The FBI Search of Mar-a-Lago: We Hear what We Want to Hear and Disregard the Rest”

Back in 1970, Simon and Garfunkel recorded their album Bridge over Troubled Waters which contained the song, the Boxer. There is a penetrating line in the lyrics which says, “A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.” This is a sad, but true, commentary on human nature. Although most people say that they strive to follow the truth, in fact, many of us reach our conclusions largely by our previously held beliefs rather than by the evidence and the truth.

On Monday, August 8, 2022, former president Donald Trump’s residence, Mar-a-Lago was searched by FBI agents with a warrant. They removed eleven sets of classified documents from his time in the White House. Many Trump supporters had an immediate, knee-jerk reaction and claimed the search was an illegal “raid” implemented by a politically motivated order by Attorney General, Merrick Garland. On the other side, many Democrats also had a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction, gleefully claiming that the former president was finally declared guilty for his multiple crimes. Both sides jumped the gun and “heard what they wanted to hear and disregarded the rest”.

CNN anchor Michael Smerconish (previously a Republican, now a centrist Independent) created an imaginary conversation between two co-workers, one a Republican, and the other a Democrat:

I can just imagine a conversation between a Republican and Democratic co-worker, they’re gathered around the Keurig and the Democrat says, “Ah, the ‘New York Times’ reported Thursday that there was a subpoena issued, so when Trump didn’t comply, the search was necessary.” And the Republican response, “Yes, but he had produced certain documents and he was cooperating. He even greeted the people from the archives when they came to his house in June. So why didn’t the Feds file a motion to compel or issue another subpoena?” The Democrat says, “If Trump really was a victim, he’d have produced the warrant and inventory that day it happened.” And the Republican response, “The warrant and inventory, they’re meaningless. Show us the affidavit.” The Democrat, “The Washington Post said they were classified documents relating to nuclear weapons. So, there was urgency in conducting the search.” And the Republican response, “The warrant was signed on a Friday, executed on a Monday. That’s not urgency.”

People on both sides “hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest”. As the dust is slowly settling, we all need to take a deep breath and wait for the facts to play out.

Democrats were right when they affirmed that a subpoena had been issued in June, 2022. Not all the documents were turned in. (even though a lawyer for Trump falsely declared that all the documents had been turned over)

Republicans were right in being somewhat skeptical andy reques they appropriately requested that the warrant and the receipt of materials be made public. Merrick Garland released them. The warrant revealed there was probable cause that three laws had been broken: (1) the Espionage Act; (2) the destruction of documents; and (3) the obstruction of justice. If true, these are serious crimes and we need to see if the Department of Justice brings charges or not. According to the receipt, the FBI search obtained eleven sets of information (in about 20 boxes).

1 set of top secret information / SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information
4 sets of other top secret information
3 sets of secret information
3 sets of confidential documents

This does not bode well for the former president. At the very least, it shows deep carelessness. If it is shown that Trump had knowledge and intent, he might be indicted.

Trump, many Republican leaders and major news outlets have all asked that the affidavit (that was used to justify the warrant) be released to the public. I doubt that this will take place because it deals with super sensitive information (it possibly contains names of our spies and informants, nuclear weapons, methods of espionage, etc.). What I do suggest is that the DOJ reveal the affidavit to the ranking bipartisan members of the Congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. These members already have special clearance to handle delicate information and should be trusted.

I also request that we pay attention to what we don’t want to hear even if it is spoken by the “other side”. If it is true, we need to include it in our conclusions. If it is false, we should gracefully refute it. Our democracy is in a fragile situation. Seeking the truth, speaking the truth, and heeding the truth are more necessary than ever.

The FBI Search of Mar-a-Lago: “We hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest”

CNN anchor Michael Smerconish (previously a Republican, now a centrist Independent) created an imaginary conversation between two co-workers, one a Republican, and the other a Democrat:

People on both sides “hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest”. As the dust is slowly settling, we all need to take a deep breath and wait for the facts to play out.

1 set of top secret information / SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information
4 sets of other top secret information
3 sets of secret information
3 sets of confidential documents

This does not bode well for the former president. At the very least, it shows deep carelessness. If it is shown that Trump had knowledge and intent, he might be indicted.

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.

