Stacking Opinions

Just a few quick notes on the House Judiciary Committee hearing held today, Dec. 4.   I am not going to again go into lengthy discussion about the ridiculous nature of this Impeachment Show, but rather simply reflect on what we saw today.

First, today we saw not just opinion vs. opinion, but rather opinion based upon opinion vs. opinion based upon opinion.  That is, we had four law professors who have heard no evidence but who have heard or read opinions of others about what they feel about various actions of the President, give their legal opinions about whether those opinions they read/heard about those facts create a basis for impeachment.  Yes, it is ridiculous, isn’t it?

Let’s understand:  lawyers and especially law professors enjoy examining the law and rendering their opinions about it.  OPINION is the operative word here.  In the law, issues are issues because they have more than one possible solution.  Legal minds form opinions and put that opinion forward.  It may or may not be the opinion that will be adopted in a particular case.  Think of any simple court case.  The plaintiff or prosecution puts forth its opinion that the defendant has done something wrong.  The defense puts forth its opinion that defendant is innocent or not at fault.  Opinion vs. opinion.  A legal decision – guilt, acquittal, liability, or no liability will require fact, not opinion.

Opinions cannot be proven.  They are simply one person’s view about events.  They are not necessarily right or wrong.  As one of my law professors was fond of saying, there are no right answers, only wrong ones.  The wrong ones he referred to were those that were not well supported by facts and by clear and logical reasoning.

Legal scholars will not all agree on the meaning of a law nor on the proper resolution of a case.  This is why, for example, so many Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous.  More than one well-reasoned interpretation can be put forward.  So, while a law professor may sound very authoritative in proclaiming his or her opinion, it is not a fact, it is not a law, and it is not even necessarily correct.  If not grounded in evidence or if not soundly and logically supported, it might very well be wrong.

At the hearing today, however, we saw many Democrats asking their witnesses what was their opinion about the law (remember, that is not a definitive definition but simply one opinion about the law), then taking that law as fact, then asking the witness if the “facts” as defined by one of the earlier Intelligence Committee witnesses’ opinions, met the current witness’s interpretation of “impeachment.”  So, we have the Democrats starting with an opinion and calling it fact, then taking a professorial interpretation of law and calling it actual law, and then getting a professor to assert that the fact/opinion that he has only been told about meets his definition of law (which is really just his interpretation/opinion) and using that as a basis to impeach the President.  Yes, it really is that ridiculous.

But what troubled me today more than anything is what the appearance of these four professors told me about the future of the law and justice in this country.  Three of the four have well documented biases against the President and have been actively and monetarily involved in various campaigns against President Trump since he has been in office.  They clearly were letting their own biases color and determine their legal opinions about impeachment.  If that is what they are teaching their students, then there is little hope for the future of fairness and justice.  Witness Turley was the only one of the four who was able to render objective opinions that happened to not favor impeachment even though he himself is not a Trump supporter and is critical of many of his policies and actions.

It is that ability to divorce one’s own feelings from one’s legal analysis that is critical to justice.  To be clear, Professor Turley’s opinions are, just as those of the other witnesses, nothing more than opinion.  They are not fact.  They are not law.  But the difference is that they are based on objective examination of the relevant source materials and supported by sound legal reasoning.  While I am sure that the other professor-witnesses are also capable of such reasoning, it was fairly clear that they had not engaged in such objective analysis in this case.  There may well be logical support for their opinions, but that was lacking here because those opinions were so obviously based upon their personal hatred of President Trump. 

Professor Turley urged us all to “divide rage from reason.”  That is, there is so much hate that it is preventing the reasoned approach that is necessary for an impeachment consideration.  But it goes beyond that.  The rage, the hate that consumes the Democrats is preventing a reasoned approach to nearly anything in this country and especially to the continuation of our form of government.

So, I was deeply saddened to see the hatred overcome the three Democrat professor witnesses whose credentials should have made them able to distinguish rage from reason and hold heir personal opinions at bay while considering scholarly legal analysis, especially when that analysis may be used to affect the future of our nation and whether or not an election should be overturned.

These are legal scholars.  I expect them to understand the gravity of the undertaking when they are asked to testify about impeachment.  I expect them to understand that when they engage in scholarly discourse about the Constitution or law or past cases that they are expressing their opinions only and that they are not judges rendering decisions on facts that they have not even examined.  Yet if they are willing to accept and engage in such over biased reasoning then Lady Justice has surely lost her blindfold and the concept of a fair and unbiased hearing within the justice system is at serious risk.  This is simply not OK – for those who seek justice and for our Country which depends upon our judicial branch of government as one of the three pillars that sustain us and our freedoms.

So, the Impeachers have now built a case by stacking opinion upon opinion with no clear factual foundation.  Such a structure must surely collapse – hopefully before it takes the entire country with it.

The Impeachers also seem to be perhaps moving away from their focus group determined term of “bribery” and back toward the Mueller report – the report that took 2 years along with taxpayer dollars to investigate another ludicrous charge.  It was determined there was no obstruction there.  Yet obstruction seems to be back again.  Along with idiotic analogies to Nixon, suggestions that the President wants to be king (using the President’s minor son as the butt of a joke about this), and most anything else the President has done or said as meeting their witnesses’ opined definition of impeachment. 

Really, the only thing that is constant, the only thing that is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is the continuing rage and hatred of the Democrats toward Donald Trump.  It is time that everyone follows Professor Turley’s advice and “divide rage from reason.”  Then, and only then, can we move forward with the business of the country.

