Republican Senators Choose Donald Trump Over the U.S. Constitution

There’s a rule at trials: when one side’s lawyers have improperly lost evidence, hidden evidence, or refused to show the jury evidence in their control, the judge may order jurors to assume that evidence is bad for the side controlling and withholding it. It’s a life rule, too: if the warm chocolate-chip cookies are disappearing, and your kid is hiding his hands behind his back, don’t you infer something?

So why shouldn’t Donald Trump’s unprecedented, across-the-board stonewalling of legitimate Congressional inquiry raise questions in everyone’s minds?

Simple: Republicans don’t want us to know the facts about Donald Trump’s allegedly impeachable conduct. 

 

Not only are Republicans refusing to call material witnesses (even John Bolton, who, as an ambitious Republican with dreams of political office, can’t be all that dangerous), but they’ve imposed strict new rules on reporters to hinder the free flow of information from senators to us. Normally, credentialed press have free run of most areas in the Senate; they’re now restricted to a specific area, and reporters are forbidden to walk along with a senator, continuing a conversation, even if the senator is willingly participating. 

 

The House heard some devastating witnesses to Trump’s misconduct. Most were patriotic career foreign service folks, not politicians. Plus Trump’s own Gordon Sondland, scared into telling the truth.

Some important things have happened since the House investigation. Notably, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office concluded, after careful investigation, that Trump’s political hold-up of funds approved by Congress broke a 1974 law enacted by Congress over Richard Nixon’s veto. And Bolton is now available – a Trump appointee who mocked the Ukraine extortion plot as “that drug deal,” refusing to participate.

Republicans mumble that the House did its investigation and reached its conclusions, so there’s no need for further witnesses. They toss out the red herring of subpoenaing Joe and Hunter Biden, who have no firsthand knowledge about Trump’s actions or motives. The truth is simple: the facts are inconvenient. 

 

There’s a reasonable argument that Democrats are wasting Senate time. Not because these aren’t “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but because Republicans have strong political motives not to consider the evidence and convict. 

 

Federalist Paper 65 says, “The most conspicuous characters [deciding impeachment trials] will be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and . . . can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality.” They foresaw Mitch McConnell, but hoped that when our country needed them, politicians might put conscience above politics – as McConnell fears some might.

What would a fair trial look like? Republicans would acknowledge the actual evidence, and consider its weight. They’d hear more witnesses, because Trump’s lawyers deny the facts. Most importantly, both parties would forego political speeches to discuss the real issue: when a president violates the law by holding up, for political reasons, Congressionally-mandated aid to a beleaguered ally, is that misconduct sufficiently important that we should impeach, or at least censure him?

The allegations against Trump are more serious than those made against Clinton, and perhaps even those against Nixon. You could argue about the relative seriousness of burglary vs. extortion; both Nixon’s burglary and Trump’s effort to use Ukraine to tip domestic political scales were antidemocratic; and the Ukraine aid concerned national security. 

 

Whitewashing Trump whites out our Constitution. It tells future presidents they need not follow the law or provide Congress information. Is that what we want?

                                                         - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 26 January 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website on KRWG's website.  A spoken version, also available on KRWG's website, will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).] 

[Val Demings for President!?]

[A stray question, sparked by looking back at the extremely political Clinton impeachment: Is anyone thinking censure? Nixon's impeachment was pretty bipartisan, once the courts forced Nixon to divulge evidence, and many from all parties were genuinely shocked; but here, the Senate simply may not bother to try to obtain the evidence; Clinton's was much more political, and his offense -- perjuring himself about his sex life, in a legal case manufactured to embarrass him -- was a minor crime.  Ultimately the Senate censured him for perjury.  
On Trump, while if I had a vote I would almost certainly vote for impeachment, I think censure ought to be in the discussion.  His conduct is far more serious than Clinton's, and far more the kind of abuse of power the Constitution mean to cover.  I think it's fair for his political allies to question whether or not it warrants removal from office.  Why hasn't Romney or someone suggested censure? 
I suspect I know why: Democrats are committed to impeachment, but some feel that way because they can't divorce this issue from all his other dangerous bad conduct.  Republicans insist on whitewashing him, because he wants that and they're scared of him.  On both sides, few are examining simply the "high crimes and misdemeanors" alleged by the House, keeping political concerns and other alleged crimes to the side.  
My point is that while I think Trump's conduct warrants impeachment, I KNOW that it can't be good for our democracy to let this misconduct stand without even a reproach from the U.S. Senate.  It's a terrible precedent.  I also suspect that for some Senators facing close elections, floating that possibility might sound good to some of the all-important Independents.
However, maybe they will indeed reach this idea further down the road, after determining key evidentiary issues such as whether or not to call more witnesses and whether or not to demand more documents  -- then sifting whatever further evidence appears.]

