 This month the Congressional Republicans proved once again that doing what’s right for the country takes second place to appeasing Donald Trump. On February 3, 2024 the U.S. Senate introduced a bipartisan border security bill which included aid to Ukraine and Israel. Within hours Trump slammed the bill as a win for Democrats. Trump’s lobbying efforts turned many Republican Senators against the bill and it quickly failed to advance. The fact that Trump can dictate to Republican members of Congress which policies to back shows a real lack on Congressional leadership, and is illustrative of today’s Republican Party.  Politics and the Border: Immigration and border security are among the top issues for both Republican and Democrat voters. The problems at the U.S. border with Mexico have been decades in the making, but they have gotten worse under President Biden, as I outlined in a previous blog. As soon as President Biden came into office, the House Republicans seized on the “border crisis” as an issue to attack him with. Last October, while the House Republicans were scrambling to elect a new House Speaker, the Biden Administration requested more than $105 billion from Congress, mostly to provide military aid to Ukraine and Israel. The request also included about $14 billion to improve security at the southern border. Among other things, the funds would have been used to hire more border agents, install new inspection machines to detect fentanyl, and increase staffing to expedite asylum cases. With the House of Representatives in chaos, it was up to the Senate to move forward on a spending package for Ukraine and Israel. Senate Republicans approached the Democrats with a way forward. They would only back additional assistance to Ukraine if the Democrats agreed to their border security proposals. The Senate leadership soon put together a bipartisan group of Senators to negotiate a deal.  Even before the text of the bill was finalized, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions and Millions of people, many from parts unknown, into our once great, but soon to be great again, Country! Also, I have no doubt that our wonderful Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, will only make a deal that is PERFECT ON THE BORDER.” Speaker Johnson, who speaks with Trump regularly, declared the bill “dead on arrival” in the House if it was approved by the Senate. If there was any doubt about Trump's motives, he clearly spelled them out on a post to “Truth Social” on Feb 5, 2024. Part of the post read, “This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for the Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans.” In case Republican Senators didn’t get the message, Trump called several of them to tell them that the bill was helping Joe Biden, and he (Trump) needed the crisis at the border to continue in order to get elected.
Hypocrisy Over Border Bill: For months Republicans in Congress have demanded new border security measures, only to reject them once they were in hand. Even Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, said that Republicans couldn’t get a better deal even with a Republican in the White House. The bipartisan Senate bill would have provided $20.2 billion for the most substantive changes to border and immigration policy in over a generation. The bill would have overhauled the asylum system, making it more difficult for migrants to qualify. The practice of “catch and release”, in which migrants are released into the U.S. while their claims are being processed, would end. Funding would be available to hire more border agents, asylum officers, support for border states, and even some border barriers. The bill would have granted the president new authority to shut down the border during periods of high migrant crossings, and visas for legal immigrants would be increased by 50,000 a year. The National Border Patrol Council, which represents more than 18,000 border agents, came out strongly in favor of the border bill. The council’s president called the bill transformative and far better than the current status quo. He went on to say that the bill would “drop illegal border crossings nationwide and allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our border illegally and evade apprehension.”  House Impeaches Secretary Mayorkas: If the House Republicans were serious about border security, they would have worked with their Senate colleagues to get it done. But that was not going to happen with Donald Trump calling the shots in an election year. Instead, they chose to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” amid a surge in unauthorized migrant crossings. The Republican’s first attempt to impeach Secretary Mayorkas failed last week by three votes. Their second impeachment attempt earlier this week passed by only one vote. The impeachment of Mayorkas is a pathetic attempt to deflect attention away from the House Republicans, who are not serious about passing border security legislation, and place the blame for the border problems on the Biden Administration. The articles of impeachment will go nowhere in the Democrat controlled Senate, and will have accomplished little more than appeasing Donald Trump.  Democrats May Get the Last Laugh: Fixing the broken immigration system and securing the border are top of mind for most voters. But the Republicans can no longer claim that the Democrats did nothing to fix the problem. The Republicans were the ones who killed the Senate bill that would have provided billions of dollars to secure the border and improve the broken immigration system. Democrats in the House and Senate backed the bill, as did President Biden. Donald Trump is responsible for the bill failing so that he could keep the “border crisis” a campaign issue.  The failure of the “National Security and Border Act, 2024” is further proof that the Republican Party has lost its way. It is the height of hypocrisy for House Republicans to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary for not securing the border when they helped defeat a bill that would have done just that. This seems to me to be a dereliction of duty and un-American. The amount of sway that Donald Trump holds over the Republican Party should give all Americans pause. He rules the Congressional Republicans like a puppet master, and will stop at nothing to get reelected. The Grand Old Party is no longer the party of Lincoln when it is beholden to a man who puts himself above the rule of law, above the Constitution, and above the needs of the American people.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American
0 Comments
 With strong wins in Iowa and New Hampshire in January, it’s unlikely that any other candidate will be able to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican nominee for president. Is it too soon to crown Trump the victor? Nikki Haley thinks so. After all, only two states, representing only about 1.4% of the population of the country, have casts their votes. Haley has vowed to stay in the race for as long as possible, much to the displeasure and downright anger of Trump and the Republican establishment.  Nikki Haley came in a distant 3rd in the Iowa caucuses, and was defeated by Donald Trump in the New Hampshire primary by 11 points. Other than Trump, she is the only candidate still in the race, and is under tremendous pressure to exit so that the party can coalesce around Trump. Haley stands defiant against the pressure and has declared, “This race is far from over. There are dozens of states to go”. After Trump’s victory in New Hampshire, Haley said, “The New Hampshire primary is the 1st in the nation, not the last”.  Donald Trump is angry that Haley hasn’t dropped out of the race and come groveling to his side like Vivek Ramaswamy, Tim Scott and Ron DeSantis. Rather than being gracious in victory, Trump lashed out at Haley during his victory speech in New Hampshire. Referring to Haley, Trump said, “Who the hell was the imposter who went up on stage before, and like, claimed a victory?” He went on to say, “I don’t get too angry. I get even.” I guess that Trump is the only one allowed to claim an election victory after having lost.  Should Haley Drop Out of Race? Only Nikki Haley should decide if and when it is time for her to drop out of the race. Even though the path to Haley’s victory seems next to impossible, it would be undemocratic to cede the election to Trump after only two states have participated. The Republican Party should not tell the voters of the other 48 states that their votes don’t matter. As a voter in California, I know exactly how that feels. Prior to 2020, California held its primary elections on the first Tuesday in June. That is very late in the primary season, and the major parties have usually picked a presumptive nominee by then. California now holds its primary elections on Super Tuesday, the first Tuesday in March, giving the voters in the country’s most populous state a voice in the nominating process. I hope that Haley can stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday when voters in 15 states and 1 territory will cast their votes. Eleven of these contests are open or semi-open primaries. That means that independent and unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote for a Republican candidate even though they are not registered Republicans. Haley polls well against Trump with independent voters, and she should pick up a number of delegates.  The Rules of the Race: According to Republican National Committee (RNC) rules, a candidate needs to win 1215 delegates to secure the nomination at the Republican National Convention. This year the convention will be held on July 15-18 in Milwaukee. Most delegates at the convention must vote for the candidate based on the results of the primary or caucus in their state. Currently Donald Trump has won 32 delegates and Nikki Haley has won 17. The contest is just beginning.  What’s in it for Haley? If, as many pundits say, Haley has no path to victory, why is she staying in the race? Good question. Is she running to be Trump’s vice president, or perhaps vying for a cabinet post? I doubt it. If that was the case she would have already dropped out of the race and kissed Donald Trump’s ring, like Ramaswamy and Scott, who clearly hope for a top position within a Trump administration. In recent days Haley has ramped up her attacks on Trump, questioning his mental abilities and fitness for office. Trump won’t soon forgive or forget these attacks. Moreover, Trump doesn’t want anyone on his team with ambition for the top spot and the ability to take the spotlight away from him. I believe that Nikki Haley is positioning herself as the second-place finisher in the Republican race, and will be ready to step in for Trump in the event that he is somehow disqualified. Let’s face facts. Donald Trump will turn 78 years old in June, and is facing 91 criminal counts. Taking into account Trump’s age, lifestyle, and the tremendous amount of stress that he is under, it is not inconceivable that he could have a serious medical event between now and the Republican National Convention. A serious medical event could pull Trump from the race, as could the weight of his legal troubles. If Trump is convicted of one or more of the crimes he is charged with, a significant percentage of the electorate would turn away from him.  According to recent national polls, as well as polls taken after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, nearly one-third of Republican voters would not vote for Donald Trump if he was convicted of a crime. The RNC is well aware of this, and realizes that Trump couldn’t win the general election if one-third of Republican voters didn’t support him. Therefore, if Trump is convicted of one or more of the 91 crimes he has been charged with, or if the RNC feels that a conviction is imminent, they may opt for a safer bet. That safer bet is Nikki Haley.  For the good of the Republican Party and democracy, I hope that Nikki Haley stays in the race for as long as possible. But she better watch out for the buckets of slime that will be hurled at her along the way.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  Without a doubt Donald Trump has been the most disruptive and controversial figure in American politics in my lifetime. He has turned the Republican Party on its head and now is its de facto leader. Trump can say and do almost anything with impunity, and his base of support only grows. With his overwhelming victory in the Iowa caucuses this week, his nomination as the 2024 Republican Presidential candidate is all but certain. As someone who has never voted for Trump, it is difficult for me to understand his appeal. But rather than bury my head in the sand, I think the better approach is to try and understand what is behind his popularity among the Republican faithful. I’ve read dozens of news reports, watched hours of cable and network news programs, and listened to countless podcasts in order to make some sense of Trump’s appeal. It will probably take years of research and reflection by historians, psychologists, and scholars to get the full read on Trump’s appeal to voters, but I will weigh in with my own views. The reasons that Trump’s supporters give for backing him can be categorized into three broad categories. They are policy issues, personality, and politics. Let’s take a closer look at each one of these: 
