On the Mueller testimony

News organizations widely reported that the Mueller testimony failed to capture much of the country. As to why, exactly, I think it is more complex than some may think. Beyond claims of apathy, cynicism, or Mueller’s failure to “perform” as some would have liked, there is the rather important consideration that many of us have to work and experience varying degrees of economic anxiety and other day-to-day pressures that make wrapping our minds around the upsetting drama in Washington something much easier said than done. While I was able to listen on my drive to the tutoring center, I did still have to “work” on things beyond the production of Public Comment, and when I didn’t, I still had my own marketing, branding, and aesthetic contemplations to improve Public Comment in mind. So, while I am concerned that too many people are apathetic, to be fair, I don’t know how much has more to do with juggling life than general apathy. As for the main stream media, I was saddened by those who placed so much emphasis on Mueller seeming not “as sharp” as he used to be as I wondered if in so doing they may have overlooked a number of other possible, contextual factors, such as possible anxiety over the high stakes of his testimony, and/or what he knows, but can’t tell us, but perhaps wishes he could tell us? Whatever you make of Mueller’s testimony, I hope enough Americans come to care so that as a nation we can get our act together and start taking care of our troubled government. 

***PUBLIC COMMENT is a podcast presented in the form of extemporaneous personal essays about a political and philosophical millennial as he tries to wrap his mind around the complexities of the human experience.****

Visit the Official Public Comment Podcast Website

Listen to the Public Comment Podcast on Radio Public 

Subscribe  to my YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/seanoconnoressays/featured 

Visit me on Facebook at  https://www.facebook.com/publiccommentblog

Follow me on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/publiccomment.blog/

Tweet me at https://twitter.com/sopubliccomment

Connect with me on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/soconnorwritingtutor/ 

Email me at sean.publiccomment@gmail.com 

Advertisements

House Democrats Should Begin Impeachment Proceedings Now or They’ll be Hypocrites Pandering to Re-Election Obsession Just Like Republicans

Just shy of a year ago,  President Trump confused many of us with what seemed like dogmatic deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was, Trump said, “extremely strong and powerful in his denial” of interference in the American 2016 elections.

Trump said in addition that he didn’t  “see any reason why it would be” Putin or the Russian state in particular that was involved.

At that point Mueller was still investigating. Not that it mattered to me. By then I was amping my calls for President Donald Trump’s impeachment. A common response I received and heard was to wait for the Mueller investigation to conclude.

Now it has.  

And now there is indeed more talk of impeachment, across the aisle (even if Representative Justin Amash is the lone Republican in the bipartisan mix among members of congress currently in office).

And if the House of Representatives did manage to pass articles of impeachment against the president– which Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to prevent–  “it would be disposed of very quickly,” Senator Lyndsey Graham told The Hill.  

I cannot help but consider what Washington Post Columnist George Will recently pointed out: as of now, it does seem, that if Trump were impeached it “will not result in Trump’s removal.” He adds, “Today’s congressional Republicans…  would make a Senate impeachment trial a partisan debacle ending in acquittal.”

Washington Post columnist Max Boot puts it another way: while “there is no doubt that [impeachment] is justified legally and morally” there are concerns among many as to whether or not it  “makes sense politically.”   

Ross Garber, a lawyer, professor and legal analyst, in an article for CNN explains why it may be unreasonable or hasty to suppose it won’t ultimately “make sense politically.” He writes:

the speaker [Rep. Nancy Pelosi} has set a novel and unrealistically high burden for simply initiating an  impeachment process. It would also be unfair and improper to begin an impeachment process only if conviction has been conclusively predetermined.The whole point of an impeachment process is to conduct a fair evaluation of the facts and constitutional standard.

Initiating an impeachment process also provides a forum for the public to learn about the relevant facts and the constitutional burdens. Impeachment hearings might also develop new evidence. The speaker’s notion of requiring certainty of conviction before even considering charges is wrongheaded and improper.

Moreover, if we consider Max Boot’s point that impeachment is “justified legally and morally” just how willing are Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) willing to sacrifice what really should be done with re-election concerns?

At what point does one say it is more important to do what is ethical, legal, and just, than what is politically likely to succeed? In other words, what is the proper  principle for defining when it is better to stand for the right thing at the cost of possibly losing than casting the right thing aside in the interest of “winning?”

No doubt, the former Prussian Prime Minister spoke with wisdom and understanding when he said that “politics is the art of the possible” and yet I cannot help but find myself in agreement with Democratic 2020 hopeful Elizabeth Warren who said:

There is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution, If any other human being in this country had done what’s documented in the Mueller report, they’d be arrested and put in jail.

We took an oath not to try and protect Donald Trump, we took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America, and the way we do that is we begin impeachment proceedings now against this president.

