Legal, But Not Legitimate

EDMUND

As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

                                     KING LEAR
                                    Act I, Scene 2

     Legitimacy: a word that stalks Donald Trump.  He feels it right behind him and it's why he incessantly scurries to his favorite phrase "no collusion."  It has seeped into his skin and makes him rasp on and on about how "it was a clean campaign, I beat Hilary Clinton easily."  It deflates his ego so he bellows, "We ran a brilliant campaign, and that's why I'm president."

     But the legitimacy of his presidency is more in question now than ever after he groveled before Putin and said, "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia that interfered in the 2016 election.  Politically and legally Trump is president.  But that fact carries little or no weight if the man in the Oval Office has forfeited his moral standing.  And Trump forfeited his when he supported Putin over the American intelligence agencies that have documented the Russian cyber attacks on our democracy.
   
     Fortunately, most Republican leaders in Congress have been honest enough to affirm publicly that they know the Russians under Putin's direction hacked the election.  Unfortunately, they have lacked the courage to admit the possibility that Russian interference might have affected the outcome.  Paul Ryan, for one, stated, "They did interfere in our election--it's really clear.  There should be no doubt about that."  But Ryan also claimed that the interference had no "effect" on the election. Clearly, Ryan wants to "legitimize" Trump's electoral victory.  Nevertheless, his is a conclusion without basis in fact.  With Trump's margin of victory so slim, it is impossible to ignore how many votes might have been delivered into his column with Russia's help.

     Another Republican, Trey Gowdy, remarked that "it is possible to conclude Russia interfered in our election in 2016 without delegitimizing his electoral success."  Even before the news conference with Putin, Trump's legitimacy as president has been corroded by the findings and indictments of the Mueller probe, the suspicious meeting at Trump tower between Don Jr., Paul Manafort and Russians, and the recent 12 indictments of Russians who hacked into the 2016 election.

    Among the information reported from Mueller's indictment is that Russian hackers stole data from the Democratic Party National Committee used to target potential voters for their candidates.  One Republican consultant has already admitted that he received some of this data and used it to help Republican Brian Mast during his 2016 campaign for congress.  One has to suspect that information from these hackers was passed on to the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

     Perhaps we can balance the legitimacy of Trump's presidency on a single adverb--"not."  On Tuesday, Trump stiffened his back, folded his arms and tried erase what he said Monday about believing Putin over America's intelligence agencies.  He simply forgot to insert the word "not," in "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia.  Of course, he spoke more about there not being any "collusion" between his campaign and the Russians.

     A child who insults a friend then claims that's "not" what he meant, might believe the lie he uses to squirm his way out of trouble.  I don't know if Trump believes his own lie (and lies); most of America does not.  The Republican party, if it is to salvage its own legitimacy, has to repudiate this "base" man who, though still has the legal authority to occupy the White House, has "not" any moral legitimacy to remain as president.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Trump

     In the film, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Control, who is head of MI 6, wants to uncover which of his four colleagues is actually a mole planted by the Russians at the top of British Intelligence.  He sends an agent, Jim Prideaux, to Hungary to meet with an Hungarian general who knows the name of the spy, but Control's plan is foiled by his Russian intelligence nemesis, Karla.  

     Watching the film's byzantine plot, which has driven some viewers to theatre exits well before the movie's conclusion, we learn that Bill Hayden, the number two official in British Intelligence, has long ago been "turned" by the Russians into a double agent working on their behalf.   And although it seems implausible that such a plot could unfold in real life, we have been observing an analogous, though contorted, storyline nevertheless produce a disturbing correlative.   To wit: the news conference in Finland where Trump defended Putin and Russia's hacking of the 2016 election.

     Unlike Bill Hayden, who was only an official in Britain's spy agency, the Russians have managed to insert their mole at the very top of the United States Government, President Trump.  Fantastic as this may sound, the evidence has been mounting for two years and today it rose to the level of a national-security emergency.  

     Anyone watching that conference couldn't help but be astonished by Trump's flagrant contradiction of U.S. intelligence reports documenting with overwhelming factual evidence Russia's interference in the 2016 election.  Yet, Trump stood at the podium and announced that "I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia who hacked the election.  When pressed by reporters whether he believed Putin or America's intelligence agencies, Trump replied that there are "two thoughts" about the hacking, and then he shifted the topic to one of his favorite bogyman, Hilary Clinton's "missing" emails.    