 Trump’s Personality: Donald Trump is a force of nature and a natural showman. He is entertaining and charismatic; not bad traits to have for a politician. The thing that surprised me, and this came up over and over in interviews with his supporters, was that Trump, unlike any of his opponents, has the strength to get things done. Trump often portrays himself as a strongman, being the only one strong enough to keep America peaceful and prosperous in a dangerous world. To many, this is his most important quality that ties it all together for them. According to his supporters, Trump’s strength will garner both fear and respect in foreign affairs and allow him to get things done in this country. Many of Trump’s utterances are often vulgar, petty, or just not well thought out. But his supporters view this is as a sign of his authenticity. They like the fact that he speaks without a filter, which shows that he is not afraid to speak his mind. His belittling and often juvenile remarks are thought to be a sign of his honesty and his courage, and feed into his image as a strongman. Trump’s supporters view the country as broken, needing an upheaval or major disruption to fix it. Trump is seen as the disruptor- in- chief, with the strength to overcome any challenge.  Politics: Unlike any other politician in America today, Trump has the ability to connect with his supporters. No other politician comes close to garnering the level of enthusiasm among his/her supporters. His supporters believe that they have been overlooked by establishment politicians, but Trump hears them and speaks for them. Trump’s mountain of legal troubles is seen as a political prosecution in an attempt to silence him, and by extension his supporters. In a typical refrain to supporters recently, Trump said, “You and I have been in this battle side-by-side, together, and we have been taking on the entire corrupt system in Washington like no one has ever done before. The political establishment and global elites are at war with us-we have to fight.” Rather than hurting him, the civil suits in New York and the four criminal indictments brought against Trump have only increased his support among the Republican base. These cases have become part of his campaign and he has raised millions of dollars with each new charge. Trump’s poll numbers started to increase after his first indictment in New York for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels. Days after the indictment his support among likely Republican voters surpassed 50% in national polls, and they have risen with each new indictment. The ruling in Colorado to block Trump from its primary ballot increased Republican fury to a fever pitch over what they viewed as a further attempt to weaponize the courts and justice system against Trump. His supporters take it personally. An attack against Trump is an attack against them. Did Trump’s adversaries overplay their hand? Whether they did or didn’t, it certainly had the opposite effect of silencing him. As one Trump supporter put it, “I prefer Trump because Democrats are trying to find any way they can to jail him. What are they afraid of?” Trump’s supporters have circled the wagons around him and his candidacy, virtually blocking out any other candidates.  Say what you will about Donald Trump, he is a master politician, even though he claims to be a businessman, not a politician. Attacks against Trump from both within and without the Republican Party are seen as proof of a corrupt and broken system, by his supporters. Trump’s qualities that I view as weaknesses are viewed by his supporters as part of his allure and strength. His supporters truly believe that the problems facing the country, both home and abroad, would never have happened if Trump were still president. Trump has convinced them that his policies made America great in the past, and he can do it again. If Donald Trump is truly perceived to be the only Republican with the strength to lead the country through tough times, it should be no surprise that so many caucus and primary voters seem reluctant to waste their votes on a lesser candidate.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  The new year is starting off much like it ended, with a lot of negative news. The mood in the country seems to be gloomy, and nobody seems enthusiastic about the presidential election which will consume much of the year. I’m not immune to all of the gloom and doom. When I look back on what I wrote about in 2023, it was mostly about the chaos in Congress, foreign wars, and the presidential candidates nobody seems to want. But it is time to shake off the gloom and look beyond the headlines, because 2023 was actually an amazing year. Positives from 2023: Negative and tragic news tend to grab all of the headlines. But if you dig a little deeper, there were so many positive things that occurred in 2023. Here are but a few:
 Looking Ahead to 2024: There will be a lot of ups and downs this year. In ten short months our country will hold another presidential election. For better or for worse this will dominate the news cycle. But there is a lot going on closer to home and across the world that deserves our attention. In the near-term many of these issues seem downright depressing, but maybe 2024 will surprise us with some positive outcomes. Here are some of the issues that I will be following:  Statewide: The state of California is facing many challenges. Illegal immigration and homelessness are among the biggest. But the one that I will be watching closely is the massive $68 billion budget deficit facing the state. This is mostly due to severe revenue declines (lower tax collections) in 2022-2023. Major budget cuts, tapping into the rainy-day fund, and creative financing will all be on the table. Governor Gavin Newsom’s political future will rest on his ability to put the state’s fiscal house in order.
Nationally:
 Internationally:
 When I look back upon 2023, I will try and remind myself of all the good that occurred and not be dragged down by the not so good. 2024 is sure to be a turbulent year, but along with the turbulence will come excitement and opportunities. I’m anxious to get started. I typically don’t make New Year’s resolutions, but this year I will make an exception. I will work on being grateful for all of my blessings, and to never lose my sense of humor, no matter how crazy things get.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  There is little joy in the Holy Land this holiday season. Christmas celebrations have been cancelled across most of Israel, the West Bank and Jordan. The tree in Manager Square will not be decorated, and there will be no Christmas lights in Bethlehem this year. Christmas markets have been cancelled, and traditional public festivities and displays will be absent. At a time of great suffering in Gaza and Israel, church leaders from across the region have wisely agreed to forego any outward displays of holiday celebrations. In solidarity with the suffering wrought by the Israel-Hamas war, Holy Land churches will focus on religious services and the spiritual meaning of Christmas. In our country, Jewish celebrations of Hanukkah have been tempered not only by the war, but by hate and antisemitism.  Israel-Hamas War: Armed conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors is unfortunately nothing new. But the ferocity and level of human suffering ignited on October 7th has been staggering, and the world is paying attention. The latest conflict erupted when Hamas, the militant group labeled as a terrorist group by the United States, launched a surprise attack on southern Israel from the Palestinian territory of Gaza. Approximately 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed, and more than two hundred hostages were taken by Hamas. The brutality of the attack was unprecedented, and credible claims of sexual assault and torture by Hamas fighters have come to light. Israeli leaders have called the October 7th attack their 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, and have pledged to destroy Hamas. Israel Defense Forces wasted little time ramping up its military operations, and have been pummeling the Gaza Strip from the air and ground for the past two months. The images of shear devastation coming out of Gaza have flooded news casts and social media across the world. To date, over 19,000 Palestinians have been killed and many more have been wounded. Nearly all of the two million inhabitants of Gaza have been impacted by the war, and most have been displaced from their homes. The Israelis have suffered hundreds of casualties and tens of thousands have been displaced from their homes near the border with Gaza.  In this David versus Goliath conflict, Hamas has no chance of beating Israel militarily. But that was never its intent in this latest conflict. Hamas’ ultimate goal is to destroy the state of Israel by killing every Jew or driving them out of the region. In order to accomplish that, Hamas needs to rally other Arab and Muslim nations against Israel, and to bring worldwide condemnation on Israel for its brutality against the Palestinian people. Hamas is imbedded with the Palestinian people and use them as pawns against Israel. They care nothing about the people of Gaza who are being used as human shields and are viewed as expendable in order to achieve Hamas’ political goals. Hamas is not interested in solving the conflict between Israel and Palestine by agreeing to a separate state for Palestine (the two-state solution). To them Israel is illegitimate, and the only state that should exist is Palestine.  There is no question, that Hamas is winning the public relations war. The daily images of death and destruction coming out of Gaza are heart wrenching. Even the most hardened supporters of Israel cannot help but feel compassion for the Palestinian people. In recent days, the United States government, one of Israel’s staunchest supporters, has called on Israel to minimize civilian causalities. Under intense pressure at home, President Biden has called on Israel to be more targeted in its bombing, but has stopped short of calling for a cease-fire. Israeli officials report that the current “high intensity” military operations will continue for another few weeks, followed by several months of targeted bombing aimed at Hamas leadership targets.
