Sam Donaldson Live

WE NEED HIGHER TAXES is the headline for an op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Robert J Samuelson and he’s right.

We need to raise taxes for two reasons:

1) To pay for what we spend (pay as you go) rather than pass the deficit spending bill to our children, and their children, and their children with ever increasing interest amounts added to the bill.

2) To bring a halt to profligate spending by the President and Congress because if its “okay” to pass along all the increasing debt to future generations, why it’s easy to just go “skies the limit” on authorizing a continuing raid on the treasury and continuing increases in the debt ceiling in order to allow it.

When Jimmy Carter left office, we had a national debt of just under one trillion dollars and it had taken 190 years to amass it.  Today, in just another thirty six plus years we’ve piled on another eighteen Trillion dollars. The debt as I write is just under twenty Trillion and by the time you read this it will be just over twenty Trillion.

How did we get into this mess?  We started believing that somehow we could pay for what we were spending by not raising enough revenue  through taxes to cover it,  but I tell you this, perhaps for the first time,  the “tooth fairy” to put money under our national pillow does not exist.

So, what made us deviate from the course we had followed from the founding of our Country? An economist named Arthur Laffer was the unwitting culprit.

In 1979, at the Occidental Restaurant in Washington, D. C., while at dinner with friends Laffer drew a curve on a napkin. The curve purported to show the relationship between taxes and economic growth. At some point, Laffer argued that as you increased taxes on the ascending side of the curve you would kill the goose that laid the golden egg, would stifle growth and fewer people would be able to pay taxes while on the descending side of the curve lowering taxes would enable business to expand and hire more workers, consumers would therefore have more money to spend thus energizing the economy. The result of a rising economy would be that more people would be paying taxes which would mean we could raise more tax revenue even with lower tax rates.

The Laffer curve became the symbol of something called “Supply Side” economics and presidential candidate Ronald Reagan who was looking for an economic plan to campaign on bought it.

Laffer’s theory makes a lot of sense up to a point. John Kennedy signed a small tax cut in his administration and the economy seemed to respond positively.

But Reagan’s Republican opponent in the 1980 primaries, George Herbert Walker Bush, called it “Voodoo Economics.” And why? Because it was clear than neither Arthur Laffer or anyone else could tell you in advance how much of a tax cut was too much.

In fact, one year after the Reagan cut which amounted to about three billion dollars, the Congress with the approval of the Administration restored about one third of the cut because it was clear the numbers wouldn’t add up. But even in doing that, when Ronald Reagan left office the national debt had risen to over two and a half trillion dollars.

And the debt kept rising until President Clinton’s second term, when he, and the Republican Congress reached a budget agreement that actually increased taxes. And, lo and behold, we experienced four years of surplus. Other favorable factors helped produce that surplus but clearly increased taxes not only did not keep it from happening but contributed to the good news.

When President George W Bush took office, the debt was about 5.6 Trillion, and the Republicans enacted another huge tax cut. Supply Side economics was in the saddle again. The debt promptly rose by another five Trillion to ten Trillion before George W Bush left office.

In the eight years of the Obama Administration with the low rates in effect and the near depression taking its toll on the economy plus new spending for a Health care plan not offset by new taxes the debt rose to about 19 trillion.  And now the Republicans are plotting to cut taxes once more. Yes, I know, they say their tax bill will be “revenue neutral” in that they intend to eliminate enough so-called tax loopholes to offset the lower revenue from the lower rates.

Excuse me, but Ha, Ha, Ha.

In 1986, President Reagan and Congress to their credit reformed the tax system and cut loopholes. With the speed of summer lightening, Congress, bowing to special interest pleadings, put them all back and added new ones. I assure you, history will repeat itself again.

Listen – if we want to repair and upgrade the nation’s Infrastructure, if we want to get serious about first class education for our young people and good medical care for all our citizens,  if we want adequate remedial help for drug abusers, better training for Law Enforcement personnel,  more aid for medical research, and better programs to make the lives of all our citizens more productive  and happier while providing what is truly necessary for our national defense, why, we need to spend trillions of dollars of new money. And where will we get it?

We can either pay for it the old fashioned way by taxing ourselves to the extent necessary or charge it on the national credit card made out in the name of future generations of our children.

Supply Side Economics has not worked. That’s a fact and you know the old definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Finally, remember (and I tell you this for the second time), There Is No Tooth Fairy.

