TRUMP, BREXIT - POPULISM, THE NEW WORLD ORDER?

The election of populist Donald Trump as well as the vote of the United Kingdom to leave Europe has shocked the conventional world order to the core. This upheaval was followed by other successful populism governments in Hungary, Italy, Poland as well as South America with growing support in many other countries. Even though the causes and manifestation of populism differ its emergence has lead commentators to question whether the Western World’s post second world war democratic liberalism order is over.

 The question arises as to what populism is and why it has emerged. The one link between all the movements is America’s own persuasive and eloquent Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s campaign manager and one time Chief Advisor. Bannon is consultant to all those involved across the globe, so his definition and analysis will serve to define what populism is and how valid the “philosophy” is as a political movement and its hope for survival. His America First philosophy applies to Briton First, Italy First, Hungary First, Germany First, Argentine First and presumably Russia and China First as well. He posists that the solution to nirvana for every country is unbridled nationalism.

So first it useful to examine what is generally accepted as the primary genesis of rise of this phenomenon - the financial inequity across the Western world between the “middle class” and the richest 0.1% to 1.0% of society. Added to this disparity was the loss of credibility of those who were elected to maintain the liberal democratic ideal and who oversaw this inequity. Immigrants or “the other”, to a lesser or greater extent, also were accredited for the plight of the genuine citizens of nations.

 CAUSES OF LOSS OF CREDIBILITY OF WESTERN LIBERAL GOVERNMENTS AND FINANCIAL INEQUITY RESULTING IN POPULISM

Particularly from the American and British point of view the precipitating loss of credibility in Government was the con lead by George W. Bush and Tony Blair, in 2003, as to their rationale to wage war on Iraq. The justification was the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of massive destruction. Fifteen years later at a cost to the USA of $2.4 trillion and 8.4 billion sterling in the UK with a 182 deaths for the latter and 4,142 for the former and approximately 40,000 casualties between both, the aftermath of this misadventure lingers on. There is the total upheaval of the Middle East, with its displacement of millions, a large number of which have found their way to Europe. The deception spawned the ISIS terrorist movement, which in spite of Trump’s reassurances is still alive. Finally it strengthened the hand of Iran and their ally Putin’s Russia, who not co incidentally is the main international supporter of the rise of Western populism 

Five years after the Iraq invasion the world financial system was rocked to its foundations, again under the aegis of liberal Western democracy, The meltdown was labelled the sub prime home loan scandal. While originating from outrageously irresponsible behavior in the United States the lack of financial regulation involved banks in Europe as much as the USA. The world was close to disaster when Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy and the massive financial institutions of AIG and Bear Stearns were the next on the block. The US Federal Reserve poured in three trillion dollars into banks to save the day as the world teetered on the brink, half of which went to banks whose headquarters were in Europe. No country was untouched by the metastasizing financial debacle.

This crash had profound financial effects that are still being felt today. This crisis heralded the formation of the Tea Party in the United States and is largely credited for John McCain choosing the naive populist Sarah Palin as his running mate in the Presidential election of 2008 which was won by Barack Obama. 

The Obama administration, which raised so much hope for the stabilization of the Western democratic order was stymied by the increasingly right wing Republican Party which gained Congressional control. Obama was also saddled with clearing up the 2008 mess and his bail out of the auto companies was seen more as an entrenchment of the elites and business  rather than the saving of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Also the only groups who were spared financial losses were the company executives who walked away from the wreckage with fat bonus checks. No one went to jail.

With wages remaining on the decades long static trajectory, in spite of increasing employment, the growing income disparity between the upper 1% and the rest increased. The discontent of the working class was exacerbated by the loss of higher paying manufacturing jobs as the world become more and more globalized and automated.  Added to the despair was the closure of coal mines with the growing use of alternate energy and fracking. It was not a stretch to argue, particularly in the UK, that the middle class quagmire was being fueled by immigrants and sustained by the fat cat elites of the Western democracies. The circumstances of the second decade of the twenty first century were ripe for the entry of the populist movement which promised, on the right, to return to a world that never was and on the left, a utopia that never could be.

