Author: Bruce R. Nelson

TRUMP’S GUIDE TO LEADERSHIP: THE ART OF THE HEEL

Donald The Swamp Drainer is now fully enmeshed in the morass of governance, but none of the ensuing noise and chaos has led to a single dollop of drainage. If this guy has anything even remotely resembling a strategy, on any issue, it has to be the best kept secret in Washington. All we’ve seen in the first 200 days of this presidency is a bizarre jumble of impulsive, sophomoric tactics that have done absolutely nothing to advance his agenda.

A theory emerged during the 2016 campaign that, instead of being loony, Trump was a brilliant four-dimensional chess player, always strategizing multiple moves ahead of his opponents. The concept has the same level of evidentiary support as the flat earth and faked moon landing propositions. Take a quick look at the Donald’s recent chessboard navigation.

Trump:

• Publicly threatened a number of Republican senators with various forms of retaliation if they didn’t vote to repeal Obamacare. Not surprisingly, Trump didn’t win their votes and the bill went down in flames. Senators’ job security rests with voters in their home state. Caving in to a public threat is not an image that curries favor with the electorate.

• Said the Senate healthcare vote made Republican leaders “look like fools” and promised to stop funding the lawmakers’ own medical insurance if they didn’t cancel their August recess and try again to repeal Obamacare. The Senate recessed and left town within 48 hours of the president’s threat and name-calling.

• Announced suddenly via Twitter that transgender people will no longer be allowed to serve in the armed forces. This was supposedly a Trump “strategy” to end a squabble over whether the military should pay for trans-related medical costs. That disagreement, which reportedly was well on its way to resolution, is holding up a spending bill that includes funds for Trump’s Mexican wall. Paralysis quickly ensued from the president’s transgender ban tweet, and nothing has moved since – on either the ban or the wall.

• Attacked, loudly and repeatedly, the Russian sanctions imposed by the Obama administration for Moscow’s interference in last year’s election. Congress, controlled by Trump’s own party, responded by passing veto-proof legislation enhancing the sanctions and specifically prohibiting the president from altering them.

• Ridiculed and demeaned his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in an attempt to get him to resign so he could replace him with someone who would either control or fire Robert Mueller III, the special counsel investigating possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia’s election tampering. Sessions refused to resign. The Senate initiated a parliamentary maneuver that prevents Trump from making a recess appointment during the current congressional break. There is also a bipartisan push for legislation that would allow Mueller’s removal only on approval of a federal judge.

Every day – every tweet – brings more examples. There isn’t a single strategy to be found in Trump’s arsenal, only a limited repertoire of tired, angry, bullying tactics, the same kind of shtick he used to throw at Rosie O’Donnell and Cher. A very prophetic 5th century BC military strategist, Sun Tzu, wrote, “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” Trump likes to announce phony victories – initial passage of healthcare in the House, release of his own budget that has gone nowhere, etc. – with the phrase, “This is what winning looks like.” Well, Mr. President, right now, this is what losing looks like: all tactics and no strategy; the noise before defeat.

I came across Sun Tzu’s wisdom early in my career as a union negotiator. I had just verbally pulverized an opponent at the bargaining table. I had done my research and really had the goods on this guy. I let everything fly, humiliating and embarrassing him in front of his peers. Before I could take a bow, my mentor whispered into my ear, “Now what? You just destroyed him, but how is that going to help us reach a contract settlement?” That’s when I first read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”. My insults were an empty tactic, totally lacking any strategic connection to the goal of negotiating a decent agreement. That painful memory came rushing back yesterday, after it was reported that the president warned his unhinged North Korean counterpart that “threats will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” So, now what? What’s the next move on the road to world peace?

And so it goes with Trump. He knows no art of the deal when it comes to leading our country. Other than the late Don Rickles, nobody has ever achieved success by lobbing insults at people. Yes, the president’s hard core base loves it. They adore Trump for his anger, and his total disregard for civility and respect in dealing with the swamp dwellers. They cheer him for it at his rallies, and then chant, “lock her up,” and other golden oldies. Some of them will stay with their angry guy all the way to the end, even if the swamp is never drained. To them, Trump is like a country-western crooner, singing the same old sad songs that somehow make them feel better, even though their lives are no less wretched when the concert ends.

Yet, polls show that Trump’s ineffectiveness in enacting his promised swamp drain is bringing his numbers down in every category, including his treasured demographic of white men without a college education. The New York Times reported Sunday that many key Republicans are already maneuvering for the 2020 presidential election with the belief that Trump will not be the party’s candidate. Regardless of what happens three years from now, it’s hard to see how this president can hope to successfully govern with no strategy beyond a string of angry tweets. A devoted and enraged base, in the low 20% range, screaming “fake news” at an occasional rally, is neither a strategy nor a mandate to govern.

A COLLEGE GROUP FOR TRUMP TO BOND WITH: RAPISTS

If you are a male college student accused of sexual assault, your good bro, Donald Trump, has your back. Yes, this administration seems to have finally found itself a friendly constituency in academia. For those poor partying frat boys, forced to parse the word “consent” in the middle of an all-night kegger, help is on the way.

Remember how President Obama took on the issue of campus rape? Disgusted to learn that one in five female college students had been sexually assaulted, the former president made the subject a keystone of his domestic agenda. He ordered the Department of Education to launch investigations into the way schools were dealing with the problem. Under threat of losing federal funds, those institutions became far more aggressive in handling sexual assault complaints. All that is about to change.

Enter Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her recently appointed leader of the department’s Office for Civil Rights, Candice Jackson. They are on a mission to roll back many of the Obama era policies designed to make campuses safer for female students. The duo spent time last week hearing from alleged sexual assault perpetrators, who insisted they did absolutely nothing to justify their expulsion. DeVos and Jackson also met with representatives of a white male advocacy group called the National Coalition For Men. The NCFM believes there is a huge problem of women lying about being raped by men.