[By the way, new information, including a videotape of Trump at a "big donors only" dinner, not only confirm that he knows Lev Parnas ( a central figure in Trump's lawyer's Ukraine dealings, now under criminal indictment) but confirms the accuracy of Parnas's statement about the occasion.]

Don't think this would sell so many cigars today!

Further Thoughts on Guardianship Issues

Doris and Rio Hamilton allege that after they consulted lawyer CaraLyn Banks, she proceeded – without telling them – to have Ms. Hamilton declared mentally incompetent and Advocate Services (AS) appointed to take over her life and make all her decisions, including banning her son, Rio, from the house they own together.

Kise and Larry Davis would understand the Hamiltons’ situation. A well-meaning acquaintance of Kise reported her deteriorating cognitive abilities. Soon AS controlled her life, vilifying her beloved stepson, Larry. Banks was appointed “Kise’s” lawyer. Even after the court ordered Kise be transferred to California, near Larry, AS and Banks battled for another year, costing the family another year of agency fees – PLUS both Larry’s legal fees spent trying to free his stepmother, and Banks’s fees for opposing on Kise’s behalf, what Kise and Larry wanted. 

While I’m sure that AS must do some good, families and friends of some AS “clients” say they don’t like or trust AS.  Professionals who know the guardianship scene here have expressed similar feelings; and there’s a surprisingly strong dislike of Banks among lawyers who’ve opposed her in these matters.  One lawyer with firsthand experience with AS said he'd like to see AS shut down, although there's a shortage of  such businesses here.  Others have expressed the belief that judges are "in on it."  However, I’ve seen no basis for believing judges are involved in any dishonesty. Nor can I say anyone’s committed crimes. 

The Hamiltons say Banks and AS “have demonstrated a pattern of exploitation of the elderly.” Lawyer Raul Carrillo told a reporter that in the Davis case, the fight to keep Kise in Cruces was “because of the vested interest of [AS].”

Banks says AS is one of three firms she uses, more or less in rotation, that “all three do a good job,” and that complaints from families are no more frequent with AS than with others in the field. 

 

We all eventually need help. The need grows as we age, often living far from family, some of us without friends or family to provide that help. Too, not all families are benign, honest, and competent enough to provide care. 

 

But even where intervention is initially necessary and helpful, do AS and Banks fight to maintain their roles beyond when they’re really needed? They say they’re looking out for the “client’s” needs, but it seems a disturbing pattern. The owner of another agency, though she wouldn’t comment on AS, said that her company did everything possible to turn over control quickly to family or friends, as long as someone competent and honest was willing to take on the responsibility. That makes sense, both emotionally and financially. AS’s default mode seems to be to fight for their turf, above all; and some claim that’s particularly so when real property is involved.

The handyman who called for help with Kise offered to withdraw the petition once he met her stepson Larry, saying the move to California made sense. In the Goldberg case, the well-meaning friend who called Banks regretted it, and was appalled by how AS conducted its business. Doris Hamilton’s guardian ad litem, David Lutz, has stipulated to Rio being named his mother’s guardian. But that hasn’t happened. Maybe AS likes collecting fees or knows something we don’t.

I’m sure these folks started with great intentions and do some good; but even “professionals,” don’t always know what’s right.

                                                - 30 -

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 19 January 202, in the Las Cruces Sun-News ("Guardianship Matters Aren't Easy But Can We Do Better"), as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version, also on KRWG's website, will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (Las Cruces Community Radio,)]

Larry and Kise Davis - credit AARP

[Some of these matters have been written about extensively, including a long article in the national AARP magazine in October 2018 ["What Happens When Guardianship Gets Contentious?"]), as well as in the Sun-News and the Albuquerque Journal (in March 2018 by Colleen Heild) and two on the Davises, "Stepson Mom Was Miserable in Secure Facility" and   "You Saved my Life - Woman Thriving after Ordeal ".  I've also written a couple of relevant columns, one ("Why New Mexico Is Improving Its Guardianship Laws") specifically about the pleasure of lunching with Kise and Larry Davis and his wife (having briefly represented Larry in that case as his lawyer) when she was finally "out of jail" and on her way to California.  The other was more general  ("Someday You'll Be a Person in Need of Assistance").   If you want to read more, you can google "Kise Davis" or search her name or "Advocate Services" on the newspapers' websites.