Big Questions from the Mueller Hearings

I listened to Mueller testify today before both House committees.  It was boring and repetitive; there was nothing new.  The Democrats keep trying to convince us that Trump must be removed from office.  The Republicans keep showing us the bias and “witch hunt” nature of this whole investigation.

Nonetheless, the pundits will talk and talk and write and write about the same stuff they’ve been writing about since 2016.  They will analyze every word, every gesture, every question.  They will take this or that out of contest and make their argument for or against Trump (and, since we’re talking about the media, it will mostly be against Trump).  The politicians will pontificate about their righteousness.  

To what end?  Not for the good of the country surely.  It is time we moved on – finally! – though I doubt very much that we will.

I suspect that any significant analysis on my part has already appeared in my blog posts over the past two years, so rather than rehash, I will (a bit light-heartedly) list here the 10 big questions raised by today’s hearings:

1.  Why doesn’t Mueller get hearing aids?  (Even if his insurance doesn’t cover them, I’m sure he can afford them.)

2.  Did he not get any sleep the night before the hearing, or is he always this disoriented?

3.  Does he know what is in the report?

4.  Does he need a refresher course in the law – especially in what a prosecutor can, should, should not and cannot do?  (His answers would certainly indicate the answer to this question is YES)

5.  If not to just keep the cloud upon Trump, why on earth did Mueller decide to testify?

6.  Who was really in control during the investigation and does Mueller have any idea of who did what, when, where or why?

7.  Do Schiff and Nadler really think they have anything, let alone enough, for impeachment? (And if they do, do they need their heads examined or are they just that totally crazy over Trump-hate?)

8.  When will we get the rest of the story? (the bit about Russian collusion by those Trump-haters whom Mueller said it was beyond his investigation to investigate, even though there was evidence in or concurrent with the investigation of lies or other activity that should prompt investigation by anyone who is really concerned about foreign interference more than in simply getting Trump)

9.  How much could have been accomplished by the members of these two committees and their staff if they didn’t spend their time simply reading their favorite excerpts from the report that we can all read if we care to (and which I and many Americans have done - yes, the entire report)?

10.  Will we ever see an end to this craziness and what it is costing our country, both financially and emotionally?

Actually, we should take this whole thing more seriously – not the report, but the refusal to let it go.  It and the Democrats who are perpetuating this madness are destroying our country by continuing to tear its people apart.  

My message for the Democrats:  Give it up, focus on the real issues before us, stop hating, and get something done for the people who elected you and who are currently suffering because of your power-hungry self-absorption.

Being Played

The Democrats need you – every one of you.  They need you to give them back their power – the power that they have in the past and will in the future use only to further turning you into what they think you should be without consideration of your own thoughts and desires.  Their games include identity politics, name-calling toward those who don’t worship them, self-righteous disdain of anyone who supports anyone but them, working emotion against reason, and the creation of narratives that may or may not be based upon fact and truth to prove to everyone why they are better than the rest of us and why, therefore, we should hand them the reins of power over our lives.

Let’s consider their never-ending war against Trump, a man who they consider not good enough to be in places they would call home.  A man whose truth telling (and often abrasive) statements they cannot abide.  Trump, a man who beat their presidential candidate, not because Russia rigged the election, but because the American people saw fit to elect him (those same people whom the Democrats call deplorable, ignorant, stupid, racist, and many other negative epithets).  Those people, those “idiots” perhaps saw that President Trump would do more for them than the Democrats have ever been able to accomplish, in terms of economy, opportunity, and safety.

And, that is what the Democrats simply cannot deal with:  lowest minority unemployment ever, better jobs and opportunities for women and men, an economy that is creating jobs and more importantly hope.  A government that enforces all laws equally rather than play favorites based on identity or other criteria.  A country that is not afraid to stand up to other counties in the world to make us all safer.  A President that tells it like it is and then gets stuff done.

At a loss about how to handle this, how to recover their power, the Democrats, rather than cheer what is good and getting better in America, rather than learn from how and why things are looking up for so many Americans,  choose instead to try to destroy he who is leading this positive charge along with any and all that support him or simply do not join the Left in their unending hate and attacks against all that is good.

So, the Democrats are on a mission to convince you that the country is evil, the President is evil, and all who support him or his policies are equally evil.  That, you see, appears to be the only way that they might hope to regain power in 2020.

Let us consider their war.  There is the war on American history.  Because the country has not been perfect in the past, nor is it now, nor will it likely ever be, the Democrats would have us discard it as some evil place where only hatred has ever existed.  (I suggest here the known psychological factor that we see the world through our own eyes – hence, those who hate will of course see only hate).  They are incapable of seeing the many positives and all the hope that America has given to millions over the years. 

The most recent example:  one of the greatest achievements of Man – putting a person on the moon, is now dismissed as some sort of sexist adventure because there were not enough women involved in the project (no understanding that this was the 60s and there has been an evolution of women, their careers and achievements, since then – something that can happen because of and not in spite of our country and its government). 

The Democrats hope to foment enough hate of this country that you will award them the power to remake it completely placing all power in themselves and their hatred of all that America and its people stand for.

Then there is the war on the 2016 election.  The Democrats really thought they would oust the President based on collusion and conspiracy theories.  The evidence was not and is not there.  But, that does not yet stop them.  Indeed, this coming Wednesday they will try to wring something new, or something out of context, from Mr. Mueller that they can trade for impeachment, or at least a surge in their favor and against the President. 