Although Jackson, head of the Education Department’s civil rights office, is herself a rape survivor, the men’s rights lobby couldn’t have found a more kindred spirit. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Jackson dismissed the complaints of more than a dozen women accusing Trump of sexual assault or unwanted advances, calling them “fake victims”. She was equally dismissive of rape complaints from women college students, saying that “90% (of the accusations) fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up and six months later. . .she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.’”

DeVos agrees with Jackson that the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the accusers. They want to reverse course. The Education Department has jurisdiction because Title IX of the Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination at any school receiving federal funds. Under the Obama administration, the department issued 19 pages of guidelines for colleges to use in investigating sexual assault and harassment charges. It also warned the schools that their failure to comply could result in a loss of federal funding. Under the Obama guidelines, schools were urged to use a “preponderance of the evidence” test in adjudicating sexual misconduct complaints. It’s the same standard of proof used in most civil litigation. Basically, it means the party with the strongest evidence prevails.

The men’s rights advocates, however, insist that students should never be expelled and have their lives ruined by what they regard as a low standard of proof. Their solution is for colleges to turn sexual assault complaints over to the criminal justice system and take no independent action. It’s an absurd suggestion. First of all, this is not an either-or situation. A student who is raped can – and should – file complaints with both the school and the police. They are separate systems, with different interests and outcomes. To get a rape conviction in court, the state needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a high standard of proof is justified on the basis that the government is seeking to take the defendant’s liberty away. It’s a different story when it comes to colleges and universities trying to maintain a safe learning environment. Schools routinely expel students if the weight – or “preponderance” – of the evidence shows they committed, say, plagiarism. Do we really want to treat sexual assault as a less egregious campus offense than copying a term paper from Wikipedia?

The ugly truth here is that a rape culture reigns supreme on many campuses, fostering the unfortunate belief that sex-while-intoxicated inherently implies consent. It does not. But many prosecutors shy away from taking such cases before a jury. A he-said-she-said prosecution, laced with an alcoholic haze, is often a tough sell for a jury. All the more reason for colleges to expel students when the weight of the evidence – a bar lower than that of a criminal court – shows that they engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. Otherwise, a decision not to prosecute means the accused attacker remains on campus.

We have always used dual tracks in dealing with actions that may violate the rules of a workplace or university, as well as the law. And the levels of proof have always been different. We have this unalienable right to liberty, and it can be taken away only upon the highest standard of proof. The right to hold a job or attend a specific school is not so unalienable, and while nobody should be fired or expelled without proof of wrongdoing, the test for that proof is not necessarily the same as that used in a criminal court. A student caught selling drugs on campus, or stealing equipment from the biology lab, is likely to be kicked out of school, regardless of whatever criminal action may be taken. Sexual assault should be treated no differently.

Yet, the men’s rights lobby is pushing a seemingly receptive Trump administration to tell colleges to take no disciplinary action for sexual misconduct until, and unless, there has been a criminal conviction. That might play well for Trump’s base of supposedly forgotten, angry and trod-upon white men. It is nothing short of a nightmare for any student looking for a safe place to learn.

TRUMP: A GROWING GOITER ON THE BODY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In case anyone was wondering why President Trump broke with White House tradition by not officially recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month, we got the answer this week: he didn’t fly the rainbow flag in June because he was planning to burn it in July. It apparently wasn’t enough for our bully-in-chief to take cruel, cheap Twitter shots at individual citizens. Insulting Meryl Streep, Snoop Dog, his own attorney general and the Broadway cast of “Hamilton” might give him a quick morning buzz, but the Donald’s real highs come from decimating human rights for large groups of Americans. Like the thousands of patriotic transgender soldiers serving in the armed forces.

In a series of three early Wednesday morning tweets, the president said the government “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military”. That was just the opening act in his anti-LGBT crusade. Later that day, the Trump administration intervened in a major court case for the sole purpose of arguing that gays and lesbians should have no legal protection against employment discrimination. Apparently, that means this 2016 Trump tweet is no longer operative: “Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you . . .”

Depending on who is doing the counting, there are currently between 4,000 and 15,000 transgender troops in the country’s military. Most were closeted until June 30 of 2016, when Obama’s defense secretary, Ash Carter, announced that they could all serve openly. Trump’s Twitter reversal seemed, on its face, to be breathtakingly cruel, even for a president who has made cruelty an art form. These soldiers were told, at long last, they could be who they are and go right on serving their country, only to have the rug yanked out from under them by a tweet. It’s hard to think of any historic parallel where human rights, once granted, were taken away. It would be like Andrew Johnson rescinding the Emancipation Proclamation after he succeeded Abraham Lincoln. Coincidentally, Wednesday’s transgender ban tweet was issued on the 69th anniversary of President Truman’s order abolishing racial discrimination in the armed forces. The question is whether that will withstand another three-and-half years of this president.

The tweeted trans ban has so far produced little beyond anger, confusion and pandemonium. The military brass were stunned and said there will be no immediate changes until the White House clarifies the policy with something other than a tweet. Defense Secretary James Mattis was reportedly caught off guard by the announcement and was said to have been “appalled” by it.

Although some suggested that Trump’s move was a ploy to shore up his base, the immediate reaction from most Congressional conservatives was highly critical. (Here, here and here.) There’s another theory: the transgender ban is all about building the Mexican wall. Trump’s cherished wall project is part of an overall defense spending bill. That legislation has stalled temporarily due to a behind-the-scenes squabble over funding for gender reassignment surgery and hormone treatment. Some Republicans want to exclude such coverage from the bill. Others, including most military leaders, have opposed reducing medical benefits for transgender troops. (The estimated price tag for these services is $8.4 million a year, less than 1% of active duty health care spending.) So the speculation, advanced Friday by Politico, is that an impatient Trump grew tired of waiting for a resolution on the medical costs, and simply gave transgender soldiers the boot so he could get a vote on his wall. Only in a bizarre, two-for-one Trumpian kind of way, does this makes sense: persecute one marginalized group in order to build a wall around an even larger one.

Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department intervened in a federal lawsuit brought by another agency – the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – to argue that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For years, it had been the position of both the Justice Department and the EEOC that the law’s prohibition against sex discrimination included sexual orientation. The EEOC’s case, now before a federal appellate court in New York, involves a sky diving company that supposedly fired an employee because he is gay. Although this story took a back seat to other Trump atrocities of the day, it was a highly significant reversal. The federal government is now officially on record supporting the right of private employers to fire lesbians and gays for being . . .well, for being lesbian and gay. Courts have issued conflicting interpretations and the matter is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. Until Wednesday, it was going there with the U.S. government fully backing the view that the law’s ban on sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identification. In one 24-hour period, this administration not only threw transgender individuals under the bus, it gave every private employer the green light to discriminate against them and lesbians and gays.

With respect to U.S. presidents and presidential aspirants, the story of LGBT rights is not exactly one of profiles in courage. Ronald Reagan turned his back on the AIDS epidemic. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. George Bush used antigay animus to capture a second term. Barack Obama didn’t “evolve” into a marriage equality supporter until the fourth year of his presidency. Hillary Clinton didn’t get there publicly until 2013. But Donald Trump has achieved a level of human rights shame that soars past all of them. He boasts about not being an antigay ideologue. Yet, he is so much worse than that. Trump’s singular ideological commitment is to himself. Everybody else is expendable and irrelevant. He thinks nothing of crushing the hopes, dreams and esteem of transgender soldiers, or putting this country’s official stamp of approval on homophobic and transphobic discrimination, just to assuage whatever momentary mood may pass through him. When it comes to human rights, it just doesn’t get much worse than that.

TRUMP’S ONLY SUCCESS: LOWERING THE BAR FOR PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR

If there is a twelve-step program for superlative dependency, someone should throw Donald Trump an intervention. Can you imagine his first support group meeting? “Hi, my name is Donald, and I’m a hyperbole abuser. In fact, I am the most marvelous, magnificent, outstanding hyperbole abuser who was ever born.” Needless to say, his road to linguistic recovery will be long and winding.

According to the Donald, every person he has hired or appointed is absolutely fantastic, even those he later fired or forced to resign. He claims (incorrectly) to have signed more legislation in his first six months than any other president. He once gave an unremarkable, but relatively gaffe-free, speech to a joint session of Congress. He claims it was the best oration ever uttered in the House chamber.

The same is true on the flip side. Trump never experiences run-of-the-mill adversity. It’s always horrendously horrible, beyond all compare. In what had to have been the absolute least uplifting commencement address on record, Trump told Coast Guard Academy graduates in May that he is the world’s most mistreated pol. Here’s how he characterized his allegedly unparalleled plight: “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Never mind that other politicians – at home and abroad – have been assassinated, kidnapped and imprisoned. Donald has to endure CNN and Saturday Night Live. Cue the violin section. Boo hoo. Boo hoo.

Actually, Trump, in many ways, is the most Teflon president in modern history, a rare superlative he’s likely to reject. Throughout the campaign, and during the first six months of his presidency, he got by with more atrocities, flubs and mistakes than any of his predecessors. Who else could have mocked John McCain’s war record, belittled a Gold Star mother and revealed a proclivity for sexual assault, only to go on and become president? Trump entered the office with an expectations bar set so low a Trinidad limbo dancer couldn’t shimmy under it.

Let’s take a close look at just one class of White House transgressions, and compare the repercussions for Trump with those of his predecessors. Numerous presidential tongues have taken bad slips when it comes to declaring a person’s guilt or innocence. This can be quite problematic since the government’s prosecutorial arm – the U.S. Justice Department – serves under the president’s command. Legal experts, including Harvard’s Noah Feldman, say it is an impeachable “abuse of authority” for a president to accuse someone of committing a crime without evidence. It has happened not infrequently over the years. And, in every instance prior to January 20, 2016, the gaffe provoked an immediate dustup of criticism, usually followed by some sort of presidential mea culpa.

In 1970, President Nixon said Charles Manson was “guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders.” Since Manson’s trial had just gotten underway, the president’s declaration of guilt caused considerable pandemonium. Nixon apologized and walked his premature verdict back. In 1980, President Carter accused former attorney general Ramsey Clark and nine other Americans of a crime for defying his order to stay out of Iran. Carter’s declaration of guilt triggered a huge political blow up. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe called his remarks “a terrible blunder.” In 1988, President Reagan stunned his staff when he declared that Oliver North was not guilty in the Iran-Contra scandal, days after a grand jury indicted North on 23 charges. In 1998, President Clinton drew heavy criticism for saying that he didn’t think there should be a plea bargain in the Unabomber case because the defendant, Theodore J. Kaczynski, “if he’s guilty, killed a lot of people deliberately.” In 2009, President Obama opened a week-long media frenzy when he said the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department acted “stupidly” in the arrest of a black Harvard professor who was trying to get into his own home. Obama also took flack for implying that the alleged architect of the September 11 terrorist attacks would be found guilty and executed, should he be tried in U.S. Courts.

