J.E. Dean

Farewell to the Washington Deadskins by J.E. Dean

July 8, 2020 by J.E. Dean Leave a Comment

At a World Series game last year, one fan displayed a sign reading, “Bring Football Back to DC.” That’s how bad the team has performed in recent years. Gone are the years where the waiting list for season tickets was more than 40,000. Gone are the days when Monday mornings each fall included a discussion of the team’s performance the day before. In a word, the team has become the Deadskins.

It did not have to be that way but when ownership of the team shifted from Jack Kent Cooke in 1999 to Daniel Snyder, things went South. The team has been mismanaged throughout his tenure and, not surprisingly, it has lost with remarkable consistency. In short order, one-time fans, such as this writer who grew up in the Washington suburbs, quit watching the games. The 91,000-seat stadium, built in 1997 to accommodate part of the waiting list, soon sported empty seats. The waiting list disappeared. Then Mr. Snyder, brilliant executive that he is, decreased the number of seats at FedEx field by 9,000 to reduce his embarrassment. This move hasn’t solved the problem. In 2019, the average attendance at Washington home games was only 65,488, suggesting that some fans buy the $157 tickets but no longer bother to attend. Did I hear someone say, “Dead team walking?”

While Snyder was orchestrating the destruction of a once successful team, he steadfastly ignored calls to change the team’s name. “We will never change the name of the team. As a lifelong [racial slur deleted] fan, and I think that the [racial slur deleted] fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means . . .. We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER—you can use caps.” Incredibly, Snyder also claimed the name honors and respects Native Americans.

This week, prompted by the Black Lives Matter movement but, perhaps more importantly (to Snyder), after FedEx requested a name change, Snyder relented. After all, FedEx paid $205 million in 1999 for the naming rights to the team’s stadium. And if the team is to build a new home, FedEx sponsorship may be needed (despite FedEx CEO Smith reportedly putting his minority interest in the team up for sale). Nike also has removed all team merchandise from its online store. Snyder is not as oblivious as he has sometimes appeared. He announced he has initiated a process to change the team’s nickname.

If there is an NFL season later this year, expect Washington’s team to take the field with a new name. That’s a good thing. And hopefully, Kansas City’s team, fresh off from winning the championship, will follow suit. And about those baseball teams in Cleveland and Atlanta. . ..

Who might oppose a name change? None other than President Trump, never one to ignore a divisive issue. Here’s the Presidential Tweet: “They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness, but now the Washington Redskins & Cleveland Indians, two fabled sports franchises, look like they are going to be changing their names in order to be politically correct. Indians, like Elizabeth Warren, must be very angry right now!” His view here is not new. In 2015, he said he thought “Indians” thought the name was a “positive.” Right.

As a one-time Washington fan, I doubt the name change will restore the team’s popularity. My team, if you can say I embrace one these days, is the Ravens. My memories of attending games at the old RFK stadium, however, are still with me. These include watching the team’s once-famed marching band play “Dixie” before each game. This loathsome practice offended the African American fans in the stadium, of which there were many. The practice ended in 1964 after a fan appealed directly to the team’s President to stop.

My memories include moments that were at the time magical, such as the team’s win in the 1983 NFC championship game against Dallas and a 1966 game against the Giants in which a combined total of 113 points were scored. Memories also include numerous players being carried off the field with concussions and other injuries and, of course, numerous drunks some of whom appeared to have vocabularies consisting exclusively of obscenities. When my son was young, I took him to a few games, but quit after an encounter with one such inebriated fan, a fellow with a pathological hatred of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Next year will see the demolition of the old RFK stadium, the site of most of the team’s glory days. Mr. Snyder hopes to build a new stadium on the grounds of the old one. He hopes that bringing the team “home” to DC will reignite interest in the team. Maybe he’s right. But, to get permission to build a new stadium in the city, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser says, the odious name must go. That, and of course, money, I’m afraid, are the main reason Mr. Snyder has “come around.” Sad.

I frankly don’t care if the new stadium is built, what new name is chosen, or even if the team starts to win. I will, however, welcome the “monument” to racism that the team’s name currently represents, being toppled. I also hope the Ravens trounce DC soundly next time the two teams meet.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Reckless Endangerment In a Pandemic by J.E. Dean

July 1, 2020 by J.E. Dean 3 Comments

Several States are now reporting record numbers of new cases of the coronavirus. Over 2.5 million cases nationwide are now on record, with over 66,700 in Maryland. It may still be part of the first wave or the beginning of the feared second, but call it what you will, it means that the crisis will be with us for much longer than we hoped. Saying this is unfortunate is an understatement. Many more people will die, suffer pain, and experience economic hardship as a result.

