Looking Through the Smoke for the Fire.

In life, where there are always at least two sides to every argument, it is often difficult to filter out the extraneous noise and get down to the heart of the matter.  In fact, what one side might call diversionary or unnecessary facts might well be called pertinent and critical elements by the opposing side.  Given the polarized environment we have today, this situation is more prominent than ever and it is so very difficult to weed out the fact from the fiction.  Each political party, the mainstream media, and even society in general has adopted an attitude that distortion, misrepresentations, straw men exaggerations, and downright lies are all perfectly acceptable in the quest for a personal or political agenda.

But as we all experience from living, eventually the smoke will clear.  At some point, the noise will die down and we will be confronted with the bare truth.  And even though historical revisionists have a reached a new level of efficiency, reality has a way of outlasting all of its competition and with varying lengths of time passing; a clear view of the way things were and are will come into view. 

There are several issues swirling around our political world these days that are perfect examples of what I’m talking about.  And although oftentimes the time it takes for the truth to come out seems to be excessive; it is probably true that the length of time required to drill down to the real center is directly related to how thick the smoke is.  Put another way…if there is little substance to the objections, the smoke ends up being a thin veil and drifts away in the short term.  At that point in time, the paramount question should become what, if any, judgment should be made upon the creators of the smoke.  Was the smoke thick enough to constitute valid objections and concerns and once they were addressed, did the accusers get their proper credit for bringing up serious conversation and move on with the process?  Or…were the accusers exposed for creating an environment where the wispy smoke they’d been spreading turns out to be nothing more than clanging cymbals and static; a hypocritical and shallow effort to obscure their lack of legitimate points in opposition?  And, were these accusers who sucked all of the air from the room with their rhetorical nonsense get exposed as the charlatans they are?  Among the many issues cropping up in WDC lately, there are five that fall squarely in this realm.   It will be most interesting, and consequential, to see exactly how thick the smoke was when the room clears.

Did the Donald Trump Campaign collude with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?  For well over a year, a large portion of which Obama and the Democrats controlled the White House and government agencies, evidence has been sought to verify that the Trump Campaign was working behind the scenes with Putin to defeat Hillary.  The reality is that nothing…nothing…of substance has been discovered by accusers to prove this illicit relationship; heck, a significant portion of the accusations occurred after the election in November of 2016.  Even more remarkable is the fact even if it had occurred, it is not against the law.  Now don’t get me wrong: It would certainly be unacceptable and unethical and totally reprehensible; but it is not illegal.  The Obama Administration made a clumsy effort to influence the outcome of Israel’s recent elections using taxpayer money (unsuccessfully, BTW).  There can be little doubt that many Presidents before Obama, from both parties, dabbled in the sovereign political affairs of foreign nations.  This does not make it right; it just makes it yesterday’s news and builds a strong foundation for ferreting out hypocrisy.  So we now have Special Counsel Mueller investigating a matter that has no central crime, no evidence of wrongdoing, and is accompanied by a political frenzy that rivals my seven-year old granddaughter’s drama queen act when she doesn’t get her way.  This affair certainly seems to be putting to the test the old adage that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.  A huge amount of taxpayer dollars will be spent on a runaway lawyer casually pursuing an ill-defined goal while those in Executive Agencies and Congress, whose official duty it is to monitor the very things the Special Counsel is looking into, can simply pass the buck and perform calculated commentary as the investigation interminably proceeds.  When the smoke clears on this one, there should several dozen egg cartons used up for face painting.

DNC Lawsuit Regarding Clinton Favoritism over Sanders.  One of the side benefits (perhaps sometimes the prime directive) of blowing smoke is obscuring issues other than the one talked about by drowning out all the other talk in  the room.  This would explain why many have heard nothing about the DNC being sued by Bernie Sander’s supporters for their actions during the Democratic Presidential Primary that appeared to unfairly (illegally?) favor Hillary Clinton and helped to insure her ultimate primary victory.  Based on DNC statements, leaks of DNC conversations, and the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair, the smoke surrounding this episode looks pretty thick.  We can look forward to a pretty definitive verdict on this one due to the fact that it is playing out in court and not in the layers of government administration.   Perhaps the oddity of this story lies in the fact that the future relevance applies much more to Sanders, who likely harbors future political aspirations, than it does to Clinton, who needs to simply just…go…away.