Josh Cafetz, a Constitutional law professor at Cornell, writes in the Washington Post that Donald J Trump’a pardon of Sherriff Joe Arpaio speaks not so much to the fact that many of us do not think  Arpaio deserved it but to the fact that this president chose this person as the beneficiary of his first use of the Pardon power.

Here are excepts from Chafetz’s op-ed piece:

“After days of hinting about it, President Trump finally pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff best known for his hostility toward undocumented immigrants and his brutality toward prisoners in his custody. Arpaio had been convicted in July of criminal contempt of court for defying an order to stop detaining suspected undocumented immigrants who had not broken any state law. Trump’s pardon ensures that Arpaio will not serve any time for the offense.”

“As sheriff, Arpaio was known for a hostility toward undocumented immigrants that was functionally indistinguishable from hostility toward Latinos. He conducted sweeps of Latino neighborhoods and stops of Latino drivers in attempts to find undocumented immigrants. He held inmates in brutal and degrading conditions. He installed publicly accessible webcams so that the public could gawk at inmates, and one of those cameras showed female prisoners using the toilet. And he was a leading proponent of the racist lie that President Barack Obama was not a natural-born American citizen.

 Arpaio’s entire claim to national recognition was based on his being a xenophobe, a racist and an officer of the machinery of government who relished wielding that machinery to degrade some of the most powerless members of our society.

The White House statement announcing the pardon claimed that, “Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.” In a tweet, Trump called Arpaio an “American patriot” and wrote, “He kept Arizona safe!”

In other words, Trump pardoned Arpaio because of his actions as sheriff, actions that are consistent with the platform on which Trump campaigned and has attempted to govern. Those actions were appalling — and not only is Arpaio unremorseful, but Trump has actually held him up as a model to be emulated.”

So, the question is asked, Where does Trump’s use of the Pardon power end if this is the way it begins? Who can guess how many additional “American patriot(s)” this president will pardon – police convicted of brutality in the performance of their duties, military officers convicted of sexual crimes toward women, personal friends and supporters convicted of both criminal and civil crimes of various sorts?

The story here is not primarily about Arpaio. The story is about Donald J Trump and the continuing danger to this Country he poses as president.

This is just one more example of why Congress must act now to remove him from the Oval Office.

President Trump has located the enemy, locked and loaded and fired. He has directed his latest jihad against his fellow Republicans. Well, to be precise, against Republican office holders who were Republicans before he decided to use the Grand Old Party as a vehicle for his adventure into the Presidency.

It is certainly not unusual for Presidents to attack their political opponents, usually, however, as a group (liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Nervous Nellies – that was LBJ – Members of the Right Wing Conspiracy – that was Bill & Hillary Clinton – etc.). My favorite of all time was FDR firing back at Republicans who had accused him of sending a U S Destroyer war ship back to the Aleutian Islands to pick up his little dog Fala.

Please paste this link in your browser address line and watch for yourself.

FDR used a witty rejoined to skewer his attackers, President Trump knows only how to swing a sledgehammer.  And who is he hammering?

These five Republican Senators:

John McCain, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee

Bob Corker, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee

Lindsay Graham, Chairman of Subcommittees of the Appropriations and Armed Services Committees

Jeff Flake, the Junior Senator from Arizona who has written a now best selling book, accusing President Trump of betraying the Republican Party’s principles.

And (drum roll)

Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the Senate.

Clearly, except for Flake who is truly not on the team when it comes to support for Donald J Trump , and perhaps Corker who has now publicly questioned his fitness to hold the office of President, these other, senior senators of his own party, are people he needs on his team if he has any chance of passing any of the major legislation he says he wants. Particularly the Majority Leader.

Apparently President Trump thinks he can bully and demand obedience from these members of the Senate just as he has somehow gotten along in his adult life following the wicked advice of one, Roy Cohn (Senator Joseph McCarthy’s aide in searching for Communists in the U S Government). Cohn’s tactics were described in an article in the Electrical Workers Union magazine as  “insult; manipulate the media; never back down; never apologize or admit you were wrong; and when you have nothing to attack with, make stuff up.”

I bring President Trump “first word;” it doesn’t work that way with members of the United States Senate (or a whole bunch of other people you now encounter (eh, Angela Merkel?).

If you were smart, sir (oxymoron, I know), you would woo these Senators. Call them up, invite them down, tell them how much you have always admired them, consult them, ask their advice (take it or not, ask for it most earnestly). enquire what you can do for them in their states, and so forth, and so on. You know the old saying, “Honey works better than vinegar.” You don’t, okay let’s move on.