     Trump's performance in Finland followed his attacking America's European allies the previous week.  He criticized Germany, claiming that country "is captive to Russia," faulted Theresa May on her handling of Brexit, and stated that the European Union is a foe of the United Sates.  All this while he remained silent on Russia's aggression against Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, the poisoning of British citizens and the cyber attacks on the United States' election.  

     Putin must be smiling broadly these days back at the Kremlin.  He's achieved more than the villain Karla in "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" could have dreamt of in his machinations against the West.  He's inserted his man at the pinnacle of the most powerful country on earth.  Now the rest of us will have to wait and see if the party Trump leads will have the honesty and courage to foil Putin's success and remove the Russia mole from the White House.  

Republican Values

     Ohio Representative Jim Jordan has a lot on his mind this week of July Fourth, and it's not the eloquent virtues penned in the Declaration of Independence.  Allegations that he knew of sexual harassment and abuse of Ohio State University wrestlers while he was an assistant coach there are biting at his heels.  He denies he knew about the harassment or abuse and asserts that if he had, he would have taken action to protect his athletes.

     Luckily for him, the  President of the United States has come to his defense.  Donald Trump believes Jim Jordan.  He believes his claims that he was unaware of any sexual harassment or abuse during his time at Ohio State.   And if Trump says it, then it must be true: "Jim Jordan is one of the most outstanding people I've met since I've been in Washington.  I believe him 100 percent.  No question in my mind."

     But what of the men who say Jordan did know?  They say everyone, including Jordan, knew about the sexual harassment by voyeurs lurking at the Ohio State University sport's facility and the sexual abuse of wrestlers by the university doctor, Richard Strauss.  Are they all lying?  Or are they, as Jordan purports, part of a "deep state" conspiracy determined to bring him down because of his "honest" search for the truth in questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?

     This is the classic tale of sexual assaults and the astonishing moral torpidity of the grownups who know all about it yet pretend they don't.  We saw this pattern with Joe Paterno and the vile monster Jerry Sandusky.  Paterno's willingness to ignore the rape of young boys stretches beyond the bounds of human understanding and forgiveness.  Like Paterno, Jordan claims that he knew nothing.  Given the number of men who have said Jordan did know makes his assertion of "ignorance" less than credible. 

     Throughout his political career, Jim Jordan has styled himself as a conservative purist.  Conservative on taxes, immigration, the military (which means spending taxpayer's money on unneeded tanks), on the environment (which means allowing corporations to poison the planet), and, of course, conservative on protecting Donald Trump.  He is among those who have led the fight to discredit the Mueller investigation.  Jordan is so loyal to Trump that when asked by Anderson Cooper if he had ever heard Trump lie, Jordan answered that he had not, despite the almost four thousand lies Trump has told since being in office.  

     One expects members of both political parties to be partisan; to frequently stretch facts to fit the narratives they wish to promote.  However, as the tally of lies Trump has told continues to grow, it becomes ludicrous to deny that Trump has ever told a lie, and such a statement by Jordan makes one suspect he too possesses no regard for the truth.  But I guess that's what makes them simpatico.  And like Trump, Jordan continues to receive unwavering support from his Republican base.  That support tells us a great deal about the character of those supporters.  However, in the contest for truth between him and his former wrestlers, Jordan, I afraid, is pinned to the mat.

*********************************************************************************

     While sordidness and sheer dishonesty cling to one of the foremost republican members, on the democratic side of the political aisle a fresh face has emerged to inspire hope for the November elections.  In a New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez trounced Joe Crowley, the fourth ranking Democrat who was said to be in line for Nancy Pelosi's leadership position.

     After upsetting the highly favored Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez encountered a less than warm reception from fellow Democrats and the expected disdain from Republicans.  Nancy Pelosi dismissed that Ocasio-Cortez's victory as insignificant and limited to "just one district."  Tammy Duckworth, commenting on the primary results said, "I think that you can't win the White House without the Midwest, and I think you can go too far to the left and still win the Midwest."

     Of course, conservatives have expressed disdain and revulsion for Ocasio-Cortez because she is a Democratic Socialist.  Conservative Bret Stephens of The New York Times presented a more balanced analysis of what he fears her candidacy will produce come November, which he has called "political hemlock for the Democratic Party."  Even though Stephens is a conservative, he is afraid that Ocasio-Cortez's political positions will drive the Democrats too far left and thereby hand Trump congressional wins in the fall that could prevent his impeachment.  But what are the policies that Ocasio-Cortez supports which these liberals and conservatives label as too far left to be political feasible?