Trump, of course, soars far above the separation of powers concept, moonlighting as a wannabe Judge Judy. He pronounces someone’s criminal guilt on a near daily basis. Using Twitter as his gavel, the Donald dispenses his verdicts with terms like: “guilty as hell”, “totally illegal” and “so illegal”. The president has dispersed imaginary convictions for Hillary Clinton, her former campaign manager, John Podesta and his brother Tony; Obama and his former national security advisor, Susan Rice, and his former attorney general, Loretta Lynch; and recently fired FBI director James Comey. Just this morning, he accused his own attorney general and the acting FBI director of ignoring Hillary Clinton’s unspecified and unproven “crimes”. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has managed to issue these totally bogus claims of criminality against his political opponents with total impunity. In fact, they have become a staple of his presidency, akin to an innocuous proclamation for, say, National Condiment Appreciation Week.

Aside from a couple of obscure blogs, like the one you’re reading, there has been no public clamor about Trump bludgeoning his opponents with presidential criminal convictions. Yet, a single similar transgression by previous presidents kept the chattering class in a constant scold for days. This is just one of many ways in which this president has been held to a far lower standard than those who preceded him. There is an abundance of deficiencies that would invite rapt attention to any other president, but where Trump gets a pass. Like his speeches with the prosaic quality of a telephone book, his five-word sentence fragments that are utterly without meaning, his inability to know just what it is he doesn’t know, and his innate lack of intellectual curiosity.

Unfortunately, there is a lesson here for future presidents: If you want to deflect attention from your inherent inadequacies, be sure to collude with a foreign adversary, obstruct justice and tell lots of lies. Nobody will notice the other foibles.

FROM NIXON TO TRUMP: A PASSAGE FROM TAPES TO TWEETS

The Donald’s sly hint of a White House taping system a few weeks back was enough to cast a nostalgic aura of excitement over the nation’s capital. Those of us in the political junkie geezerhood delight in finding Watergate imagery in the growing muck of Trump’s folderol. Our blissfully aging crowd, after all, remembers only too well how Tricky Dick hoisted himself on the petard of his own surreptitious recording system, an electronic treasure trove of every syllable uttered in the Oval Office, some slurred beyond recognition.

Nixon’s own tapes brought him down, but more importantly, they were a gift that kept on giving. For decades to come, transcripts and MP3 files of virtually every private presidential conversation in the Nixon White House were periodically released. The final installment – 340 hours of tape – was made public in 2013. As a result, we were treated to the horrifying-but-compelling opportunity to see the unvarnished version of the 37th president, long after his death. It was not pretty.

For example, this Nixon gem from a 1971 Oval Office diatribe: “The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. At the present time they steal, they’re dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life.” (As opposed to the “Negros,” Nixon went on to postulate, “who shun conventional family life.”) Now, that’s obviously not the public persona any sane political operative would want to advance, thus the beauty of the Nixon tapes. They let us eavesdrop on the private utterances of a president, it turned out, we barely knew. So when Trump teased that the FBI director he had just fired better hope there were no tapes of their conversations, many of us lit up over the prospect of a whole new batch of presidential recordings.

Alas, another dream shattered. Trump later said he had no such tapes, although he left the door slightly ajar, saying that someone else might have wiretapped his office. Obama, maybe. Then again, it doesn’t matter. You don’t need a hidden tape recorder to know the real Donald Trump. All you have to do is follow him on Twitter or listen to his rally speeches. This is a man who captured the presidency by shouting and tweeting the kind of crude, profane, hateful stuff other politicians wouldn’t whisper to a trusted aide. Nixon had been dead for 20 years before the world heard his less-than-generous thoughts about Mexicans. We knew where Trump stood on that issue way before he became president. Here’s what he tweeted in June of 2015: “Druggies, drug dealers, rapists and killers are coming across the southern border.”

We learned in 2001 that Nixon, 30 years earlier, had made it clear to his staff that he did not want women in important jobs. Here’s his private remark: “I’m not for women, frankly, in any job. I don’t want them around. Thank God we don’t have any in the Cabinet.” Trump, on the other hand, came to the White House with an exceedingly transparent position on women. In addition to boasting about his proclivity for grabbing them by their lady parts, there is this analytical tweet from 2013: “The Miss Universe Women totally blow away the Victoria’s Secret Women.” Trump hasn’t placed many women in his cabinet, but he sure packed his swim suit competition with them.

Presidents, of course, serve as the country’s military commander in chief, and have to make many tough decisions with respect to warcraft. Rarely, however, do they speak about the loss of life and limb in crude “locker room” fashion. So, there was shock when the Nixon tapes relayed the president’s reaction to a report that a million pounds of bombs had been dropped on North Vietnam: “A million pounds of bombs! Goddamn, that must have been a good strike. I tell you the thing to do is pour it in there every place we can…just bomb the hell out of them.” No need to wait for the posthumous release of secret Trump tapes to hear the Donald’s lack of elegance in describing military strategy. He spent most of the campaign boasting about his desire to “bomb the shit out of ISIS.”

And then there are the courts, a not infrequent nemesis for the executive branch. Yet, out of respect for the founders’ notion of separation of powers, presidents typically refrain from publicly attacking the judicial branch. Thanks to the Nixon tapes, however, we eventually learned of his reaction to a Supreme Court decision denying the government’s request to stop the New York Times from publishing the “Pentagon Papers”, classified documents detailing serious military mistakes in the Vietnam War. Said Nixon at the time: “. . . I was so damn mad when the Supreme Court had to come down. Unbelievable, wasn’t it? You know, those clowns we got on there, I tell you, I hope I outlive the bastards.” Trump, of course, has never hidden his disdain for judges, particularly those who rule against him. During the campaign, he called a judge assigned to a suit involving Trump University a “hater” and a “Mexican”. As president, he tweeted this about one of the judges who ruled against him on his travel ban: “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

This Nixon-Trump story of then and now has two morals. One is that, in this great country of ours, every child has the opportunity to become president when they grow up, no matter how uncouth, obstinate or unbalanced they may be. Secondly, we have finally evolved to the point that we can observe our president’s abhorrent behavior in real time. No need to wait for 30-year-old tapes to find out he was nuts.