Reactions Within the United States: The reactions to the war have been varied and widespread. From the halls of Congress, to college campuses and city squares, protests have erupted for and against Israel’s response to the attack by Hamas. As the deaths in Gaza have mounted, calls for a cease-fire have grown louder, and support for Israel has waned. Pro-Palestinian rallies on college campuses have blurred the lines between free speech and hate speech, making Jewish students feel threatened and unwelcome. In recent weeks three college presidents were brought before Congress to justify their policies which allowed some protests to turn into rants against the Jewish people and death to Israel. Antisemitism is clearly on the rise in the United Sates and across the world. It is unclear if this is a result of the war in Gaza, or if the war has just made it more visible. The Israel-Hamas war has provoked hatred on both sides. Violence against Palestinians in this country has also increased since the outbreak of the war. The killing of a 6-year-old boy of Palestinian descent in Illinois is but one tragic example.  War protests are not new on our college campuses or public squares. Free speech and peaceful protests are protected by our constitution. But expressions of hate and the threats of violence against another person or group are not protected speech. Hate speech should be condemned in the strongest possible way, regardless of which side of the conflict you are on.  Further Reflections: Hamas started the brutal war against Israel on October 7, 2023, and has vowed to repeat its attacks on Israel “again and again”, until the country is completely destroyed, claiming that “it has no place in our land”. Hamas presents a clear and present danger to the Jewish people, and will never accept the existence of the state of Israel. Israel has the right and obligation to protect its people from terrorist attacks, and is therefore justified in its aggressive pursuit of rooting out and destroying Hamas. Although I agree with Israel’s right to self-defense, I don’t agree with the ferocity of its response to Hamas, which has left Gaza in rubble and has shattered nearly two million Palestinian lives. Punishing the guilty should never come at the expense of victimizing the innocent. The excessive use of force in Gaza only fosters more hatred for the Jews and produces more militants opposed to Israel. Israel should have listened to the United States, which has a lot of experience in overreacting to terrorist attacks. Condemning Hamas for its attack on Israel isn’t taking a pro-Israel stance in the conflict, and it doesn’t represent an anti-Palestinian stance either. It is taking a stand against hatred and violence. Standing in solidarity with the people suffering in Gaza, doesn’t have to mean that you are anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. It is morally just and right to show compassion for the innocent people caught in the middle of a deadly war.  The lights in Bethlehem will be dim this Christmas, but don’t let that dim our hopes for peace in this troubled land. We should follow the lead of church leaders in the Holy Land and reject hate. We should all embrace the true meaning of the season: peace, love and hope.  Postscript: The history of the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is long and complex. There has been a lot written on the subject, and I will leave it to the historians. But if you are interested in learning more, here is a link to a brief synopsis of the recent history of the region and the origins of the conflict.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  In recent weeks two significant events have taken place in Washington D.C. They are significant for advancing what has been sorely lacking: accountability and personal responsibility. Last month the Supreme Court adopted a code of ethics for the first time, and on Friday the House of Representatives expelled one of its members for ethics violations and engaging in criminal conduct.  Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the only branch of the federal government that is unelected and unaccountable to the American people. Therefore, it must be above reproach and its actions and deliberations should be transparent. As I wrote in May, unreported gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas have brought into question the integrity of the Court. On November 13, 2023 the Supreme Court announced that it had issued an ethics code for its justices. Until then, justices were not bound by any formal code of conduct. It has been a long time coming, and is evidence that the Court is listening to the American people and the Congress. The code is not perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. The main complaint against the new code is that it has no enforcement mechanism, and is therefore toothless. It is doubtful that if the code had previously been in place, it would have curbed the behavior of Justice Thomas. But the adoption of the new code of ethics is an acknowledgment by the Court that it is not above scrutiny, and is willing to hold its members accountable, even though it took a little public pressure to do so. All nine justices signed on to the new rules. Follow this link for a full reading of the new code of ethics.  House Expels George Santos: On December 1, 2023 the House of Representatives voted to expel Republican George Santos, Representative of New York’s 3rd congressional district. About 73% of the members present voted for Santos’ expulsion, exceeding the two-thirds threshold required. This is only the sixth time in the history of the House of Representatives that a member has been expelled. The list of Mr. Santos’ misdeeds is long and predate his time in Congress. He lied to voters about his background, education and work experiences. But what really got him into trouble were his numerous violations of campaign finance laws and fraud. Mr. Santos is currently facing 23 federal criminal counts based on these allegations. What sealed Mr. Santos’ fate in the House was a scathing 56-page report released by the Ethics Committee in November, detailing the evidence of his wrong doing. The fact that the House of Representatives could get a super majority of its members to come together in support of anything, much less the expulsion of one of its own, is pretty remarkable. It is even more remarkable when you consider that the expulsion of George Santos reduces the Republicans majority in the House to just three votes. Clearly not all Republicans were in favor of this outcome, with 114 voting against expulsion. But 105 Republicans put politics aside by voting to rid the House of Representatives of a member who should have never been there. Within the next week or so, New York Governor Kathy Hochul will announce the date for a special election to fill the vacate seat for New York’s 3rd congressional district. The election will take place sometime in late February or early March. George Santos’ criminal trial for the 23 criminal counts is set to begin in September of 2024. It is odd to think that the expulsion of a member of Congress could give me hope, but it does. I am encouraged that some members of Congress are still capable of doing the right thing even when it isn’t in their political interest to do so. Let’s hope that this is the beginning of a new trend.   If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  The “Concord Hymn” by Ralph Waldo Emerson was written for the dedication of the Battle Monument on July 4, 1837 in Concord, Massachusetts. It commemorated the Battle of Concord which took place at the North Bridge at the outbreak of the American Revolution. By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard round the world. The foe long since in silence slept; Alike the conqueror silent sleeps; And Time the ruined bridge has swept Down the dark stream which seaward creeps. On this green bank, by this soft stream, We set today a votive stone; That memory may their deed redeem, When, like our sires, our sons are gone. Spirit, that made those heroes dare To die, and leave their children free, Bid Time and Nature gently spare The shaft we raise to them and thee.  While visiting relatives in New England last month I had the opportunity to spend time in the towns of Concord and Lexington in Massachusetts. These towns witnessed the opening salvos of the Revolutionary War nearly 250 years ago.  On the morning of April 19, 1775 hundreds of British soldiers left Boston and marched toward Concord to capture and destroy stockpiles of gunpowder and military supplies stored by the local militia. Along the way the British soldiers confronted seventy-seven militia men waiting for them on Lexington Green. No one is sure who fired the first shot, but within minutes eight colonial militia men were killed and several more were wounded. The British suffered only one minor casualty and soon resumed their march to Concord. Once in Concord, British soldiers searched homes and barns for military supplies, and burned all that they found. Thinking that the soldiers had set their town on fire, the local militia confronted the British soldiers at the North Bridge. The soldiers fired upon the militia, killing two men and injuring several more. A militia officer ordered his men to return fire and two British soldiers were killed. This was an act of treason against the British government and the spark that ignited the American Revolutionary War.  At the Minute Man National Historical Park I joined a guided walk along the Battle Road Trail, part of the colonial Bay Road where several battles and skirmishes took place on that fateful day in 1775. As we walked along the woodland path lined with maple, oak and beech trees alight in their colorful autumn splendor, it has hard to imagine the enormity of the events that had taken place here.  But a black cloud hung over New England that day, as was the case on April 19, 1775. The news of a horrific mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine the previous night was being reported, and the details of the carnage were being updated throughout the day. An Army reservist with a history of mental illness had killed eighteen people and wounded thirteen others using an AR-10 assault rifle. Walking along Battle Road that day, I couldn’t stop thinking about the senseless slaughter of innocent people that took place the previous night. Sometime later I came to the realization that the mass shooting in Maine was somehow rooted in the events that took place in Concord in 1775. The local militias in Concord, Lexington, and surrounding communities had effectively repelled professional soldiers of an overseas king. There was no going back.  Colonial Militias: In colonial times a militia represented a military force raised from the civilian population, for the common defense of the community. Militias were distinct from professional soldiers, and were generally organized around towns, regions, or colonies. Members of Massachusetts militias were required to possess and be skilled in the use of a musket, powder, and shot. Local militia units from all of the thirteen original colonies were the backbone of George Washington’s army during the Revolutionary War. The “Militia Act of 1792” stipulated that the militia would consist of each and every able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, who is at least 18 years of age and under the age of 45. At the start of our new republic, the founding fathers feared that a standing army could be used to suppress the liberties of the citizens, and therefore opposed the formation of one. But they needed to provide for the common defense, and saw the state and local militias as a necessary compromise. It should therefore be no surprise that armed militias were enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.  Second Amendment: The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791. It states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. A lot has changed in the United States since the Second Amendment was adopted. The traditional concept of a civilian based militia no longer exists, and state-based militia organizations have been incorporated into the federal military structure. You can find more information on the history of militias in the United States in one of my previous blog posts.  Repeal or Replace the 2nd Amendment: If I was king for a day, I would do away with the 2nd Amendment. That is not to say that I would abolish all access to guns by law abiding citizens. There are legitimate reasons, such as sport and personal protection, for citizens to have access to certain types of guns. But I am convinced that meaningful gun control legislation cannot happen in this country without repealing or replacing the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is why we have metal detectors and security guards in schools. It is why mass shootings are common place, and citizens are allowed to parade around openly carrying military style assault weapons. The 2nd Amendment justifies use of military grade armaments and tactics by law enforcement. The 2nd Amendment has given rise to the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies which have corrupted our political system. The 2nd Amendment has had a damaging impact on modern American society. Short of amending the Constitution, guns are here to stay. Fortunately, even the most conservative courts acknowledge that gun regulation does not violate the Second Amendment. Even without amending the Constitution there are some common-sense things that Congress can do.  Common Sense Gun Reform Measures: (For more detail on these gun reforms refer to Part 4 of my blog series, Guns in America.
The violent manner in which this country was founded has repercussions to this very day. The events at Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775 cemented the use of fire arms by the civilian population in America. The 2nd Amendment enshrines it in our Constitution, and our conservative Supreme Court will see to it that this doesn’t change anytime soon. Approximately 42% of American households own at least one gun, and there are reportedly more guns in this country than there are people. Clearly gun ownership is a cultural issue, and it takes a lot of time to change cultural norms. But gun regulation is not a cultural issue. It is a legal and political issue, which can be influenced by the courage and will of the people. No matter where you stand on the gun control issue, I think we can all agree that something needs to be done to reduce gun violence in America. For the sake of the grieving families in Lewiston, Maine, let’s hold Congress accountable for not taking action on meaningful gun reform.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  Halloween is right around the corner, and the biggest horror show in the land is playing out in the House of Representatives. The nightmare became palpable when Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio was selected by House Republicans to become their nominee for speaker. Fortunately, some moderate Republicans found the moral courage to send Jordan packing by refusing to back him on Friday. The House has now been without a speaker for nearly three weeks. My last blog detailed the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy after Rep. Matt Gaetz initiated a motion to vacate the chair. If Mr. Gaetz’s intention was to create chaos in the House, he certainly succeeded.  But there is hope that cooler heads will prevail in Congress and a more reasonable group of moderate Republicans will step forward and push the far-right members of the Republican caucus to the sidelines, where they belong. The rejection of Jim Jordan by several Republican members, is a repudiation of one of the House’s most extreme and unqualified members to replace McCarthy.  Here are some of the reasons why Jim Jordan was a terrible choice to become Speaker of the House of Representatives: Support for Donald Trump’s Efforts to Overturn the 2020 Election: According to the January 6th committee's final report, Jim Jordan was a significant player in the efforts by Donald Trump to overturn the election results after his defeat. The report states that “He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White-House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election, chief among them, claims that the election had been tainted by fraud.” On January 2, 2021, Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump and others discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint Session of Congress to certify the vote. During that same call the group discussed methods to encourage Trump’s supporters to march on the Capitol on January 6th. Jim Jordan also communicated with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on ways Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to count electoral votes that they deemed to be unconstitutional. Jordan was one of 147 House Republicans who voted to overturn the election. He also signed on to an unsuccessful lawsuit filed at the Supreme Court to get electoral college votes thrown out in several key states. For his unwavering loyalty, President Trump awarded Jim Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Jim Jordan’s continued refusal to admit to his Congressional colleagues that Donald Trump had lost the election pushed away many of the moderates. Without the support of moderate Republicans in the House, Jordan couldn’t become speaker. Refusal to Comply with Congressional Subpoena: The January 6th committee issued Jordan a subpoena, compelling him to testify before their committee. He refused, proving that he won’t follow House rules that he disagrees with. Is that the kind of leader House Republicans want? Fortunately, several were clear-eyed enough to say no. Jordan was referred to the House Ethics Committee for failure to comply with the subpoena. It is not a surprise that no action was taken against him.  Jordan Hasn’t Earned the Right to Become Speaker: Quite simply, Jordan hasn’t paid his dues. Most House members who became Speaker spent years building relationships with colleagues, supporting colleagues through fund raising, and backing legislation. Jordan has done none of that. He hasn’t pushed through any significant piece of legislation or done much of anything positive during his time in Congress. According to Vanderbilt University’s Center for Effective Lawmaking, Jordan consistently ranks among Congress’ least effective members. He was ranked 217th out of 222 House Republicans in the last Congress. Jim Jordan is known as an antagonist in his own party. He played a central role in several government shutdowns in 2013, 2015, and 2018, and is not averse to using the threat of government shutdowns or debt ceiling defaults to push his extreme right-wing agenda. Other Things to Know About Jim Jordan:
 In the House of Representatives, we are witnessing what happens when individual members put their own interests above that of the institution. If they don’t get their own way, they create chaos, and damage the reputation of the institution. This results in the citizenry losing faith in government institutions.