The Obama Administration’s Unmasking Practices and Security Leaks.  This one is going to take a while to finalize; if it ever is.  But the implications stemming from this potential scandal go much further than any of the others we discuss today.  If ideologues and amateur professionals like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice are able to arbitrarily (and perhaps illegally) unmask U.S. citizens from the results of intelligence surveillance and then selectively leak them to friendly media for political purposes, then we have a situation that makes Watergate look like a schoolyard marbles game.  As has been stated many times by many people, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If proven to be true, the actions alleged in this abuse of power episode must result in somebody, somewhere, being prosecuted for crimes.  Liberty requires the absence of unwarranted government intrusion into our personal lives.  The retort that the intrusion might have occurred for specific and allegedly justified purposes does not alter the fact that our government must respect the privacy of its citizens.  The inescapable truth is that our government (regardless of majority Party) cannot be trusted to be given the keys to our private lives, no matter what the justification is.  Does this call into question the balance between security and citizen privacy?  Of course it does.  Freedom comes with a price and sometimes that price entails risks.  Those risks are the price we pay for our way of life and the liberties we enjoy.  The mere fact that the Obama Administration may have abused the power of citizen surveillance for purely political purposes makes the dual case that those guilty of this abuse should pay the maximum price and that as stated before, our government simply does not have the credibility or the integrity to enjoy such empowerment.  When the smoke clears on this one, someone should be receiving their meals through the door.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Federal Appeal of Trump Travel Restrictions.  For me personally (given up front that I am a rank amateur legal observer), the bizarre political twisting of the Federal Judiciary began with the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare when they determined that the tax that was passed through Congress as not a tax was in fact a tax.  If words have no meaning in the law itself, how can there be any order to our society?  The most recent example of this political contamination of our Judiciary is the recent Federal Appeals Court (Ninth Circuit in the West, Fourth Circuit in the East) rulings on President Trump’s travel restrictions. Not only are these restrictions remarkably similar to similar restrictions under Obama; not only are they clearly within the legal authority of the Chief Executive; and not only are they clearly warranted in light of recent terrorist activities (i.e. Manchester)…they are simply common sense steps to take in the crazy world that we find ourselves living in these days.  Both Courts split on their travel restriction opinions down party lines with the minority issuing very adamant dissensions.  Specifically, the dissent recently issued by the losing minority in the Fourth Circuit goes a tremendous way towards exploding the idiotic rationale used by the majority in a transparent attempt to further a political agenda through legal means.  Read the dissent here http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448047/whats-stake-court-cases-about-travel-ban .  These cases are no doubt headed to the Supreme Court and whether you are Democrat or Republican, agree or disagree with the travel restrictions; we should all hope that the SCOTUS will restore some semblance of legal order to this most recent adventure in judiciary madness run amuck.

The ultimate decider: Real Results.  Let’s face it: Presidents receive far too much credit when times are good and far too much blame when times are bad.  This is not to say that they can’t on occasion display extraordinary leadership and have a disproportionate influence on certain issues.  But by and large, our lives are far more influenced by the laws that are passed by Congress and the enforcement of those laws by the Judiciary.  I will acknowledge that the overt and growing influence of Executive Actions have been distorting this democratic principle over the last few decades; but our country still remains a nation of laws and compliance with those laws.  Therefore, it is patently fair and proper that the ultimate judge, both historically and politically, of a President is the state of the nation under his tenure.  Life is not always fair, and the same might be said for presidential politics.  Some Presidents get breaks in the makeup of Congress, the ebb and flow of domestic economic cycles, and the arbitrary nature of foreign policy and global events.  Stuff happens and oftentimes stuff takes precedence over the best laid plans. That being said…it is reasonable (and equitable) to assume that Donald Trump’s effectiveness as President will be based on how this country fares under his tutelage.  Should we consider how unfairly the media has treated his early days in office with negativity and the lack of a traditional Presidential honeymoon?  Should we take into account the pitiful state of domestic and foreign policy that was left to him by his predecessor?  Should we factor in that the Federal Judiciary has decided to engage in legal and political jujitsu in an attempt to foil his initiatives? What about the fact that the Republicans, his party, control both Houses of Congress?  What about the fact that federal tax revenues are at an all-time and historical high?  Should he be credited with the advantage of Executive Action latitude being at the highest point in memory; giving him a relatively free hand to act in many areas free of Congressional input?  The simple answer to all these questions is: No.  Oh, we can read about it and talk about it and think about it; as we should.  We can take it all into consideration.  After all, the ingredients have a huge impact on the quality of the cake.  But the final score is what goes in the record books.  How does the cake taste?  You were hired to do a job: do the damn job.

At the end of the day, when the smoke clears entirely, when the debits and credits are tallied and the paycheck lies on the table beside all the bills to be paid…reality and the quality of life will render its verdict on the Trump Presidency.  So, watch and see how the AHCA plays out and how it impacts health care.  Can real tax reform work its way through Congress and free up the economic engine of America?  Will responsible, compassionate, common sense immigration reform begin to be implemented?  Will some type of infrastructure bill create some good paying jobs across our nation and help to restore our transportation system to a better condition?  Will someone…anyone…in Congress find a way to restore some semblance of fiscal responsibility into our federal budget?  These are the issues that will determine the success or failure of Trump.  In the sands of time, the reasons why they did or did not happen will be lost.  Once the air is cleared and the noise dies down, reality will gavel a verdict and all the other distractions will be irrelevant.  Now…just how do you think that will turn out?