Are the January 6 Hearings a “Witch Hunt”? Does it Matter

Over the past week we have witnessed the first three televised sessions regarding the January 6^th, 2021 storming of the Capitol building in an attempt to block the certification of the election of President Biden. The congressional committee has mounted a large number of witnesses (all staunch Republicans up to this point) who have generally placed the blame for the insurrection on former president Trump.

Some of my friends (and many who support Trump) refuse to watch the hearings and claim that the evidence should be rejected because it is a “Witch Hunt”. They accuse the committee of being “never Trumpers” and, therefore, too prejudiced to be listened to. There are seven Democrats and two Republicans on the committee. I hope that the committee members are trying to be fair, but I am realistic enough to recognize they are human and come to their task with subjective biases. Nevertheless, to dismiss the hearings as a “Witch Hunt” is a misguided cop-out. It is cowardly (and ethically wrong) to reject evidence without looking at it by alleging that it comes from prejudiced people. The issue is not who the information comes from, but whether it is accurate and true… or not. It takes great courage to examine information that we might not like and evaluate it with an open mind. I invite all people in our country to sift through the evidence and answer the following questions:

Attorney General William Barr as well as Trump’s own campaign manager told him that he had lost the election, fair and square. Is Trump guilty of spreading the false message that the election had been stolen which was the principal motivation for the January 6^th protest?
After the election, Trump and his team 250 million dollars for an election defense fund. The problem is that this “fund” does not exist. It is a sham. Is Trump guilty of fraud?
It is obvious that Trump pressured Vice President Pence to not certify the results of the Electoral College on January 6, 2021. Thursday’s hearing affirmed this was a violation of the Constitution. Was the pressure applied by Trump against Pence a criminal action?

If we want the truth, we must sift through the allegations. It is worth the effort. It will set us free and help restore our democracy.

Presidential Pardons: when they are good and when they are not

Information has been leaked to the press that either today or tomorrow morning, President Trump will grant pardons to some 80 – 100 people for their crimes. In order to evaluate this action, it is important to have some background and context regarding presidential pardons.

In many democracies around the world, the president has the authority to grant a pardon to convicted criminals. In the United States, many presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have spent their last days in office granting these pardons. In the U.S. legal system, presidential pardons can only be applied to federal crimes, not state convictions. The first clause of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The President …shall have Power to grand Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This usually takes the form of a pardon which is forgiveness of a person’s conviction or a commutation in which the sentences are abbreviated or vacated.

Throughout U.S. history, there have been three main reasons why presidents have granted pardons.

After a court case has been decided, and the person has been convicted of a crime, new evidence appears which, if it had been presented during the trial, would probably have produced a not guilty decision This new evidence can include DNA records, a confession by the true guilty party, photographs, tape recordings, etc. If done carefully and cautiously, this seems to me like a legitimate use of the presidential pardon.
Penalties for crimes vary in their severity over time. For example, decades ago, minor nonviolent drug offenses were punished quite harshly. Almost two thousand people are serving life sentences in federal prisons for nonviolent crimes. Most citizens believe that these severe punishments have needlessly destroyed people’s lives and their families. Here, a presidential commutation seems appropriate, because people should not spend the rest of their lives in prison for one mistake.
Some convicted people have become contrite and repentant in prison. They have turned their lives around and have become examples of good conduct. At times, presidents have rewarded this change of heart and action with a pardon. This is more ambiguous than the first two situations where true guilt is punished. Although I definitely believe that God can forgive us our sins, there are social consequences for our crimes. A presidential pardon for these repentant people could be appropriate if we could determine some criteria for measuring the validity of their actions.

To protect the integrity of the presidential pardon, there are safeguards. All applications for pardons must be prepared and submitted to the president by the U.S. Pardon Attorney of the Department of Justice, although the president is not required to follow the recommendations.

These guidelines have not always been followed. Some pardons/commutations are obviously immoral such as presidents who have granted pardons to their family members or friends. To give a pardon in exchange for money (given directly or via a large donation to a particular political campaign) is illegal. (President Clinton made many questionable pardons of wealthy donors and friends, including the most controversial one granted to financier Marc Rich). A presidential pardon of oneself has never been tested in the courts but seems ridiculously immoral from my point of view. In the latest NBC poll, 64% of U.S. citizens are against the idea of President Trump pardoning himself. (A reputable news reporter just announced that a president can have a legal “secret” list of people who are pardoned which will only be made public if and when the person is convicted. If this is true, then it is likely that the “official list of Trump’s pardonees” might not be complete, with some of his family or friends on the secret list.)