With seven Republican candidates vying for the House speakership, we are in for another long and momentous week in Congress. If one of the candidates can’t make it across the finish line, the next best option may be to temporarily expand the powers of Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry. This at least would allow some critical pieces of legislation to reach the floor of the House. I know that McHenry is not very popular with the hard-right within the House due to his close ties to Kevin McCarthy. But this is far more acceptable to most Republicans than to reach a handshake deal with the Democrats in order to reopen the House. Update: 10-24-2023. Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Johnson is a MAGA Republican and was a promoter of the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz are thrilled with the selection of Johnson. There is much to do in Congress and the next few weeks will demonstrate Mike Johnson’s true colors. His most crucial test will be keeping the government running after the current government spending bill expires on November 17, 2023. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  “The office of Speaker of the House of the United States House of Representatives is hereby declared vacant”, said presiding officer Representative Steve Womack, after the historic vote on October 3, 2023. Kevin McCarthy’s speakership ended after just nine months following the 216-210 vote, making him the first speaker in history to lose his job by being voted out by his own party. Immediately after the gavel came down on McCarthy’s speakership, the House Clerk announced that Representative Patrick McHenry would act as the temporary speaker (speaker pro tempore) until a new speaker was selected. In his first act, McHenry put the House of Representatives into recess, throwing it into confusion and chaos, effectively closing down one third of the Federal Government. So how did we get to this sorry state of affairs, and what are the implications for the Republican Party and for the United States?  What Led to McCarthy’s Downfall? Kevin McCarthy’s speakership was doomed from the start. It took fifteen rounds of voting over four days to secure enough votes to be elected last January. Most of the twenty or so Republicans who opposed McCarthy were members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group opposed to compromise, particularly with Democrats. McCarthy’s chief nemesis, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, supports the views of the House Freedom Caucus and generally votes with them. McCarthy made several concessions to secure enough votes to become speaker. But the concession that sealed his fate involved rule changes to the “motion to vacate the chair”, a procedure House members can use to remove the speaker. Previously a majority of House Republicans were needed to call for such a motion. Under the new rules, any single member of the House could now call for a motion to vacate the chair and force a vote. Only a simple majority of the votes cast would be needed to remove the speaker. Matt Gaetz called for a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair on October 2nd. The following day the House voted to remove McCarthy. The House Democrats unanimously voted against McCarthy, as did eight Republican hardliners, most of whom originally opposed McCarthy’s speakership.  Why Did House Republicans Fire McCarthy? The vast majority of House Republicans (210) voted to keep McCarthy as their speaker. What did McCarthy do that was so egregious that eight members of his own party would vote to remove him from leadership and throw the House into chaos? He worked with Democrats to reach compromises in order to maintain a functioning government. There were two things in particular that Matt Gaetz and some members of the House Freedom Caucus couldn’t stomach. The first was the deal that McCarthy negotiated with President Biden in June to lift the debt ceiling, resulting in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. But the straw that broke the camel’s back was McCarthy’s recent deal struck with House Democrats to pass a short term spending bill to avert a government shutdown. The spending bill lacked the deep spending cuts and new border policies demanded by the conservatives in the House. A small number of House Republicans were ready to shut down the government in order to get their way. McCarthy did the right thing by standing up to them. Here is what Kevin McCarthy said in his own defense: “I don’t regret standing up for choosing government over grievance. It is my responsibility. It is my job. I do not regret negotiating. Our government is designed to find compromise. I don’t regret my efforts to build coalitions and find solutions.”  Why Did Democrats Choose Not to Support McCarthy? If just three House Democrats voted in support of Kevin McCarthy, he would still be Speaker of the House. So why didn’t they? According to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, it was not the Democrats’ job to rescue McCarthy, who they viewed as untrustworthy. Here are some of the other reasons given by Jeffries:
The House Democrats couldn’t miss the opportunity to capitalize on the political vulnerability that the House Republicans had created for themselves. Democrat Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal put it this way: “Let them wallow in their pigsty of incompetence.”  Damage to the Republican Brand: The majority of House Republicans who supported Speaker McCarthy are not happy with what they view as a self-inflicted wound. Matt Gaetz who led the charge on ousting McCarthy, had no plan on what was to come next. With no clear path forward, the House Republicans look incompetent, dysfunctional, and lacking in the unity and ability to govern. This dysfunction does more than just damage the Republican brand, it further erodes confidence in our government at home and abroad.  What’s Next? Until a new speaker is elected, no House business can be conducted. The start of a new war in Israel and the temporary spending bill that expires on November 17th demand immediate attention by our House of Representatives. Let’s hope that the House elects a speaker soon, before any more damage can be done to one of our great institutions, and to the credibility of our government. In order to restore credibility, the House Republicans must come together and act like a unified party. The adults in their caucus must understand that compromise and reaching across the aisle are essential to governing in a democracy. Even if they could ram partisan legislation through the House, how do they expect to get it passed in the Democrat led Senate, and signed by a Democratic president? At the very least, House Republicans must change the rules on the “motion to vacate”, and require a majority of members, not just one, to initiate the process. No speaker should ever again be held hostage by a few malcontents in their caucus. Kevin McCarthy’s ambition to become Speaker of the House knew no bounds. He risked his reputation and the prestige of the U.S. House of Representatives to fulfill that ambition. He made a deal with the devil to reach the leadership position, and should not have been surprised that he got burned in the end.  Mr. Gaetz, now that you have ousted the speaker, what are your plans? To stay in the headlines and on cable T.V. of course.Post Scrip: On late Friday afternoon (10-13-2023) House Republicans selected Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio as their nominee for speaker. At this time Jordan does not have the support of enough House Republicans to secure the speakership. House members have left Washington D.C. for the weekend, so the drama will drag out well into next week.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  Earlier this month Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy directed the House of Representatives to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. According to McCarthy, “House Republicans have uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct. Taken together, these allegations paint a picture of a culture of corruption”. These are serious allegations. Is there any truth to them, or just the actions of a group of House Republicans attempting to damage the President in the runup to the 2024 presidential election? Let’s examine the allegations and the implications for President Biden. Does Donald Trump factor into any of this, and what are Kevin McCarthy’s true motivations behind his impeachment inquiry into Biden?  The Allegations: During a September 12, 2023 news conference Speaker McCarthy outlined the following charges against President Biden:
 A Little Background: The President’s son Hunter has gone through a much-publicized period of his life addicted to alcohol and crack cocaine. Hunter is currently in recovery and we wish him well. Let’s just say that Hunter was not a model citizen during this period of his life. Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware since 2018, looking into his foreign business dealings, amongst other things. The investigation uncovered the fact that Hunter failed to pay taxes on approximately $1.5 million in undeclared income he earned from his foreign business activities. He subsequently paid the income taxes and penalties, and in June of this year plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges. The U.S attorney’s investigation also discovered that Hunter had made false statements on an application to purchase a firearm, and illegally purchased a firearm while addicted to drugs. These gun charges have led to Hunter being indicted on three felony counts earlier this month.  President Biden loves his son and is very protective of him. The Republicans know this, and the cynic in me believes that they sense that the President is vulnerable because of this relationship and will try to exploit it. In other words, they are attempting to damage Joe Biden through the dealings of his troubled son. Basis for the Allegations Against Joe Biden: Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine and China have been extensively reported on over the past few years. Hunter details his foreign business deals in his 2022 book “Beautiful Things, A Memoir”. Hunter Biden also provided information about his foreign business dealings in court testimony during his trial for tax evasion. This information is not new, but more importantly, there has never been any proof that Hunter Biden’s activities or those of other Biden family members were linked to Joe Biden. For several months the House Oversight Committee has been conducting an investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business activities. The Committee is also looking into the financial and business dealings of other Biden family members. The Committee’s intent is “to determine whether these activities compromise U.S. national security and President Biden’s ability to lead with impartiality.” The witness testimony during the Congressional investigation didn’t provide any direct link between President Biden and his son’s business activities, but it nonetheless formed the basis of Speaker McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry.  Where is the Crime? Let’s look at the allegations one at a time.