Afterall, is it not the outrage of so many Democrats and independents that the Republicans defer to winning strategy over the right thing to do? Is that not why we arein the current political mess we are in? Do the Democrats not realize the political vulnerability they will find themselves mired in when their opponents and critics accuse them of hypocrisy?

Navigating Through the Debris of Information Overload (Sean O’Connor’s Public Comment video diary vlog–episode #7)

LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PODCAST

How can we gain a sense of the world, of life, living it to the fullest, appreciating all that’s “out there” with such a bombardment and deluge of information…an overwhelming plethora of options to contemplate everywhere? How does this impact the way we process, say, the news, for example, when historical, monumental, complex events transpire: I’m thinking of President Trump’s Attorney General William Barr who faces Contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report, and how this thrusts us, (say Judiciary Committee Nadler and Speaker Pelosi) into a “constitutional crisis.” What does that mean? What does it mean for the future of our country, our democracy, and the rule of law as the president persists in obstruction of justice and his executive branch plays along?

This conflict of prioritization has bothered me for a long time. Back in the Spring of 2011, for the first time, I identified my “priorities” of awareness. This was when I discovered the value and importance of the news, politics, & philosophy.

Read the New York Times article: “House Panel Approves Contempt for Barr After Trump Claims Privilege Over Full Mueller Report

Since then though, the struggle to determine exactly how much attention one should pay to the news has been yet another complex question for me, which persists, not because I’m a news enthusiast or “politics junkie.” Rather, I cherish basic awareness; I consider it a fundamental ethical principle.

And then I wonder: which news sources should I prioritize. I love the New York Times and the Washington Post, but I can’t read every article they publish. What about Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, Politico, et cetera?

And what about the challenge of sorting through all of the news’ complexities? The details, the confusing concepts and contexts which require deeper understanding…additional research?

And beyond the news reports (the articles, the television commentaries, interviews, segments, et cetera) there’s accounting for, and mentally processing official government business: official documents, pending legislation, proposed budgets– to name some examples.

Read the resolution recommending Barr be held in contempt of congress

And what about the rest of the day?

How do we fit in our meditation, exercise, work, entertainment, cleaning, paperwork, social media feeds, all the while trying to acquaint ourselves further with art, science, technology?

It could be argued of course that the world has gone “niche” but it seems so cheap to me to abandon a holistic perspective, as if it leads to a denigration of life…of the universe and the miracle of experience.

#3 Contempt of Congress?

*Did Attorney General William Barr break the law? If so, what do we do about it?

*The Mueller Report & the infamous Trump Tower meeting & Trump et. al. just can’t seem to remember

*The problem with Biden

[Rep. Nadler quote from the New York Times article by Nicholas Fandos ]

Yes, the President Can Be Indicted

Yes, the president of the United States can, legally, be indicted.

I made that declaration in front the Capitol Building- home to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Not only did I say the President could be indicted. I added that he should be indicted.

A number of legal and policy experts however, beg to differ  though their analyses are not legally binding. They are mere opinions of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel tasked with giving the President and the Department of Justice legal advice.

In response to my video, some of my Facebook “friends” showered me with insults. They say I have “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and shouldn’t discuss the law because I didn’t get a degree in law (meanwhile they never address the actual arguments I make, which those with just a little background in philosophy would know amounts to the ad hominem fallacy).

Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 9.39.11 AM

Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 9.44.32 AM

Despite the fact that my critics did not refute or even address my arguments, I wanted to delve into the proof that indeed the president can be indicted.

In my latest episode of PUBLIC COMMENT LIVE I discussed a letter addressed to former Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 9.52.43 AM

This letter was written by Law Professor Ronald D. Rotunda thoroughly citing remarks made by our Founding Fathers, constitutional law, Supreme Court decisions, and other legal experts demonstrating the “Indictability of the President.”

Watch my explanation below:

Trump/Putin Trying to Control Our Minds: Resist and Spread the Message- #ImpeachTrumpNow

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and everyone in their cultish gang are working desperately to control our minds and taking blatantly unconstitutional approaches to achieve those ends. I know! It sounds crazy. I feel like I’m dreaming (and it’s a nightmare) but alas let us review recent attempts on the part of president Trump and his administration to prevent dissent and criticism from reaching the media whereby the public can see at large the president’s treason, incompetence, and severe shortage of ethics.

It is crucial, I believe, for me to submit my evidence with also providing context. First of all, I am far from the only person sounding these alarms. Yesterday Washington Post analyst James Hohmann published an article with a headline reading : “Trump creates an alternative reality, and he wants you to join him there”

Hohmann cites a revealing quote from president Trump: ““what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” I want to repeat those words from the President of the United States one more time so that it can be made perfectly clear that the president wants to encourage people to doubt their most basic perceptions and instead put all their faith in him: the textbook method of establishing totalitarian, dictatorial, Orwellian, authoritarian, despotic, tyrannical power. Textbook, ladies and gentleman. It’s what Putin does. It’s what Kim Jung Un does. It’s what Stalin did. It’s what Hitler did. 

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”- so went the Nazi Germany mantra. It was their fundamental principle of propaganda and mind control. There’s a really valuable and elucidating article published by the BBC, written by Tom Stafford on October 26 2016 with the headline “How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’  citing multiple psychological research findings that find that “Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.”

Let’s make the context a little deeper now. It is important. According to the Toronto Star as of now President Trump has told 2083 lies.

CNN (which Trump calls fake news [pay attention to that]) puts the count at over 3000.

The Washington Post puts it at 3,001.

I think the takeaway should be that it is widely accepted among the media and civil society that Trump is a pathological liar. So when a pathological liar says to the American people (most of whom know he is a pathological liar)  “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening” it is blatantly clear that Trump is striving desperately, perhaps by banking on the power of shock and audacity, to pressure vulnerable minds to reject what they perceive and take Trump’s word for everything.

That’s the context. Now let us consider president Trump’s attacks on dissent and his approaches. Yesterday, as the Huffington Post reports, CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins “said she was called to White House deputy chief of staff Bill Shine’s office, where Shine and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders disinvited her from the next press event.

CNN said in a statement that Shine and Huckabee Sanders told Collins her questions were ‘inappropriate.’ I didn’t know that the first amendment listed “inappropriate questions” as one of the exceptions of the free press or free speech. Since it’s not written in the constitution Shine and Sanders will have to let us know where they got that one from.

The Huffington Post adds this:

Collins was serving as the network pool reporter, representing all of the major news networks, for an event with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday. At the end of it, she and other reporters asked Trump a few questions ― as is common for journalists who attend such gatherings. (Trump sometimes answers questions in these situations; other times, he chooses not to.)

According to CNN, Collins asked Trump questions about Michael Cohen, his former attorney who is under federal investigation and whose secret recording of Trump was recently released. She also asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom the Trump administration planned to invite to Washington. D.C., this fall before pushing back the meeting.

Other journalists at the event, including HuffPost’s Ryan Reilly, also asked the president about Cohen’s tapes multiple times as staffers ushered them out of the office.

Worth repeating is this: “Other journalists at the event, including HuffPost’s Ryan Reilly, also asked the president about Cohen’s tapes multiple times as staffers ushered them out of the office.”

Thankfully people on the left and the right in the media community are condemning these actions. Even the president of Fox News had this to say, according to the Huffington Post:

“We stand in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press,”

Now let’s talk about Trump’s desire to revoke security clearances for people in the intelligence community who are critical of him. You’ll notice strikingly similar language in the justification out of the mouth of Press Secretary Sara Huckabee Sanders:

“Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence,” Sanders told reporters Monday. (That’s from The Hill)

Note that word “inappropriate.” Reporters are asking “inappropriate” questions and critics are expressing “inappropriate” concern and criticism. According to the White House “inappropriate” behavior (not illegal behavior, and not verifiably dangerous behavior, just “inappropriate behavior”) is grounds for harassment, intimidation, and silencing dissent.

Inappropriate behavior: I thought president Trump’s reference to “shithole countries” was inappropriate.’  I thought it was inappropriate for the president to boast about how he grabs women by their genitalia  without their consent. I thought it was inappropriate of the president (treasonous even) for the president to publicly humiliate US intelligence officials in front of the entire world and say Putin (who murders his critics) is the one who has it all correct, it is Putin, Trump said who is “strong and powerful” compared to our invalid intelligence community. I am just putting it out there for what ever it is worth.

I’m not the only one in the world outraged by this by the way. Again, from The Hill:

“It’s never happened before and sets a bad precedent,” said Jim Lewis, a former U.S. official and expert in foreign policy and intelligence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The New York Times adds to Huckabee’s desperate attempt to find a clever sounding ‘justification’ for a lack of better words, The president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearances because they politicized, and in some cases monetized, their public service and security clearances.”

Meanwhile President Trump monetizes his public service (though I think of it more as a disservice) at the Trump hotel in DC where members of foreign governments stay and thereby bribe him in attempts to influence his policy decisions which each dollar they pay for services there.

Lies and hypocrisy and attempt to crush dissent.

Some people argue that the people Trump are targeting don’t need their security clearances anyway. But as the New York Times points writes:

“Former high-ranking officials in defense, intelligence, diplomacy and law enforcement usually maintain their clearances to advise those still in government, former officials said. A clearance also serves a more personally profitable function: helping departing officials get jobs at security contractors or similar firms.”

“Revoking their access to classified information could weaken their ability to work as consultants, lobbyists and advisers in Washington.”

More from the NYT:

“It is intended to punish and intimidate his critics and is shameful,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel for the C.I.A. 

Ah, but what is it our president tells us: “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in utterly rejecting this occultist behavior of a treasonist, criminal, and despotic president and calling congress to demand that they impeach Trump now!