 It is not unimportant to mention that assistance was obtained in heightening the populist narrative, from Russia, utilizing the power of the internet in a sophisticated cyberattack and disinformation project hitherto unwitnessed. In America this interference was intensified by what appeared to be a widespread infiltration of candidate Trump’s campaign. Between Putin’s ‘help” and the arrival of Steve Bannon as campaign manager who interpreted Trump’s chaotic policy positions and attacks on the elites into the political philosophy called populism, Trump achieved a shocking electoral victory.

BANNON’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF POPULISM ARTICULATED BY TRUMP

It is must be emphasized that in Bannon’s own words Trump was the perfect ambassador for populism. As late as the midterms Bannon publicly exclaimed that Trump had not made one bad decision. Bannon’s central thesis was that Trump was the transformative leader of the populism movement that would change history not only in the United States of America but in the world. 

Workers of America Unite You have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains

The marriage of Trump to Bannon consolidated Trump’s championing the cause of the “worker” as the centerpiece of his campaign. To hear Bannon’s idolization of the worker would make Karl Marx proud but before anyone could point that out he clarified that populism could be divided into capitalist and socialist versions. To that end there was much support from the Bannon directed campaign for Bernie Sanders, who also received, unwanted help, from the Russians.

The burden of the Trump message was that the worker was being downtrodden by the elites. Trump would force the companies being run by the elites to bring their “ high paying” jobs, that had been outsourced to Asia, Mexico and Canada, back to America. He would increase their wages and see to it that they would have a bigger share of the pie. He would drain the corrupt Washington swamp. Of course he had given money to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats and Republicans. As a businessman to get things done,”You had to do what you”. The fact that he had been part of the swamp in the past made him uniquely positioned to drain it.

Most significantly he promised that he would provide better and cheaper healthcare than Obamacare which he would destroy. A hollow promise that would cost him dear in the midterms.

Keep the illegals out and throw those in out.

The only American workers whose needs were to be catered for were the real citizens, not the immigrants - legal or otherwise nor those on work visas. In order to protect the genuine article there were the twin issues of immigration and trade. The former was a manufactured issue which was characterized by the specter of hordes of criminal Mexicans crossing the Southern border. This crisis was patently bogus as there had an emigration of Mexicans from America for over a decade.. 

Unlike in Brexit where the Lithuanian and Pole influx had dominated debate together with the threat of all those Muslim refugees that had emigrated to Europe gaining European passports, the USA immigration issue as defined by Bannon and spouted by Trump was phony. Bannon wanted the eleven million integrated illegals thrown out, to cut down legal immigration and work permits as well as halting illegal immigration. The building of a “great big ten foot concrete wall” across the Southern border was the metaphor for the success of this policy.

 In addition to the exposes of “illegal” and temporary workers at Trump facilities and the fact that the First Lady’s parents had been brought to America by “chain” immigration which Trump had explicitly condemned, Trump received his greatest setback when he was forced, by public pressure, to re open the government in spite of not receiving money for his “beautiful wall”. In addition the callousness exhibited by him and his Administration to the "workers'"economic plight that his record shutdown caused, was reflected in the opinion polls. 

Stop Trade - What is needed is tariffs.

Bannon’s hypothesis that the other factor that was interfering with the legitimate American workers’ progress was the cheap goods that they were importing from oversea. This phenomenon was a hindrance to home grown manufacture. Trade with other countries was inherently unfair - every country was playing America for suckers. Multilateral trade deals were out. Trump would exit the lot. He preferred unilateral deals as he was the master of these. To the delight of the Chinese he exited the Obama multi country Trans Pacific Trade Deal which opened new avenues to America as Europe wallowed in stagnation. NAFTA where Mexico and Canada played America for suckers as well needed to be renegotiated. 

While there was little doubt that China was deliberately devaluing its currency so as to make its exports cheap and stealing American intellectual property the unthought out policy of the introduction of tariffs would have the biggest impact on the worker that Bannon and Trump were so committed to. Already the aluminum and steel tariffs have pushed the price of appliances up fifteen percent. The farmers who relied on soy exports are to date the hardest hit.