Take the example of Senator McCain,  a true hero to most Americans (certainly to me), shot down and imprisoned by the North Vietnamese). You said last year “He’s not a war hero…He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured” which didn’t get you off to a great start with him. You were never captured because you never served.

Perhaps you were trying to make amends when, after McCain’s diagnoses of Cancer and he had the choice of staying in Arizona for immediate treatment or returning to Washington for the critical vote to repeal Obamacare, you said: “We hope John McCain gets better very soon. Because we miss him. He is a crusty voice in Washington.” So far, so good. But then you added: “Plus, we need his vote.” Oh vey, can you not just be decent for once?

Then, in the early morning hours of the vote, McCain strode into the Chamber, approached the recording Clerk, raised his hand in the fist that Roman Emperors used to indicate whether the defeated gladiator should be allowed to live or be put to death, and MCCain thrust his thumb down! And the Obamacare repeal failed by one vote.

I don’t know the reason(s) McCain voted the way he did but forgive me if my mind went to the old saying “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

No, trying to get your way in a Congress controlled by Republicans by attacking Republicans will just “get you the gate.”

And, President Trump, if you keep it up, if you continue to follow your late friend Roy Cohn’s playbook, it will also get you Impeached and removed from office.

Come to think of it, sir, please do keep it up!

President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt said famously “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

Last night in his speech in announcing a new Afghanistan policy, President Donald J. Trump spoke loudly but carried a stack of kindling.

The goal for America in Afghanistan is to end our longest war. We could just leave, pull out “lock stock and barrel.” But the result for Afghanistan and our own security interests in Southeast Asia and the world might well be disastrous. The Soviet Union just pulled out of Afghanistan after ten years of un-successful occupation of the Country, but that didn’t matter for the Soviet Union; it was already on the brink of extinction.

So what is our new policy, as the president put it last night, to “secure an honorable and enduring win? Ah, the phrase “peace with honor” has a familiar ring to it for those who remember America’s withdrawal from Vietnam.

Let us start with the clichés. Said President Trump at various points in his speech:

-“The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win.”

-“…we will push onward to victory.”

-“…and in the end we will win.”

Fair enough. But every coherent policy stems from a realistic definition of the goal. What is “victory,” what is “winning” for the United States in Afghanistan? The answer from the president depends on which of several conflicting and contradictory lines of his speech you read.

President Trump said:

-“As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia three months ago, America and our partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory….In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear. We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America…”

-“Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure their country against the same enemies who threaten us.”

Okay, but consider: Who are the “terrorists,” the “enemies” in Afghanistan that we must then fight and achieve the victory over?

Principally, they are the Taliban, an ultra-right Muslim religious organization of some thirty five thousand (estimate) native Afghans, not some invading force of outsiders. In fact, in 1996, the Taliban overthrew the then Afghan Government and ruled the country under strict Shira law until in the aftermath of 9/11, we and our allies pushed them out. They have been in military opposition to the Afghan government ever since; their goal is to re-establish their position as the Government of the country. That sounds like a civil war (and we know what a civil war is). In fact, the Taliban has never been officially classified, designated, or listed as a terrorist organization, but rather as armed insurgents.

So, is “winning” a complete destruction on the battlefield of the Taliban – kill, imprison. expel or “re-educate” them all – in the name of safe guarding the present Government which is not a threat to us while a second Taliban Government might be? The logic of the president’s argument of the threat would seem to suggest that should be the goal, that should be our the policy.

But, no, listen to President Trump in another part of his speech.

“Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.” The president even suggested at another point that perhaps someday the Taliban would have a place in a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan without having to change their stripes.

Okay, which is it? Is it destroying the Taliban as the “terrorists “or is it really not dictating to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. If only the Taliban was some rag-tag group of murderers (“terrorists”) or a non-native group of invaders trying to bring a strange religion or ideology to Afghanistan, then fighting them to victory might make sense and might be an achievable goal. But in examining the real situation in Afghanistan, do we not hear the echo of our great mistake called Vietnam?

In Vietnam we attempted to “defeat the enemy” of a South Vietnamese Government there friendly to us (which we had established in 1954). But the “enemy” were indigenousness Vietnamese who had a different philosophy of government (communism) and who, with the vital help of their kinsmen in North Vietnam, waged war against the established Government of South Viet Nam and us. We know how that turned out.