Mr. Nadler has indicated he intends to take sentences out of the Mueller report, read them without the surrounding context, and ask Mr. Mueller if that would support a charge of obstruction or collusion or simply impeachment.  That’s like charging me and a friend for conspiracy to rob a bank for saying “that bank could be robbed easily” when, if context were revealed, we might simply have noted poor security compared with other banks in which we were considering placing our funds.  But, the real goal here is to convince you that the President, like the country he loves, is evil and therefore must be removed.

The border.  The Democrats love to use the border to assault the President, to call him racist, supremacist, Nazi, inhumane, and any number of other names.  Yet, it is their very actions that have created both the immigration and humanitarian crisis at the border.  Due to their demands that children not be kept in custody and families be released together before adjudication of their asylum claim, it is known by those seeking illegal entry that a child gets you out of custody and into the country where you can then probably hide for years. 

So, children are being rented, bought, trafficked as up to 30% of families entering turn out not to be families at all.  Some children have crossed up to a dozen times as their adults' get out of jail free card.  Do the Democrats care about these children?  NO.  Rather, they will use a picture of a crying child to promote more hatred of the President.  This, while they withhold funds that would help that crying child and many others.  The border, and the children there, are of no consequence to the Democrats (who were not at all upset with similar conditions when they had their man, Obama, in power).  What matters to the Democrats is how these children can be used to stir up yet more hatred against their opposition and hence be useful in their own return to power.

They create a catch-22 sort of situation.  Withhold funds necessary to prevent a crisis at the border, then blame the Administration along with Border Control Agents for the crisis.  Yet, once even the meager funding that the Democrats finally agreed to reached the border, there was an immediate and deeply measurable improvement.  Yet, they would have you believe any imperfect condition is the result of the President alone, presenting this as another reason for you to distance yourself from him.  And yes, without any evidence, they claim the entire problem is due to racism, hoping you will not want to see yourself supporting someone whom they have labeled and convicted (without evidence but simply with their narrative) as racist.

And, now, the Squad, “If you don’t like it leave it,” and racism.  First, the Tweet suggesting that if people hated this country so much perhaps they should go from whence they came, improve that country, and return to show us how it’s done, is not in and of itself a racist statement.  Inflammatory yes; perhaps better left un-tweeted or said differently, yes; but, not undeniably racist.  Similar words may have been used in a racist manner in the past – that does not automatically make this Tweet racist.  And yet, the word “racist” has been affixed to it with some sort of permanent bond.  The Tweet is referred to by media and others as “the President’s racist tweet” (even the conservative host of Firing Line began her interview with Ted Cruz by asking him about the “racist tweet”). 

Here is the problem with that one-sided determination that the Tweet is racist:  it allows for no alternative viewpoint or opinion.  It is like asking “why don’t you stop beating your wife?”  If asked that question, one is already presumed to be a wife-beater, so must prove he is not before he can argue he therefore does not need to stop.  In the instance of the Tweet, when one is asked why they don’t condemn the “racist tweet” one must first prove that it is a reasonable interpretation that it is not racist before one can argue that they therefore need not condemn it.

But, here again the Democrats, with their media minions, have established the President as racist without real proof, but hope that by simply bombarding us with that sentiment they will convince us that he is and that we, not wanting to be considered racist by association, will drop our support of him.

Convincing us that the President is racist is especially important to the Democrats as they see their hold on minority votes slipping.  They forget that minorities, like the rest of us, are capable of seeing, thinking, and assessing what is really going on.  In the end, actions will always speak louder than words, and the President’s actions, for minorities, for women, for everyone in this country are to all our benefit, unlike those words and promises of Democrats that are useful only to build a dependent underclass who will continue to give power to those who do not really have that underclass’s best interests at heart.

Yes, the Democrats need you.  They need you to give them the power they seek.  It seems the only way they can think to cause you to do that is to instill in you the hatred that they seem to have for this country and every one and thing within it that is not them or useful to them.   They are playing you.

Theirs is a campaign of hate: enough hate and you will be willing to give them what they want.  Hate the country enough and you will gladly let them destroy it; hate the President enough and you will gladly oust him from office one way or another; hate the good that he has done for the country and the people and you will gladly let the Democrats reverse all that. 

The Democrats think you are stupid enough to accept what they tell you without more.  Don’t buy their hate.  They are selling you lies and ugliness but you are being played by their well-choreographed narratives along with their minions who distort and conceal the Truth from your view.  Don’t let them play you.

Today's Miscellaneous Thoughts

Today I have just a few short comments about some of the current news.

Sports and Politics

               Ms. Rapinoe and her team are outstanding soccer players.  They should be proud of their abilities.  But, when you are playing on the world stage you represent more than just yourself and your ego.  You represent your country.  That means showing respect for that country and its flag.  You don’t throw the flag on the ground to do a personal and pre-planned victory dance.  You don’t trash your country and its leader.  You save your personal and political grievances for another time.

               Ms. Rapinoe’s statements against the president of the country she should be honored to represent are selfish and egocentric.  Her statements of not wanting to go to the White House upon winning, a place that is representative of our country to its citizens and to the world, is appalling and her making this about politics by suggesting she will honor invitations to Washington from Democrats shows a complete lack of understanding of what it means to represent one’s country on the world stage.  Rather, she wants to make it about herself and her political views.  Let her then become a politician rather than an athlete.

               I am not saying she does not have a right or responsibility to speak her views.  But there are times and places for all speech.  When one is representing her country as an athlete in a world competition, it is not the appropriate time or place to air personal grievances.