My dear readers, whether you are a supporter of Trump or one of his critics, strive to apply the criteria described above to his imminent pardons… and remember, “No one is above the law”. For the good of society, we should all be accountable for our actions.

Nadie está por encima de la Ley

There was significant interest in the blog ¨No One is Above the Law¨ that I published on Monday. Several people from Latin America and Spain have asked for a version in Spanish to help clarify our current complex political situation. I offer the following to accomplish their request.

Nadie está por encima de la Ley: ¿Cuáles son nuestras opciones?

Aunque no me sorprendió, como la mayoría de las personas, me sentí consternado por los eventos que tuvieron lugar en el Capitolio de los Estados Unidos en Washington, DC la semana pasada. Un grupo de partidarios del presidente Trump marchó hasta el Capitolio y luego irrumpió en el edificio. Intentaban impedir que el Congreso contara y ratificara los votos del Colegio Electoral que certificaban la victoria electoral de Biden. Aunque no es común en los Estados Unidos, esto fue, de hecho, una insurrección, un auto “golpe de Estado”, un intento de robar la elección a los votantes que eligieron a Biden el 3 de noviembre de 2020. El presidente Trump había hablado anteriormente con los manifestantes y repitió la mentira de que había ganado las elecciones. Luego instó a sus seguidores a marchar hacia el Capitolio y luchar por su “victoria del día de las elecciones”. Los miembros del Senado y la Cámara de Representantes se reunieron para contar los votos del Colegio Electoral. Aunque algunos de los manifestantes eran pacíficos, cuando llegaron al edificio del Capitolio, la protesta se tornó violenta, irrumpió y destrozó el edificio. La fuerza policial estaba abrumada. Al principio, los miembros del Congreso se mantuvieron en su lugar, pero luego fueron trasladados a “búnkeres” seguros en el sótano. Durante el motín, Trump tuiteó una dura crítica al vicepresidente Pence por no anular los resultados (lo que legalmente no podía hacer). Inmediatamente, surgieron gritos dentro de la multitud al interior del Capitolio, “¡Cuelguen a Mike Pence! ¡Cuelguen a Mike Pence!”. Después de varias horas, la policía finalmente recuperó el control, aunque cinco personas han muerto como consecuencia de la violencia. Más tarde esa noche, el Congreso reanudó su sesión y certificó la victoria de Biden.

La mayoría de la gente ha condenado las acciones de los partidarios de Trump como criminales debido al allanamiento de morada y al vandalismo, aunado a las cinco personas que murieron. Los demócratas y muchos republicanos han acusado al presidente de incitar a la insurrección. Al menos dos miembros del gabinete (la secretaria de Educación Betsy Devos y la secretaria de Transporte Elaine Chao) y muchos otros funcionarios de alto rango han renunciado en protesta. Republicanos prominentes que han apoyado a Trump en el pasado (como Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham y William Barr) han admitido que el presidente ha ido demasiado lejos esta vez. Algunos de sus amigos más confiables cuestionan su salud psicológica y dicen que ha estado inusualmente deprimido después de su derrota electoral. Aunque la transferencia de poder a Biden tendrá lugar el 20 de enero, la mayoría de los ciudadanos estadounidenses quieren que Trump se vaya antes. Por temor a que Trump haga aún más daño en los próximos diez días, Twitter y Facebook han bloqueado permanentemente las cuentas del presidente. Si nadie está por encima de la ley, ¿cómo responsabilizar a las personas por sus acciones y, al mismo tiempo, traer mejoría a nuestro país? Hay varias opciones disponibles, pero cada una tiene sus ventajas y desventajas. ¿Qué debería hacerse?

1.- Trump podría renunciar lo antes posible. Tras su renuncia, el vicepresidente Mike Pence se convertiría en presidente hasta el 20 de enero. Esta es la opción más fácil, con mucho, y minimizaría la polarización adicional del pueblo estadounidense. Por sí sola, una renuncia no castigaría a Trump por sus crímenes. Pence podría ofrecerle un perdón presidencial (como Ford le dio a Nixon), que cubriría todos los delitos federales. Sin embargo, Trump aún podría enfrentar cargos del estado de Nueva York por evasión de impuestos u otros presuntos delitos, pero su incitación a la insurrección probablemente quedaría impune. Trump ha anunciado que no renunciará bajo ninguna circunstancia (podría ser presionado para cambiar de opinión si una opción más negativa como el juicio político se convierte en realidad).