Stop the world we’re getting off - America First and back to Nationalism

Then the best way to protect the worker was by nationalism - “stop the world we’re getting off”. The free ride that NATO, Europe, UNO and the emerging nations were getting as well as the US being the policeman of the world was over. The global connections such as the International Monetary Fund, Davos and the World Trade Organization were all meeting grounds where the American elites conspired with the world elites against the worker. What was wrong with just acting in one’s own interests? In the UK the European Union had allegedly an even more stultifying effect dictating to the British how to run their lives.

Who needs administrative infrastructure that slows progress and produces regulations?

Another cardinal feature of Bannon’s populism is that bureaucracy is unnecessary. The State’s apparatus must be “deconstructed”. The departments of the Environment Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development and Energy to mention but a few were totally unnecessary. It has long been the mantra that American Business and banks were over regulated, Bannonism advocated deregulation. Apparently the lesson of 2008 had been already forgotten. To illustrate how pervasive this argument was, in the recent shutdown crisis a Mayor of a small town in Kansas commented that the fact that life was still going on showed how unnecessary the 800,000 Federal workers were! It had escaped him that they were working they just were not getting paid. 

Bannon swears blind that populism isn’t racist

Bannon argued that in regard to Trump’s racist comments, “Don’t listen to what Trump says just look at his actions”. The example he quoted in support of his assertion was the fact that African American and Hispanic employment numbers, with everyone elses, was up. When asked to elaborate on the total Muslim ban, for example, which he initiated he disingeniously countered that the Supreme Court upheld it.

WILL BANNON’S VISION HOLD?

Whether or not Western liberalism will correct the massive inequalities of income between the elites and the workers or whether Bannon’s nationalistic vision will triumph is the issue. Key to this all might be what happens in America and the United Kingdom. But before discussing those outcomes it would be instructive to remind the populists that what caused the crisis in 2008 which catapulted the electoral success of the populism movement was a result of the non existence of national barriers. The international banking system not specific countries or lack of tariffs caused the 2008 meltdown. 

According to Adam Tooze in his epic award winning book “Crashed”, the world’s economy is no longer controlled by nations but by about a few thousand multinational companies. More specifically about twenty to thirty multinational banks matter. The paradigm of looking at national gross domestic products with or without trade surpluses as a parameter of well being is no longer valid. Keynesian economics just does not cut it any more.  What needs to be put into place is an infrastructure to oversee the interlocking of international corporate balance sheets. 

International trade according to a study conducted by the Director General of the World Trade Organization is responsible for alleviating poverty for hundreds of millions. If maximum tariffs were applied by all countries the Gross Domestic Product of all countries combined will be cut by half. It has also been shown that without trade agreements small companies would not be able to export. Larger ones can make arrangements on their own,

So the reality is that the independent nation state is dead. Globalism for better or worse is here to stay. Not that that will stop Bannon who argues that his nationalistic crusade can take decades to take hold. He can turn back the clock to a time that never was.

At the recent gathering, at the much maligned international meeting of corporations in Davos Switzerland, the activist entertainer Bono summed up the crisp alternatives to the crises the whole planet was facing - “You are either a firefighter or an arsonist”. Interestingly enough the consensus of the world elite was that the problem of inequity in income needed to be urgently addressed. The issue of whether increased taxes on the rich was the answer was hotly debated. While this appears to be a consensus in the USA, (a fact ignored by the workers’ champion Trump who rather reduced them), the CEO of Dell argued that he is giving seventy percent of his income to his charitable Foundation. It was pointed out that America thrived for almost fifty years when the highest income tax level was close to ninety percent. 

THE PROPONENTS OF POPULISM ONCE IN POWER CANNOT IMPLEMENT THE CONCEPT

Now that the UK has Brexit where are the plans of the proponents? They want their cake and eat it and are happy to vote against the solutions of the originally anti Brexit, mediocrity Theresa May without the vaguest clue as to how to lay out their own visions for the future. Where are Nigel Farrage and Boris Johnson now that the UK really needs them? 

