“Don’t believe what you see and hear,” exclaims our President. Specifically, he wants us to discredit all news media as “fake news,” excepting, of course, certain Fox news anchors. Also, he really wants us to discredit any criticism of him or his policies as mere partisan attacks. We should ignore such criticism as “deep state” or Democrats’ attempts to harass the President and defeat his agenda to help Americans. He wants us to believe that he fights for us and that those who are against him are against America. He alone stands for America. In fact, he argues that those who find fault with him are treasonous and should be punished.

If you are amongst the President’s supporters, then you must accept all his proclamations based on belief. He tells you that he is the “least racist person you know,” that he is “the greatest President in history,” that he is “protecting our borders from murderers and rapists,” that he hires “the best people” in his Administration, that he is a “great deal maker” who can resolve America’s and the world’s issues, and that he can restore manufacturing, steel production, coal mining, and the agricultural industry to its former greatness. After more than two years in office, you are now able to weigh what truth exists in the President’s claims. Or you can simply continue believing in him.

President Reagan used to say “trust but verify” when negotiating agreements with other countries. “Trust” is a form of belief; and “verify” is based on justifying evidence. You can readily apply President Reagan’s aphorism to the trust a voter places in a candidate for office. If you agree with my application of Reagan’s principle, then how do you justify the trust you attributed to the current President’s promises and to his character? Well, the answer is interwoven with the beliefs that support your trust.

Perhaps, like the President, you do not believe in humanity’s contribution to global warming. Nevertheless, global warming is not a question of belief. It is a fact attested by countless scientific studies and, increasingly, by the evidence of our eyes. But, if you believe the President, then you support his termination of America’s participation in the global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, you must also concur with his Administration’s actions to open the Antarctica and our natural parks to oil and gas exploration, to reduce miles/gallon standards for cars and eliminate the ability of any state to have higher standards, and to cancel the Clean Power Act, thereby removing restrictions on power plant emissions. Your concurrence not only presumes your disbelief in global warming, but your willingness to breathe polluted air. Is your trust in this President justified? Or is it founded on a lie?

Perhaps, like the President, you believe in his interpretation of a Republican doctrine against unnecessary regulations. The crux of this belief centers on the “unnecessary.” The President’s executive orders and Administration have removed restrictions on unsafe mercury levels and coal mining detritus in our clean water sources. Likewise, his Administration has removed restrictions on the use of dangerous herbicides and pesticides that reduce the safety of our food and endanger our health. If your support for the President’s war on regulations is so indiscriminate, you display a willingness to drink dangerously polluted water and to consume poisonous food. ¹ Is your trust in this President without any reservations? Or is it without regard for the health of yourself and those you love?

Perhaps, like the President, you believe the Affordable Care Act must be repealed and replaced. Probably, you support his promise to reduce costs for pharmaceutical drugs and to introduce a better health care plan. Well, if so, you are still waiting for these Presidential initiatives. The only action the President has taken on healthcare is to undercut and diminish the effectiveness of the previous Administration’s healthcare plan. Instead, he has authorized costly and limited healthcare plans available only to clients without pre-existing conditions. He has strongly supported the Republican Party’s remnant opposition to Obamacare (aka, The Affordable Care Act) without proposing any viable replacement. And he has not led the Republican Party toward any meaningful healthcare reform. Maybe you are not concerned that America pays substantially more for healthcare than any other western developed nation while being rated last in healthcare service and treatment outcomes. ² Is your trust in this President supported solely by his words rather than his actions? Or is it simply unaware or, worse, deliberately blind to the incongruity between what he says and what he does?

Perhaps, like the President, you looked forward to a new Administration managed by his “best people.” Well, a few of the President’s “best” still remain: the man who wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy is still its Secretary; the person married to the Senate Majority Leader still manages the Department of Transportation despite questions about its impact on her family’s business; the man who declared himself unqualified to manage the Department of Housing and Urban Development is still doing so; the woman who has displayed an amazing lack of knowledge about the mission or operation of the Department of Education is its Secretary; and the man who made his mark during the last recession as a leading foreclosure banker now heads Treasury. All other Cabinet positions have been replaced, too often by “acting” administrators. Among the departed are those caught in scandals, such as criminal behavior or ethical malfeasance. Whether it is incompetence, self-interestedness, criminality, or unethical behavior, these appointments are ill-equipped to meet the Constitutional requirement to serve the general welfare. Why do these nominees not exemplify civil servants dedicated to public service? Well, the President prefers to hire loyal sycophants and former lobbyists who will do his bidding by actively deconstructing the organizations they are tasked to manage—that is, what he terms the “deep state.” Because he prefers not to go through Congress for these appointees, he feels he can more easily demand loyalty by assigning them to tenuous “acting” positions. If you agree with the President’s preference for personal loyalty over competence, integrity, and patriotism, then you now have the government you chose with your vote. Is your trust in this President justified by the character and competence of his Administration? Or is it fixated on “the Donald” without any regard for his lackeys or their inadequacies?