Although it may be a while before a definitive analysis is done that establishes causes for the spike in cases, one obvious explanation is the relaxation of social distancing and the widespread disregard for the CDC’s guidelines for masks, hand-washing and other preventive measures. If all of us were as diligent on these measures as people in several other countries, the pandemic would be much more under control.

Why is the U.S. so ineffective at controlling the virus? Maybe it’s our system of limited government. China has enjoyed great success at stopping the spread of the virus because of its authoritarian government. In China, when the government tells you to stay home, you stay home or ignore the order at your own peril. Here, consequences are minimal. We absolutely don’t want an authoritarian government here (at least most of us don’t), but as far as controlling a pandemic is concerned, it has its advantages.

Disturbingly, too many of us are quite comfortable throwing our masks away, going to crowded beaches, or otherwise abandoning social distancing. This is especially true of the young, many of whom apparently believe that while they may get sick or pass the virus on to others, they themselves are not likely to die. The apparent assumption is that high-risk individuals, such as this writer, need to take responsibility for their own safety. Not only is such an attitude uncivil, it ought to be illegal. We should not have the right to recklessly expose others to a deadly virus. But it gets worse. Some of our community and political leaders actively encourage people to violate CDC guidelines. Among these people are some pastors and, of course, our President.

Did you watch the rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix? I cringed as I saw a young, maskless father frolicking with his infant son before one of the speeches. Where are Child Protective Services when you need them? And should these rallies have been held at all? More than 6,000 people chose to attend in Tulsa. Is it their “right” to throw caution to the winds? It is under current law. And we would be foolish to change that. What should be changed are the consequences for anyone organizing or holding an event likely to create substantial risk to others.

Did you know that before the Tulsa rally, the President’s campaign staff combed through the stands and removed stickers that directed attendees not to sit in every other seat. The stickers read, “Do Not Sit Here, Please!” Because campaign staff removed the stickers, social distancing was largely ignored in the arena, despite there being plenty of space. Was the removal of these stickers, which reflected the obvious intention to discourage social distancing for the purpose of creating the appearance of a full arena, a crime? I say “yes.” View the video for yourself here.

A new statute should be passed that creates criminal penalties for “Reckless Endangerment in a Pandemic.” Such a statute would create safe harbors for events that adopted and enforced the CDC guidelines —things like not only requiring masks but removing anyone from the event who refused to wear one. Events organized or held would by subject to fines or other penalties. Importantly, the structure of this legislation must balance civil liberties with effectively addressing the virus.

Had the “Reckless Endangerment in a Pandemic Act” been the law of the land earlier this month, the Trump campaign would face prosecution. That will strike some readers as unfair, but if hundreds if not thousands of lives would be saved, maybe it’s not. Citizens do not have the right to recklessly endanger other citizens.

This country needs to take this pandemic seriously, or 2021 will be worse than 2020. We need to learn from our mistakes made to date and admit that until we get a vaccine, social distancing and the rest of the CDC guidelines are our best bet for survival. Passing a “Reckless Endangerment in a Pandemic Act” may seem draconian, but it may be necessary.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Here We Go Again: Is 2016 about to be Repeated? By J.E. Dean

June 24, 2020 by J.E. Dean

2020 has been a terrible year. But it can get worse. Trump could get re-elected. Is 2016 about to repeat itself?

Recent revelations by former National Security Advisor John Bolton and others have confirmed that the President will do anything to get re-elected. While it is unclear whether he understands it is wrong to seek foreign help to get reelected, that’s what he is doing. And because Trump has done more than any foreign adversary could to undermine our role in the world, plenty of countries are more than happy to oblige.

Evidence of foreign interference already has been documented with no meaningful response. Don’t expect one from the White House. That’s about as likely as expecting Trump to turn himself in to the IRS for cheating on his taxes. Vice President Biden has raised the issue, but it sometimes seems no one’s paying attention. Biden and most other Democrats are closely watching the polls. There’s a lot to like. So far, the election appears to be Biden’s, and the Democrats, to lose. If that’s the case, what should a gaffe-prone candidate do? Lay low? Be careful?

And therein lies the problem. Democrats again have counted chickens before they’re hatched. They look at Trump’s blunders, lies, crimes, and chaos and are unable to imagine him getting re-elected. And because the polls suggest they are right, they are not doing enough to ensure the right election results. They are making the same mistake they made in 2016, when pretty much every Democrat, from Hillary on down, assumed the election was a formality.