JUNIOR’S RUSSIAN TALE: DOSTOYEVSKY IT’S NOT

As we soaked up this week’s news of Donald Junior’s induced transparency, and his eagerness for the Russian government’s promised Hillary dirt, we were treated to a music video link featuring beauty pageant contestants, a Russian pop singer and a cameo appearance by Donald Senior. This is what happens when we elect a president whose only experience in foreign affairs was running the Miss Universe competition.

Watergate never produced this kind of entertainment. Oh, it had its share of amusing characters; Bebe Reboso and Donald Segretti come to mind. But neither could have held a candle to Rob Goldstone, the rotund tabloid-journalist-turned-music-publicist, who has the face of a disgruntled carnival worker. The Daily Beast once described Goldstone as a frequent host of “vodka-soaked parties (for) younger acquaintances” at New York’s Russian Tea Room. His credentials were just upgraded from the Tea Room to the Russian election tampering investigation that has transfixed all of American politics.

(Since tracking the characters in this emerging melodrama can be as confusing as trying to follow a Chekhov play, here’s a quick cheat sheet: Goldstone represents Emin Agalarov, the Russian pop singer. Aras Agalarov, a Russian oligarch, is Emin’s father. He helped sponsor the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, held in Russia and then owned by Donald Trump. Aras also partnered with the Donald on plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow, a project currently on hold, a rare Trumpian nod to optics.)

So in this week’s episode, Junior, after insisting that he never once, in his capacity of working on his father’s presidential campaign, had contact with the Russians, changed his tune a bit and told the New York Times that he had, in fact, met with a Russian lawyer in June of 2016,but insisted it was about adoptions. The next day, Junior altered his story again and acknowledged that Goldstone had offered him a meeting on Emin’s behalf, with a Russian lawyer who had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But, he insisted, the information was not from the Russian government and didn’t amount to anything. By the next day, the Times had obtained copies of an email string between Junior and Goldstone. In it, Goldstone laid out the narrative: Aras received word from the Russian prosecutor that he wanted to get incriminating information about Clinton to Trump. Junior said “love it” and set up the meeting. He tweeted copies of the emails as soon as the Times told him they were going with the story. That got Junior an attaboy from Senior, who congratulated his first born for being so transparent.

All of this, of course, has inevitably dusted off that old Watergate term, “smoking gun”. There were, after all, numerous false or premature sightings of that mythical weapon before Nixon threw in the towel and helicoptered out of the White House for the last time. Most historians say the real smoke didn’t leave the revolver until Nixon was caught on tape ordering the CIA to get the FBI to drop the investigation of the break in. In the current case, several media outlets (here, here and here) declared the imbroglio over Junior’s Russian email exchange a “smoking gun.” Others ran it with a question mark (here and here).

The only smoking gun I see right now is the one Junior used to shoot himself in the foot. As for Senior, don’t count him out just yet. It’s way too early. I respect the legal scholars who found inferences of a criminal conspiracy and violation of campaign finance laws in the emails. But we are talking about a guy who was elected president after admitting on tape that he sexually assaulted women. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Yet, the landscape of this scandal changed dramatically with the email reveal. At a bare minimum, the reference to the Russian “government’s support for Mr. Trump” objectively decimates the President’s characterization of the investigation as a “witch hunt.”

I suspect there are more smoking guns to come, with or without a question mark. What’s needed to end this madness is not necessarily definitive proof that Trump and the Russians cooked the votes and stole the election. The endgame is far more likely to accrue on the basis of cumulative disgust with an out-of-control whack job of a president who represents a clear and present danger to the Republican Party. The out-of-control and whack job standards were met some time ago. The Republicans, unfortunately, need to feel a little more Trump pain before reaching the cut-your-losses stage.

Yet, the needle seems to be moving, slowly but surely, in that direction. Congressional Republicans have stopped trying to defend Trump. That’s a huge change from the early days of this administration. Their default position is to say nothing, except in those outlandish instances where the president, in words or deeds, goes more bonkers than normal.

The Donald’s strategy, if it can be called that, seems aimed exclusively at holding his hardcore fan base, the folks who believe the New York Times isn’t real and that Junior’s transparency is. In the end, that will not be enough to save him. As personally gratifying as cult worship is for a maniacal leader, it rarely ends well for them. (See Jim Jones and David Koresh.) Sooner or later, Congressional Republican leaders will see this president as a pariah, to their cause and to their political futures. That’s what will trigger the endgame, and build an exit strategy for the 45th president. That is the ultimate smoking gun. Disposing of it will be the closest this Congress ever gets to gun control.

GOP’S NO HEALTHCARE CUT LEFT BEHIND BILL IS PARTICULARLY CRUEL TO WOMEN

If Republicans have their way, women with reproductive health issues will soon be sent to dentists, food banks or nursing homes for help. That’s why the horrifically misnamed Better Care Reconciliation Act may one day be more accurately known as the Population Growth Act of 2017. This is what happens when 13 male senators draft a health care bill in secret.

Apparently, it was not enough for the GOP to simply take insurance away from 22 million people and jack up premiums for those least able to pay. It’s not every day a political party gets to make a real difference in social policy. So the Senate bill, quietly and secretly crafted by that body’s majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and a dozen of his closest bros, went all out and cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the nonprofit organization that provides vital health care services for millions of low income patients, mostly – but not exclusively – women.

Despite its role as a lightning rod for the anti-abortion crowd, Planned Parenthood outlets offer the gamut of health services, including birth control, cancer screenings and STD testing and treatment. Abortion accounts for only 3% of its services and is not even available at many clinics. Yet, as if this consensus-free healthcare debate was not divisive enough, conservatives tossed in their long dreamed of plot to defund Planned Parenthood.