 Impeachment as a Political Weapon: The allegations against President Biden seem pretty thin, but that’s beside the point. A handful of House Republicans on the extreme-right had vowed to impeach President Biden as soon they took over leadership of the House of Representatives. Kevin McCarthy is beholden to these hard-liners for voting him in as Speaker. In order for McCarthy to move ahead with his agenda, not the least of which is a spending bill to fund the government, he must appease his right wing. More importantly, if McCarthy had not moved ahead with the impeachment inquiry there was a real possibility that he would lose his speakership.  The extreme right within the Republican Party has pledged its fealty to Donald Trump, not to Kevin McCarthy. It has been reported that Donald Trump has privately discussed the impeachment of Joe Biden with House Republicans. In a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, Donald Trump suggested that the impeachment inquiry is payback for the Democrats impeaching him twice. “They did it to me,” Trump told Megyn Kelly during an hourlong interview on SiriusXM radio. “And had they not done it to me, I think, and nobody officially said this, but I think had they not done it to me … perhaps you wouldn’t have it being done to them.” During several campaign rallies this summer Trump has been pushing for the impeachment of Joe Biden, and has threatened Republicans by stating that “Republicans in Congress that don’t act on Biden, they should be immediately primaried and get out”. Donald Trump is out for revenge and he has plenty of loyal foot soldiers to do his bidding.  Impact on Joe Biden: There is slim possibility that the House of Representatives will vote to impeach President Biden. Even if they did, he would not be convicted in the Democrat controlled Senate. Nonetheless, House Republicans have succeeded in appeasing Donald Trump, creating a distraction for President Biden, and may even have convinced some voters that he is guilty by association with his son’s sketchy foreign activities. The 2024 presidential election is going to be close, and one more vulnerability for Joe Biden, no matter how small or inaccurate, doesn’t bode well. It creates more grey clouds over his campaign in what is already gearing up to be a stormy election. Hunter Biden benefitted handsomely off his famous last name. This may be unseemly, but it is not illegal. Joe Biden has no one to blame but himself for his current predicament. Yes, the House Republicans are acting shamelessly, but that’s politics. Biden should have stifled his son’s ambitions about becoming an international business and political consultant before it started. Joe Biden has too much political experience, as well as intimate knowledge of his son’s weaknesses, not to have kept Hunter on a tight leash. President Biden is not guilty of the allegations leveled against him by Speaker McCarthy. But he is guilty of letting the love for his son cloud his better judgment.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American September 25, 2023  In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, there has been a lot of speculation that Donald Trump’s involvement would disqualify him from ever holding public office again. The legal justification for disqualification is spelled out in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The first legal action to test whether or not Donald Trump can be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment took place in a Colorado District Court last week. The nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, on behalf of six Colorado voters, filed a lawsuit against Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. The lawsuit was filed to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on Colorado’s Republican presidential primary election ballot and any future election ballot based on his disqualification to hold public office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also seeks to prevent Colorado’s Secretary of State from taking any action that would allow Donald Trump to appear on the ballot. Does the lawsuit in Colorado have any merit, and will it prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot? Before we can answer these questions let’s first exam Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to see if it has any application to Donald Trump and the 2024 Presidential election.  Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: It was adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent military officers, federal officers, and state officials who served in the Confederacy from holding any future public office. Sometimes referred to as the disqualification clause, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”  Ambiguities Exist: Like many sections of the U.S. Constitution, there is a lot of ambiguity in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its applicability in the aftermath of January 6th is uncertain. After about 1869 there has been very little case law to provide clarity about this section of the Constitution. Some of the issues yet to be resolved include:
 Recent Court Action: There was a court case last year in New Mexico which merits mention due to its relevance to January 6th. Couy Griffin, a New Mexico County Commissioner, was convicted of illegally entering the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. As a result of his conviction a group of New Mexico voters sued to have him removed from office on the grounds that he violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A state judge agreed and had him removed from office and disqualified him from holding any office in the future. The New Mexico Supreme Court refused to overturn the ruling. Griffin vows to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The removal of Couy Griffin from public office was the only successful case to be brought under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since 1869. The significance of this case is that it was the first time a judge has formally ruled that the events of January 6, 2021 were an “insurrection”.  Applicability to Donald Trump: Donald Trump has called the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to keep him off any election ballot simply “election interference”. In a recent social media post, he stated that “almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election”. Many of us watched the attack on the U.S. Capitol live on television or at least read about it. No one can dispute that there were crimes committed at the Capitol on that day and perhaps on the days leading up to January 6, 2021. Millions of Americans believe that Donald Trump incited the Capitol riot and fanned the flames of insurrection. But there are millions of other Americans who believe that Donald Trump isn’t guilty of any crimes, and is not responsible for the violence that took place at the Capitol. Therefore, there is no clear consensus on Donald Trump’s role in the January 6th Capitol riot.  The Department of Justice has charged more than 1,100 defendants with various crimes related to January 6th, and over half have pleaded guilty. The most serious charge any of the defendants has been convicted of is seditious conspiracy. Seditious conspiracy does not rise to the level of a Section 3 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. More to the point, Donald Trump has not been convicted of any crime related to January 6th and none of the indictments that he currently faces are for insurrection, rebellion, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. I am not a lawyer, but is seems improbable that any State could keep Donald Trump off of an election ballot based on violations of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Final Note: The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued its final report on December 22, 2022. Recommendation 4 in the report addresses the need to clarify the provisions of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how it may be used against Donald Trump and other defendants. The Select Committee referred Donald Trump and others to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution “for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.” The final report also makes note of the fact that two members of the committee have introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to declare the January 6th assault an insurrection, and legislation “to establish specific procedures and standards for disqualification under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” The recommendations in the final report are going nowhere in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. The pending lawsuit in Colorado to keep Donald Trump off of the Republican presidential primary ballot will not be the last case of its kind. Other states will be following this case closely and are already considering similar legal actions against candidates or officials who were involved in the January 6th Capitol riot. But without further guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court or the Congress, these cases have little chance of succeeding. It is important to remember that despite his numerous criminal indictments, Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of any federal crimes. Therefore, he should be presumed innocent until he is proven guilty. Further use of the judicial system to prevent Donald Trump from running for president will only feed into his narrative that the legal system is being weaponized against him. It will also foster more distrust of the judicial system and further embolden Trump and his supporters. The only way to beat Donald Trump is at the ballot box.  Let the American voters decide. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  Donald Trump did the American people a favor by not participating in the Republican primary debate last Wednesday night. It allowed viewers to assess the qualifications of Trump’s eight top challengers without the distraction and chaos that he would have brought to the debate stage. In order for the Republican Party to remain relevant, and for the good of the country, it must move beyond Donald Trump. Most of the eight challengers who debated on Wednesday are highly qualified, and one might emerge as a successor to Donald Trump. But let’s be clear, as it stands today Donald Trump should easily win the Republican nomination for president in 2024. Depending upon which poll numbers you read, Donald Trump is ahead of his nearest challenger, Ron DeSantis, by nearly 40 points. Last Wednesday’s debate did nothing to change the polls in any significant way. From my perspective Donald Trump emerged as the clear winner from the debate. The only thing that can derail Trump’s nomination for president is Trump himself. It is possible that his campaign implodes from the sheer weight of the four criminal indictments (91 individual charges) that he faces. If that happens, one of the eight candidates on the debate stage Wednesday night could emerge as the Republican nominee for president. Therefore, the race is on to be the number two candidate behind Donald Trump. Let’s take a look at how each of the candidates performed in the debate and some of my thoughts on each. I have listed them in the order of their current polling.  Ron DeSantis: By most accounts the current Governor of Florida did nothing in the debate to undermine his standing as the number two candidate behind Donald Trump. But he did nothing to close the gap with Trump. DeSantis didn’t take any risks and most of his remarks were part of his canned stump speech from the campaign trail. Two of his remarks put me in the “never DeSantis“ camp. His opposition to more funding for Ukraine, and his statement about using deadly force at the border to stop the flow of illegal drugs. But I didn’t need the debate to sour me on a DeSantis presidency. His “anti-woke” rhetoric and the laws he has passed in Florida to back up the rhetoric have become extreme. The Republican Party has traditionally stood for limited government and self-reliance. But Ron DeSantis wants to dictate what schools can teach, what textbooks they can use, how companies conduct diversity training, and the reproductive health care of women. This smacks of fascism to me. No thanks Ron!  Vivek Ramaswamy: He is a biotech entrepreneur and author with no government experience. The last Republican president had no prior government experience, and how did that turn out? Mike Pence had it right when he stated in the debate, “Now is not the time for on-the-job training.” Ramaswamy’s poll numbers have risen significantly in recent weeks due to his slick and polished manner and his extreme right-wing views. He was probably the most pro-Trump candidate on the stage. At one point he called Donald Trump the “greatest president of the 21st century”. If he really believes that, why is he running against Trump for the nomination? Ramaswamy stated during the debate that “The climate change agenda is a hoax”. He is playing to Donald Trump’s base, but has no chance in a general election. His lack of government experience and his lack of foreign policy experience are deal breakers for me. One of the best exchanges of the debate came from Nikki Haley who highlighted Ramaswamy’s lack of foreign policy experience. “He wants to hand Ukraine to Russia, let China eat Taiwan, stop funding Israel. You don’t do that to friends”, she said.  Mike Pence: The former Vice President and former Governor of Indiana certainly has the experience to be president. He is intelligent and articulate, and he had a good debate performance on Wednesday night. The usually mild-mannered Pence was aggressive and garnered more speaking time than any other candidate. He took on Ramaswamy for his lack of experience and justifiably defended his actions on January 6, 2021 by standing up for the Constitution rather than giving in to the pressure tactics of Donald Trump. Mike Pence is a decent and principled man. His deeply held religious views form the foundation of most of his beliefs and policy decisions. I can respect that, but Mike Pence wears his religion on his sleeve. Not only does this not play well to the general electorate, it has no place in our secular institutions of government. I applaud Mike Pence for standing up for the Constitution on January 6, 2021. But he was one of Donald Trump’s enablers and his criticism was too little, too late. Mike Pence has no chance of winning the Republican nomination due to his current criticisms of Trump.  Nikki Haley: As a former Governor of South Carolina and a U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump Administration, Nikki Haley has governing and foreign policy experience. I think that she had the best debate performance and was probably the only candidate to jump in the polls as a result of their performance. Haley came across as smart, informed, and not afraid to take on the Trump wing of the Republican Party. In the debate Nikki Haley showed her strong foreign policy credentials, was pragmatic and compassionate on abortion, and she was one of the few candidates who acknowledged that climate change is real. She directly criticized Donald Trump and the exploding national debt under his watch, and went so far as to say that Trump could not win in a general election. Of all the candidates on the debate stage on Wednesday night, my views probably align most closely to those of Nikki Haley. She would be a formidable opponent against President Biden in a general election and is someone to watch in the months ahead. At the very least, Nikki Haley will be on any Republican nominee’s short list for Vice President or Secretary of State.  Tim Scott: The Senator from South Carolina didn’t do himself any favors in the debate. His calm demeanor and “nice guy” personality prevented him from getting much speaking time. In order to win a Republican primary debate, much less the nomination, you have to be seen as a fighter and not be afraid to step on toes. That is just not Tim Scott, who got overshadowed by most of the other candidates on the stage. Tim Scott is a decent man and a true conservative, but my biggest knock against him is his defense of Donald Trump. In the debate he stated that “As next president of the United States I will make that border wall complete”. I don’t think that Tim Scott will be in the race for very much longer.  