2.- El vicepresidente Pence y la mayoría del gabinete podrían invocar el artículo 25 que establece que un presidente puede ser destituido de su cargo si no es apto (física o psicológicamente) para cumplir con sus funciones. Hasta ahora, Pence no ha mostrado ninguna voluntad de implementar esta opción.

3.- La presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes, Nancy Pelosi, ha prometido que si Pence no invoca el artículo 25, ella traerá un artículo de acusación a la Cámara a principios de esta semana por incitar a la insurrección. Ella pondría esto en una “vía rápida”, y podría someterse a votación en la Cámara de Representantes el miércoles. Pasaría fácilmente. Luego iría al Senado donde necesitaría una supermayoría para su aprobación, lo cual no es tan seguro. Aun así, la decisión del Senado probablemente no se alcanzaría hasta después de la toma de posesión de Biden. Si el Senado confirma el juicio político, a Trump se le prohibiría postularse para presidente o cualquier otro cargo federal en el futuro. Sin embargo, Biden no favorece esta opción. No quiere comenzar su presidencia con una furiosa pelea partidista.

4.- El Congreso podría “censurar” a Trump por sus acciones. Esto probablemente se aprobaría tanto en el Senado como en la Cámara con un apoyo republicano sustancial. Sin embargo, este es un castigo demasiado débil. Es como una palmada en la muñeca por un delito grave que resultó en cinco muertes y podría haber derrumbado la democracia estadounidense.

Como puede verse, cada opción tiene su lado negativo. ¿Cómo deberíamos responsabilizar a la gente por sus crímenes y traer curación a nuestro país polarizado al mismo tiempo? Si ni la opción 1 ni la 2 se implementan en los próximos días, yo estaría a favor de un juicio político (impeachment) por la vía rápida en la Cámara, pero no llevado inmediatamente al Senado. Esto daría tiempo para que se produzca un respiro y para que Biden obtenga la aprobación de su gabinete y comience a implementar sus políticas prometidas. Si este alto crimen queda impune, otros presidentes podrían envalentonarse para cometer este u otros crímenes de traición en el futuro. Todos deben rendir cuentas por sus delitos. Nadie está por encima de la ley.

Un problema paralelo es por qué la policía fue tan ineficaz para detener esta insurrección. La policía del Capitolio debería haber sido reforzada rápidamente con la Guardia Nacional o la fuerza policial del FBI, pero por alguna razón, esas ofertas de ayuda fueron rechazadas. ¿Por qué? Se debe realizar una investigación exhaustiva para descubrir quién falló en sus responsabilidades y si Trump u otros estuvieron involucrados. Dado que la inauguración tendrá lugar el 20 de enero, es muy posible que se produzcan más acciones de violencia en la capital o en otros lugares de Estados Unidos durante los próximos días.

Otro tema que debe abordarse es el racismo institucional. Las protestas pacíficas de Black Lives Matter tuvieron lugar en DC y en otras ciudades el pasado verano y se encontraron con una fuerte resistencia policial. Pero cuando los manifestantes por la supremacía blanca invadieron y saquearon el edificio del Capitolio el miércoles, la inacción de la policía permitió que el saqueo no se controlara. El camino hacia la igualdad racial es largo y difícil, pero sigamos avanzando y no perdamos la esperanza.

My advice for Biden and Trump… and for the people of the United States

The dust is settling on our election. Mr. Biden has won 290 electors in the Electoral College to 217 for Mr. Trump, with Georgia and North Carolina still too close to call. The president’s legal suits have not been successful in the courts and the end result of Biden’s victory is certain.