The Senate legislation cuts off all federal funding for Planned Parenthood for only one year. Why just a year? A compromise with those who support the program? Alas, the maneuver is far more conniving and diabolical. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office costs out every change in the healthcare bill, and that math plays a huge role in rounding up votes, both for and against. According to the CBO, the cost of not funding Planned Parenthood carries a ten-year price tag of $130 million. That’s how much budget crunchers say it will cost Medicaid for the obstetrical care of women unable to get contraceptive assistance through Planned Parenthood. So the Gang of 13 Senate guys came up a smoke-and-mirrors workaround: cut the funding for just one year, win a better overall CBO score and then come back, once the limelight of healthcare battles has faded, and make the cutoff permanent.

The bill’s Republican sponsors insist that there are many other federally qualified health providers offering family planning services and that the legislation would transfer funding from Planned Parenthood to those other facilities. The CBO, however, noted that one in five counties served by Planned Parenthood have no federally qualified clinics offering contraceptive services. The New York Times took a look at those alleged Planned Parenthood alternatives cited by the Republicans. The list included, inexplicably, hundreds of ophthalmologists, nursing homes, dentists, cosmetic surgeons, audiologists, addiction treatment centers and food
banks. Pity the poor woman who goes looking for contraceptive services at a dentist office or a food bank, and walks away with a cheap toothbrush and a box of Cheerios.

Anyone suggesting that the CBO’s projected population expansion is crude guesswork should check out a paper published by the New England Journal of Medicine. That research focused on Texas where the state cut off Planned Parenthood funding in 2013. Medicaid pregnancies increased by 27% in the first 18 months. Alina Salganicoff is the Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of women’s health. She told CBS news recently that the burden of this funding cutoff “disproportionately impacts the young and low income, or people who want to get confidential care.” “For a lot of women,” she said, “Planned Parenthood is their only source of care.”

Sadly, complete and utter disregard for women’s health, has been at the heart of the political battle over abortion since Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. Poor women have been denied Medicaid assistance for abortions since the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Yet, this legalized economic discrimination, renewed by Congress every year since 1976, has never been enough for the anti-abortion forces. They know that Planned Parenthood performs 35% of the abortions that occur in this country, even though the procedure represents only a small part of its medical practice. They want them shut down completely, even if doing so will prevent Planned Parenthood’s low income patients from getting family planning assistance or being screened and treated for diseases. When it comes to their never-ending war on abortion, women without money are always fair game for collateral damage.

However, their leverage this time around, while not great, is better than it was during the Hyde Amendment days of 1976. The Senate had no female members then. There was no need for a select male cabal to secretly legislate away women’s rights; the entire Senate was a male cabal. Today there are 22 women in the U.S. Senate, and two of them – Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – both Republicans, are opposed to the Planned Parenthood defunding. Majority Leader McConnell can afford to lose only two Republican votes, and he has a growing list of senators who are shaky over various other aspects of the legislation.

It takes a lot of chutzpa and cynicism to call this bill the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017”. There is absolutely no “better care” in this act for anybody. And the only thing being reconciled is a tax cut for the rich, on the backs of less fortunate Americans who will lose access to critical health services. If the Republican leadership wants genuine reconciliation, it will deep-six this monstrosity and work with Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that makes “better care” a reality for everyone.

TRUMP’S TWITTER FIREWORKS: HOW LOW CAN HE GO?

To nobody’s surprise, Donald Trump’s first shot at presiding over an extended Independence Day celebration has been singularly unique. Other presidents have used the occasion to wax eloquent about American exceptionalism, the dignity of freedom and the inherent goodness of democracy. The Donald dispensed with such trivialities in order to address one of the core issues of our times: Mika’s bleeding facelift.

It’s been a bombs-bursting-in-hot-air kind of holiday weekend. One minute, Trump was calling MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski “low I.Q. Crazy Mika” and claiming she was once “bleeding badly from a facelift”. Then he took on her co-host and fiancé, Joe Scarborough, tagging him with the moniker “Psycho Joe,” and alleging that he once begged the president to have a National Enquirer story on the couple’s then-unannounced romance killed. As the weekend progressed, he sent out a doctored video that purported to show himself assaulting a CNN broadcaster. Then he went before a faith rally at the Kennedy Center to assert his superiority over the reporters who cover him. Falling far short of John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you . . .”, Trump offered this prosaic little ditty about the news media: “I’m President and they’re not.”

Politicians of every stripe weighed in quickly. Even Republicans were critical of the president’s unpresidential behavior. House Speaker Paul Ryan, specifically addressing Trump’s comments about the MSNBC hosts, said, “Obviously, I don’t see that as an appropriate comment.” Republican Sen. Ben Sasse had this message for the president: “Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.” His colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham offered this: “Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America.”

Anyone who has ever dealt with a deeply troubled family member – an abuser, addict or even someone traveling through the pain of dementia – will recognize what we are going through right now in our broader American family. Normalcy is constantly changing, expanding to include behaviors once thought abhorrent or unimaginable. Over time, they become routine through the process of repetition and escalation. It’s exhausting to constantly react to bizarre, out-of-control behavior. You do it in the beginning, but it gradually becomes more common; not more acceptable, just more known and, to some extent, anticipated. Yet, every so often, no matter how accustomed we’ve grown to this devolving normalcy, a new version of the grievous conduct presents itself, nudging us, once again, to ask, “What on earth has our life come to, and what can we do about it?”

Our reaction to the president’s holiday weekend binge of verbal abuse and indecency is not a result of rational, linear processing. It’s not that he hit a new low; he has said and done much worse. But every once in a while in this deeply abnormal environment we find ourselves in, Trump’s maniacal behavior strikes a new responsive chord, reminding us that we can never, under any circumstance, accept this conduct as normal. No matter how used to it we have become. And that’s a good thing, because it lifts us out of the numbness that repetitive acts of abject abnormality tend to create.