What if the polls are wrong? What if overconfident Democrats assume the polls are right and, wanting to avoid the risk of contracting the virus, stay home? What if Trumpers, motivated by what they see as an unfair attack on the President and their priorities, turn out in unexpectedly high numbers? What if vote-by-mail proves to be a fiasco, as Trump and others predict? What would Trump do if evidence, even scant evidence, suggests that the election outcome is unclear? Add to this the unfortunate possibility of Biden becoming incapacitated in some fashion between now and election day.

Are these real worries? Maybe not all of them, but there is certainly enough to cause one to worry. Democrats, independents, alienated republicans, and everyone else eligible to vote must get in gear to minimize the possibility of a disaster in November.

Necessary actions include the obvious tasks of voter registration but also should include getting everyone to focus on the election. Think about it. Discussions of Biden’s agenda have taken a back seat to the issue of racism. These discussions are important and overdue but not to the extent that it blinds voters to the possibility of Trump winning in November. Put in other words, progressives need to broaden their focus beyond police brutality, racism, and economic justice and start focusing on Trump’s record and what a new, sane administration might look like.

The leadership of the Democratic party needs to do something it hasn’t done this year to date—take risks. Those risks include getting Biden in front of the key issues of the day. He should lead calls for racial justice and criminal justice reform, rather than throwing his support behind the proposals of others. He also needs to take Trump on. What if Biden challenged Trump to a debate now? It could be a win for Biden if Trump declined. It would also be a win if Trump embarrassed himself in such a debate. It would be a win if it re-awakened the public to the pending election. The only loss would be if Biden wasn’t up to the task. I think he is, but the Democratic leadership and Biden himself need to take the risk.

Hillary Clinton, whether you like her or not, should have been elected President in 2016. Democratic complacency is what let Russian interference and other shenanigans help Trump win. If democrats and other anti-Trump voters had been on the job in 2016, Trump would have lost and returned to reality TV and real estate fraud, clearly his strong suit.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Urgent Action Necessary: Addressing Police Abuse by J.E. Dean

June 17, 2020 by J.E. Dean

Is the criminal justice system, riddled with systemic racism and unacceptable episodes of violence, beyond repair? How close are we to entire communities openly rebelling against their own police forces? These fundamental questions face us during this troubled time. We will find ourselves in a deeper world of hurt if we don’t take appropriate actions.

Despite courageous leadership by several governors and legislators, the much-needed consensus of what to do has yet to emerge. Reform bills, such as the Justice in Policing Act of 2020, introduced by Democrats in the House of Representatives and similar legislation introduced or passed in several States and cities, attempt to address the need for more stringent guidelines in executing the policing function. Enactment of these proposals clearly represents progress but does not go as far as other proposals to “defund” the police.

Calls to “defund” the police have been embraced enthusiastically by many, dismissed as unrealistic by others, and comprehensively understood by few. The essence of the idea is not to eliminate police forces but to reconfigure them by eliminating functions better performed by social workers or others. The devil is in the details, but the overall concept is worth the work. One example of a “devil” is the proposal to substitute social workers for police in responding to domestic disputes. How do you know if one or both of the arguing parties is not armed, drunk, or drugged-out? Must social workers be trained to handle out-of-control people? If so, how would these “specially-trained” social workers differ from the police they replaced?

Solutions to these and other pressing issues can be developed. But we must avoid making a bad situation worse or create new problems. Defunding legislation cannot be considered or enacted in a hurried fashion. Even worse is the recent politicizing of the idea. Its unfortunately simplistic name has made it easy for some groups led by the Trump administration to use it for political gain. Should the 2020 elections be about whether the police should be “supported” or eliminated?

As a result of this obfuscation, as well as the difficulty of competently reimaging policing, it is unlikely that police will be defunded anytime soon. This will disappoint many, and may represent a missed opportunity, but does not mean that progress cannot be made. To that end, here are a few observations that point to needed change:

Accept the truth that in America today, police frighten people of color and many others. Khalil Gibran Muhammad wrote, “White people, by and large, do not know what it is like to be occupied by a police force. They do not understand it because it is not the type of policing they experience. Because they are treated like individuals, they believe that if ‘I am not breaking the law, I will never be abused.” Once we accept that current practices reflect societal racism, the process of figuring out how to change police practices and philosophy to prevent anyone from feeling as though they are being “occupied” by police can begin.

Immediately end the militarization of police. The sight of police attired and acting like an occupying army frightens us all, but for people of color, the danger is real. Studies show that the militarization of police results in more violent encounters with the public, regardless of the crime rate for the area in which they operate. More disheartening is the finding of a 2018 study that showed that militarized police force was used more frequently in communities with large African American populations than elsewhere, even when controlling for the crime rate. Ending the use of military equipment and tactics, except perhaps in rare circumstances that require them, would be a major step towards reconnecting communities with police and restoring trust. Importantly, the pending House police reform bill places new limits on the transfer of military equipment to the police.