               Speaking of grievances, the victimhood she asserts about unequal pay is a bit suspect when one considers the full facts.  The women’s soccer has a union and a collective bargaining agreement which the women have negotiated separately from that of men’s soccer.  Under that agreement their salaries (like that of the men) are in large part tied to audience size.  Women’s soccer has a much smaller audience than does men’s.  Now, one can argue about why that might be so, but the point is, that is a fact to which the players have agreed to use as a defining factor in their salary.   Yes, in this country that Ms. Rapinoe loves to trash, she, a woman, had a right through her union to negotiate her contract and her pay.  So, yes, the pay is different for men and women, but not due to any discriminatory pay practices.  If more people watched women’s soccer, Ms. Rapinoe might make more money, perhaps even as much as male players.  But, then, behaving like a selfish brat is not a way to encourage a larger viewing audience.

The Mueller Re-do

               So, now we learn that the Democrat Congress is planning to subpoena scads of witnesses to have them re-hash the testimony that they gave to Mr. Mueller during the 2 years of his investigation.  During that investigation they lauded Mr. Mueller for his thoroughness and competence.  That was before they saw his conclusion which was not what they had hoped – President Trump was not removed from office and did not go to jail.

               So, now, they want to re-do the entire investigation.  At another huge cost to the American people.  Money that could go to far better causes, helping our citizenry or even those non-citizens whom the Democrats are so concerned about at our borders.  But no, they want to get rid of Trump.  They thought Mueller would do that; he did not.  So now they will try a re-do of the same investigation with the same witnesses, hoping beyond hope that someone will turn for them or at least say something in slightly different words so that they can accuse them of lying to Congress, and, somehow by implication find the President guilty.

               I also find it interesting that these subpoenas are being issued as the president’s popularity is soaring.  Apparently, the Democrats can’t counter all the positive news of the economy, environmental improvements in things as basic as water, better standing in the world, and many others.  And of course, they are embarrassed (perhaps – if that is something that is possible for a Democrat) by their mischaracterization of the Independence Day Celebration and their all out attack on patriotism, something which many Americans found appalling.

               The Democrats fear that the positive feeling in this country, in large part due to Trump’s policies, will get him re-elected.  So rather than present positive and realistic alternatives they will simply continue their witch hunt against him.

Lies for an Agenda

               Apparently when the Democrats are determined to make a point, the end will justify any means, including lies.  We have AOC and her cohort making up stories about the conditions on the border.  We have the Washington Post calling out Rep. Omar for at least two lies, because her American story “is complicated.”  And, of course we have the daily half- truths and manufactured innuendos about President Trump. 

This is what the Democrats do; this is how they try to gain power and win elections.  They certainly don’t look at facts, look at their constituents wants and needs, and work toward doing what is good and right for this country.  Their agenda seems to be different:  to remake this country into something it was never intended to be and in so doing to install themselves in positions of power that will control every aspect of our lives.

That is certainly not what I want, and, while couched in lies their behavior may sound good, I think that if the people were better informed (which is difficult with a biased media), then few would support the agenda of the Left.

Time to Stand Up, Pick Your Side, and Speak Up

It is becoming fully apparent that the Democrats won’t rest until they have not only destroyed President Trump but have completely torn the Country apart as well.

We know why they have this need to destroy the President:  First, he won the election which they were “supposed to” win in 2016.  Now they are concerned that with his many promises kept, the booming economy, improved standing in the world, etc., that they will not be able to beat him in 2020, so they must destroy him one way or another before then.  And, of course, they just don’t like him – he is not like them, he is real, he says what he thinks, rather than play political games he’d rather just get things done.  His successes prove how ineffective the Democrats have been and how little they really care about the American people and their country.

So, the Democrats are willing to tear the country apart, destroy it perhaps beyond repair, just to regain their power and finish off the man whom they irrationally hate.

They are already well on their way to success.  The most obvious display of their irrationality is in their continuing obsession with the Mueller report.  They refuse to give up on their debunked Russia collusion story.  They defy well established law as they hold the Attorney General in contempt for following laws that prohibit the release of confidential grand jury testimony.   They would hold hearings after hearings after hearings for no legitimate purpose while the real business of the country, the business they were elected to attend to, goes unattended and ignored.

But there is more.  They have put the Constitution itself under attack.  They find several ways to silence those whose views do not agree with their own.  Conservative speakers are often excluded from a variety of events; those who support the President are shamed and attacked, both verbally and physically; those who serve the president are the subject of not only verbal and sometimes physical assault, but also of every possible legal assault as well.  Lawsuit upon lawsuit upon lawsuit is filed for any action with which the Democrats do not concur – no matter that it reflects the will of the people, thus slowing down action after action that would benefit this Country and its people.  Political correctness silences views and opinions that are not those which the Democrats approve – no matter that those opinions or observations may be necessary to have a full and objective discussion of an issue. 

Like little angry children who can’t accept compromise, the Democrats in essence keep yelling “It’s my way or the highway!”  They cannot accept the will of the people when it isn’t what they want.  This is not what our Constitution envisions; it is not the way our Democratic Republic works!

Democrats are trying to change the way our president is elected.  The loss of the electoral college would put far more power in the Democratic strongholds – large cities and liberal coastal states – leaving those in fly-over country with no real reason to even cast a vote. 

Their lack of understanding of the Constitution is startling at times.  Nancy Pelosi recently stated that Congress is the “superior branch” of government when she should know that all 3 branches are equal.  Democrats, in their goal to eliminate guns, compare them to cars which are licensed, ignoring the fact that while there is a Constitutional right to bear arms, there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. 

Democrats have lost respect for the protections that our Constitution provides against unreasonable search and seizure.  They disregard such concepts as “innocent until proven guilty.”  Rather, if they approve a narrative that proclaims someone guilty, they will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary.  The Constitution strives to treat all citizens equally; the Democrats would divide us based on a variety of identity characteristics as they pick favorites and those whom they condemn in their continuing games of identity politics.

In the same vein, the Democrats have forgotten that the Constitution protects our right to hold our own beliefs and be free to exercise them.  We hear anti-Christian and anti-Semetic sentiments, as well as anti-white and anti-other disfavored identity groups daily from the mouths of Democrats who should know better.  And, they further seek to rewrite history, eliminating what they don’t like, eliminating unpleasant aspects that we may not be proud of but from which we learned and evolved.  That is, they would eliminate part of what in the end makes us great.  And, what they do not seek to eliminate, they would rewrite to serve their own ends.

I do not mean to imply that Constitutional rights cannot be limited; they can when there is a compelling need to do so, but such restrictions are as narrow as possible.  The Constitution is the core of our Country.  It gives us our representative form of Democracy which allows every citizen to have a voice and in so doing protects us from mob rule of a pure Democracy or State control by a Socialist or Communistic structure.  The Democrats seemingly do not want us to have that protection. 

The Democrats are not going to give up in this war that they are waging on the President, our Country, and our way of life.  No one can stand on the side any longer.

I am reminded of the words of Pastor Niemoller, regarding his failure to speak up in Nazi Germany.  Beginning with the Jews he lists several groups that were subsequently and incremental purged, group after group. After stating each group, he confesses he did not speak up because he was not one of them.  The statement ends with the words “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

We are all in the shoes of Pastor Niemoller in the face of the Democrats.  Don’t let their double-speak and projections of their behavior onto that of their enemy fool you.  It is not Donald Trump or the Republicans who would destroy the Constitution and our Country; it is the Democrats who are doing so even as I write, and you read this.

A time comes when one must choose sides.  If not now, that time is fast approaching.  In choosing one must not be swayed by what is popular or pretty or immediately gratifying.  One must truly understand with whom they are choosing to stand and what their victory would mean, not just in the short term, but in the long view of the individual, our Constitution, our Country, and our way of life.

This is serious business.  And it demands a serious review of who we are and what our Nation stands for, and what will be lost if we do not stop the Democrats’ march to destroy it all.  The Democrats would prefer that no one take notice, that like blind sheep we ignore the wolf they have become in our midst.  Those who choose to do that, to simply sit back and assume all will be fine, must consider that when they have lost all that was, there will be no one left to speak for them.

Can We At Least Try to Approach the Mueller Report With Some Common Sense?

Just drop all the political posturing for a moment and use basic common sense:

               Imagine you are hired for a job, a job for which both you and the people who hired you believe  that you are someone who can accomplish great things and turn around what you and those who hired you saw as a movement in a wrong direction.  The day you begin you are told that you are being accused of a terrible crime that will not only affect your reputation but also interfere with your ability to perform your job duties. You know you did not commit this crime, yet you are under daily attack by those who wanted someone else to get your job.  Your friends and family are slandered.  The investigation of you for something you know you are not guilty of heats up more and more every day.  

               Wouldn’t you be both frustrated and angry with this daily barrage of interference with your ability to perform the job you were hired to do?  Wouldn’t you wish and then verbalize your desires that the investigation stop so you could just do your job?  Wouldn’t you even perhaps think about actually stopping it? 

So, in the above scenario, are you nonetheless guilty of obstructing the investigation when, while you wished and verbalized desires to do so, in the end you did not actually obstruct the investigation?  The Democrats think so.  Not because it makes sense, common or otherwise, but because they must condemn the President.  That seems to be the only thing for which they live – not to do their jobs as elected officials, not to work for the good of the country, not to support our system of government, not for any other reason than to destroy Donald Trump and hopes and dreams of all those who believe in him, in our country, and in a strong and proud America.

I have now read the Mueller report, though in reality it will take more than one reading to fully understand all of it.  But here are some comments on the obstruction issues (Volume 2 of the report).

First, one must understand that Mueller is a Prosecutor who was charged with developing a case against Donald Trump.  His job is to look at evidence and develop the strongest case that he can against the subject of his investigation.  So, here is what he does:  He looks at the law and what he must prove to make a case against Trump under that law.   If the law is ambiguous, he develops the best argument he can for an interpretation of the law that is favorable to his position.  That argument/interpretation might or might not prevail in court.   Then he looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to him (and most unfavorable to Trump) and develops the best possible argument against Trump that the evidence can support. Again, that might or might not be an argument that would be successful in court.   He then determines whether this best prosecutorial case is actually strong enough to indict.

So, what we see in Volume 2 are a lawyer’s presentation of the argument that could be made against Trump on 10 specific allegations of obstruction.  This is a one-sided presentation – the strongest view that the prosecution can come up with.  One must remember that there is also a view and arguments that can be made in favor of the other side.  Law is an adversarial profession; lawyers represent one side or the other and make the best argument they can for their client.  Lawyers are not the judge or the jury.

Mueller and his team are good lawyers and they write arguments that sound convincing.  But, remember, there can be even more convincing arguments written for the other side.  And that is likely why Mueller was unwilling to make an up or down call on obstruction.  He did the investigation and left it to his superior to take a more objective look and make the final call.  As was appropriate under the law, his superior, the Attorney General, did so.  (And, as the Attorney General noted, it was for him and not for Congress – we don’t use our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go on investigatory (and sometimes witch) hunts to gather information that Congress can use for political purposes).

Everyone will have their own reaction (largely based on their political leanings) to the evidence set forth in the Mueller report.  The main thing I see in Volume 2 (the obstruction portion of the investigation) is that Donald Trump was very human in his anger and frustration of being wrongfully accused of collusion.  He was angry and frustrated that the political climate allowed the investigation to become so overtly hateful of him, his policies, and his supporters.  He was angry and frustrated that this was all interfering with his ability to focus fully on his job as President of the United States.  And, he was not a political operative and was less savvy in handling this political witch hunt than would be a seasoned politician.

I think it is time for everyone to let this go.  As did the Attorney General, look at the evidence objectively and in context.  Put the evidence into the larger context of the collusion investigation which it is clear that Trump felt, and rightfully so, was a witch hunt.  So, the President did some things, made some statements, that may be interpreted negatively; he was not perfect in the face of the false allegations against him.  But, that does not amount to obstruction.  And, the greatest argument that there was no obstruction is that the investigation went forward to its end, Trump gave unprecedented access to the investigators, and at no time claimed executive privilege.

While I, and most others who care about this country, may think that it is time to let this go, sadly, the Democrats and the Left-biased media do not.  Instead, they double down on their attacks against the President and now, also, the Attorney General, and even Mueller (their yesterday hero when they thought he was the one who would “get Trump”).  Some now see the Mueller report as presenting a plan for their impeachment of the president.  They want to unveil grand jury testimony, something protected by law (protected so that people will not fear testifying in the future).  They are issuing subpoenas against any and all who might give them some scrap that they can chew into some sort of allegation.  Meanwhile, the rest of the country’s business that they should be attending to goes unattended.

Above I explained my overall reaction to the Mueller report.  My overall reaction to the Democrats' responses is that they do not have any understanding whatsoever of the law, of our country and its government, of their role as elected representatives of the people, or of human nature in general.  They would rather continue their campaign of hate and anger against the President who, even despite their daily attacks against him, is accomplishing more for this country than they have been able to do in many years.  Perhaps they might look, instead of at how next to attack the president, at how they can applaud the low unemployment and growing economy, the improved international respect that we see.  Perhaps they could try to support instead of interfering with Trump’s efforts around the world and within America.  Hey, maybe they could even try to solve the immigration crisis instead of denying its existence.  (But, sadly, for many Democrats the only crisis is that Donald Trump and not they are in power; that Donald Trump and not they are getting things done.)

As I watch the Democrats react to the Mueller report my (diminishing) hope is that they might at some point come to their senses.  They are destroying themselves with their overwhelming and irrational hatred.  The danger is that they will take this country with them in their destruction.  I pray that, even if their leaders do not, the rank and file Democrats will come to their senses and demand more than hatred from their party.

Where is the Non-partisan Outrage?

Interestingly, the following facts are barely reported in the main stream media; I have culled them from some less popular news sources as well as from some right leaning news sources.  I do not understand why the following is not being fully reported by sources such as ABC, NBC, CBS.  Nonetheless, here is a summary of recent facts revealing potential bias within the FBI and the Mueller investigation:

            During the campaign an FBI agent Peter Strzok was given wide authority to investigate Hillary’s use of a private server for classified information and then to investigate possible collusion between Trump and the Russians to affect the 2016 election.  In the Hillary investigation he let pass statements by Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills that were contradicted by their own emails.   It turns out that Strzok is the one who changed the description of Hillary’s actions from “gross negligence” (a legal term of art with criminal implications) to the less significant “extremely careless.”  Then, days after closing the Clinton email case, Strzok signed the document opening the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The authorization of FISA secret surveillance monitoring of the communications of Trump advisers were based at least in part on the anti-Trump and now discredited dossier that was produced for and underwritten by the Clinton campaign; there is strong evidence that Strzok was aware of the dossier and likely involved in the requests for FISA warrants based on the dossier. An informant has charged Strzok with obstructing a probe into the dossier.  Strzok was also one of two agents who interviewed then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and received the statement that resulted in the charge of lying.

In August Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation, but only in the past few days has it come to light that during the investigations he sent numerous anti-Trump texts and that there is other evidence showing his ongoing bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump.   The DOJ is now going through 10,000 texts between Strzok and Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair and with whom he apparently shared a strong anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiment.  Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, participated in meetings about both the Hillary and the Trump investigations.  

It has also been revealed that Andrew Weissmann, a deputy for Mueller in the Russia probe, wrote an email in which he praised then DOJ official Sally Yates for refusing to enforce a legitimate presidential order with which she and many anti-Trumpers disagreed.  Yet another DOJ lawyer, Bruce Ohr, has been demoted due to contacts with the anti-Trump dossier firm.

Mueller did not inform the congressional oversight committee about the Strzok texts or about his reason for removing Strzok.  The Senate Judiciary Committee had to demand that the FBI turn over documents related to the removal of Strzok, noting that “Strzok, the deputy assistant director in the FBI’s counterterrorism division, was removed both from that position and the Mueller team over the summer, and reassigned to the human resources division, after it was reported that he ‘engaged in communications demonstrating political bias while handling matters in two sensitive, high-profile investigations’”.

The above should disturb each and every American!  Here is seemingly obvious and ongoing bias staring us in the face.  Of course, the Right presents the above information fully, perhaps making it seem even more important than it is or making assumptions of even further bias beyond that for which there is evidence.  Meanwhile, the Left tries to ignore it or put a good spin on it (what a great man Mueller is because he removed Strzok in August). 