Chris Christie: As a former Governor of New Jersey and a U.S. attorney, Chris Christie is no stranger to politics. He got into the race to be a thorn in the side of Donald Trump. Christie has known Trump for decades and is on a crusade to educate the electorate on Trump’s shortcomings. Most of his remarks made during the debate were booed by the Trump supporters in the audience. Even though I agree with Christie’s views on Trump, he has alienated most of the Republican base and has no chance of winning the nomination. Christie sealed his fate when he admitted onstage that he would not support Trump if he was convicted and became the nominee.  Asa Hutchinson: The former governor and congressman from Arkansas has plenty of government experience. He is a decent man who believes that the only hope for the Republican Party is to move beyond Donald Trump. Along with Chris Christie, he was the only candidate on stage who would not support the nomination of Donald Trump. Like Christie, Hutchinson’s lack of support for Donald Trump has doomed his candidacy.  Doug Burgum: The former software entrepreneur and current Governor of North Dakota is bright and has a lot of good ideas on economic and foreign policy issues. But he has low name recognition and did not distinguish himself in the debate. He literally had to buy his way on to the debate stage. In order to qualify for the debate, a candidate needed at least 40,000 individual donors to their campaign. Burgum secured these individual donors by giving away $20 gift cards to 50,000 individuals who donated $1 or more to his campaign. Burgum has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. But he does have enough personal wealth to continue his campaign to get his views aired.  Wanted for Crimes Against Democracy.In order for the Republican Party to remain relevant it must move beyond Donald Trump. The party cannot win a general presidential election with him at the head of their ticket. The Republican primary debate last Wednesday night showed that there are some serious candidates capable of being the standard bearer for the Republican Party. Donald Trump will not go away until the Republican electorate sends him packing. For the sake of the country, let’s hope that they have the sense to do just that.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  Approximately 123 countries are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty that outlaws the production, possession and use of cluster munitions (bombs). The United States has not signed on to this treaty and has recently sent thousands of these weapons to Ukraine for use against the Russian invaders. There has been much hand wringing in the press and among politicians that somehow the United States should have taken the high road and declined to furnish Ukraine with these weapons. But to think that the United States is a principled player in the use of weapons of war is to refute history. The United States relinquished the moral high ground in warfare with the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, followed by the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The extensive use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War is still plaguing civilians and war veterans. The United States starting using napalm during World War II but its true horrors were not revealed to the world until the Vietnam War. Cluster bombs were added to the arsenal during the Vietnam War, and tens of thousands were dropped on Southeast Asia. Unexploded munitions from these bombs have victimized civilians living in these areas ever since. Cluster bombs were used by the United States in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and we still have a massive stockpile. The United States won’t eliminate these weapons from its arsenal for the simple reason that Russia and China also have huge stockpiles of various types of cluster munitions. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use them indiscriminately in Ukraine, targeting both military and civilian targets since the beginning of the war in early 2022.   Russian troops are well dug in within occupied Ukrainian territory in the east and south near Crimea. In order to protect against Ukrainian attacks in these areas, Russia has built extensive mine fields between 3 and 10 miles deep. There are now hundreds of miles of eastern Ukraine that have been turned into “no-man’s-land” because they are densely mined with antitank and antipersonnel mines, as well as trip wires. Some of these areas of Ukraine have been rendered off limits to civilians for generations to come. With conventional munitions running low, Ukraine’s military was desperate to get cluster bombs to use against Russia’s well defended positions.  The Ukrainians have given the United States assurances that the recently supplied cluster bombs will be used only within Ukraine’s territory against Russian military targets, and with strict accountability. Let’s hope so. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  In one of my blogs last year I raised the question “Would Ukraine be better off if Trump was president?” The answer, for me at least, is a resounding no! Without the financial and military support from NATO countries, Ukraine would not be able to stand up to the military might of Russia. Russia would overrun Ukraine’s territory and annex it, much in the same way as it did to the Crimea in 2014. Soon Ukraine would no longer exist as an independent country.  The United States’ policies toward aiding Ukraine, under the leadership of President Biden, have strengthened the Western alliance and made NATO more united than it has been in decades. Finland was recently admitted to the alliance, and President Biden helped negotiate a deal with Turkey’s President Erdogan to remove the final roadblock to allowing Sweden to join NATO. President Biden also helped to secure commitments from all NATO member nations to allow Ukraine to join the alliance once the war with Russia is over. Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on one member is regarded as an attack on all of them. If Ukraine became a member of NATO before the end of the war, it would put the United States and other member nations at war with Russia. The United States is simply not willing to go to war with Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. In addition to escalating and widening the war by involving all NATO countries, Putin is just crazy enough to use nuclear weapons if he felt backed into a corner.  Last week President Biden traveled to Helsinki to congratulate Finland’s president on becoming the newest member of NATO. During his time in Helsinki the president also met with the leaders of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. President Biden gave assurances of cooperation between our countries and conveyed the United States’ commitment to NATO. The contrast between President Biden’s recent Helsinki Summit and the one attended by President Trump in 2018 couldn’t be more different. At the summit in 2018 Trump met privately with Vladimir Putin. After the meeting Trump sided with Russia against his own U.S. intelligence agencies, disavowing the findings that Russia had indeed interfered in the 2016 elections. Trump stated during a press conference that he believed Putin, who had told him that Russia had not meddled in the U.S. elections. This left many of the United States’ allies in Europe shaken, questioning whether or not they could rely on security commitments from the United States going forward.  Despite Donald Trump’s attempts to rewrite history, it has been extensively reported over the years that he was no friend of NATO. On several occasions Trump told his top national security advisors that he wanted to pull out of NATO. If not for his chief of staff John F. Kelley and his national security advisor John Bolton, he might have done just that. He called the alliance obsolete and berated member states for not paying their fair share. Even though these claims were not true, it undermined confidence in the alliance and created division between members. In short, President Trump left the future of NATO in doubt, and President Biden has unified and strengthen it.
The COVID pandemic taught us that the world is more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. Economic and strategic relations between nations are vital, and that is particularly true for the United States. Tackling worldwide threats such as disease, climate change, and microplastic contamination of the environment will require strong relationships and cooperation among nations. It would be foolish to think that the United States has the resources and will to go it alone against military and competitive threats from the likes of China, Russia, and Iran. The United States cannot go it alone. Without security alliances such as NATO, and partnerships in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific region, we will go the way of ancient Rome, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union. International relationships and alliances are key to the long-term prosperity and survival of our country.  ChatGPT or any form of artificial intelligence were not used in the writing of this blog.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  With just days to go before our nation celebrates its Independence Day on July 4th, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of democracy. In the case of Moore v. Harper the Supreme Court upheld a decision by North Carolina’s top court to strike down a partisan congressional map. The ruling rejects the notion that under the “independent state legislature theory”, a state legislature has the exclusive and independent authority to set the rules for federal elections and drawing congressional maps. Importantly, the ruling preserves the checks and balances required to safeguard the integrity of our federal elections. It also protects against rogue state legislators overturning the will of the voters by introducing an alternate slate of electors into a presidential election. The ruling won’t protect against voter suppression and all questionable congressional maps, but it is a step in the right direction in favor of federal election integrity.  Independent State Legislature Theory: It is a narrow reading of the Constitution that has been used by some partisan groups to justify the actions of state legislatures to gerrymander electoral maps, pass restrictive voting laws, and ultimately control the outcome of elections. The Constitution does delegate the administration of federal elections to the states, but with congressional oversight. The two relevant clauses in the Constitution are the “Elections Clause” and the “Presidential Electors Clause”. The Elections Clause reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The Presidential Electors Clause reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” These are the electors who actually vote for the president on behalf of the state in the Electoral College. Proponents of the independent state legislature theory use the two aforementioned clauses to bolster their claim that state legislatures have exclusive and near absolute power to regulate federal elections. The Supreme Court has rejected this interpretation of the Constitution in several previous cases, maintaining that state courts have oversight responsibility to ensure that laws for federal elections comply with their state constitutions.  The Ruling: In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the independent state legislature theory and affirmed that North Carolina’s top court had the right to strike down a congressional redistricting map that it deemed unfairly partisan. According to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, “State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause.” His opinion further states that the Court rejected the contention that the Elections Clause vests state legislatures with exclusive and independent authority when setting rules governing federal elections.  Results of the Ruling:
 Implications of the Ruling: The ruling in Moore v. Harper is a repudiation of the independent state legislature theory. Without this ruling rogue state legislatures would be emboldened to run federal elections any way they wanted to, even if it meant violating their state’s constitution. Taking it to the extreme, if state legislatures had independent authority over federal elections, they could choose a slate of electors in presidential elections favorable to their party, irrespective of the popular vote. Sound farfetched? A team of lawyers working for Donald Trump attempted to create fake slates of electors in seven key states won by Joe Biden, in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Fortunately, the scheme failed and may result in criminal prosecutions in several jurisdictions. The 2024 presidential election is heating up. Throw into the mix several court cases pending against Donald Trump and things are going to get interesting. The Supreme Court decided to hear Moore v. Harper precisely because of the implications that it has for the upcoming presidential election. By taking the independent state legislature theory off of the table, the Supreme Court has lessened the potential for partisan shenanigans.  ChatGPT or any form of artificial intelligence were not used in the writing of this blog.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  Only in Washington D.C. can you get congratulated for simply doing your job. President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy both took a victory lap last week with the signing into law of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The President and the Speaker did the right thing by reaching a compromise deal leading to legislation to lift the debt ceiling, thus avoiding a fiscal calamity. The debt ceiling drama, which had consumed Washington D.C. for the past several weeks is over for now. Let’s hope that Congress can get back to work on more important issues, such as immigration reform, border security, and gun violence. As I stated in a previous blog on the subject, the debt ceiling showdown could have been avoided if the President pushed through a debt ceiling resolution last fall when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Now, with the House of Representatives in the hands of Republicans, Biden had to move away from his position of not negotiating to lift the debt ceiling. It was inevitable that the President would have to negotiate with Speaker McCarthy to get any legislation passed.  Highlights of the Debt Ceiling Legislation:
 In the Fine Print:
 In the end, the debt ceiling legislation was a win for both President Biden and Speaker McCarthy. The President can claim success for signing into law a truly bipartisan piece of legislation and minimizing draconian budget cuts that Republicans were demanding. McCarthy can claim that he extracted some spending cuts and imposed new spending discipline on the Democrats. He also showed that he could lead the House and get results in the face of strong opposition from the conservative members of his party who demanded far steeper spending cuts. It will be interesting to see if he is punished by the Freedom Caucus for not extracting more spending cuts from the Democrats.  The spending “cuts” won’t put a dent in the massive federal debt and ongoing budget deficits that this country faces. But at least the debt ceiling negotiations got the federal government talking about the need for fiscal discipline. But it will be up to the American electorate to demand that tough choices be made, sooner rather than later. The longer the tough fiscal choices are ignored, the more painful the solutions will become.  My views on the debt ceiling have not changed. I still think that it should be abolished. Government debates over pubic debt and borrowing limits should be part of the appropriations and budgeting processes. It is a little late to think about how to pay for something after you have already ordered it.
