Robert Mueller holding a news conference is almost up there
with Moses coming down from Mount Sinai. Like Moses, Mueller brought a hard message
with him. Here is what it made me think about.
In a standard criminal case, the cops collect evidence of a
crime and present it to the DA. If the DA decides the evidence is sufficient,
the suspect is charged with the crime. The case has to be brought into the
right court, and is TRIED (that’s where we get the word “trial” from). If the charge
is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is acquitted (or
exonerated) by the jury.
Mr. Mueller said that the evidence against President Trump in
the Russia probe was insufficient for a charge of conspiracy. In the case of
obstruction of justice in particular, Mueller said he and his team did not decide
on a charge because it was not their business to do so, according to Department
of Justice rules. Mueller insisted, however, that Trump had not been exonerated
by the investigation. That would be up to Congress. So, the water is still
muddy.
Under Mueller’s principle of fairness, it would have been
wrong to even say Trump was chargeable, because the President does not have the
ability to defend himself in the regular criminal justice system. If House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi really feels that Trump may have committed an impeachable
offense, as she put it recently, applying Mueller’s principle of fairness, she
has simply added to the mud, and the case should now be pursued through the
system that applies to a sitting President, namely, the impeachment process.
Opening an impeachment inquiry is not just a political chess
move. Even on those terms, as a former Congressman, who is a Republican, observed in
a TV interview, Democrats may suffer more damage by NOT moving toward
impeachment than by doing so. If they want to retain their power in Congress,
at some point they have to exercise it.
As with any court activity, the outcome of an impeachment
proceeding isn’t certain. Even if the House makes a good case, the President may
get a pass in the Senate, and then, he could claim full exoneration. But there
is still another court, the supremest one of them all, in politics at least:
the court of public opinion. As voters, we all have jury duty in 2020.
The feel-good story of the past week has got to be the
pledge by billionaire Robert F. Smith to pay off the student loans of the
graduating class at Atlanta’s Morehouse College. It’s important on many levels.
It’s not just about a wealthy man “giving back.” The benefactor billionaire in
this case is black; the beneficiaries are students at a traditionally black
college.
By now you have heard all the late-night TV jokes about the pressure this has put on
other famous or wealthy people invited to speak at graduation ceremonies, who
are all going to feel like pikers, and how picky the schools will be about
courting speakers for next year. And then there are some serious critics, who
say that students shouldn’t have to depend on angel benefactors to take care of
their burdensome loans. It doesn’t seem fair to other students still bound by
loans, or who had to pay them back in the past, and some of the lucky ones may actually
feel guilt about their good fortune. But I say, thanks to Mr. Smith for setting
the example. Helping even one is better than helping none.
In a related gesture, NYU last year announced the elimination
of tuition for students entering its medical school, thanks to the generosity
of its trustees and alumni.
Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has put
forward a plan to tax the super-rich so that millions of students would have
their loans forgiven and public colleges would be tuition-free. Whether you
agree with the concept or with her numbers or not, it’s an idea that may be
largely responsible for putting her among the top-tier candidates for 2020. It
has taken a while, but the financing of
college education is officially a thing now.
There’s a lot of talk about investing in infrastructure,
like roads, bridges, pipelines, etc. Now we have started the conversation about
investing in human infrastructure – the people who can learn how to design all
these things, create new technologies, and maybe even cure disease or help us
all deal with climate change. College may not be for everyone, but we have the
opportunity now to figure out how to make it accessible to those who could
really benefit from it. It’s a benefit all of us could share in.
A woman’s ability to terminate her pregnancy under Roe v.
Wade is under attack on several fronts, but these are just the opening battles
in a long war. The new anti-abortion measure signed into law by Alabama’s
governor is so extreme that even evangelist Pat Robertson can’t quite stomach it.
The law won’t take effect anytime soon, due to legal challenges. But the anti-abortion forces are rolling out
their artillery in the hope of fighting their way to favorable ground at the
Supreme Court.
Those against abortion often stand on the belief that life
is sacred. That’s kind of shaky ground in Alabama, which is among the top 15
states in carrying out the death penalty. Isn’t it interesting how often those
two positions seem to go together, especially in the South?
Just so you know, I am in favor of a woman’s right to
choose, but abortion has always been a little troubling to me. For example, Ohio
just passed a law banning abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. It’s
very hard to believe that something with a heartbeat isn’t actually alive. Or
that a fetus isn’t quite a human being.
That said, our laws permit the taking of life under certain
circumstances. There is self-defense, of course, and the aforementioned death
penalty. But we have also come around, at least in some states, to allow assisted
suicide; why shouldn’t a choice be allowed at the beginning of life? There are
good reasons why a woman may need to make this choice. In the first trimester,
she doesn’t have to have a reason satisfactory to anyone but herself. I believe,
however, that there are very few pregnant women who make this choice casually.