In his speech President Trump tried to have it both ways when it came to the present Government of Afghanistan. He said:

-“America will work with the Afghan Government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited and our support is not a blank check.”

-“…the American people expect to see real reforms, real progress and real results. “Our patience in not unlimited, We will keep our eyes open…”

Now, one of the problems has been that Afghan Governments since 9/11 have been corrupt, unable to Govern effectively because of tribal fiefdoms, whose army, while composed of brave men, has been undertrained and badly led. As we work harder to help the Government overcome these difficult, often seemingly intractable problems, when will our “patience” run out and our “not unlimited commitment” end? In other words, how long will we keep at it?

President Trump wisely didn’t say  as long as it takes but, then, how long?

Consider: President Trump made a big point that we would no longer announce time tables for withdrawal but instead (although he didn’t use the exact words of the saying) just ”play it as it lays,” meaning changing tactics and troop levels as the situation changes on the ground. That makes sense, of course, as long as you know what “success” looks like and are willing to keep at it until that “success” is achieved.

Here, the president seems to be signaling that we’re with you as long as it’s working but if it isn’t (and certainly, we’ll say that’s your fault), well, “see you around.” Now if the idea of not setting public time tables for withdrawal is predicated on not letting the “enemy” feel that he can just wait us out knowing how long he has to wait, what do you think the president’s stated view that we are there unless it isn’t working does? Why, the enemy will just keep pounding until the United States loses that “patience” for that “committment that is not unlimited.”

In fact, in Vietnam we never announced a timetable for complete withdrawal but the communist enemies just kept driving until our Ambassador to South Vietnam got on the  helicopter from our Embassy with the American flag clutched to his breast and there was no more South Vietnam.

And just as North Vietnam fueled the insurgency in South Vietnam, the president said correctly that Pakistan is fueling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

So, he threatened Pakistan.

He said: “We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately.” No details given of how Pakistan will be forced to change.

Good luck. A Country that felt safe in sheltering America’s arch enemy Osama bin Laden and paid no price for having done so, probably won’t tremble under the president’s bluster.

Yes, the speech, the announced “change in policy” to “win,” was an incoherent jumble but it would take a hard heart indeed not to have some sympathy for President Trump in this matter.

Mr. Trump is correct when he said that when he became president he was given a bad and very complex hand. Certainly, his predecessors, George W Bush and Barack Obama, didn’t figure it out. Although I doubt it, maybe just “muddling through” will work.

President Trump sounded a typical note of optimism that he can do it. He said: “I’m a problem solver. In the end we will win.”

We like optimistic doctors and optimistic presidents.

But, like his predecessors, he hasn’t figured out what “winning” is or how to do it, even though he boasted (again, in typical fashion) that he had studied Afghanistan “in great detail and from every conceivable angle.”

His study is incomplete.

He said, quote: “As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us.”

There is no “prime minister” in Afghanistan, only a President.

Once during a photo opportunity in the Oval office with President Reagan and his visitor Cardinal Krol of Philadelphia, another reporter asked the president about the tax cut bill then working its way through congress. After he answered I followed up by telling the two men: “Remember  what the Good Book says that might pertain to taxes: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s’.”

The president seemed to enjoy the interruption and might have been about to join the discussion of the “Good Book’s” view of taxes but Cardinal Krol shot a look at me that said “where is Torquemada when we need him” and that ended the colloquy.

I thought of that incident while pondering the rise of religion as it is now used routinely in political arguments. The Lord is brandished like a sword of truth by politicians in an argument over secular matters.

A few years ago when there was hot debate over extending the George W Bush tax cuts I heard a member of Congress insist on the floor of the U S House of Representatives that God wanted them extended without modification. The gentlemen did not say how he came to learn this but clearly he was telling his colleagues they had no choice but to follow the Lord’s will as revealed to this Congressman. I thought at the time that surely the Lord had more pressing and important matters to adjudicate that the Bush tax cuts, but what do I know.

In the presidential campaign of 1960, John F Kennedy delivered a speech to Baptist ministers  in an effort to reassure Protestants they need not fear that, if elected, he would seek to impose his views as a Roman Catholic on the Country. He said, in part:

“I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation (bold added) or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.” *

That seems for me to be the right way to separate Church and State when it comes to decisions on secular matters. But, beginning in 1980, when the late Reverend Jerry Falwell and his conservative political action group “Moral Majority” helped elect Ronald Reagan and defeat several liberal Democratic Senators, more and more Protestant Christian leaders have openly campaigned for Conservative Republican candidates. It sometimes seems these pastors believe the Lord wants them to spend their main time and energy on electing Republicans rather than preaching the true Gospel to a bi-partisan flock in need of spiritual and moral revival.

