Who Really Won in Iowa? It Depends How You Spin It.

Iowa celebrated its presidential caucus on Monday. Due to the frigid temperatures, voter turn out was lower than expected, but over 100,000 Iowan Republicans braved the weather and participated in the caucuses. Who won? It depends on who is spinning it.

On the one hand, Donald Trump won with about 51% of the votes. Ron DeSantis came in second place with 21% and Nikki Haley in third with 19%. This was the largest victory in the history of the Iowa caucus. From this perspective, it is extremely likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee for president. Most of the other principal candidates have dropped out. Haley has a small window of opportunity. She would have to win the primary in New Hampshire next week, then ride the momentum to win in her home state of South Carolina plus some victories on Super Tuesday. DeSantis has almost no possibility.

On the other hand, there are troubling signs for Trump. Although 51% voted for Trump, 49% of Iowa Republican caucus participants voted against Trump, by selecting other non-Trump candidates. (For example, if Obama had sat out for four years after his first term as president, and only received 51% in Iowa, nobody would describe it as a victory).

In addition, the entrance polls revealed that about one third of Republicans would not vote for Trump in the general election if he were convicted of crimes in federal courts. Although he is currently faring well against Biden in a hypothetical match up, he cannot afford to lose a third of Republican voters. That is why Trump and his lawyers are trying as hard as they can to delay the court hearings until after November.

We, the American people, deserve to know the essential truth about leading candidates…before we vote in November. No one is above the law. If Trump is found to be not guilty, let that become widely acknowledged. If he is found by juries of his peers to be guilty of serious crimes, we need to be aware of that as well. Democracy flourishes if truth is widely distributed. May all people of good will urge that these court trials occur before the general election in November.

A Lesson from the Epiphany: Don’t Believe Leaders who Lie!

On January 6 many Christians celebrated the Epiphany by celebrating when the Wise Men from the East came to worship baby Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Nevertheless, before they reached Bethlehem, they visited King Herod in Jerusalem and asked him if he knew where to find the newborn Messiah. Herod was worried because a rival to his own kingly rule had appeared on the scene. After consulting with religious priests and teachers, Herod found out that Jesus was to be born in the town of Bethlehem. Herod gave the Wise Men this information, and then added, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-12).

Herod lied. He had no intention of worshipping Jesus. He was using the Wise Men’s naivete to find out Jesus’ exact location in order to kill him. But God spoke to the Wise Men and told them to return their countries by a different way. This they did. When Herod discovered their “disobedience”, he became furious and ordered the massacre of all the little boys in Bethlehem. God told Mary and Joseph to take Jesus to Egypt to find refuge.

There are many interesting lessons to learn from this story, but I would like to concentrate on one. King Herod lied. And he used a religious motivation to cover his lie. Sadly, Jesus, when he was a grown man, taught that kings and other rulers all too frequently lie. They lord it over their subjects yet claim to be doing good (Luke 22:24-25). What is the lesson to be learned? We should not be gullible. We should not be naïve. We should not believe lying leaders…even when they cloak their lies in religiosity.

There are some leaders who are women and men of integrity who generally tell the truth. Nevertheless, we should use great caution and discernment when we hear politicians. Many leaders in every major country frequently lie. Many Democrat leaders and many Republican leaders frequently lie. Lying is not the exclusive domain of our political enemies.

Former President Reagan borrowed the Russian proverb “trust, but verify” and popularized the phrase in the English language. This is what I urge us all to do. Don’t naively believe everything you hear, especially in an election year. To the degree that is possible, question, fact check, and verify the affirmations of all politicians.

I eagerly watched the Republican presidential debate last night. Three candidates had qualified for the debate (Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump), but Trump chose not to participate. It was a lively debate with some substance and some smoke. DeSantis said, “Don’t trust Haley. She is lying.” Haley mentioned a dozen times the website DeSantisLies.com which points out the multiple lies of DeSantis and refutes them with evidence. Here are Republican leaders who tell us not to believe the words and promises of their rivals. They also accused Trump of lying, not just the “little” lies of the value of his properties, the unwanted fondling of women, or the immunity of presidents for all their actions while in office, etc., but the “Big Lie” of the 2020 election being stolen. Haley affirmed, “Biden won, Trump lost. It’s time to move forward.”

Leaders are not usually as good as they claim to be. Their lies must be unmasked. They point to the need for those who will double-check the facts and ask the tough questions. Let us be discerning as we seek the truth that can set us free.

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.

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.”