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  After a four year investigation into the origins of the FBI’s probe into ties between Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, special counsel John Durham issued his report earlier this month. Donald Trump and his allies would have you believe that the report uncovered the “crime of the century”, the existence of a “deep state” out to get him, and an FBI weaponized against him. This is not what the report indicated. The Durham report revealed very little that hadn’t previously been reported in prior investigations and in the press. The Durham report should be the last word on the Trump-Russia probe, but it won’t be. Donald Trump will use the report as proof that he is the victim of a deep state conspiracy, and use it throughout his 2024 presidential campaign as a shield against all pending accusations against him. Therefore, the subject deserves just a little more of our time before we relegate it to the trash heap of yesterday’s news.  Time Line of Events in Trump-Russia Probe: A review of the time line of events may help to make some sense of the Durham report. July 31, 2016: The FBI began an investigation, code named “Crossfire Hurricane”, into possible links between the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and Russian officials, and to possible Russian meddling in the presidential election. This investigation would be taken over by the Mueller investigation in May of 2017.  May 9, 2017: President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. May 17, 2017-May 29, 2019: Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, and possible obstruction of justice arising from the firing of FBI Director Comey.  March 22, 2019: The Mueller report was issued. The main findings of the report are as follows:
 December 8, 2019: Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, issued a report on the findings of his investigation, started in early 2018, into how the FBI came to investigate the Trump campaign’s possible links to Russia. In his report, Horowitz concluded that the FBI had a legitimate purpose in opening its investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane, and that there was no evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open investigations into some of Trump’s campaign advisors. But the Horowitz report was critical of how the FBI handled the applications for surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, targeting Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The report outlined “serious performance failures” requiring major changes. Horowitz also called for greater oversight before the FBI opens a politically sensitive investigation. Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham disagreed with Horowitz’s conclusion that the FBI was justified in opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Barr urged Durham to continue his investigation into possible FBI missteps during the Trump-Russia investigation. According to Barr’s memoir, as the 2020 election neared, Donald Trump was angry that no charges were leveled against the FBI.  October 19, 2020: Attorney General William Barr Attorney appointed John Durham as a special counsel to provide him and his team the assurance that their investigation could continue regardless of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Durham Report: Issued on May 15, 2023, the 316-page Durham report was the conclusion of a 4 year investigation set in motion by Donald Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr. Pressured to do so by Donald Trump, Barr hoped to prove that the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia was nothing more than a political witch hunt. But the report failed to do so, and provided no new revelations that hadn’t been previously reported by Robert Mueller and Michael Horowitz.  The Durham report is highly critical of the FBI’s behavior, finding that the bureau acted too hastily and relied on raw and unconfirmed intelligence when it opened the Trump-Russia investigation. But the report does not recommend any new charges against any law enforcement officials or changes to FBI guidelines and policy. Durham claims no political bias on the part of the FBI. He rightly points out certain individuals within the FBI who showed personal bias against Trump, but he could find no institutional bias. It seems to me that the Durham investigation was politically motivated, and a tool to help Donald Trump’s reelection chances.  FBI’s Impact on 2016 Presidential Campaign: On July 10, 2015 the FBI opened a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information while she was Secretary of State. As you may remember, this centered around the use of a personal server to store her government emails. On July 5, 2016 FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement indicating that the investigation was being closed with no recommendations for charges against Hillary Clinton. Then in late September of 2016, the FBI discovered a trove of emails from Hillary Clinton on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin. On October 28, 2016 Director Comey informed Congress (and the world) of the existence of the newly found emails and that the investigation into Clinton would be reopened. It was highly unusual and consequential for the FBI to make this information known less than ten days before a presidential election.  On November 6, 2016 Director Comey informed Congress that a review of the recently discovered Clinton emails provided no relevant information and the case would be closed. But with early voting underway in most states, the damage had already been done. The rest is history. Throughout most of the 2016 presidential campaign Hillary Clinton had the black cloud of “email-gate” hanging over her head. At the same time the American public had no idea that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible ties to Russia. With all of Trump’s claims of a witch hunt, he fared much better at the hands of the FBI than did Hillary Clinton.  The 2024 presidential election is heating up, Donald Trump’s legal problems are mounting, and you have more important things to think about. So, you can be forgiven if you have forgotten all about the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation conducted by the FBI. The Durham report has brought the subject back front and center, and Donald Trump will use it to spin a narrative of “victimhood” throughout his campaign. Trump and his allies will continue to beat the drum of deep state conspiracies against him. But don’t buy it.
Let’s hope that no more public funds are spent on useless investigations that attempt to rewrite history and weave false narratives. Now go out and enjoy the summer months before things really get crazy. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  As the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court plays a critical role in our constitutional form of government. It is independent of, but co-equal to Congress and the Executive Branch of our federal government. Without a deep commitment to the rule of law, and a belief that justice is truly equal under law, our system of government would collapse. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort for those seeking justice, and it protects the rights of citizens by striking down any law that violates the Constitution. Therefore, the Supreme Court must be seen as independent of outside influences, and it must adhere to the highest levels of transparency and ethical standards in rendering its decisions. Revelations in recent weeks of unreported gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas have raised questions by the American people and members of Congress about the integrity of the Supreme Court.  ?In extensive reporting last month by ProPublica, it has come to light that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has for many years been the beneficiary of unreported gifts from Harlan Crow, a Texas billionaire with close ties to the Republican Party. These gifts included lavish international travel, real estate deals, and tuition payments made on behalf of Thomas’ grandnephew. Harlan Crow also funded a political group founded by Thomas’ wife which paid her a $120,000 salary. None of this has been disputed by Crow or Justice Thomas. On several occasions during his tenure at the Court, Clarence Thomas complained about the low pay for Supreme Court Justices, further fueling calls for Congressional investigations into his actions. Do these revelations about Justice Thomas represent possible conflicts of interest or unethical behavior? Possibly. But they don’t represent violations of any laws or codes of conduct applicable to the Supreme Court, and therein lies the problem.  Calls for Change: On April 20th two senators introduced a bipartisan bill designed to force the Supreme Court to establish a code of ethics. Earlier this month the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings highlighting possible ethical lapses by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the need to adopt more transparency and clearly defined ethical standards. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declined an invitation to appear before the committee, citing issues related to the separation of powers and the importance of preserving judicial independence. It is no surprise that Republicans called the hearings a partisan attack on a conservative member of the Court, and promised to thwart any legislation that the Democrats put forth to constrain the Court in any way. Even though the hearings won’t produce any Congressional action, several Republican Senators, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, urged the Supreme Court to take actions to improve transparency and instill more public confidence. The Congressional hearings and public calls for the Supreme Court to be more transparent have not gone unnoticed by Chief Justice Roberts. In a rare written statement defending the Court, Roberts sent a letter to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee which included a Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices signed by all nine Supreme Court Justices. The statement lists the statues and guidelines which the Court uses to address specific ethical issues. I applaud the Court for providing some of its principles and practices. But these are all voluntary guidelines and the Court is not compelled to follow them. The statement doesn’t address the apparent ethical issues surrounding gifts received by Justice Thomas. It is still unclear whether or not Chief Justice Roberts deems these gifts to be inappropriate, and if so, what corrective actions will be taken.  What Can be Done? In 1973 The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was adopted by the Judicial Conference to promote public confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the federal judiciary. The Code governs the behavior of most federal judges, but it does not apply to the Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court is not bound by any formal code of conduct. There have been several attempts by Congress to impose a code of conduct on the Supreme Court, but most have run into legal problems. Separation of powers between the three branches of government prevents the Congress from mandating how the Court conducts its internal affairs. Even if the Congress was to pass legislation that directed the Court to adopt reforms, the Court could deem the legislation unconstitutional.  What Should be Done? Even if Constitutional issues could be overcome, Congress is too polarized to pass any meaningful legislation that would impact the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clearly has a credibility issue with the American people. It is not up to Congress to remedy this situation. It is the responsibility of Chief Justice Roberts, and his legacy depends on it. Here are two suggestions:
For the credibility of the Supreme Court, this should be done quickly and communicated to the American people.  The Supreme Court is the only branch of the federal government that is unelected and unaccountable to the American people. Therefore, it must be above reproach and its actions and deliberations should be transparent. Unreported gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas have brought into question the integrity of the Court in recent weeks. The fallout from these revelations is of the Court’s own making, and only the Court can remedy the situation. Chief Justice Roberts must take clear and decisive action to preserve the integrity of the Court, otherwise our system of government could be in peril.  Update November 13, 2023: The Supreme Court announced today that it had issued an ethics code for its justices. All nine justices signed on to the new rules.