Improve police recruiting, monitoring, and training. The question of how Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis policeman accused of murdering George Floyd, got hired and why he could remain on the force despite multiple complaints of unnecessary and inappropriate force has yet to be satisfactorily answered. Did any psychological screening take place? If so, what was its quality? Were complaints filed against him taken seriously? If so, why was he returned to the streets?

Officer Chauvin’s record suggests he should never have been hired. He appears to have had few of the characteristics cited as important qualities for “good” police to have: Compassion and empathy, integrity, developed negotiation skills, eagerness to learn, and mental agility. Better screening of recruits to ensure that those with a pre-disposition to violence or prejudice never get hired will result in police less likely to engage in criminal activity. And add to that training the reinforcement of good behavior and police violence will decrease. For example, the officers who passively witnessed George Floyd’s murder should have been trained to immediately take action to stop it.

Enact immediate reforms to minimize police violence. This includes several provisions in the pending House bill, such as requiring body cameras, banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants, eliminating racial and other profiling strategies, and getting the Federal government involved in allegations of police misconduct by establishing a national database to track reports of abuse.

With luck, political courage, and a lot of work, we will see legislation enacted in coming weeks. That, however, cannot and should not be the end of efforts to reimagine the police function in a way that benefits everyone. It is imperative that the movement to fix the police problem continues. Our future depends on it.

How urgent is action to reform the police? Consider the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” This quote gives us a litmus test to measure police reform. Any exercise of the police function that is inconsistent with establishing justice is counterproductive. In fact, it is abuse.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Dangerous Times Can be Made Less Dangerous by J.E. Dean

June 6, 2020 by J.E. Dean

Between Covid-19, the murder of George Floyd, the resultant political unrest, and the myriad of governmental and societal problems that gave rise to the unrest, it is impossible to conclude that we are not living through dangerous times. Add to this the issues with how the Trump administration has responded to both the virus and the unrest, and the depth of that danger becomes more obvious.

It would break no new ground to review the recent developments that gave rise to where we are now. Suffice it to say that we have health issues nowhere near a solution, political issues that are worsening, an economic crisis that will likely be long-lived (despite a drop in new unemployment claims and a lower than feared unemployment rate), and nobody to lead us out of the woods. Yes, a major part of the crisis is how our President is responding to it. But we need not review the horrors of that response here.

More useful, I hope, is creating a list of things that should happen to mitigate what could be a long, hot, bloody, and risk-filled summer. Better minds than mine might add to or amend this list, but here is my start:

Renew and reinforce efforts to combat the spread of the virus. The protests and increasing indications that some of us believe “the worst is over” are likely to lead to new spikes in infections and deaths in coming months. Most likely, we will experience a spike this summer and a second wave this fall and winter. Given that the identification and wide-spread distribution of a vaccine is not expected before the new year, our best, perhaps only hope, is that people use masks, wash their hands, judicially venture forth out of their homes despite “the re-opening” and redouble their efforts to support adoption of these practices by everyone.

Commit to learn from the murder of George Floyd and be part of a process to find solutions to the issues behind police misbehavior, economic and social injustice, and widespread racism. A dialogue is necessary in which we open our minds to new information and new solutions. For example, despite accepting the need to stop police misconduct, I am perplexed by recent calls to “defund the police,” or to disband police forces and create community entities to meet what were once seen as policing needs. Clearly, I am missing something, but, before calling the proponents of this idea a name, maybe I need to step out of the box, learn what is being proposed, and then open my mouth.

Do everything necessary to preserve our democracy, the Constitution, and civil peace. Right now, many of us perceive the leadership in the White House as unstable. Given that the next opportunity to elect new leadership doesn’t come until November, we need to voice our opposition to things being said and done at the White House, Congress, and state and local governments that are inconsistent with our shared values. Yes, this means peacefully protesting to reinforce our strong convictions that practices such as engaging the military to “dominate” cities and suppress dissent are not acceptable. This also means doing things like writing to General Mattis to thank him for his courage in speaking out should you agree with him that using the military as a domestic police force is both bad for the military and destructive to civil unity.

Be part of the revival of our economy. Despite signs that parts of the economy are clawing their way back to life, it will be an exceptionally long time before we see the levels of economic activity that were common before the virus hit. Between now and then, we will see hundreds of thousands of small businesses go out of business if they do not get help from people like us. This means using restaurant take-out, judiciously venturing out for a meal in a safe restaurant, most likely al fresco dining, and returning to retail shops wearing masks. Unless people do this, things will get worse, much worse.