As for America the wheels appear to be coming off the anarchist Bannon’s philosophy. The fight has been reduced to whether or not Trump will get money to build a wall that everybody knows is a joke. Whatever happens Bannon will claim victory because all the attempts to bridge the inequity gap he will argue are a victory for populism, albeit not of the type he supports. 

In truth Western Democracy has allowed the 1% to amass obscene sums of money at the expense of the “worker”. What emerged in Trump’s record Government shut down, that he claimed the “workers” supported, was that 78% of Americans lived from paycheck to paycheck. 

Although the Marxist experiment spectacularly failed, Karl Marx, from his grave, must be gaining some comfort in that the digital/technology age has produced the same inequities as the industrial revolution did. Hopefully the Western liberal democracies will right the ship. Otherwise Bannon’s xenophobic irrational destructive totalitarian anarchy will prevail. 

WHY HEALTH CARE COSTS SO MUCH IN THE USA

The Journal of the American Medical Association, (JAMA), early last year, with a scholarly researched Special Communication, (Health Care Spending in the United States and Other High Income Countries), and extensively referenced editorials, laid bare the reasons as to why America’s health care costs are double, (ten thousand dollars per person), as compared to those of ten other high income Western Countries. 

The principle finding was that America, which spends eighteen percent of its Gross Domestic Product, (three and a half trillion dollars), that is one of every six dollars, has worse health care indicators in longevity, immunizations, fetal and maternal mortality. In addition the US covered only ninety percent of the population as compared to the six selected European countries and Japan, Sweden, Australia and Canada, who covered all of its citizens. 

With Trump and the Republicans’ number one item on their agenda being to reverse Obamacare, it is no wonder that the issue topmost on voters minds in the 2018 midterm election was the availability and cost of healthcare. An independent unrelated study revealed that only nineteen percent of Americans were satisfied with the current health care system

THE REASONS FOR THE HIGH COSTS IN THE USA

One of the myths of the high health care expenditure in the US was that it was mainly due to over utilization by patients. This argument was not supported by the Special Communication. What appeared to be the major drivers of the doubling of health care costs were the far higher cost of   drugs, labor and other goods such as procedures, imaging, operations, medical equipment and devices and administrative costs.

Medical Administration.

The disproportionately high US administrative costs in this study, (8% of health care costs), were from two and half times to eight times greater than those of the other nations. It is uncertain how this figure was derived at in this study because other reports have shown between twenty and thirty percent of the American dollar goes to administrative expenditure. 

In another JAMA article, (Tseng et al), on the costs that just the just billing of services caused, it was found that this amounted to between 3% to 25% of the professional costs of the physician. In addition to this physician time spent outlining their activities for billing purposes, large sums of money are paid to the coders and the staff just to bill and collect the money. Nurses wander around with computers on wheels with complex programs to see that every penny is billed. CEOS of Health Care Systems and hospitals are paid obscene sums of money even in non profit entities. There is little doubt that with this multiplicity of organizations employing endless persons for administration are a big financial drag on the system.

Higher Costs of Pharma, Imaging, Medical Procedures and Excess Operations 

The drug bill in the USA in spite of a high generic penetration is double that of the ten nations . Daily reports of exorbitant prices for medicines punctuate the news. 

There were fifty percent more coronary revascularizations and knee operations as well as significantly more Cesarian deliveries, coronary angioplasties, and cataract surgeries in the US per 100,000 population. Coronary revascularization costs two to five more times more, computed tomography  twice to ten times more, while MRI’s were two to three times the going rate as compared to the ten nations. 

Physician salaries were twice as much in the US on average but the authors argued that bearing in mind the large student loans the doctors had, $300,000 t0 $400,000 and the pittances that they were paid in long residencies explained the differences in pay. They also did not include physician pay as one of the reasons for the higher American health care costs. Physicians in fact are, for the main, employees and are answerable to the number crunchers. Ironically they have far less power than their Canadian and British counterparts, for example, who, although working under national health systems, are independent contractors. 

WHAT THIS STUDY DIDN’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

The authors argued that the percentage of primary care doctors in the other countries were similar to those in the US. The significance of this finding was that the low percentage of primary care doctors in America is often give as a reason for the high costs. 