It has been a long time coming, and is evidence that the Court is listening to the American people and the Congress. The code is not perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. The main complaint against the new code is that it has no enforcement mechanism and is therefore toothless. It is doubtful that if the code had previously been in place, it would have curbed the behavior of Justice Thomas (outlined in the blog). Here is a link to the new code of ethics: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American  Donald Trump was the first person without government or military service to be elected president of the United States. He was the first president to be impeached twice, and the first president to refuse to publicly concede defeat when he lost his re-election bid in 2020. Donald Trump was the first president in over 150 years not to attend his successors inauguration, and now he is the first former president to be indicted, booked and arraigned on criminal charges. That’s quite a record, and things are just starting to look interesting for Mr. Trump.  Yesterday Donald Trump turned himself in at the criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan. He was then arrested, booked and arraigned on 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records. In the unsealed indictment we learned that each count involved the “intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise”. The charges stem from hush-money payments made by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The Statement of Facts, which accompanied the indictment, spells out the charges against Donald Trump in more detail. Here we learn why misdemeanor charges of falsifying business records are being bumped up to felony charges. The business records were falsified in order to conceal the following criminal conduct:
Response to Donald Trump’s Indictment and Arrest: The response to the news of Donald Trump’s criminal indictment and subsequent arraignment is not surprising. Everyone from Donald Trump’s lawyers to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called it “political persecution”, a “blatant abuse of power from a DA focused on political vengeance”, and “an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election”. The Republican establishment rallied behind Donald Trump even before they knew what crimes he was being charged with. For his part, Donald Trump had been preparing his supporters that an indictment was imminent. On his social media platform and at his rally in Waco Texas, the former president called on his supporters to “Protest, take our nation back!”, and warned of “death and destruction” if he faces criminal charges. In a questionable legal strategy, Donald Trump went so far as calling Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg a “degenerate psychopath”, among other things. If Donald Trump was trying to intimidate the District Attorney, it didn’t work. After his arraignment in New York, Donald Trump flew back to Mar-a-Lago and delivered a prime-time campaign speech. The first line of his speech was “The only crime that I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it”.  Is Donald Trump’s Arrest Good for our Democracy? Many congressional Democrats think so. They are calling for justice to be blind, and standing by the notion that no one is above the law, not even former presidents. I agree with this position, as do most Americans. Without respect for the rule of law our democracy would crumble. Justice Department policy shielded Donald Trump from criminal prosecution while he was president. Now that he is out of office, Donald Trump should be provided the same protections and sanctions that the laws provide to all citizens of this country. Donald Trump may have jumped into the 2024 presidential race early in an effort to shield himself from the several pending criminal cases that are plaguing him. This was a miscalculation on his part. It’s true that it is unprecedented for a former president to be indicted on criminal charges. But it is not true that presidents have never been held accountable for their actions once out of office. Bill Clinton lost his law license and paid a fine rather than face perjury charges once he left office. Richard Nixon would have certainly been indicted on obstruction of justice charges in the Watergate investigation if he hadn’t been pardoned by Gerald Ford after leaving office.  Short Term Implications of Donald Trump’s Arrest: Donald Trump’s base of supporters has certainly been energized, and his fund-raising apparatus has shifted into overdrive. Trump’s team raised over $4 million within 24 hours of the indictment being made public. The indictment has thrown a wet blanket over Trump’s competition for the 2024 Republican nomination for president. Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Mike Pence have all come out in support of Donald Trump against what they perceive as partisan attacks. Trump’s support among conservative Republicans has never been higher, and it has just gotten a lot tougher for anyone to wrestle the Republican nomination for president away from him.  Long Term Implications of Donald Trump’s Arrest: The criminal charges that Donald Trump faces in New York will take months, if not years to play out. The extent of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s evidence against Trump will not be fully known until the case goes to trial. The next scheduled hearing on the case is December 4, 2023. If the case goes forward, it will certainly cast a gray cloud over the 2024 presidential election, making it difficult to see a path to victory for Donald Trump in a general election. In any case, the stage has already been set for claims of “another rigged election” by Donald Trump if he fails to win back the presidency. At his recent rally in Waco, Trump claimed that the criminal charges leveled against him are the result of “prosecutorial misconduct”, a new tool being used against him. He went on to say, “We must stop them and we must not allow them to go through another election where they have yet another tool in their tool kit.”  Donald Trump’s Legal Jeopardy: I don’t think that Donald Trump faces any real legal jeopardy in the New York criminal case. He certainly won’t do any jail time if he is convicted of any of the charges. The importance of the Manhattan District Attorney’s case against Donald Trump is that it sets a precedent for future cases. It will make it more likely that other prosecutors will bring criminal indictments against him in the more serious and consequential cases currently under investigation. Federal prosecutors could bring charges of obstruction of an investigation related to Donald Trump’s handling and storage of classified government documents at Mar-a-Lago. Another federal investigation is underway to determine if Donald Trump unlawfully interfered with the certification of the 2020 election results, or attempted to stop the peaceful transfer of power. He is also under investigation in Georgia for possible election code violations. If all that wasn’t enough, Donald Trump is facing two defamation lawsuits in New York filed by E. Jean Carroll, who has accused him of rape. The first of these two cases will begin later this month. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for Donald Trump’s legal bills. Where the money comes from to pay for those bills will certainly be the subject of future investigations. It will be a tricky balance not to run afoul of campaign finance laws.  Donald Trump’s criminal indictment and subsequent arrest in New York is not a reason to celebrate. If the criminal charges he is accused of are credible, then he should be held accountable. No one is above the law, not even former presidents. Any charges leveled against Donald Trump will be viewed by his supporters as politically motivated. No surprise there. Donald Trump deserves his day in court and we need to allow the judicial process to play out. But I hope that long before that happens the Republican Party realizes that Donald Trump does not represent the values of its party or those of the United States. It is not good for our democracy when one of our major political parties is held hostage by the ego of one man.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  If Donald Trump needs a propaganda minister, he found one in the person of Tucker Carlson, an opinion host for Fox News. Since the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and his lies about the election being stolen. Carlson made news last week for reporting on his prime-time cable show that the United States government had lied about what actually happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. He based his claims on video surveillance tapes that were provided to him and his producers by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Why did Carlson, of all people, have access to the tapes, are his claims valid, and what does this say about Kevin McCarthy’s leadership? Let’s dig into these issues which have people on both sides of the aisle riled up.  Kevin McCarthy’s Role in the Drama: Sometime in early February, Kevin McCarthy provided Tucker Carlson and his producers unfettered access to the January 6, 2021 security videos of the Capitol. At the time McCarthy told reporters that he thinks that “the American public should actually see all that happened, instead of a report that’s written on a political basis”. The Speaker was referring to the January 6th Committee Final Report which places the blame for the Capitol riot squarely on the shoulders of Donald Trump. So, it appears as if McCarthy wanted to set the record straight by providing exclusive access to the security tapes to an unbiased organization like Fox News! If Speaker McCarthy really wants transparency surrounding the events of January 6, as he has claimed, then why not allow access to the nearly 44,000 hours of video footage to all news outlets, simultaneously? Since becoming Speaker, McCarthy has been under intense pressure by the right wing of his party to release the videos to a sympathetic news outlet. If you had any doubts about whether or not the newly elected Speaker was beholden to extremists in his party, you shouldn’t anymore. Providing Tucker Carlson exclusive right to access the surveillance videos was a failure of leadership by McCarthy, pure and simple.  Tucker Carlson Reports: After about three weeks of examining the video footage provided by Speaker McCarthy, Carlson reported his findings on March 6 during his “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show on Fox News. The House members who pushed Speaker McCarthy to release the tapes got exactly what they wanted from Tucker Carlson. Here are some of what he said about the January 6 Capitol riot: “The protestors were angry. They believed that the election that they had just voted in had been unfairly conducted, and they were right. In retrospect it is clear that the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy. Given the facts that have since emerged about that election, no honest person can deny it”. “To divert attention from the details of the Presidential election itself, Democrats in Congress impaneled the House Select Committee on the January 6th attack. The point of the committee was to prevent Donald Trump from running for president again. The committee did not explain what happened inside the Capitol on January 6th. Three weeks ago, the Speaker turned over 44,000 hours of tapes that the January 6th Committee had access to”. “Committee members lied about what they saw, and then hid evidence from the public and from January 6th defendants and their lawyers. Speaker McCarthy rectified that crime by handing over the surveillance tapes to Fox News. We are providing a public service to bring the videos to you since the government didn’t want you to see them”. “The videos prove beyond doubt the Democrats in Congress, assisted by Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, lied about what happened that day. They are liars. That is conclusive, and that fact should prevent them from ever being taken seriously again”. “The video does not show an insurrection or a riot in progress. Instead, it shows police escorting people through the building. The overwhelming majority of people in the Capitol were peaceful, they were orderly, and meek. These were not insurrectionists, they were sightseers”. “The videos demolish the claim that what happened inside the Capitol was an insurrection. That’s why the Democratic Party and allies in the media withheld the videos from the public”. “Members of the January 6th Committee hurt people and the country. They are liars. They lied. Members of the committee are liars”. This is strong stuff, if true.  Donald Trump Responds: The following day Donald Trump claimed that the video “evidence” shown on Tucker Carlson’s show vindicated him from any wrong doing on January 6. He went on to state that Carlson’s assertions were irrefutable evidence that rioters have been wrongly accused of crimes. Trump thanked Carlson and Speaker McCarthy for their work in rectifying the official record. Trump then called for the release from custody of the people who have been convicted or pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the Capitol riot.  What are we to Make of Tucker Carlson’s Assertions?
To Tucker Carlson these are meek sightseers at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Come to your own conclusions about what actually happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The programming on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” last week is a good reminder that not everything presented on cable news networks is actually hard news. Much of it is opinion, and the hosts are pushing a certain agenda. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy knew this when he provided Tucker Carlson access to nearly 44,000 hours of surveillance video from the Capitol. This was a purely political move and not in the best interest of the country. To provide the transparency that he claims to want, Speaker McCarthy should immediately release that same video footage to any and all news outlets that request it.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American |
AuthorThe Armchair American. 
Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed