Month: December 2017

A couple of weeks ago I was in New York City visiting with my daughter Kate and her husband, Ben.

Kate produces commercials for an internet firm and Ben, a very talented actor, is pursuing his career options in the theatre.

Kate is the child who, like me, was bitten by the political bug that seems to be part of the Fahey-McGuire gene pool.

In the years between college and graduate school, she had the privilege of working for Mayor Miner as her scheduler and got an up close and personal education about politics on all levels.

Like me, she possesses a very dim view of the current occupant on the White House.

What I learned, on a walk with her through lower Manhattan, is that she has a very real fear about the future of the country under Trump.

“Do you think the country can survive him?” she asked me.

“Sure I do,” I replied.

The country has weathered more serious crisis I pointed out to her.

We managed to break free from England in the Revolutionary War.

We almost broke apart during the Civil War.

We managed to last through two world wars and get through the Great Depression in between them.

All of that occurred before I was born, I reminded her.

During my lifetime, we navigated our way through Vietnam, which was my first experience with friends and high school classmates being sent off to fight in a distant land with many of them returning home in body bags.

As that war was coming to a close, we experienced Watergate and the criminal investigation of the Nixon Administration ending in his resigning from office.

I told her how fears ran very high during that crisis, that he would defy the other branches of government adding additional uncertainty to the outcome.

In the end, however, the rule of law prevailed and the nation endured yet again.

We talked about the attack on September 11, 2001 which supplanted the assassination of President Kennedy as the defining moment the nation has experienced during my life time.

I assured her that, as bleak as things seem right now, our history and spirit is greater than any one man.

As I think about our conversation and all of the events we recounted during it, I began to consider all of the great figures who came and went and the way we adjusted to their passing.

My parents told me how stunned they were at the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt as World War II was coming to a close.

After leading the country out of the Great Depression and through Pearl Harbor and the war, they couldn’t imagine having another president and also wondered if the nation would survive.

I saw how devastated they were by the murder of John F. Kennedy and how the country came to a standstill during the days that followed as he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

I remember how numb I was at the murder of Martin Luther King.

It seemed that just as that was wearing off, Robert Kennedy was assassinated and I began to question what kind of society we had become.

I began to think of the passing of people in my life.

When my mother passed away at the end of 1991, my sister, Jane, was less than a month away from giving birth to my nephew Conor.

At the conclusion of her funeral mass, Father Ahern looked at Jane and told us that the Irish have a saying, “One goes and one comes.”

This past Easter Sunday my younger sister Mary died unexpectedly.

A week or so later, my daughter, Meghan, announced she was expecting her second child.

One goes and one comes.

At this writing we await the imminent arrival of Jane Diana.

I’m confident that her life will be filled with promise, happiness and joy.

Secure in that belief, I know that the world will go on, we will endure whatever crisis we encounter and, as always, America will thrive.

Merry Christmas.

Last Tuesday night was a bad night for Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

It was a bad night for his puppet master, Steve Bannon.

It was a bad night for Donald Trump.

I suspect that the next meeting between Trump and Bannon will have all the characteristics of what would happen if you tied two sewer rats together by the tail and dropped them into a closed barrel.

Sorry about that visual.

This was the second time that Trump put his political reputation on the line in the Alabama Senate race.

It is also the second time that voters, in perhaps the deepest red state, rejected his call for support.

Trump, who never takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong, claimed to be prophetic in predicting Moore’s loss.

While not unexpected, this spin stands in sharp contrast to his left-handed endorsement of Luther Strange in the Senate primary in which he declared, “I may have made a mistake in endorsing Luther Strange.”

When I heard the “endorsement,” I couldn’t help but wonder if Trump didn’t have some tacit understanding with Bannon in which Trump really preferred Moore.

Once he lost the primary to Moore, Luther Strange may have thought Trump’s endorsement was a mistake too.

In the immediate aftermath of Moore’s primary victory, Trump delivered a perfunctory and long distance endorsement of Moore.

What became increasingly strange was Trump’s actions after the allegations of sexual predatory behavior by Moore arose.

There was nothing innocuous or ambiguous about what Moore was accused of.

A number of women came forward to describe how Moore sought them out for sexual activity when they were as young as fourteen years old and he was a district attorney in his thirties.

One of his victims even produced her high school year book, in which Moore had inscribed a message to her.

One would have thought, that given his own history of being accused of this kind of behavior, Trump would have viewed the Moore campaign as the third rail.

Instead, he had his all- purpose prevaricator, Kelly Anne Conway, float a trial balloon suggesting that Moore’s support for the Trump tax bill was more important than avoiding sending a child molester to the United States Senate.

Trump followed suit within days declaring that it was paramount that a Republican be sent to the Senate by Alabama voters even if he might be a sexual predator.

He went further accusing Democratic candidate, Doug Jones, as a liberal who was “soft on crime.”

This last accusation was patently ridiculous in light of Jones history as a United States Attorney prosecuting and convicting Eric Rudolph a terrorist and serial bomber, as well as the Ku Klux Klan leaders that had bombed a Baptist church in Birmingham killing four African-American little girls four decades before.

Moore, for his part, largely stayed off the campaign trail in order to avoid questions from the press about the allegations made by his accusers.

Trump repeatedly justified his endorsement of the predator by repeating, over and over again, that Moore denied the accusations which continued to mushroom.

In doing so, Trump was clearly trying to inoculate Moore with the same “defense” that he asserted when even more women accused him of sexual assault during the 2016 election.

What Trump didn’t count on was the tidal wave of sexual assault reports that have deluged the fields of show business, media, politics and government and have ensnared Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservative men alike.

The cry from women all across America that “we’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” has fallen on Trump’s deaf ears.

Even after spending almost twenty years as a judge in a criminal court, and having thought I had seen it all, I have to say that I never dreamed I would see the day that an apparent level two sex offender would endorse an apparent level three sex offender for a U.S. Senate seat.

In addition to his predatory sexual history, Moore revealed his true character in an interview in which he proposed abolishing all of the amendments to the Constitution following the Tenth Amendment.

Slavery would no longer be abolished, Due Process and Equal Protection would no longer be guaranteed, voting guarantees for all races would no longer exist, popular election of U.S. senators would be abolished (considering the results of the election, I can understand why Moore would be for this), women would no longer be guaranteed the right to vote, and the poll tax could be re-imposed.

Trump justified his support for the predator by declaring that Moore supported Trump’s ”agenda.”

It looks increasing like Trump supports Moore’s agenda too.

Trump, Bannon and Moore have an interesting shared view of the future.

Fortunately the voters of Alabama did not share their views nor have any appetite for sending a deviant to the United States Senate.

At this writing, Roy Moore has not conceded defeat, claiming among other things, that the large African-American voter turnout was riddled with fraudulent voters.

Sound familiar?

Trump is ready to move on, declaring that Moore should concede.

God sees.

If only for this moment.

One of the enduring principles of our democracy is that no man is above the law, including the President of the United States.

That was reinforced three times throughout our history during the presidencies of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Johnson was impeached on purely political grounds arising from his actions during reconstruction.

Nixon was on the verge of impeachment for his role in the Watergate burglary and cover-up when he resigned.

Clinton was impeached for lying about his affair with an intern during a deposition in a civil lawsuit.

The experiences of Nixon and Clinton are particularly instructive and relevant to the current situation unfolding in the nation’s capital today.

The Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, is investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential race and related matters.

One of the matters involves Trump’s firing of his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, for ostensibly lying to the Vice-President about his contacts with Russian government officials during the transition period.

In the immediate aftermath of Flynn’s firing, Trump allegedly requested FBI Director, James Comey, to forego investigating and prosecuting Flynn.

When Comey demurred, Trump fired him too.

As a result of the firing, Rod Rosenstien, the Deputy Attorney-General appointed Robert Mueller as Special prosecutor.

Mueller has moved quickly, either indicting or obtaining guilty pleas from a number of Trump campaign officials, the most recent being Flynn.

Flynn was allowed to plead guilty to a single felony count of making false statements to the FBI and has entered a cooperation agreement with the Special Prosecutor that requires him to truthfully disclose all that he knows about any crimes or collusion on the part of those who were involved in the Trump campaign and may now be a part of the Administration.

This latest development led Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, to offer the very curious opinion that Trump cannot obstruct justice because, as President, he is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation.

Dowd maintains that Trump is entitled to direct the Justice Department to initiate any prosecution he desires and discuss any prosecution or potential prosecution that may arise.

Dowd is joined in this position be Harvard law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, who has become a Fox News pundit and a legend in his own mind.

Other than Dowd, the only one who thinks this legal position has merit is Dershowitz, the remaining legal community believes that it doesn’t pass the laugh test.

To Trump and his defenders, this position is important for several reasons.

If Trump cannot be charged with obstruction of justice, then his exercise of the pardon power to absolve those who might be criminally responsible for what has occurred, cannot be a predicate to a charge of obstruction of justice.

No one would argue that the President doesn’t have the power to pardon law breakers, but the premature exercise of that power to thwart an ongoing criminal prosecution or investigation most certainly could support an obstruction of justice charge if, the pardon was issued to shield law breakers who might cooperate in the probe.

We need to look no further than the impeachment articles that were voted by the House of Representatives during the Nixon proceedings to see that there is precedent for charging a president with obstruction of justice.

Nixon chose not to test that theory and instead, resigned.

The other corollary position that Trump’s lawyers seek refuge in, is the belief that Trump cannot be criminally charged while he is in office, before being convicted in an impeachment trial in the Senate.

It’s fair to say that there is a division of opinion on this subject in the legal world.

There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly shields a sitting president from criminal prosecution.

This concept is implicitly rooted in the fact that the Founding Fathers provided that a President may be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

It is generally well settled that these terms encompass offenses that may be criminal in nature as well as criminal.