Each and every one of us, regardless of our political views, should be saying this sort of activity and bias by the FBI is simply not acceptable.   Are we really willing to overlook such obvious bias when it leads to decisions with which we happen to agree (ending Hillary investigation; continuing search for evidence against Trump costing taxpayers millions).  To me, the fact that there is not universal disgust and outrage about the apparently out of control and biased FBI is what is really troubling.  Have we completely lost our sense of justice and fairness?  And, how can anyone be satisfied with, let alone trust the accuracy of any conclusions reached by these investigations?

Let’s consider the two key pieces.  First, an investigation of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate, by Left-leaning members of the FBI.  The investigation ends with no charges.  Then an investigation by the same Left-leaning members of the FBI against the Republican president whose election horrified the opposition.  That investigation has gone well beyond its charge, yet after a year has still found no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians.  Yet, we encourage the fishing expedition to continue, at great taxpayer expense. 

I certainly don’t feel comfortable accepting the final conclusions of either of these investigations and their many off-shoots.  To me they seem more like something I would expect from a banana republic than the democratic government of one of the greatest nations in the world.  To others these seem like the actions of the feared and nebulous web of the deep state, or evidence of a sitting political party using its resources against the opposition.  Yet others who like the results because they further their own political agendas find nothing wrong here and fully support these questionable investigations.

This is appalling, yet it fully reflects the low to which we have sunk.  It reflects our inability to be objective, to think rather than be driven only by group politics and emotion.  Left approves, Right does not.  What more do you need to know?  How about objectivity and fairness, not to mention justice?  No one seems to consider the danger of allowing if not applauding such an apparently biased investigatory force to continue.  Are we ready to allow our FBI to determine whom to acquit and whom to go after based upon prevailing political views within the agency?  How will you feel when your party is on the losing side?  Allowing these so clearly flawed investigations without question sets a very dangerous precedent for future use of state-sponsored intimidation that is a direct assault on a fair and democratic justice and governmental system.

Everyone, regardless of party or political views or like or dislike of President Trump or his policies should stand together and demand better.  We should all be outraged and demand that the FBI give us the fair and objective service to which we are entitled.  We must understand that even apparent bias weakens our democracy while true objectivity strengthens it.  Instead of taking to our respective partisan sides we should all be standing together in non-partisan anger as we demand the fairness that our democracy promises.

Critical Thinking - A Lost Art

There are plenty of topics for a blog in today’s news:  the bias of the top people in Mueller’s investigation; their special treatment of Hillary and their being instrumental in the initial allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia; the use of the FBI by a sitting administration to conduct opposition research against political opponents;  whether the Mueller investigation has overreached; whether it has any legitimacy at all given the revelations of the past few days; Time’s choice of the hysteria-driven and victim-creating #MeToo as its person of the year;  recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the hypocrisy of the Democrats outcry against Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem when they supported it in the past; Conyer’s retirement and who will take his place; what SCOTUS will decide about whether a cake artist can be compelled to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs and whether his refusal to do so is unlawful discrimination against members of the LGBT community; the Tax bill; immigration; the actions of the deep state; and on and on and on.

But, today, this being my 100^th blog posting, I will talk about something else.  Something more important than even the most hysterical hysteria of the day.  Something the lack of which underlies much of the hysteria and news-as-entertainment we see today.   Today I will talk about thinking:   deep thinking, CRITICAL THINKING.  This is something that seems to have been lost in our country, and without it I don’t see how we can ever stop the daily hysteria and the havoc it causes to our country and our lives.

Critical thinking is simply the ability to objectively analyze facts or evidence in order to reach a conclusion or form a judgment.  The key here is the word “objective” meaning unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial, detached, dispassionate, and fair.  Critical thinking is performed by the one reaching the judgment or conclusion.  It requires clear and rational thinking.  And, it is sadly lacking today.

Critical thinking means that one questions everything, even their own beliefs.  One does not accept something just because someone else said it was true, even if that is a someone whom one respects or with whom one always agrees.   And, it means that one is able to distinguish between people themselves and the positions that they hold.   (That is, one may find an individual repulsive, but that does not mean that the individual’s agenda is also repulsive). 

In the last few days I have heard from individuals who support Democrat policies that anyone who does not support those polices is not only wrong, but an idiot as well.  I have heard parents ask how to tell their children that their teacher is “wrong” when the teacher has expressed or explained a viewpoint that runs counter to the viewpoint of the parents.  I have heard people say they will not even consider reading new or opinion pieces from sources labeled as holding political views to the right or left of their own.  I have heard people explain that it is too time consuming to read even a full synopsis of an issue or controversy, so they simply read the highlights as selected by their favorite news source, even if things such as quotes are distorted or otherwise misleading and taken out of context.  And, I regularly hear people adopt the conclusions and judgments presented to them by their favored source without any further inquiry or research.

These are all examples of the pervasive lack of critical thinking in our society.  Let’s look at these in more detail, beginning with the parent who thinks that he must tell his child that he is right and the teacher is wrong.  Not only is the parent not exercising critical thinking (not asking for details and context of what the teacher said), but the parent is not teaching or allowing his child to become a critical thinker.  Placing a child in an environment where one authority figure is always right does not teach a child to exercise her own mind and reach her own judgments.  A parent who expects a child to adopt all the parent’s beliefs unquestioned does not teach the child how to make her own judgments and decisions once the parent is no longer there.  In the instance where a parent finds a teacher or other pushing a viewpoint contrary to that of the parent, the better approach is to discuss, at an appropriate level for the child, the different ways of looking at the question. explain why the parents hold the belief they do, while accepting that others may hold other beliefs.  That allows the child to understand that there is more than one way of looking at something, that there may be a need to understand context or find further facts or evidence.  Even if the child is expected to accept and follow the parent’s view at that point in her life, it teaches the child about thinking, about the possibility of other views, and about tolerance of other views. 