One of the more telling moments in this latest episode came when Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked by reporters for a reaction to the Mika/Morning Joe flap. Now, contemplate this situation. White House spokespeople over the years have been forced to account for a lot of presidential behavior, from Watergate to Iran-Contra, from Monica Lewinsky to the Iraq War. Now comes a question never before proffered to a president’s press rep: deeply personal and hurtful remarks about two television personalities shared with 33 million Twitter followers. Here is how Sanders responded: “The American people elected a fighter. They knew what they were getting when they voted for Donald Trump.”

It may have been the most straightforward, honest response ever issued by the Trump press office. Buyer beware, indeed. We knew Donald Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, just because he could. We knew he was mean, that he delighted in calling women “fat pigs”, and body shaming Miss Universe contestants. We knew he encouraged violence at his campaign rallies. We knew he said vile, hateful things about blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and anybody who got in his way. Shame on us for electing him.

But think about this for a minute. When the person in charge of promoting the president’s image, of presenting him in the best possible light, reaches for the you-knew-what-you-were-getting into-when-you-voted-for-him defense, rock bottom is not too far away. It’s a creepy guy line from way back. Ask any marriage counselor or family court judge. As a reporter in the 1970s, I covered the opening of a new shelter for battered women. There was a sign on the wall that told this story: “A snake was hit by a car. A woman picks him up, feeds him, and gets him to a full state of health. But then he bites her, injecting her with his deadly poison. On her death bed, she asked, ‘After all I did why me?’ The snake responds, ‘You knew I was a snake when you picked me up.’”

The fact that we allowed this snake to be elected and inaugurated as our president, will not take away the venomous sting he is inflicting on the psyche and soul of this nation. And it won’t take away his culpability. In an act of patriotism for the country we love, we must be vigilant for every rattle and snakebite to come. As disheartening and unsettling as that may be, it is an opportunity to strengthen the resistance and to remind people that meanness, cruelty, obstinance and solipsism are not building blocks for America’s greatness.

OBAMACARE REPEAL PROMISE SHOWS ITS AGE, AND IT’S NOT PRETTY

For one brief shining moment, the left and the right have come together in a chorus of Kumbaya. All it took was a singularly pernicious piece of legislation that simultaneously offended all of their principles. You’ve got to hand it to Republican congressional leaders: they came up with a health care bill that almost anyone can hate. Who could have imagined such a collection of odd couples – Planned Parenthood and the Koch brothers, MoveOn.org and the Tea Party, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz – all locking arms in battle?

Yet, even with depleted and exhausted troops, these determined generals – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan – keep trying to climb that seemingly unscalable mountain in order to pound a stake through the heart of Obamacare. It’s a seven-year-old elusive dream that has not aged well. This bizarre mission is draped in a misplaced notion of integrity, of promises to keep. “We’re keeping our word,” Ryan told ABC news. “That’s very important.” Our promise, McConnell has repeatedly insisted, is to “repeal Obamacare root and branch.” The repeal mantra worked for Republicans back in the day. But political slogans need to change with the times. Even George Wallace knew that his 1963 “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” line wouldn’t play in the 1980s. Too much had changed. The health care swing was less dramatic but just as real.

The frenzy to pass this legislation is all about a promise that is no longer operative. It served conservative political interests a few years back, when the new health insurance system was confusing, unsettling and, thanks to Republican demagoguery, unpopular. However, people have gotten used to it, including the estimated 17-20 million who now have insurance for the first time. Suddenly, polls show that a majority of Americans like Obamacare. Meanwhile, NPR/Marist polling on the Republican health bill this week gave it a 17% approval rating. In that same survey, 63% of the respondents favored either leaving Obamacare unchanged or strengthening it.

From a pure standpoint of self-interest, the GOP’s health care strategy makes no sense. Politicians have two constituencies: voters and campaign contributors. So far, every health care permutation Republicans have come up with alienates both groups. If anything resembling their current bills pass, between 22 and 23 million Americans will lose insurance. Lower income families and the elderly will see premiums rise by 280%. Taking benefits away from people – or overcharging for them – is not an effective way to win votes. Republican governors get that, which is why many of them oppose their party’s mindless drive to repeal and replace. It’s a promise that has lost its predicate.

And now come the financial heavies, the real power behind the anti-Obamacare movement, all angrily insisting that the Republican bills aren’t a repeal at all. The repeal promise, of course, was not born out of a desire to create a better health care system. It was all about appeasing the Koch brothers and other titans of the corporate right. Americans for Prosperity, the Koch network’s political arm, and a number of similar groups, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of candidates committed to a total dismantling of Obamacare. They are all thoroughly disgusted with the House and Senate bills that upend insurance for millions and slash Medicaid spending. It’s not enough for them, not nearly enough. AFP leader Tim Phillips called the Republican legislation “a slight nip and tuck”, according to the Associated Press. He said it was “Obamacare-lite” and that AFP is poised to go after Republicans who support it. In other words, the only way McConnell and Ryan can satisfy their financial benefactors is to cut much deeper, leaving millions more without insurance, and passing their subsidies on to the rich in the form of tax cuts.

The Washington Post reported today that McConnell was gingerly rearranging pieces of his Senate bill in an attempt to address objections launched from every possible direction. Reportedly, this would involve scaling back tax cuts for the rich in favor of helping lower income people get insurance. That might appease some moderates but will further frustrate the right. To compensate, says The Post, he may strike some Obamacare coverage mandates from the bill. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill’s reduction in Medicaid coverage would be significantly higher than originally calculated. Bottom line: the bill is not headed toward a Palm Sunday reception.