Mr. Trump

Republican and Democrat state leaders have uniformly affirmed that there has been no evidence of massive voter fraud. It is past time to put on your big boy britches and give a gracious concession speech. For the good of the country, let the Biden team have access to important information from the national security agencies, the Covid/19 advisory board, etc. so that the transition can be as seamless as possible.
Most Republican Senate and House candidates did slightly better than you did, meaning a significant slice of voters split their ballot, voting for Biden for president and then for Republicans down ballot. Therefore, take a serious look at what aspects of your character have turned Republicans off, your lies, your bullying, your arrogance, and your American machismo (your lack of respect for John McCain cost you Arizona). Even in the later years of our lives, we can be honestly repentant and make important changes.
Given the dire situation of the Covid/19 virus, be honest with the U.S. people about the true depths of the problems. Wear a mask. Do not undercut Dr. Fauci. Work with the Biden people to facilitate a quick delivery of vaccines once they are safely available. In light of the negative consequences for the economy, urge Republicans in Congress to reach a compromise with the Democrats for a Covid relief bill. Many of our neighbors are in great financial need and a relief bill is necessary and urgent.

Mr. Biden

Even before your inauguration, there are significant steps you can take. Urge the Democrats to reach a compromise Covid/19 relief bill now with their Republican counterparts. A lame duck session of Congress does not have to be a do-nothing session.
Continue to meet with expert epidemiologists and economists so that we can fight and win against our common enemy: the Covid pandemic. Move full speed ahead on a national plan of greater testing and an urgent, safe development of a vaccine that can be distributed quickly and without cost to all who want it.
In your first days in office, use your presidential executive power in areas where the majority of citizens agree.
- Rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement
- Rejoin the World Health Organization (WHO)
- Sign again an executive order protecting the Dreamers from deportation. They did nothing wrong and many are serving our country as “first responders”.
Find common ground with Republicans on necessary legislation such as an infrastructure bill that fixes our roads and bridges and that stimulates the economy.

People of the United States

Now that the election is over, cool down the rhetoric. Let’s be more open to admitting the flaws of our preferred candidates.
Let’s seek common ground solutions to our local and national problems. This will require greater humility, creativity and integrity on our parts.
I repeat Lincoln’s wise words as good advice for us all, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds.”

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.

The Coronavirus and a Bad Week for “Trump’s” Stock Market

Over the past three years, President Trump has been repeatedly warned not to take too much credit for the rise in the stock market. If he claimed that he and his policies were the main reason for its gains, he would also have to ¨own¨ that same market if an unexpected plunge would bring the market down. His unmerited praise in the good times could easily be outweighed by undeserved criticism for bad conditions beyond his control.

The truth of the matter is that Trump inherited a strong economy from the Obama administration. For example, in the last 19 months of Obama’s administration, 3.9 million jobs were created in the U.S., whereas 3.6 million jobs were created in the first 19 months of Trump’s presidency. (In my next blog, I will analyze the tax cut, the national debt and other aspects of our economy, but here I want to concentrate on the Coronavirus and the stock market.)

The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit an all time high on Wednesday, February 19. It closed that afternoon at 29,348.03 Although there was an awareness of the negative economic effects of the Coronavirus, the White House and many economic pundits believed that the negative impact would largely be limited to China. Small drops in the Dow Jones were expected to occur and that is precisely what happened last week. Nevertheless, the harsh economic reality hit with a vengeance on Monday, February 24, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than a thousand points to a close at 27,960.80 (a decline of more than 3%).

It was widely predicted that the Dow Jones would rebound on Tuesday. That turn around did not materialize and the market continued to fall another 880 points.

The Dow Jones index dropped another 125 points on Wednesday which prompted President Trump to present a special televised message to the nation later that evening. His message was to show to a concerned citizenry and a jittery market that the administration was in control of the Coronavirus situation. In response to the criticism that the administration´s response was in shambles, Trump appointed Vice President Pence to be the ¨Czar¨ of the situation. Trump´s message was not his best. He rambled, repeated himself, and made misleading comments about the Coronavirus being similar to the flu. He claimed that it was not inevitable that the virus would extend widely throughout the U.S., thus contradicting what his own CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) had announced that it was not a question of IF the Coronavirus would spread in the United States, but WHEN it would do so.

Far from calming his public, the Dow Jones dropped another 1190 points on Thursday to close at 25,766.64. This was the largest one-day point drop in the history of the Dow Jones. In a strange twist on the fable about the boy who cried wolf, President Trump has a credibility problem with half of the American public. The more he affirms, ¨Everything is great¨, ¨we have it under control¨, and ¨we are totally prepared¨, the less our citizens believe him. I don’t believe him. More importantly, investors don´t believe him.