Be patient. Most of us are not so upset with the continued “lock-down” and slow re-opening of our communities that we consider lugging an AK-47 to a public meeting, but many of us are getting anxious. Cabin fever is more common than the Coronavirus. If we let our need to attend live sporting events, concerts, and social gatherings trump our interest in putting the pandemic behind us, we are only hurting ourselves. To do so is to send an engraved invitation to the virus to stay with us another year.

Be optimistic. Although recent civil unrest prompted some of us to wonder how bad things are likely to get before they get better, we are starting to accept that some good things will come from this. First, we have seen unprecedented racial diversity among the protesters in virtually every city and state. Hopefully, this means that a growing number of us, of all races, are accepting the need to break new ground in combatting racism. Second, there is an unmistakable light at the end of our long, dark, and dank political tunnel. It is too early to call the November elections, but all indications suggest change is on the way. If we can hold this house together until then, one part of the current mess will be cleaned up.

We are living in dangerous but also historic times. With a little luck and effort on everyone’s part, we will learn from the pandemic, making us better prepared for the future, and embrace new laws and policies as a result of the messages sent by millions of protesters who are still taking to the streets as this piece is being written.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

Is the GOP Dying? By J.E. Dean

May 30, 2020 by J.E. Dean

Is the GOP about to die? Current polls suggest that the party’s support in key demographic areas is sinking and that in January 2021, Biden will be President and Democrats will control both the House and Senate. Those Republicans who have not already quit the party will engage in an orgy of finger-pointing and reassessment. The finger-pointing will be, well, pointless. The reassessment will be painful. If it’s an honest reassessment, the conclusion should be that it’s time for the party to hang it up.

Go out of business? Yes. The GOP is an irreparably damaged brand. Several key demographics now associate it with injustice, inequity, and oppression. For many, mention of the word “Republican” will conjure up words like racist, greed, lying, white, misogynist, and old. True? For what appears to be a slight majority, yes. Those answering no are, sadly, more likely to be white, xenophobic, and distrustful of government.

A brand so damaged cannot be saved. In large part, GM put Oldsmobile out of its misery in 2004 because it no longer stood for anything worth buying. They determined that reforming the brand, which would have meant radically improving its car, would not be enough to convince buyers to choose it over alternatives. Better to kill a skunk than to hope its stench can somehow be removed.

The demise of the Republican party is already underway. California’s election rules already result in many November elections pairing two Democrats to compete with each other based on votes received in the primary. In most cities, the only hope for a Republican to win mayoral contests is for an incumbent Democrat to implode. Republican governors, like our own Larry Hogan, thrive by differentiating themselves from the party mainstream. Friends describe Hogan as the exception to the rule that all Republicans are bad. Many tell me, “You know, in most ways, he’s not really a Republican. After all, he’s sane.”

If it’s true that the GOP can’t be saved, the question is whether it’s a good thing. One party government likely will lead to excesses. Opposing parties provide essential checks-and-balances. They also serve the function of slowing down law-making by asking questions, channeling the voice of citizens out of the mainstream, and offering alternative visions of the future. When opposing parties work together, national consensus is more likely. And history suggests that when a national consensus is reached, it typically embodies better policies than do laws enacted in times of political division, like today.

An opposing party, provided it hasn’t gone off the deep end like the current GOP, is thus a benefit to the party it opposes. Consider this: If the GOP did not spend so much time proposing walls, race-baiting, and promoting income inequality, the Democratic party would not spend so much time fighting for the basic civil rights involved. Instead, the parties could argue on how best to respond to the coronavirus, rebuild the economy, modernize infrastructure, and improve education. Any of these topics are debates worth engaging in more than the cr*p that passes for politics today.

Assuming that the GOP is dying, what should be done? They shoot horses, don’t they? Those who value what used to be core Republican principles—free trade, reasonable regulation supporting a vibrant capitalist economy, civil rights, privacy, limited government, civility, and freedom from corruption—need to hasten the final demise of the current GOP so the task of creating a new party can get underway. This won’t be easy. Just look what happened to Mitt Romney when he dared to question the President during the impeachment process. It will take clear proof that the current GOP and all the bad things it stands for is dead for most current Republicans and a sizable group of independents to start formulating what a new party should look like.

What about the “core constituencies” of the current GOP? Some would be welcome parts of a new party. And as for others, such as those who lug AK-47s into the Michigan capitol building, effectively embrace white nationalism, and support policies inconsistent with the civil rights of others, good riddance. Let these folks form their own party or, better yet, think about why the party that seemed to embody everything they stood for withered away.