Many commentators say that while draconian laws like
Alabama’s won’t make it through the Supreme Court, other state laws chipping
away at Roe will survive, and there will be an expansion of “abortion tourism,”
with women fleeing restrictive states to get their procedures done in the
liberal ones. The first Civil War was fought over a social condition. So might
the next one.
The current phase of the conflict is just the beginning. But
before anyone thinks victory is in the
bag, our history has shown that those on the Supreme Court don’t always do what
the Presidents who appointed them intended. Conservative or liberal, they have
their legacies to consider, and public opinion does get through.
t seems like there’s a contest going on among Democratic
presidential hopefuls as to who uses the I-word and how often. The ”I”, of
course, stands for impeachment. Should the Democrats simply focus on turning
Donald Trump out of office next year, or go down the impeachment road now and
risk not only diverting attention from governing, but also a devastating loss
of face if the effort fails, paving the way for Trump’s re-election?
We are all drawn back to Watergate days and how similar this
time seems to that. But it was different in one critical respect. The Watergate
fallout unfolded early in Richard Nixon’s last term. It took a full two years
to make the case for impeaching him, plus, there was the much-referenced
smoking gun in Nixon’s own words on tape. The current situation is happening
late in President Trump’s first term. Is there time to build an impeachment case
against him before next year’s election?
I’m reminded of a professional boxer I used to see on TV
years ago. He wasn’t a Muhammad Ali. His style wasn’t pretty; he lumbered ungracefully
around the ring. But he had a devastating right-hand punch. The thing is, he rarely
threw it. Few opponents survived the match when he did, but all were afraid of
it and kept a respectful distance. This boxer knew he could be patient and wait
for the right time to throw it.
If the impeachment “punch” were thrown today, it’s a given
that it would fail. In spite of what’s already on the record in the case of
this President, the votes just aren’t there in the Senate for it to succeed.
But the vote isn’t being taken today. It doesn’t have to mean, however, that impeachment is off the table. Opponents
of Trump can continue building a case, not only for the Senate, but for the
court of public opinion. It has to be so overwhelming a case that Trump
supporters finally realize the game is up.
Now for a little metaphor mix. In my garage there are a lot
of tools. Most were there long before I moved in to this house. I am not
especially handy, but if a fix-it problem comes up, I am pretty confident that
I can find something in the garage that will help me solve it. There are some
tools I have used rarely, only once or twice. But I’m grateful they are there and
that my in-laws, who were here before
me, collected them. Impeachment is like one of those tools, or to return to the
original metaphor here, that feared right-hand punch that is still available when
– and if – it’s time to throw it.
It might seem premature to be using “mid-life crisis” in
talking about something that’s been
around for less than two decades, but it’s still a long time for a company like
Facebook. For some of us, Facebook is almost a utility now. For others, it’s an
obsession, and for still others, a soapbox. For the individual user, like me
for instance, it likely has been each of those things at different times.
The news is telling us that Facebook is looking down the
barrel of a $5 billion federal fine for failing to take steps to protect users’
privacy. Negotiations are underway about
this, and one of the remedies is the appointment of a committee -- yes, of
actual humans – to oversee Facebook’s privacy policies.
Meanwhile, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been talking about
transforming the whole user experience to stress communication with friends and
family and de-emphasize the use of FB for exhibitionism, interference by
foreign adversaries, and hate speech. It’s kind of a shame that people can’t play
nicely in the sandbox, and now the sand itself has to be changed.
Many have decided that it’s not a nice place to play at all anymore
and have pulled the plug, at least for personal use, notably the millennial
congresswoman we call AOC, who termed social media a public health risk. I
tried to give FB up for Lent, with what I and my friends will agree were decidedly
mixed results. I did manage to use it less, and yes, I did get more things done
in what’s generally known as real life.
But if we use Facebook, is not that still part of our real
life? We have constantly heard the social scientists talking about work-life
balance, as if what we do for a living (if it needs to be for a living) is not
part of life, that life is only what we do in our free time. We can even
revisit the expression “free time.”
The useful part of that work-life phrase, though, is
balance. It’s possible to exercise some control short of disconnection. I saw
an article online today about spring cleaning strategies for our social media
experience. The writer borrowed from neatness guru Marie Kondo, whose mantra
is, if it gives you joy, keep it, and if it’s no longer useful, thank it for
its service and kiss it goodbye (almost literally).
So while Facebook may be cleaning up its act, perhaps we can
do something similar. If you are one of those who can unplug entirely,
congratulations may be in order. But for those of us who don’t or can’t, we can
at least face up to the part that social media use plays in our lives and work
on putting it in its place. I believe that by now, we have to accept that it
has one.