Last year Jerry Falwell’s son, Jerry jr., Billy Graham’s son Franklin, and a host of other Christian Protestant leaders enthusiastically supported Donald J Trump, a man whose well known personal views, actions, words and habits can not possibly be seen as the epitome of  a Christian life as described by Jesus in the New Testament.  The question is asked how can Christian leaders overlook such non-Christian faults as Trump’s?

Cynics might suggest that the religious leaders who are sticking with Donald J Trump are, like politicians looking toward re-election, simply taking the view popular with their constituents. After all, Trump won 80 percent of the white evangelical vote last year and still enjoys high approval ratings from that group even as his overall approval ratings drop sharply. But surely the pastors should be leaders, not followers, and if they are isn’t it fair to ask whether it is they who helped lead their flocks to that 80 percent figure voting figure for Trump?

And if they did have a hand in doing that, why?

The answer seems to be that the partisan tribalism that has overtaken the Country has overtaken the pastors as well and that the benefits they see coming their way from a Republican president outweigh even the most egregious collection of non-Christian faults. When Trump famously said “I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters” I wonder, would he lose any pastors?

But now, Donald J Trump’s response to the events in Charlottesville has given these pastors a big problem.  Falwell, Graham, and others I’ve seen quoted have denounced the racism, bigotry and violence seen there – good for them.  But many have tried to shield the president from any blame connected with that day’s awful events or criticism of his response to those events in which he said that  there were “very fine people on both sides” which, of course, includes the Nazi side. That’s a hard task since the overwhelming majority of Americans do not think any Nazi marchers are “fine people” but some pastors are doing the best they can.

Franklin Graham said: “Shame on the politicians who are trying to push blame on President Trump for what happened in #Charlottesville, VA. That’s absurd. What about the politicians such as the city council who voted to remove a memorial that had been in place since 1924, regardless of the possible repercussions? How about the city politicians who issued the permit for the lawful demonstration to defend the statue?”

Rupert Murdoch became an American citizen so he might be eligible under legal restrictions to purchase additional U.S. television stations. He has built a large media empire in the U.S. (with holdings in other countries) which includes the Fox Cable News network. As far as I can tell, Murdoch has not made any public comment on the events in Charlottesville or the position taken concerning those events by Donald J Trump.

But his son James, CEO of 21st Century Fox (a Murdoch property) has, as reported in the New York Times, Washington Post and other news organizations.

Here is a link to the text as reported in the Times of an email James Murdoch sent friends.

https://nyti.ms/2vIozZp

I urge you to read it in its entirety but here are some highlights.

James Murdoch writes (in part) “It has not been my habit to widely offer running commentary on current affairs…But what we watched this last week in Charlottesville and the reaction to it by the President of the United States concern all of us as Americans and free people….The presence of hate in our society was appallingly laid bare as we watched swastikas brandished on the streets of Charlottesville and acts of brutal terrorism and violence perpetrated by a racist mob. I can’t even believe I have to write this: standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis. Or Klansmen, or terrorists. Democrats, Republicans, and others must all agree on this and it compromises nothing for them to do so….To further demonstrate our commitment, Kathryn and I are donating 1 million dollars to the Anti-Defamation league…The ADL is an extraordinary force for vigilance and strength in the face of bigotry…”

Now, do Donald J Trump or “Fox & Friends” dare to label James Murdoch’s email “fake news?” Will the Fox Cable News Network even report his email?

Remember, it was Rupert Murdoch’s two sons who reportedly pressed to fire Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly and other Fox Cable Network personnel for alleged sexual assaults on women. Will they now clean out the stable further?

The ground is shaking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Fox Cable News Network and elsewhere where bigotry has been exposed and called out.

If any good can be said to have come out of the events in Charlottesville it is that more and more Americans are pushing back against the Nazis, Klansmen and various other bigots in general and against the man who, in putting their actions on an equal plane with Americans who oppose them, has hastened his own departure from the Oval Office.

The “ill wind” in Charlottesville may, indeed, turn out to blow us all some good!

The hard right talk show hosts that command the majority of political radio listeners, have a problem. The smartest of whom probably understands it.