Democrats should welcome the emergence of a new opposing party. Without it, the fissures inside that party may very result in a split that would not bode well for its future. We have already seen Bernie supporters sit on their hands in 2016 and their support for Biden this year has been, to put it mildly, not overwhelming. The creation of a far-left party would almost be as bad as the creation of a far-right one, although one might argue we already have that.

The next decade will be interesting. If our Democracy is to continue, we should all hope that the wreckage of the Republican party will get cleared soon so that a new centrist, economic and justice- focused party can emerge.

Op-ed: It’s Not Too Late to Impeach Donald Trump by J.E. Dean

May 22, 2020 by J.E. Dean

Pundits tell us it is now “too late” to impeach President Trump a second time. It is too close to the election. The nauseating solidarity of Senate Republicans suggests the outcome, regardless of the strength of the charges, would be the same as the first effort. The net effect, we are told, would be to put another arrow in Trump’s quiver, empowering him to both claim the outcome “exonerated” him and that he now has definitive “proof” that Democrats, the press, people of color, and China are out to get him.

Thus, while it is not likely Trump will face impeachment again before election day, it is a shame. He richly deserves it. His actions since his first impeachment are worse than those that preceded it. Since February 5, 2020, the date on which the Senate acquitted Trump, declining to remove him from office despite plentiful evidence, thousands of Americans have died because of what may meet the definition of criminal negligence, which is one way to describe Trump’s failure to prepare adequately and to respond promptly to the coronavirus.

Here is a list of charges that could serve as the basis for a fresh set of Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives:

Criminal negligence. Negligence is the act or omission to act where there is a duty to do so. The Presidential oath of office, which Trump took on January 20, 2017, reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Although reasonable people might argue that what we have seen, despite it being a dismal failure, reflects the best of Trump’s abilities, that might be a harsh comment on someone who has claimed to have a “big brain.” This article of impeachment would allege that Trump failed to execute the office of President by effectively blocking the execution of the function of the Center for Disease Control and other federal agencies in preparing for a pandemic. He also violated the constitution, which was established to promote the general welfare of Americans. Allowing thousands to die by not doing your job is not promoting the general welfare.

Simply put, the President has the best information resources in the world. This is not an accident or serendipity. The President is expected to use the resources made available to him to promote the general welfare. Trump chose not to use them, despite resources being “pushed” to him in the form of national security briefings and specific warnings from administration officials. Trump instead chose to trust his gut.

Involuntary manslaughter. This crime occurs when a person unintentionally causes a death because of reckless failure to act. That is what Trump did. He failed to contain the spread of the coronavirus by not implementing social distancing and other measures sooner despite having knowledge of the risks the virus represented.

This article of impeachment might also include a second count. Trump effectively encouraged people to ingest bleach or have it injected into their bodies. On April 23, at one of his virus briefings, Trump stated, “I see the disinfectant, that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. . .. Is there a way we can do something like that, by injection, inside, or almost a cleaning. . .. (I)t would be interesting to check that.” In fairness to the President, he also added that, “I’m not a doctor,” but added, “I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.”

Importantly there do not appear to be any reports of people dying from drinking bleach directly because of Trump’s comments despite dozens having apparently tried it. Immediately following the comment, calls to poison control centers spiked. Numerous reports of people acting on the President’s comments appeared in the press in following days and would be easily verifiable. If nobody died because of the President’s reckless speculation, does that preclude the Senate convicting him on this count? Probably, but should it?

A third count might be tied to Trump’s claim that he is taking hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus. As a result, some (misguided) Americans have taken the same drug, which the FDA suggests is “dangerous” to many. Importantly, some commenters, including “Morning Joe” Scarborough of MSNBC, suggest that the germaphobe Trump would not be willing to take the risk of taking the drug given the warnings of the FDA. If Morning Joe is right, Trump is a hypocrite and a liar. Fortunately for Trump, hypocrisy is not an impeachable offense under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Perjury. How can you commit perjury if you are not a sworn witness before a court or Congress? Thus, a conviction on this article of impeachment would be difficult. But it may, other than the manslaughter charge, be Trump’s worst offense. Simply put, he repeatedly lied throughout his series of comical “coronavirus task force” briefings, which were held until it became clear that they were doing him more political harm than good. Trump ended these lie-fests with a tweet on April 25th that read, “What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the lamestream media asks nothing but hostile questions, and then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately. They get record ratings, and the American people get nothing but Fake News. Not worth the time and effort!” Nice.

Is the impeachment clause of the constitution obsolete or unworkable given modern politics? What do you have to do to get convicted? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

Who knows? But the behavior of the Orange Menace should have all of us angry. Our lives and livelihood are at risk because of him. Fortunately, we have less than eight months left before voters, I hope, show him the exit door.