Perhaps, like the President, you feel the American republic is a runaway wild stallion that needs to be subdued at all costs and permanently corralled. The wild stallion in this metaphor is the “deep state.” And only “the Donald” can tame and contain it. He is the mythological rodeo rider that can force this out-of-control “deep state” into submission. Though harassed and investigated relentlessly, he is your champion who fights in your place. You can identify with his performance: his name-calling, his extravagant lies, his comedic pantomiming, his bullying threats, and his belittling of the “not-like-us.” It is all riveting and entertaining theatre. But nothing more. He can ride that American horse into the ground. But what is left for us after President Trump leaves the stage? How does a Department of Justice that serves the President rather than the American people benefit us? Do we really want a Department of Homeland Security that violates international law? How about a Health and Human Services Department that works to reduce open enrollment in healthcare service? Or an Interior Department that wants to privatize natural parks? The President promised that he would bring so much “winning that you won’t believe it.” If you agree with him, then you should ask what have we won? The deconstruction of American institutions cannot be the foundation of an American government. Is your trust in this President reflective of your beliefs in the value and purpose of American institutions? Or is it the opposite—your disbelief in American values and the institutions that embody them?

Ask yourself how we are better off today than before Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency? Let’s review the path he has taken for America:

➣ The agricultural industry is decimated due to the tariff wars with China.

➣ The manufacturing industry after successive quarterly declines is now officially in recession.

➣ The renewable energy sector is no longer the fastest growing segment of the energy market.

➣ The President’s revival of coal mining has floundered before more competitive alternatives in the marketplace.

➣ The imbalance between his tax policies and budgets have resulted in trillion-dollar deficits. And this imbalance occurs during a period of economic expansion—which he inherited. How are his economic policies preparing us for the next recession? As mentioned before in these blogs, this President has lit the fuse for an economic timebomb.

➣ Healthcare has become less available and more costly under the Trump Administration. The advances of the previous Administration—reducing double digit healthcare inflation to 3.9% and expanding coverage to over 24 million people—have both been reversed.

➣ The tariff wars have added hundreds of dollars to average family budgets. Meanwhile the President passes a budget busting tax relief bill that disproportionately benefits the top .1% of the population, while inexplicitly taxing low income (<$18,000 per year) families who were previously exempt from Federal taxes. He introduces these economic measures at a time when actual wealth creation has become more heavily concentrated at the top than at any time in recent history.

➣ America’s foreign policy agenda is in shambles. Our President is more aligned with dictators than the leaders of western democracies. His emphasis on nationalism over globalism effectively isolates America on the world stage. Meanwhile, the “war on terrorism” has been replaced with a dissonant policy with no apparent strategic direction. We send troops to defend the Saudi oil fields, while withdrawing troops supporting our Kurdish allies fighting ISIS. Our President withdraws from the nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran and then administers new sanctions on Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table. He authorizes peace talks with the Taliban, without including either the NATO forces or the Afghanistan government. He demands more military investment from our NATO allies, while withdrawing our forces from frontline positions and holding back 750 million dollars from NATO funding.

➣ Instead of a constructive immigration policy, he creates a zero-tolerance plan that ignores constitutional due process and commits America to the worse human rights violations since World War II. But this policy is just one brick in his racial wall of bigotry (see, “Bons Mots or Deceits”).

Perhaps, like the President, you believe his Administration is unfairly harassed by Democrats and the media. The Mueller investigation, he claims, was a Democratic “witch hunt” that proved no collusion or obstruction of justice. If you believe this characterization of the Mueller Report, then you obviously did not read the document. If you did, you would know that no Democrat is named anywhere in the report. The story that is unraveled therein is told by Trump campaign personnel and their contacts. Also, it outlines innumerable instances of collusion with foreign agents, while stipulating its inability to prosecute a criminal conspiracy. Because of witness lies, coverups, and unavailability for being out of the country, Mueller’s team was unable to determine whether there was tacit or expressed agreement with the actions of these foreign agents. However, with respect to obstruction of justice, buried in much legalize is an extremely strong case that shows ample precedence for a successful prosecution. As Mueller explained, he was unable to indict a sitting President because of a Department of Justice policy set by the Office of Legal Counsel. Deferring prosecution to the Legislature, he concluded that he could not exonerate the President. In other words, if Donald Trump were not the President, he would likely be sitting in a jail cell today, convicted of several felonies.