The problem is the JAMA Special Communication failed to recognize that America includes specialties such as Internal Medicine, Pediatrics and Gynecology as Primary Care that are not regarded as such in other countries. In addition the Communication did not take note that the US shortage in generalist primary care physicians has been met by an ever growing number of mid level providers. There are ninety six thousand of the latter of which the majority are nurse practioners. There would be no need for the latter if the US had enough primary care physicians of the type in the ten comparative countries.

Studies have shown for the same symptom the costs of going to a sub specialist is exponentially higher than seeing a generalist with health outcomes that are not statistically different. What the JAMA Special Communication misses is that in other countries the Primary Care Doctors are mainly generalists and can see any patient whether it be a child, male or female. The American equivalent of these general practitioners are family physicians which make up less than twenty percent of the doctor population as compared to about fifty percent in Canada and seventy percent in the UK. Thus while a family physician can provide care for the whole family if they are not the primary care physician the family may need an internist, pediatrician and a gynecologist. This obviously will result in greater first contact use of sub specialists which will increase costs as the studies have shown. 

Then as every US physician will inform the specter of litigation hangs over practice and this will result in over utilization of tests. This apparently was not found to be a cause of the higher American costs. Also one of the US over utilizations reflected upon in the JAMA article, Cesarian Section has to be as a result of fear of litigation. 

Contrary to all reports that malpractice fear plays no part in costs Jay H. Ell has yet to find a physician who agrees with that belief and they practice accordingly. Malpractice lawyers increase their advertising every year. It was gone up 68% in the past eight years to nearly a billion dollars. There has to be a reason for their “investment”.

Then there are other costs that were not taken into account that at the end of the day will be added to the patient bill. One glaring example are the payments for advertising and “sponsorship” of events and activities by health care entities. The former amounts to nine billion dollars a year with the bulk being from Pharma. This type of direct advertising is unique to the USA. Then health care systems  sponsoring a road race or an arts and crafts fare is reflective of the broken system health care in the United States.

In order to decrease the number of high cost imaging, for example, empires of authorization bodies for the investigation have sprung up. This requires physician time to apply and high cost to the insurance companies to hire the certification companies.

There is no transparency in pricing and different hospitals charge different prices for the same service. Recently Vox, an online news outlet, published an article showing the variation in costs of differing Emergency Departments. In addition unbeknown to the patient some of the doctors he or she might be receiving treatment from could be out of network resulting in the patient being responsible for the whole bill. What hospitals charge different insurance companies and non insurance companies is a mystery and is as unfathomable as air ticket pricing. 

Finally it shoud be noted that while the introduction of Obamacare cut down the bankruptcy rate due to medical bills by half, unpaid health care costs still remain the commonest cause for sequestration of estates in the USA. 

WHY THE CONVENTIONAL MARKET FORCES DO NOT APPLY TO HEALTH  CARE

America with a unique mixture of liberal democracy, market economy and some social safety nets has achieved the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. Like in most countries income inequality has increased, over the past thirty years, putting it into the thirtieth percentile globally. However this does not tell the whole story as even the lowest income earners in the USA are comparatively well off with only eight tiny rich homogeneous European countries having more average income annually. 

This all begs the question why America’s poorest who have what would be considered luxuries in the world are more likely to miss an appointment due to cost than the ten comparitive countries. Twenty - three percent of patients versus nine percent in the comparative nations failed to go to the doctors' office because of finance. In addition its affluent middle class are at risk to be sequestrated for their portion of unpaid, usually, hospital bills.

The crisp answer in economic terms is that while the market economy, freedom of choice and transparency exists in most goods and services enterprises in the USA very little operates in the field of medicine. This is extremely relevant to healthcare as the latter is regarded as a business pure and simple whereas in the other ten countries surveyed it is mainly seen as an essential service pursuant to a right that society must provide. 

While anti trust, (monopoly), laws exist they are poorly applied. Put simply the reason for this discrepancy is that government finds it extremely difficult to regulate hospitals and health care systems, which are increasingly taking over the business of medicine. The latter whether they are for profit or not for profit institutions are not overseen like conventional businesses. 

WHERE WE ARE NOW

The situation in 2019 is that Health Care Systems have become increasingly integrated swallowing up hospitals, physicians, every other health care worker, pharmacies and even insurance instruments. As their sole objective, as is any business, is profit, anything goes.  

As matters stand the situation will only get worse. Corporations much like in the 1990’s are recognizing the danger to the economy. At the end of the twentieth century Lee Iacocca backed Bill Clinton because the car mogul claimed how could America compete with Japan if health care costs of $800 were added to every car while the Japanese costs were minimal. It is history that the Clinton plan failed due to powerful lobbying by special interests. In addition the Clinton era ushered in a new income generator, the digital revolution, and motor vehicles became a much smaller component of the overall economy. 

Three of the largest corporations have now combined to investigate the introduction of a health care model that will deliver a high standard of care and contain cost. Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway, Jamie Diamond of J Morgan Stanley and Jeff Bezos of Amazon have set into motion a task force to come up with answers.

Of course there are initiatives in the political sphere. Many of the Democrats that were elected in the anti Trump wave in the midterms focussed on solutions to the health care problems. There is every hope that at the end of the day they will at least blunt the threats on Obamacare and address the many problems facing the area. The mantra has been a Universal single payor - Medicare For All. In the Senate Bernie Sanders has once again reintroduced the Bill and to indicate the shifting sands of public opinion there are sixteen Democratic cosponsors when last year he received none. Nancy Pelosi has set up a commission to investigate all the possibilities. As she has pointed out the Obamacare legislation is in fact more generous to citizens than Medicare where if additional insurance is not taken out the patient can be saddled with burdensome co pays.

There are massive lobbying efforts to thwart any progress. Obama to achieve his limited yet significant progress had to compromise with the insurance and drug companies. In fact the largest stumbling block to any progress is the health care lobby. In 20018 nearly $10 billion was payed to this group for their services. As the health care industry costs $3.5 trillion that represents an incredible return. 

Scandals abound. For example, with the introduction of payment for Medicare Prescription Drugs, CBS Sixty Minutes produced a segment as to how every individual, staffer and Congressman alike, for removing the bidding process from the procurement of the drugs received big benefits some in the form of lucrative job opportunities. Big Pharma just were given an expanded market with no price controls. 

One matter is for sure that the gravy train and the license to print money has to stop and that the whole process is due for an overhaul. Ironically, the best bet lies in the companies that are subsidizing their employees health care payments and there is little doubt that Messers, Buffet, Bezos and Diamond may well produce the blueprint that rectifies the inequities in the system. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY/

The myth that competition and market forces will reduce health care costs is a grave mistake and has been the Republican mantra for decades. Every cent overspent means less for education, infrastructure, social services and other necessities. What has worked for fast food and television prices is the wrong model for an essential service such as healthcare which is a right. Mercifully the electorate signaled their fury in the midterms. 

Hopefully between the Big Three and Congress some revolutionary changes may follow. It has to stick in the crawl that Americans are paying double for inferior healthcare that doesn't even cover all its citizens. 

REPUBLICANS ARE YOU LISTENING? RUSSIA IS

What has to be the most sensational revelation in the almost two hundred fifty years of the Republic is the report in the New York Times that the FBI instituted a counter intelligence investigation into whether the President of the United States of America was wittingly or unwittingly an agent of a foreign adversarial country, Russia. Not since Benedict Arnold double crossed George Washington by joining the British in the American War of Independence has the query surfaced that the American Government could be compromised by a traitor. The fact that the question is even credible is in of itself astonishing.

The response of Trump, his megaphone Sarah Huckabee Sanders and his echo chamber Fox News and all their friends is not reassuring as it consists of smears of Comey and the Intelligence Establishment, who apparently are all liars and part of the Dark State who are in a conspiracy with Hillary Clinton to unseat Donald Trump. It would have been far more persuasive if they would have countered that such an enquiry would clear the President.