Op-Ed: What a Second Term for President Trump Might Look Like by J.E. Dean

May 15, 2020 by J.E. Dean

Current polls suggest President Trump is the underdog in the 2020 election, but it is only May. A lot can, and will, happen between now and when America heads to the ballot box (or, more likely, mailbox) to vote.

This column speculates on what a second Trump term might look like. One reader of my companion piece speculating on what a Biden presidency might look bottom lined the subject by saying, “more of the same.” This commenter likes Trump’s consistency, his candor, and his willingness to take an eye for an eye. Charitably put, interesting.

Here, diplomatically stated, is what I expect should President Trump defy odds (again) and get reelected:

The President will remain poll and media driven. No President has ever monitored his public image and standing in the polls as closely as has Trump. Nothing will change here. Even though a re-elected Trump will be a lame-duck, he will remain combative with the media and Democrats.

Frequent personnel changes will continue. Expect more fresh faces in the cabinet and on the White House staff. The quality of these appointees will be commensurate with those of the first term. One exception to the “fresh” part will be the return of Mike Flynn. Could he succeed Pompeo at State? Or maybe become Secretary of Defense?

The President will continue his position on climate change and the usefulness of science as a guide to policy making. Trump will cite any short-term improvements in climate resulting from the shut-down/slow-down of the economy as evidence that climate change is a hoax. He also will continue to second-guess scientists on the coronavirus and anything else where their recommendations may run counter to his “gut” instincts.

Trump will continue to focus on the stock market as a barometer of economic recovery. Hoping for a speedy economic recovery is not a bad thing, but the stock market is not the best metric. The President often equates the strength of the economy with the market. If he continues this, needed interventions to reduce unemployment and meet the urgent needs of families impacted by the economic crisis may not happen.

Trump will continue his “America First” foreign policy. The role America played in the world since 1945 will continue to “evolve” as the U.S. goes it alone on key issues. Expect China, Germany, Russia, and others to fill this void. Some see this as a good thing, but does this increased isolationism increase the chances for armed conflicts—conflicts where America may find itself without allies?

Attorney General Barr will keep his job, and Trump will continue to pursue interpretations of the Constitution that are “novel.” In July 2019, in comments focusing on the Mueller probe, Trump commented, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” This perspective, frightening to some of us, was supported in Barr’s infamous memo of June 2018. Barr wrote, “Constitutionally, it is wrong to conceive of the President as simply the highest officer within the Executive branch hierarchy. He alone is the Executive branch. As such he is the sole repository of all Executive powers conferred by the Constitution.” If you were Trump, would you replace Barr?

Trump’s partisanship, and his willingness to dis members of his own party when they disagree with him, will continue. Should the Democrats win the Senate and retain the House, the friction will get worse. Do not expect bipartisan solutions on how best to address the coronavirus and rebuild the economy.

All told, should Trump win in 2020, his leadership style and political priorities will remain the same. This is worrisome. The pandemic most likely will change America more than any of us imagine. And the America of 2016 is not stagnant. In 2021 there will be more poor and struggling people, more people of color, and a myriad of other currently unforeseen challenges.

Is Trump the leader we need to get through this? Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” While not everyone would blame Trump for the depth of the coronavirus crisis in the U.S., many question whether we are on the right path with our current leader. If we suffer a “second wave,” either this summer or in the fall, is Trump the guy we want to lead us? Based on his record, I vote “no.”

Op-Ed: What Might a Biden Presidency Look Like? By J.E. Dean

May 9, 2020 by J.E. Dean

These days, risk seems almost unavoidable. If the virus doesn’t get you, the economy will. And this situation will continue for a while. So why seek out risk? That is what I am doing here. The risk is looking stupid or even ridiculous in six months or so. That is what happens when you predict what a Biden Presidency, or a second term of Trump, might look like.

One risk is that Uncle Joe might not become President. The Tara Reade accusations may get him. (They won’t). He may get the virus and die (unlikely given that he is hunkered down in his basement in Delaware). Or something else unforeseen may get him. (Let’s hope not.) Common sense says we should assume he will be around in November. A nostalgia for sanity forces you to hope he will win.

Here is what I predict:

He will select a competent vice president, one ready to step into the Presidency. Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris come to mind. They have demonstrated leadership skills and have resumes that qualify them for the Presidency.

He will embrace science. Expect credentialed experts in HHS, Energy, EPA, Interior, and in other agencies and on the White House staff. Commitment to truth and honesty will be the rule.

He will lead with integrity. Biden is not and never has been driven by greed. We will welcome four years without having to periodically Google “emoluments.” Nepotism also will disappear from the headlines.