As Donald J Trump implodes, what do they do? These hosts, led by the Grandfather of the genre, Rush Limbaugh, have made a very good living (do you suppose the money was in their minds) by attacking the hated Democrats, liberals, LGBTQ Community, Muslims and other non-Christians, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barak Obama in a category all by themselves, and others.

But now, confronted with  Donald J Trump, defender of the Nazis, White Supremacists and Defenders of the Old Slave Owning South, they must take a stand. To say they have been wrong about him, to join any, even slight, criticism of his “dance with the Nazis” would lose them their audience, their large incomes even if it meant reclaiming just a bit of their reputations as compassionate human beings.

So far, they have made their choice. As each of his actions, his words, become more indefensible in a civilized society, one that includes all peoples of whatever race or religion, the most prominent  have decided to “double and triple down.”

Defend him to the end and join him in signing off.

Today’s argument over whether George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s statues ought to suffer the same fate as Robert E Lee’s statue is silly, really not worth the time to discuss.

So I’ll discuss it (briefly).

All three owned slaves. The first two helped create a Country with the cornerstone that “all men are created equal” and both took steps that guided the Country in that direction. When the time came that a war must decide the issue of slavery, the third man led the Confederacy’s principal armed force fighting to preserve slavery. Does anyone other than Donald J Trump and his hard core followers really believe there is equivalency here…or that cities all across the Country will under popular demand vote to take down the statues of our Founders as they are doing now with the third man and his confederates? Sure, if the Nazis, White Nationalists, etc. were the majority but they aren’t and they never will me.

Silly.

Okay, let’s talk about whether Donald J trump will get away with it (meaning, escape the condemnation and contempt of a majority of the American and World public and quite possibly the removal from the presidency and even a stand in the courthouse dock)?

Sam Waterson, the great actor whose long years on “Law and Order” entertained and enlightened so many television viewers, has written an op-ed piece for the Washington post on our subject. His thesis is that our society is turning more and more toward admiring and attempting to emulate those who appear to “get away with it.”  Waterson thinks that is a bad thing; I agree, although I once got away with something which involved him.

I was the MC many years ago of a charity dinner in New York City. One of the speakers at the dinner was none other than Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the by then defunct Soviet Union. The charity organizers had allotted him ten minutes to speak. I told them there wasn’t a chance in Hades he would speak (through his interpreter) for only ten minutes. We would be lucky if he didn’t slip into his speech about the fall of the Soviet Union which I knew could go on for hours.  Well, I introduced him and he kept it to about thirty five minutes.

After dinner, Sam Waterson came up to me and asked if I would introduce him to Gorbachev. Now, I had previously seen Gorbachev on more than one occasion thanks to my tagging along in the press pen with Ronald Reagan and even had asked him a few questions from time to time but let’s face it, he didn’t know me from Adam. However, I couldn’t let Waterson, whom I admire tremendously, down so I agreed.

We marched up to Gorbachev and I said “President Gorbachev, allow me to present one of our finest actors of stage screen and television, Sam Waterson.” Gorbachev grunted, they shook hands and might have passed a few words (having done my part, I fled the scene). Apparently I got away with playing an “important person” to Waterson.

Getting back to the serious topic, here is the link to Waterson’s article. Since I have not yet learned how to put it on this blog in a form that allows you to simply hit it with your cursor you’ll have to type it in your browser address line.

http://wapo.st/2fOEf7P?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.37670fa8cdab

As to question of whether Donald J Trump will “get away with it,” my emphatic answer is: NO!

And if you don’t believe that look around you: Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame, Richard Nixon did not complete his second term, Bernard Madoff is not still on Wall Street and der Fuehrer shot himself.

Yes, Donald J Trump has gotten away with a lot in his life and if he had been content to simply continue to con the rubes, cheat the workmen, dodge the tax laws and give himself unlimited mulligans as a small-time swindler he might have continued to escape the terrible hand of justice.* But he bit off too much; the presidency of the United States is not a place which allows you to “get away with it.” There’s just too much to deal with, too much to have to handle well when the harsh spotlight of public attention is always on you. And when the public turns against you – as it clearly has against Donald J Trump in increasing numbers as indicated in every poll and objective finding – why there is no place for him to hide and eventually not even a place to which you can run.

Donald J Trump is finished and when it’s over he will not only not have gotten away with it, history will place him in the one category he fears the most: LOSER!

*Plato defined “justice” as giving each man his due. What do you think Donald J Trump’s “due” is?