     Ocasio-Cortez believes in "health care as a human right."  She believes that "every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it."  She believes that "no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States."

     Mainstream liberals such as Pelosi and Duckworth are frightened about being labeled too liberal; and the word "socialist" seems to terrify them.  Conservative, on the other hand, cringed at the slightest notion that government can serve the American people with programs to lessen some of life's hardships.  It's what makes them scorn Ocasio-Cortez's political views.  Ocasio-Cortez's identifies herself as a Democratic Socialist.  But as she herself explains, that label is not what matters most.  What matters to her are the values she believes need to be essential in serving as a representative in Congress.  She puts it succinctly: Being a Democratic Socialist is "part of what I am; it's not all of what I am...and I think that's a very important distinction...I'm not truing to impose an ideology on all several hundred members of Congress...It's not about selling an 'ism' or an ideology or a label or a color.  This about selling values."

     As Ocasio-Cortez says, she is not interested in imposing her beliefs on anyone else.  Her aim is to present her views and try to persuade fellow Democrats and members of the other party that her values, and therefore policies, have merit.  If they accept her ideas and support them, so be it.  If not, she will continue her best to convince them of the merit of her beliefs and values without resorting to demagoguery.

     And that's what it all comes down  to: Which party has the values that will best serve the country and the planet?  The Republicans, who value corporate profits and greed above all else, including the health of new born babies (See "U.S. Officials Opposition to Breast-Feeding Stuns World Health Officials")? Or Democrats such as Ocasio-Cortez, who know that profits and wealth don't measure the real health and prosperity of a country and a world.  When Ocasio-Cortez wins her seat in the fall, the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans will become even more conspicuous and important.  Let's hope her victory becomes a watershed election in the history of American politics.

Independence Day

     This week celebrates the anniversary of the country's Declaration of Independence.  Cold beer, hot dogs and burgers sizzling on grills, fireworks sparkling in the night sky, and flags fluttering will remind everyone how great America is.  But there are many who are feeling sick about America's future, especially with Anthony Kennedy's plan to retire.

     Kennedy's retirement and the prospect of an even more conservative justice sitting on the Supreme Court certainly adds to the oppression the current heat wave is spreading across the northeast.  Yet, even when Kennedy was on the Court, workers in America suffered setbacks to their rights.

     Earlier in the Court's term, the conservative justices, including Kennedy, decided in favor of businesses when they sided with Epic Systems Corp. against Lewis, ruling that businesses can require employees to use a company's arbitration process rather than having to litigate disputes in individual or class action lawsuits.  Now corporations can avoid the legal system and conceal any abuse against workers, limiting the public scrutiny lawsuits would have exposed them to.

     This case parallels earlier ones that upheld corporations' right to force consumers into resolving their claims against businesses through an individual arbitration process set up by a given corporation.  These clauses effectually disable workers and consumers from challenging corporations through class action lawsuits, which is their only genuine means of fighting the daunting power of corporations.  Being funneled into an arbitration process that blatantly serves the interests of the employer or the company abolishes what should be every American's inalienable right to seek redress for grievances in a fair legal venue.  When workers have wages stolen or consumers suffer from fraudulent business practices they are limited to an arbitration hearing that is the same as having chickens guarded by foxes.

      Another setback for workers is the Janus Decision.  Once again, Kennedy joined his fellow conservatives and ruled in favor of the employer.  Yes, there are those who will argue that Mark Janus had his right to free speech violated when he was compelled to pay the agency fee to the union whose politics he found unpalatable.  The public union to whom he submitted that "fee" should have released him from any financial obligation and let him negotiate his employment contract individually.  It would have been interesting to see if he continued to accrue the equivalent salary and benefits had he been on his own.

     In any case, the real substance of this Supreme Court decision reflects the intended consequence those conservative justices envision.  Like their fellow conservatives in congress and like Trump, these men believe that rights and privileges naturally belong to those in positions of power.  Workers and consumers are of little consequence when measured against the magnates of American business.  They are necessary to churn the engine of the economy, but they need to remain relegated to their appropriate station in the American scheme. Or is that American dream?  Happy Independence Day.