Those are some notes for the parent, but I also have notes about the teachers and our education system.  From what I see, very little time is spent on teaching critical thinking skills.  Teachers seem to have no problem presenting their views and judgments as fact that the student either must accept, or will accept in order to please the teacher.   Emotional arguments and conclusions are accepted by teachers with no demand for logic or rational support.  Students are encouraged to express their feelings with little demand that their articulation be clear, organized, or well thought out.  Of course, logic, developing support, indeed, learning and thinking itself, are hard work.  There seems to be an aversion to the idea of work in school these days.  Rather, teachers want kids to have fun; they seem to seek friendship rather than respect from their students. And, we have placed upon teachers the burdens of parenting, social work, and other requirements that are not part of a teacher’s traditional duties or trained skills.

If we do not teach our children how to be critical thinkers, then we cannot expect to see critical thinking in our adult population.  If we train our children to simply accept the judgment of one or another authority figure then we cannot expect them to do otherwise as adults.  Thus, we have people who simply accept whatever superficial judgment sounds good to them without even seeing a need to do their own inquiry into the rationality and legitimacy of that position.   Looking more specifically at politics, we have people who support each and every position of their preferred party, without any thought or investigation.  We have people who support or oppose views simply because they like or do not like the individual who professes those views.  This is especially senseless in that it confuses an individual with an institution of which that individual is a part.   Every leader as an individual will have a variety of qualities that will generally be liked or disliked, but that individual’s administration and its policies should and will eventually be judged by different standards in the context of history (this assumes of course that those whose goal it is to erase history will not in the end succeed). 

Of course, the problem with all this is that we end up with two warring camps:  those who blindly accept the view of one side on an issue and those who blindly accept the opposing view.  Arguments about the issue devolve into calling the other side stupid, idiotic, or similar names because without critical thinking and its use to arrive at and thus understand the views one has adopted, one cannot really debate the issues themselves.  So, it becomes simply cults of personality and ad hominem attacks on those holding opposing views.

Sure, it would be easier to have clear cut right and wrong answers to every one of life’s issues.  But, life is far more complex.  And, in order to make sound judgments about the issues that face us as individuals and as society as a whole, we must be able to critically think about them.  We must take the time to fully learn the relevant facts and to fully educate ourselves about various and competing viewpoints.  We must each of us examine this body of evidence that relates to each issue upon with we have or would like to take a stand.  We must each arrive at our own understanding and our own conclusions, based on our own examination; we must not be content to simply accept that which we are told. 

When it comes to politics, our education must begin with a clear and objective understanding of the history and core principles of this country.  We must read and understand our Constitution as well as how it has been interpreted and applied throughout our history.  Before taking a position on a law or regulation we must fully understand if not entirely read the operative provisions of the rule and must understand the basis of differing views about the rule.  We must consider not simply the immediate effect or gratification but also the long-term consequences of what is done or not done.  And we must listen to full words and context when a politician speaks, not be content to have only the particular sound bite chosen by the nightly news or our preferred Twitter feed. 

Yes, this all asks a lot.  Making informed decisions takes time and effort.  But no one said that being a responsible citizen and a responsible adult is an easy task.  It is, however, a serious and a critical task.  Without critical thinking we are governed by emotion alone and our world becomes less rational and more angry.  Teachers and parents together must insure that children learn the skill and the joy of deep and critical thinking, and then as adults we must demand of ourselves and of others that we use those skills in making the important decisions and judgments that affect all of our lives.

Why I’m Not Writing About Today’s Indictments

Plenty of people will be busy putting their spin on the Manafort indictment.  Unlike those involved in the investigation who are under an obligation of secrecy but leak anyway, I have no obligation to keep quiet.  Yet, I see no point in rehashing the facts because people will read, misread, omit, distort, or whatever as they choose in order to use the current developments to support their own narrative. 

So, this will be very short, with just a few comments/questions:

 1.   I thought that the “investigation” was a hunt to find collusion between Trump and the Russians that affected the 2016 election.  If so, why is the indictment for alleged crimes committed at the latest in 2015 and before?

 2.  Why did Mueller suddenly ramp up and indict when the news was coming out of his possible involvement in the Clinton uranium deal (possible scandal) and his connection with Comey and the FBI and its use of the DNC ordered & paid for dossier on Trump (possible connection with Russia to affect election!)?

 3.  If Mueller’s investigation has this broad latitude to go hunting far beyond and outside of the 2016 election, why is he not investigating the many questionable actions that occurred during the Obama administration or at the hand of Obama’s some or one-time affiliates?

 4.  How can the left possibly read today’s news to justify headlines such at: “Information proves Trump campaign tried to collude with Russia”?

 5.  Why do the democrats continue to insist upon creating a narrative in which Trump is not a legitimate president?

 6.  How long and with what power will this “investigation” continue?

The far broader question can be simply stated:  Why do people jump to conclusions without examining or understanding the facts, or asking necessary questions?  Or, put another way:  Why do people insist that their preferred narrative is fact, whether or not facts can or do indeed support it?  Why cannot people be honest with themselves and others and admit that things are not always the way they wish them to be, but that simply wishing them to be so does not make them so, nor does it justify recreating factual reality in order to support their own narrative?

Perhaps rather than gloating at how today’s (or any day’s) news supports one’s preferred narrative we would all be better suited by stepping back and taking a breath and understanding what the facts really say and what reality really is.