[This was a tough column to write.  Many people discussed their experiences at length, and a couple of the lawyers even alleged that different judges here are "in it" with Advocate Services and Ms. Banks.  (As mentioned above, I do not agree.)  For obvious reasons, they didn't want their names used.  Others allege criminal conduct. While I don't want to allege things of which I'm not certain, the fact that so many lawyers and others feel the deck is stacked against them has independent significance, in my view.   I respect the judges involved.  They may have an understandable sympathy with people doing the difficult work of  caring for folks whose minds have softened, particularly professionals.  Similarly I mention the lawyers' complaints about Banks not to allege misconduct based on that but because in my fairly long legal career, most lawyers we dealt with we came away respecting us as adversaries, or mixing that respect with acknowledgment of their shortcomings; but it was extremely rare to feel the kind of bitterness that several local lawyers express concerning cases with Banks.  That's unfortunate, whatever the explanation may be.  More often, I see  (and believe in) a certain collegial approach, more cooperative where that's appropriate, with as little acrimony as possible -- even with camaraderie except when duty to clients requires lawyers to say negative things about each other that are warranted by fact.

I did speak with Ms. Banks briefly regarding this opinion column. I asked about the Hamilton case, but she said Ms. Hamilton had been her client (despite the Hamiltons' denial of that) and that people, including Rio, had brought Mrs. Hamilton to her office more than once over a couple of years.  I did ask her why, with regard to Kise Davis, she and Advocate Services had fought so long after the Judge ordered Kise transferred to California.  She said that was only because the house took a long time to sell.  That startled me.  My memory was otherwise, and I checked with someone more intimately involved in the case during its last year.  It certainly seems that if the problem was a delay in selling the house, Ms. Banks or Advocate Services could have articulated that, without arguing that moving to California was too expensive for Kise or that Larry was losing his own cognitive abilities -- and without the necessity for a whole new set of lawyers, with a whole new set of fees, to enforce the judge's order.]

[NOTE 21January: This was not a formal comment on the column, but was a response from a mutual friend of mine and Ms. Hamilton's, with her perspective.  Another friend had sent her the column, noting that Ms. Hamilton had been bright and lively and smiling at the NAACP MLK breakfast Monday morning, and our mutual friend wrote:

Here are some other details that you may not know; 

Dorris Hamilton had to get "PERMISSION" from her "guardian", Advocate Services to attend yesterday's MLK Breakfast. She had to ask Advocate Services to purchase a ticket for her because she doesn't have access to her own money. 

But, for years, and even until August of 2019, Dorris Hamilton attended these events independently. And because Dorris Hamilton has such a kind heart; each year, she purchased a batch of tickets and gave them to students and to others who were less fortunate; those who couldn't afford the ticket price themselves. But Dorris Hamilton couldn't purchase tickets for others this year because SHE NO LONGER HAS ACCESS TO HER OWN MONEY!

To see such a generous and loving person be relegated to asking for permission (from a for-profit agency, no-less) to do things that she has done routinely for years, is sickening. To add insult to the injury; after the event, she had to be returned to her "cage" as if she is nothing more than a prisoner on work-release. Meanwhile, her house sits empty and her son is paying to live somewhere else. He cannot live in his own house, because the "guardian" won't allow it. This is UNACCEPTABLE! And, as many others have pointed out, this is not an isolated incident, rather, this is a pattern. 

I am grateful for the community support, and pray that Dorris Hamilton and her son will be freed from these predators sooner than later!

[In shortening the column for radio, and altering for listeners rather than readers, I ended it:
"I’m sure these folks started with great intentions and do some good; but even “professionals,” don’t always know what’s right. Maybe sometimes our expertise gets in the way of seeing clearly into human hearts."
Despite my grave doubts about some of what these folks do, my own more limited experience with folks whose minds are slipping into the fog has convinced me that dealing with them can be challenging.  However, that doesn't excuse anything and everything."]


[An emailed comment on the newspaper column read, in part:

"Thanks for the discussion of a characteristic of our legal system that has made me wary for decades.  My dad (a 6th grade graduate of the Baltimore City Schools) repeatedly said to avoid dealing with those that profited from others' misery.  As a consequence he avoided doctors, lawyers, cops and bankers like the plague.  From his vantage point in the "19teens" in the Baltimore slums, that was his conclusion.  Your column presents the quagmire that can quickly result from placing trust in our commercial or legal system.

Over the years I modified my "inherited views".  My life crossed paths with all the "forbidden folks" on my dad's list.  Since my paths crossed these folks paths in a social setting, I saw them to be humans trapped in the same nonsense as the rest of us.  This probably why societies tend to degenerate over time to where an implosion or explosion wrecks the whole system.  When this happens a lot of folks get damaged also.  So we muddle on.  Not sure what I would do to fix it.  Sort of like draining a swamp full of alligators.

Thanks for the thought provoking presentation!!]

Las Cruces Municipal Debtors Prison?

We elected Joy Goldbaum Presiding Municipal Court Judge because she promised to focus the court on productive solutions – not on being a modern debtors' prison, as too many such courts in the U.S. become. 

 

Municipal Court handles “minor” crimes, mostly violations of city ordinances. Because many defendants are poor, mentally challenged, homeless, and/or vets suffering PTSD, many don't show up for court, or can't pay their fines. Unless they're allowed (and able) to work off the fine, a warrant and a penalty are added to the fine, making it even harder to pay. Too often a defendant who's committed some minor offense ends up in jail – for which the City pays the County $100 per night per prisoner. Raw deal both for citizen and for us taxpayers.

Our Municipal Court has made very limited use of jail alternatives. There's incarceration or probation, and little chance for treatment or other services that could address the actual problems. Everyone benefits if folks convicted of minor code infractions do community service. Only City Codes, the Animal Shelter, and El Caldito are approved for community service.

Judge Goldbaum wants to approve more local non-profits for community service. That would help someone who's really strapped and who may not easily be able to utilize the existing options. Any 501(c)(3) can qualify; and although the City probably has legitimate liability concerns, a wider field of choices would be helpful. The Hub, the bicycle repair center at Cruces Creatives, might be a good one: centrally located, useful work, and a carless “convict” might learn to build her or himself a bicycle. 

I'm told the City paid the County $1.2 million for detained Municipal Court prisoners last year. That's an obscene amount. If all that money went to the Detention Center (as opposed to transportation or other expenses), at $100 per night, that'd be 12,000 days in jail, collectively. 

 

Decreasing that figure and minimizing the emotional, financial, and physical toll on folks who are jailed for being poor or disorganized is Judge Goldbaum's top priority, and should be our City's. It'll take creativity and hard work by Goldbaum and the second judge. That second judge often staffs the afternoon when the Court is open for walk-ins; and although afternoons are sometimes slow, being available when a defendant (which could be any of us) can make it could mean avoiding spending several hundred bucks to keep that defendant in jail after a no-show generates a warrant. Clearly, it's important. Work commitments and/or transportation problems prevent some people from reaching court at the scheduled time.

Oddly, the City hasn't announced the process for appointing that second judge. The last time the position was open, the appointment process moved quickly. The second judge position is important to fill soon. Case loads are rising, and the first judge has a host of budgetary and administrative tasks. LCPD is filing more DWIs, which are relatively complex cases, in Municipal Court rather than Magistrate Court. The delay means defendants, attorneys, and city personnel could be waiting around in court too much.

It takes little time or thought to ship someone to jail. It takes much more effort to discern which defendants should be steered toward a solution that doesn’t involve incarceration – and to fashion such solutions to actually work. These are exactly the kinds of improvements many have called for, and we elected Judge Goldbaum to make for our community.

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 12 January 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (Que Tal -- Las Cruces Community Radio) and should be available also on the KRWG site.] 

[By the way, I discussed the related issue of jail diversion in this column from last July.]

[A friend emailed me first thing this morning:
  "Sort of a rude awakening to look for Goodman and get Lynched instead!!!"
Turns out the Sun-News had spared people the unpleasantness of looking at my picture this morning, but Randy's column on the minimum wage was prominently displayed.  I keep hoping Randy will be a guest on our radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" Wednesday mornings 8-10 a.m. on KTAL, 101.5 FM, but Randy and Phil Van Veen also do an Internet Radio show at exactly the same time.] 

Youth and Climate Change

Time Person-of-the-Year Greta Thunberg is just the tip of the iceberg.

We need an all-out WWII-style commitment to fight climate change. Some U.S. politicians deny that publicly – until their constituents experience floods, fires, or drought. 
 

Young people may break the logjam. It's their future, not ours.

Consider the Sunrise Movement. Days after the Democrats took back the House last year, 150 young people sat-in at Nancy Pelosi's office to urge her to push forward with promised climate-change legislation. It became a bigger news story when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stopped by. Suddenly D.C. was full of young people wearing black T-shirts with a rising sun. 
 

As rallies and protests attract increasing numbers, a group called Momentum has started conducting training sessions based on careful study of the civil rights movement to make eager recruits more effective in generating greater numbers. (Echoes of the '60's “Teach-ins?”)
 

Meanwhile, College Republicans nationwide are urging fellow Republicans to back a conservative climate action plan, arguing that continued denial will hurt both our Earth and the Party. The Young Conservative Climate Campaign lobbies Republicans to back a free-market “Carbon Dividends” plan to reduce emissions. “This really is a generational issue,” said Kiera O’Brien, a Harvard senior who founded YCCC and is its President. “Especially given the rise of the Green New Deal, we need to have our own alternative policies, because we can’t just complain about the problem and not propose a solution.”

“Students have a very strong incentive to see effective and actual legitimate policy enacted,” said a former College Republicans chairman from Utah. “This is something that’s going to directly impact us, so we have a strong motive.” Internationally, the U.N. Framework on Youth and Climate Change works intensely with many youth-led NGOs.

Aside from Thunberg, who started by skipping school and protesting outside Sweden's Parliament on Fridays, there's Canadian Autumn Peltier (15) of the Wikwemikong First Nation in Northern Ontario who's been advocating for clean water since she was eight, and was nominated in 2017 for the Children's International Peace Prize; and Leah Namugerwa (15) who's spearheading the climate change movement in Uganda, urging the government to take action on environmental issues. Floods that killed 5,000 people in India in 2013 inspired Ridhima Pandey (now 11) who sued the Indian government in 2017 over its climate-change inaction. Fluctuating drought and heavy rainfall in her small Mexican town inspired Xiye Bastida (17) to protect the environment. Now in New York, Bastida's spoken at the U.N. and helped organize a Global Climate Strike. (See my blog post for more detail.)

Trump and others gleefully mock these young people. I honor them. I don't say they're right about everything, or have a detailed scientific understanding of climate-change details. But we need them. Bees and trees and seas need them, too. All hands on deck! 
 

It's far too late to “win” as we won WWII. Decades of dithering and denial have made serious changes inevitable. But to mitigate the damage, we need youth's energetic commitment, and these young folks' abilities to persuade other youth and their loving families.

Is it wishful thinking, or do I see today's youth developing the sense of purpose we saw in young people in 1849, 1941, and 1968? Coming of age when there are huge problems to solve, and helping convince the nation – or the world – to solve them, can be transformative. 
 

Let's help these “kids” help us all.

                                                        -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 5 January 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website  and KRWG's website. A spoken version is available at KRWG's website and will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org)  By the way, I'll be discussing KTAL, Las Cruces Community Radio, at the Roundtable at the Unitarian-Universalist Church on Solano Drive at 10:30 this morning (Sunday).  It's an opportunity for folks to learn more about the station.]

[This particular column germinated in my mind recently when, the same week I was preparing for a radio discussion of climate change with State Climatologist Dave DuBois, a group of us happened to discuss generations. The others, younger than I, confirmed something I'd sort of figured, that although their youth had been fun and exciting and intense, they felt that their times in many ways paled next to the 1960's.
Thus it struck me that along with the scientifically-driven need to get  serious about confronting climate-change, there might be a generational need for joining an important cause and pushing for change.  I don't mean kids get into it as a fad.  In the 1960's when youth tried to confront racism, inequality, the Viet Nam War, and other problems, members of the Movement varied widely from people who'd studied some of those problems seriously and thought long and hard about them and kids who saw that protests were where the action was.  I'm sure it's the same here.  A common thread is that in battling against racism and the War we too were not only addressed significant wrongs but dealt with wrongs that had a direct effect on many of us.]

[In the paragraph starting "Thunberg, Time's Person of the Year, started by skipping school and protesting outside Sweden's Parliament on Fridays, . . ." most of the information regarding the individuals mentioned other than Thunberg came from https://yourstory.com/herstory/2019/10/5-young-climate-change-activists-autumn-peltier-ridhima-pandey.  For an abundance of information on youth and climate change, see the U.N. website (https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/environment-climate-change/) or https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-climatechange.pdf.  There's more there than I'd ever have time to read, but it was interesting to see the extent of the program (and resources for interested young people). ]