McConnell and Ryan are not in this promise trap by themselves. President Trump spent his campaign promising to slay Obamacare on day one. Of course, the president could cram everything he knows about health care and the legislative process into a single tweet, and have 140 characters left over. He says he wants a Senate bill that is not as “mean” as the House version. Yet, Trump threw a Rose Garden celebration for passage of that “mean” House bill, calling it “very, very, incredibly well-crafted . . .a great plan.” Unlike the president, McConnell and Ryan know what they are doing. They just made a huge stumble.

There is a certain nobility attached to fulfilling a promise, but nobility can quickly turn into dung when the underlying conditions behind the promise change. This is one more example of Republicans ignoring science at their peril. Remember the uncertainty principle from physics class? You can determine a particle’s position or its momentum, but you can’t accurately measure both at the same time. That’s because positions and momentum change. The Republican leadership built their repeal strategy on 2010 measurements. Once people who never had health insurance got it, the public’s position on the particle called Obamacare started to change. It’s been moving ever since, but the Senate majority leader and House speaker are just now taking stock of its momentum.

MOTHER LODE OF VULGARITY WINS FEDERAL COURT REPRIEVE

Warning: If slang words entailing a hard “ck” sound invoke trauma, hysteria or bad middle school memories, please cover your eyes. For the rest of you, here’s the good news: “motherfucker” got a thumbs-up from three federal appellate judges. The decision may not rise quite to the level of Brown v. Board of Education, but it was music to ears of disgruntled employees, particularly those who have a m’fer for a boss.

What a long, strange judicial trip it’s been for this nasty moniker, the titular pinnacle of George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words. According to those who study these things, motherfucker made its jurisprudence debut in a 1889 Texas Court of Appeals case, Levy v. State. A witness testified that Defendant Levy was a “God damned mother-f–king bastardly son-of-a-bitch.” The legal precedent established an expletive hierarchy, allowing every word except m’fer to be spelled out. A decade later, however, the same Texas court reversed itself and filled in the blanks. The case at hand involved a murder defendant who argued justifiable homicide on the basis that his victim had called him a “mother-fucking-son-of-a-bitch.” Twenty years after that, according to a book by historian Henry Louis Gates, a young man ordered to fight in World War I, fired off a letter to the editor of a Memphis newspaper calling his draft board “low-down motherfuckers”. He was court-martialed and did 10 years of hard labor.

Thanks to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, motherfucker has come a long way, etymologically speaking. Here’s the deal: Back in 2011, workers at a New York catering company, Pier Sixty, were trying to form a union. Shortly before the vote, one of the organizers, Hernan Perez, was berated by his boss, Bob McSweeney. On his break, Perez, smartphone in hand, punched out a Facebook vent about the encounter. Here, unedited, is what he posted: “Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER FUCKER don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! Fuck his mother and entire fucking family!!!!! What a LOSER!!!!! Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!”

As you might imagine, Pier Sixty management did not shower Perez’s Facebook page with likes. Instead, it fired him. Therein began an intense six-year search for the true meaning of motherfucker by some of the best legal minds in the country. Under federal labor law, bosses are generally prohibited from disciplining workers who are acting together for the betterment of working conditions. In this case, Perez didn’t just call McSweeney a “nasty motherfucker,” he called him that in the context of a union organizing campaign. In labor law parlance, that is called “protected concerted activity.” In other words, you can’t be fired for that.

But wait, there’s more. There are limits to this protection. What if Perez had no Facebook access during that catering event and, instead of calling McSweeney a motherfucker, had, say, dumped a three-bean salad on his boss’ head? Under labor case law, an employee loses protection if the concerted activity is “opprobrious”. (In the interest of saving you a click, that means pretty darn bad.) So, exactly one century after some poor guy got 10 years of hard labor for calling his draft board a bunch of m’fers, thanks to Facebook and an angry union organizer, the legal system was posed to answer a question many of us had never pondered: Is motherfucker opprobrious?

Imagine the scene in the mahogany confines of justice: ponderous thinkers in black robes, judges accustomed to complex sentences packed with words like collateral estoppel, subrogation, tortfeasor and habeas corpus, studiously examining a vocabulary they’ve hidden from their children. They pour through the case law, decades of testimony about angry employees calling their managers everything from “stupid fucking moron” to “egotistical fucker”, from a “fucking asshole” to a “fucking crook”, without crossing the opprobrious line. But now they were faced, in a very literal sense, with the mother of them all.

Lawyers for Pier Sixty, with straight faces included in their $650-an-hour rate, argued that Perez went well beyond the common pale of vulgarity when he pulled his supervisor’s poor, innocent mother into the mix. Yes, they stipulated, their client’s managers had, indeed, discovered new conjugations of the f-word on a daily basis. They admitted the bosses said the following to their charges: “Are you guys fucking stupid?”; “a fucking little Mexican,” and a “motherfucker who should eat shit.” But, but, but, they insisted: the vile, disgusting words Perez used are “distinguishable from a passing epithet uttered in frustration”. When he said, “Fuck his mother and his entire family,” the corporate lawyers insisted, this worker was getting personal and involving his boss’ family members. And that, they said, is as opprobrious as it gets.

That argument was respectfully rejected, first by an administrative law judge, followed by the National Labor Relations Board, and then by the Second Circuit appellate panel. They concluded that Perez was not literally proposing sexual intercourse with his supervisor’s mother or other family members; he was simply dissing the guy himself. Any teenager could have explained that to the learned judges. But these kind of weighty matters need expert opinion, so they plowed through numerous academic treatises (here and here) on the use of mother-denigrating slang as a means of verbally attacking an adversary.

As a result of all this litigation. Perez won his job back. M’fer means many things to many people, but whatever it is, thanks to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, it is not opprobrious. Let’s hope this case does not end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Who knows what those motherfuckers would do with it?