide information from public view.

The Role of Congress to Evaluate the Report

Barr repeatedly affirmed that Mueller never said that the report was to be evaluated by the Congress. This goes directly against Mueller’s testimony. On repeated occasions, Mueller indicates the role of Congress to not only read his report, but if necessary, to act upon it. For example, “The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

The Report also states, “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” It is quite clear that Mueller wants Congress to evaluate his findings.

“Sincere” Beliefs?

Attorney General Barr made an unusual comment that has not received much comment by the press. He claimed that some of President Trump’s actions were based upon his “sincere” beliefs that he was being unfairly attacked. I take issue with the word “sincere”. Only God can determine the sincerity of people’s hearts. So, unless Barr has an infallible connection with God, he should be an impartial Attorney General and not vouch for the sincerity of anyone.

Where do we go from here?

The two options that are generally proposed are: (1) We should forget about the Report and move on with other challenges; or (2) Congress should begin impeachment procedures now. I disagree with the first option because the serious Russia threat needs to be addressed and because Mueller has placed the ball in Congress’ court. I am against the second option because an impeachment procedure is painful and divisive for the entire nation and should only be entered into after thoughtful deliberations. I urge a third way. It is the responsibility of Congress to clarify remaining doubts and answer lingering questions by calling Mueller, Barr, McGahn, and others to bear witness to the truth. Let us follow that truth wherever it leads.

A National Emergency?

February 21, 2019

Our political turmoil continues. The negotiators in Congress who were representing the Democrats and Republicans were able to reach compromise legislation on federal spending last week and averted a governmental shutdown. The legislation passed with overwhelming, veto-proof, majorities in both chambers. The bill dealt with border security, but only authorized $1.375 billion dollars for the construction of 200 miles of a new barrier along the border between Mexico and the United States. This was much less than the $5.7 billion that Trump had requested. On Friday, February 15, President Trump announced that he would sign the legislation into law, but that he was also declaring a national emergency in order to secure more funds for expanded construction of the wall. White House officials say that the declaration would permit the president to redirect $3.6 billion from the military, $2.5 billion from counter-narcotic programs, and $600 million from the Treasury towards wall construction.

Justification for and Weaknesses of the Declaration of Emergency

The 1976 National Emergencies Act is a U.S. federal law that grants special power to the President during an emergency but identifies restrictions for the use of that power. An emergency declaration can be rescinded by a joint resolution of both Chambers of Congress, but this would require a 2/3 majority in both the House and in the Senate in order to override a veto by a president.

Since its enactment, the law has been utilized 59 times, and over thirty of those declarations are still in effect. Republican and Democrat Presidents have invoked it, but this time is different. Previous uses of this act have always enjoyed widespread, bi-partisan acceptance. Recent examples include (1) the prohibition of the importation into the U.S. of diamonds from Sierra Leone {Clinton Executive Order 13194} and (2) the blocking of property of individuals contributing to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo {Bush Executive Order 13413}. Although these and other declarations are somewhat important for those involved, they hardly rise to the level of a “national emergency”.

What is new in Trump’s Declaration is that he wants to transfer funds authorized for other purposes into the construction of the border wall. In its federal spending bill, Congress specifically prohibited the use of funds beyond the $1.375 billion for the construction of a new wall. The U.S. Constitution maintains a fairly clear separation of powers of the three branches of our government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial). It is the Congress that has the “power of the purse”, that is, the responsibility to authorize federal spending, not the Presidency.

How will this conflict play out? It is likely that challenges will take place in both Congress and in the Courts.

Challenges in Congress

Now that the Democrats have the majority in the House of Representatives, it is very likely that Speaker Pelosi will introduce a Joint Resolution to rescind Trump’s emergency declaration. It is also likely that the resolution would pass the House with a substantial majority. Through a special provision, the Senate would have to vote on that same legislation within a short period of time. Republican Senate Leader McConnell would probably not want to bring any legislation to the floor in which Trump would lose the vote, but in this case McConnell would not have any other option. Many Republican Senators (including Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and Marco Rubio) have expressed that the declaration would establish a “dangerous precedent” and, as a consequence, they would support a resolution to rescind the emergency declaration.[1]

It is not so likely that such a Joint Resolution would garner the two/thirds majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate which would be needed to override a Trump veto.

Challenges in the Courts

In his White House speech, President Trump himself predicted that his emergency declaration would be challenged in the courts. “They will sue in the 9^th Circuit (Court of Appeals) even though it shouldn’t be there, and we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we will get another bad ruling and then we will end up in the Supreme Court and hopefully we will get a fair shake and win in the Supreme Court, just like the (travel) ban.”[2] Trump made these comments in a sing-song fashion as if to ridicule the judicial process, but in fact, he is probably correct in predicting what would happen in the various venues of the legal proceedings.

As of today (February 21, 2019), sixteen states have begun proceedings to sue the President. The legal suit claims “Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border.”

Some other legal proceedings will probably come from ranchers who own land on the Southwest Border who do not want their land taken by the government through the use of “eminent domain”.

It is also possible that Democrats in Congress will sue the President, but I think they will express their disapproval through a vote on a joint resolution to rescind the declaration.

In the end, it is likely that the legal proceedings will reach the Supreme Court. The decision they might reach is somewhat difficult to predict. Although “Conservatives” have a 5/4 majority in the Supreme Court, it is not at all certain how they will rule. The newest Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, is known to be in favor of expanding powers for the presidency and would probably vote in favor of the declaration of national emergency. Nevertheless, other conservative justices usually tend to defend the constitution over “extenuating circumstances” and might rule that Trump has violated the law.

At times, President Trump has shown himself to be brilliant in his use of social media to advance his goals (tweets, rallies, etc.). At other times, he has made mistakes that have hurt his cause. His Rose Garden speech on February 15 was not one of his better moments. He made statements that weakened his argument that border wall construction was an “emergency”.

If it were truly an “emergency”, the border wall construction should have been his only topic. Nevertheless, he started his speech by rambling about a host of other items: Brexit, trade, Syria, North Korea, praising himself for being suggested for the Nobel peace prize, etc. before he got to the main issue of the “national emergency”.
During the speech he referred to his emergency declaration and claimed, “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” Emergencies usually require urgent action. By his own words, he unintentionally admitted that the declaration was not urgent, merely just convenient.
After the speech, Trump spent the weekend on vacation at one of his resorts in Florida. Although presidents have the right to go on vacation, it gives an apparently contradictory message to declare an emergency and then go play golf.

My Reflections

Those Republicans in Congress who believe that Trump’s declaration of national emergency was a violation of the law, should vote their conscience instead of giving in to “party loyalty”. Partisanship does not outweigh ethical convictions. It will be important to notice how Republican voters respond to the Senators and Representatives who vote their conscience.
Democrats should avoid “overreach”. They hurt their own cause when they overstate their case. They should stick to the facts. They also need to repeat over and over again why they believe the border security bill was good and sufficient (increased number of ICE personnel, asylum judges, and inspection agents at the ports of entry, the use of better surveillance technology, etc.)
The Supreme Court should evaluate whether this was a valid, legitimate use of the 1976 National Emergencies Act or whether it was a violation of that Act, especially the transfer of large sums of previously designated funds.
Congress should revisit the 1976 National Emergencies Act and, where necessary, make explicit what activities are considered emergencies and those that are not. This Act needs to be updated.
According to all the national polls, most U.S. citizens do not favor declaring a national emergency to obtain funds to build to build a border wall. Nevertheless, a significant majority of Republicans do favor such a declaration. So, even if Trump loses a joint resolution in Congress and/or rulings in the courts, he will repeatedly affirm that he has fought the good fight to be true to his campaign promises. Most of his political base will stick with him and he hopes that this will be sufficient to win the 2020 election. It is important to see if he can keep independent voters. At the present, the majority of independents view this border wall construction as a campaign promise that is not the best way to provide border security.
There is a national crisis, but it is not the need to construct 200 more miles of a wall along the border. There exists a moral crisis. There is a need for more truth in the discussions about the great moral challenges of our day. We the People need to demand, and live, the truth.

[1] See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-warns-trump-republicans-against-emergency-declaration-on-border-funding/2019/02/14/cf6f492c-3099-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html?utm_term=.705f470cf319 for statements by Rubio and other Republican senators who have expressed they would vote in favor of a joint resolution to rescind the emergency declaration.

[2] https://nypost.com/2019/02/15/trump-predicts-he-will-ultimately-win-legal-challenges-to-border-wall/