On Friday, the nose dive of the Dow Jones continued. It dropped another 357 points to close at 25,409.36. It was the worst one week decline since the economic crisis of 2008. From its high on February 19, it has fallen 15%. Most economic and political pundits believe (hope?) that the bottom has been reached and that the value of the stocks will soon rise again. Nevertheless, here is what we need to keep in mind if we want to move forward:

We must not minimize the personal tragedy. Almost three thousand people have already died from the virus and over 82,000 have been infected worldwide.
Vice President Mike Pence, the new ¨Czar¨ charged with heading the fight against the virus, needs to surround himself with credible medical health experts. When Pence was governor of Indiana, he made several troublesome medical health comments like ¨Cigarettes do not cause cancer¨.
President Trump must be more honest and transparent with the American public. He has muzzled government scientists and health officials to get clearance with Pence´s office before they communicate with the media. This censorship does not inspire confidence.
The coronavirus is not the sole reason for the Dow Jones fall. Most stock market experts agree that the market was overvalued and was in need of a ¨correction¨. Before the virus hit, many countries around the world were sliding into a recession. That is now more likely. The trade war with China had already weakened the economies of that country and the U.S. The relationship between our economic growth and our huge national debt is at a very dangerous level. As a country, our expenses are much higher than our income. We are paying for our lavish lifestyle by borrowing from future generations.
The economy has a huge political impact. Remember Clinton’s political slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Trump’s political fortunes will rise or fall on how his administration handles this crisis. For better or for worse, Trump “owns” this economy.

The Impeachment Trial and Hypocrisy

The impeachment trial of President Trump is coming to an end. It is likely today there will be a vote on the calling of witnesses. That vote will probably be about 49/51 and therefore not enough to pass. If this happens, Trump will be acquitted shortly thereafter.

There have been many irregularities that need to be clarified. Here are my reflections.

Hypocrisy is evident in both sides: Democrats and Republicans. Two decades ago, President Clinton was impeached in the Republican controlled House of Representatives but acquitted in the Democrat dominated Senate (just the opposite of the current composition in Congress). Some of the current key players on both sides were also quite involved in the Clinton trial (Lindsey Graham, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, Mitch McConnell, and others) and they are on record arguing for ethical and procedural positions on witnesses, documents, etc., in that trial that are just the opposite of what they have affirmed in the current situation. Although it is possible for people to change their minds on ethical principles, in this case the tribalism and hypocrisy are quite evident. We the people are naïve if we don´t recognize that many politicians change their moral principles to suit their personal or political ambitions. We the people should call them out, Democrats and Republicans alike, for their hypocrisy.

Witnesses – According to U.S. history, we have had fifteen previous impeachment trials in the Senate (of Presidents and others). In every one of these trials, there have been witnesses. If no witnesses are permitted to give testimony in the Trump trial, it is a complete break with precedent.

A bogus argument – The White House lawyers have repeatedly claimed that the Democrats in the House did not do their job, because they should have called witnesses like Bolton. As a consequence, the lawyers argue that the Senate should not call witnesses just because the House Democrats failed to do their job. This is the height of hypocrisy and I hope that most citizens see through this guile. The lawyers know quite well that Trump defied every single subpoena for witnesses and documents. When subpoenas are defied, the lawyers claimed the House should have gone to court to obtain this testimony, but they know quite well that appeals to the court would take months to work through the judicial system. (the House did take their subpoena of previous White House Counsel Don McGahn to court, but nine months later, the courts have still not given their final decision) This is stalling. What makes it worse, early on the WH counsel said that taking the subpoenas to court was illegal. Arguing that the House could not go to court and then arguing that the House should have taken the extra months and/or years by going to court is a sham. Most Americans recognize this as hypocritical.

In an earlier blog weeks ago, I expressed the need for eyewitnesses to testify. Eyewitnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney are the ones whose testimony under oath could confirm whether President Trump is innocent or guilty. Both of these men were appointed by Trump. Both are Republicans. Rules could be established that limit their testimony to one day or one week. To vote against calling these witnesses is an admission of not wanting to seek the truth.

Not hearing from the most relevant witnesses gives the appearance of hiding the facts and covering up misdeeds. John Bolton´s book will eventually be published, and his understanding of the truth will be made public. Let it happen during the trial and not when it is too late.