He will talk about someone other than himself. Narcissism is a serious mental illness. We have learned a lot about it in the last three and a half years. A Biden Presidency will give us a chance to learn about something else.

He will not lie. Won’t that be a welcome change?

He will work to restore American leadership in the world. Note that I have suggested he will strive towards the restoration of our leadership role rather than that he will achieve it. So serious is the damage done under Trump, unfortunately, four years will not be enough to erase the bad feelings now undermining us throughout the world.

He will show genuine compassion towards working people. Biden’s roots as a middle-class guy make it all but a certainty that he will pursue policies to build and strengthen the middle class. He will do this not only because it is right, but because income inequality threatens the fabric of America.

He will appoint competent judges. Some of Trump’s recent appointments suggest that something other than a respect for justice guides his selection process. Biden will choose disciplined, well-qualified jurists appreciated more for their legal experience than their ideology.

Biden will make progress in rebuilding the U.S. economy. Because the economic damage from the pandemic will get worse, the road to returned prosperity is a long one. Biden will seek to aid those facing long-term hardship and make strategic investments in a transformed economy at the same time. This approach will disappoint some on the left, such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom would welcome a full transition to democratic socialism. It will, however, be the right road. Prosperity is not likely to return without entrepreneurs and the types of innovation driven by private enterprise.

Among current Democratic leaders who will play a role in what I hope will be a successful administration are Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris (possibly as attorney general if she doesn’t serve as vice president), Jay Inslee (Washington State governor who made a lot of sense on climate change), and Mike Bennet (Colorado senator who has the experience to help America’s schools and colleges transition to the post-pandemic world). And how about Hillary Clinton at State?

My next column, should I survive some of the likely reactions to this one, will predict what a second term of Trump might look like. Something to look forward to. (I mean the column, not the second term).

Op-Ed: Doth Biden Protest Too Much? By J.E. Dean

May 1, 2020 by J.E. Dean

Uncle Joe has just completed what he hopes will be the beginning of the end of his Tara Reade nightmare. MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski interviewed him on May 1st on Morning Joe. Reade is the former Biden Senate staff member who has alleged he sexually assaulted her 27 years ago. Brzezinski aggressively questioned Biden, both on the alleged incident and on whether documents related to it are being covered up.

The interview should have been flagged for unnecessary roughness. Mika, a self-styled champion of women’s rights, grilled Biden as on why Reade should not be believed, why he is not opening all his Senate records, and why he thinks Reade is making the allegations. Biden responded with a complete denial. “It never happened,” the former Vice President stated.

Biden understandably struggled with the question of why Reade should not be assumed to be telling the truth. How do you respond to this type of allegation, assuming it is not true? Mika accused him of adopting a double standard. Given Biden’s position on the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the subject was fair game.

Biden responded that Reade has the right to be heard, but that if the allegations are not supported with evidence, his denial should be accepted. Agreed. Brzezinski also urged Biden to fully open his archived Senate records, now in the custody of the University of Delaware. Biden repeatedly stated that the records do not include any personnel records. Thus, any record of a complaint against him by Ms. Reade would not be in the records. Good point.

He also responded that he sealed the records because, as an active candidate for office, the records would be used as “fodder” by political opponents to accuse him of flip-flopping on issues. Biden’s rationale is fully credible, especially given his 2020 opponent.

In the face of Brzezinski’s overly aggressive questioning, Biden demonstrated composure that can be described as Presidential (at least as pre-Trump Presidential composure). He was visibly unhappy with Mika, but never accused her of being unfair and avoided the trap of speculating why Ms. Reade would lie. His composure will prove to be a plus to those Biden supporters anxious about how this crisis will be resolved. Whether his answers will resolve the matter, however, is less certain. Likely, this story will persist for a while. Ms. Reade is expected to elaborate on her allegations in coming days. No doubt additional rebuttals will be necessary.

Vice President Biden is suggesting that any record of a complaint against him would be in the records of the National Archives. He has asked the Secretary of the Senate to request any such records and release them. This is all well and good, but if no record is found, it does not end the matter. No doubt there will be speculation as to whether such a record was destroyed or otherwise covered-up.

It is difficult not to feel sympathy with Biden if one assumes he is the victim of a serious false allegation. Current evidence, as of this writing, suggests that the allegation is false. It is too early, however, to close this matter. Reade, who has changed her story over the years, appears a bit quirky, to put it mildly. Her admiration for Vladimir Putin (since disavowed), is just one example. Despite this, the jury is still out. Stay tuned. We have not heard the last word on this nasty episode.

Follow Us