Whether you are a supporter of President Trump or not, you must weigh the import of a recent whistleblower’s letter to the IGIC (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community). While the ensuing months will determine the validity, import, and appropriate response, the letters opening paragraph states the issue rather succinctly:

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

As I read the whistleblower’s statement and the notes from the President’s phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, I learned two things: our President is willing to trade American sovereignty to win an election; and he is attempting to execute a rather brilliant scheme, at least in concept, if not in reality. First, he attempts to force Ukraine to do his bidding by holding the release of Congressionally authorized military aid. Apropos to this extortion, he itemizes the “favors” he demands in exchange, to include joint US/Ukraine investigations into an alleged Ukrainian source for the DNC hacking during the 2016 campaign, and Joe Biden’s alleged attempt “to quash a purported criminal probe” into a Ukrainian gas company upon whose board sat Biden’s son. Second, implied in this gambit is a multifaceted scheme: Ukraine becomes the source for foreign intervention in the 2016 campaign; Joe Biden, President Obama’s former Vice President and a possible contender for President Trump’s reelection, is smeared by his alleged involvement in a corruption scandal; and Ukraine’s ability to defend itself with US Javelin anti-tank weapons is put in jeopardy before a feared Russian tank assault. So, Ukraine becomes the villain in the 2016 campaign intervention, as well as the source for a future intervention in the 2020 campaign, and its preparations against a Russian-staged attack is either delayed or severely weakened.

The “brilliance” of this scheme rests not with Donald Trump, but with Vladimir Putin for, as its sole beneficiary, he may well be its author. As a result, Russia is exonerated from interference in US elections; Putin’s chosen Presidential candidate is reelected for a second term; and Ukraine is pushed further into Russia’s orbit. Imagine what happens if Ukraine is seen as the foreign meddler in U.S. elections and if Zelensky is forced to accept Russian control and influence over eastern Ukraine. President Putin could then justifiably argue that all sanctions against Russia must be lifted. As a corollary benefit, Putin makes Donald Trump complicit in his strategy. For the American President, not Putin, held back military aid in an extortion scheme, committed the US Attorney General and investigative resources into a bogus investigation, violated campaign financing laws, and exercised an extraordinary abuse of Presidential powers. Of course, the official impeachment inquiry will ferret out many more issues. For instance, how does Giuliani, a private citizen, become involved in statecraft or, more accurately, spy craft? And who else is involved in this crime? Or its coverup?

The irony of the President’s role is his willing participation. On live television, he shamelessly encourages Zelensky to meet with Putin to resolve the “situation.” This newly elected President of Ukraine finds himself and his country between a rock and a hard place, that is, between the Presidents of the United States and Russia. Our President is effectively pushing Ukraine into the arms of Russia rather than supporting its desire to become part of the European Union. Of course, I know Ukraine’s history is tied more closely with Russia than Europe. But America has always supported the right of a people to determine the course of their country. If we did not believe so, we would not embody our founding principles.

How did America arrive at this juncture in history where it effectively supports the first invasion of a European country since World War II by aligning with the invading country’s conspiracies? And how can President Trump remain in office when he violates the trust of his voters by his flagrant abuse of power and disregard of his oath of office and Constitutional duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” In my previous blog, I exhorted Americans to live up to the spirit of our democracy as expressed in the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence. As a corollary to that spirit, we are also required to adhere to our Constitution and the rule of law. In order to preserve this democracy, all of us must live by the core principles and legal framework of our founding documents. None of us is above the law, including our President.

President Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington. Instead, he has normalized it. From the Oval Office, it leaks down into the very fabric of America—its government and every aspect of our lives. While corruption exists to some degree in every government, the Trump “swamp” captures the largest slice of breaking news and reaches into our homes, our schools, and our workplace. It has become a depressive cloud that hangs over our nation. And it is an existential threat to America and to its “new world” promise.

__________________________________________________________
¹ Previous Republican Presidents have not been against regulations, just those they deemed too costly, better adjudicated by the States, or too restrictive of personal liberties. Just a few significant examples make this point: Theodore Roosevelt sponsored the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to address monopolies, created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate interstate railroad rates, and signed the Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Acts to reduce food caused disease and infection; Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA), and the first Clean Water Act. Ronald Reagan signed the first Immigration and Reform Act that both made it illegal to hire/recruit illegal immigrants but also granted amnesty and a path to citizenship for over 3 million illegals who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982.

² You can find more details on America’s healthcare quagmire in my July 2017 blog entitled “The Republican Path to Healthcare.”

General Reference: The Whistleblower Complaint: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html