Andrew Johnson’s articles of impeachment included no criminal offenses.

Nixon’s articles of impeachment, as noted, included obstruction of justice charges.

Clinton’s articles of impeachment also included obstruction of justice charges as well as perjury.

It has been reported that the Nixon Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, had prepared legal briefs that supported the principle that Nixon could be charged criminally while in the White House.

It has also been reported that Robert Mueller has done the same.

In the legal case involving Clinton and Paula Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Clinton was not shielded from civil litigation while he was President and that is what led to his lying under oath about the affair with Monica Lewinsky.

The Trump team, aware of that ruling, hastened to settle as many civil cases pending against him prior to the inauguration.

I am of the opinion, that if a president cannot be shielded from civil litigation while in the White House, there is an even more compelling reason not to shield him from criminal prosecution, including obstruction of justice, in whatever form it occurs.

If the Dowd opinion were to be validated, we would be in very dangerous waters.

Trump could pardon those who might be a danger to him at will.

He could meet with and strategize with any witness, subject or target of the probe, even if that amounted to suborning perjury.

He could fire the special prosecutor and terminate the investigation.

He could initiate criminal investigations and prosecutions of anyone he perceives as having wronged him.

He could make good on his favorite chant, “lock her up.”

It would amount to his becoming a government of one.

Throughout this past year, we have heard Trump proclaim that any criticism or negative story about him or his administration is “fake news.”

His criticism of the various news outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post and particularly CNN is unending and, frankly, juvenile.

He labels the New York Times as the “failing” New York Times even though it is, by all accounts, quite healthy.

His distaste for CNN apparently knows no bounds.

A proposed merger between AT&T and Time-Warner appears to be in jeopardy owing to a Justice Department lawsuit to block the merger.

The opposition by the Justice Department is, at first blush, baffling since the Administration prides itself on and trumpets the fact that it is “anti-regulatory.

Moreover, the Chief of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is on record as declaring that there is nothing about the merger that troubles him.

One of the considerations in approving the merger is to require Time-Warner to divest itself of CNN.

While the Justice Department is not supposed to be at Trump’s beck and call, it appears that Sessions is about to bow to Trump’s pressure as penance for recusing himself in the Russian Election Meddling probe that resulted in the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.

Apparently, they have embarked upon a strategy that if you cannot beat CNN than kill it.

Trump surrounds himself with an assortment of “communications” staff.

Kelly Anne Conway should have a polygraph machine permanently grafted on to her.

Sara Huckabee-Sanders is paid handsomely by the American taxpayers to lie to them every day.

As the Roy Moore campaign for the Senate seat from Alabama continues to unfold, we get to witness an ever evolving Trump.

First, he was content to let the people of Alabama decide.

Next, he and Kelly Anne declared that Moore’s Democratic opponent is a liberal who was “soft on crime.” An interesting assessment of a man who successfully prosecuted the KKK leadership for bombing a church and murdering four little girls decades before and Eric Rudolph who bombed a women’s health clinic and the Centennial Olympic Park in Georgia.

Confronted with the pedophilia accusations Moore faces, Trump dismisses them because “he denies them.”

The same way he denied the admissions he made about his own conduct on the Access Hollywood Tape and the scores of women who accused him of sexual assault.

Indeed, in his latest iteration of the tape, Trump now claims it’s not really his voice on the tape, notwithstanding the fact he admitted it was last year and apologized for it.

Don’t be surprised if you see Trump on the campaign trail with Moore before the December election.

Into this cauldron, now comes James O’Keefe, a right-wing gadfly who specializes in making false and misleading videos to embarrass various organizations and public officials.

O’Keefe rose to fame by publicizing a heavily edited video of interviews he had with Acorn officials in an effort to damage and undermine the work of that anti-poverty organization.

He pled guilty to a crime when he unsuccessfully attempted to tamper with the telephone system in Senator Mary Landrieu’s office, trying to substantiate a claim that she ignored constituent phone calls.

He unsuccessfully attempted to tie National Public Radio officials to Islamic terrorism with another heavily edited and doctored tape.

This week he attempted to discredit the Washington Post’s investigative reporting of Roy Moore, by sending an employee to meet with reporters from that paper with a false story about Roy Moore impregnating her at age fifteen and then arranging for an abortion.

O’Keefe’s strategy was fairly simple and straightforward.

If the Post reported the story and it proved to be false, then the Post would be discredited, Moore’s accusers would be undermined and O’Keefe and Trump’s preferred pedophile candidate would be elected to the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately for O’Keefe, the Washington Post reporters were suspicious of his phony plant’s story and uncovered O’Keefe’s plot to discredit their reporting.

The name of O’Keefe’s organization is Project Veritas.

He should consider changing the name to Project Falsitas.

Where does this organization get its funding?

Well, we could start with the ten-thousand dollar contribution it received from the Donald J. trump Foundation.

That is not “Fake News.”

I’m betting you won’t hear Trump talk or tweet about it.