In the light of the escalating chaos of the Trump Presidency and the crescenderjng evidence of his obstruction of justice, violation of campaign laws and probable conspiracy with a foreign adversary, the choice the Republicans have to face is whether their duty lies to their oath of office or to the benefits that a crooked and mendacious leader of their party affords them. 

HOW LONG WILL MCCONNELL ET AL ENABLE THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND ALL IT ENTAILS

Mercifully for the Republicans they lost the House so they will no longer have to bear the liability of owning the continuation of the cover up of the Trump criminal enterprise that the likes of Devon Nunes perpetuated. The Republicans enabling of Trump to date already places them in the annals of infamy. They should salvage what is left their integrity and what their Party once stood for. McConnell at the moment is pretending that he is powerless. Although to date he has been a spineless amoral opportunist he can still salvage what is left of his reputation and that of his party. (He could start in an unrelated matter by passing the budgetary motions that he initiated and help put an end to the Trump created border crisis which is being used as an excuse for the latter’s diversionary, vindictive and cruel shutting down of the Government). 

So this recent New York Times apocalypse once again raises the question as to what it will take the Republican legislators to realize their responsibility to their oath and American democracy. It is already proven that Russia comprehensively intervened in the Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, that fourteen members of the Trump campaign were in contact with their operatives and evidence has now emerged of collusion. Trump’s campaign manager and his deputy have pled guilty to crimes as have his National Security Advisor and personal lawyer. All are cooperating with the Special Counsel. 

 All the while Trump and his clack have threatened and smeared Mueller and his investigation yet the McConnell led GOP have refused to institute legislation to protect both the Special Counsel and his subsequent report. This in the light of the fact that the POTUS fired his last Attorney General because he recused himself from the Russian probe and would not protect him from the Justice Department. The Donald then appointed an acting attorney general who publicly called the Russian investigation “crazy” claiming that it “had gone too far” and offered advice to the WhiteHouse as to how they might investigate their adversaries including Hillary Clinton. For whatever reason Mathew Whitaker has not publicly halted Mueller. 

While Whitaker had no judicial experience Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, William Barr, has. However he shares the same attitude to the Mueller Investigation and supports the further delving into Hillary Clinton and other Trump’s political opponents. He also has gone where even Jeff Sessions wouldn’t by publicly agreeing with Trump’s firing of Comey passing it as “the right call”. 

The very least that the McConnell could do would be is to allow a motion to come to the floor protecting Mueller and his report. McConnell himself is becoming perilously close to being labelled a collaborator with Trump. His wife is one of the few cabinet ministers still to be around and her father has been implicated in some murky scandals involving his shipping company. 

“COLLUSION” IN PLAIN SIGHT OF DAY TOGETHER WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Besides the fact that fourteen members of his campaign and administration have had contact with the Russians there are screeds of in your face evidence that Trump is in bed with Putin. This is above and beyond what his personal attorney Cohen and other witnesses have to offer in regard to his dealings with Russia and not even taking into account all the Ukrainian and other oligarch efforts to put money into his campaign. It is still a mystery why eleven Russian supporting Ukrainian oligarchs were invited to his inauguration festivities. (Maybe it was to increase the crowd!)

The whole sequence of events relating to the Wikileaks e - mail drop following Trump’s tip off that “something big was about to happen” is damning. Then on cue following Trump’s open call, “Russia if you are listening”,the Russians went to work. His acknowledged attempt to cover up the Trump Tower Meeting with Russian operatives to get dirt on Hillary still has no explanation. The meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister, where he told him that he had got rid of that “nut job" Comey who had been putting his relationship with Russia under tremendous pressure, on its own, should have raised eyebrows that something major was amiss. To add insult to injury Trump excluded American Press from that meeting while divulging classified information to the Russians.

Then there was that infamous meeting with Putin in Helsinki where he trashed his own intelligence agencies believing Putin’s denial of intervention in his Presidential election when several of the latter’s operatives had been already been indicted by Mueller in a detailed charge giving date and detail of their interference. He then defied convention by meeting privately with the Russian Premier informing no - one of the contents of their meeting. On another occasion after a confab in Hamburg he seized the translator’s notes and instructed that there should be silence about the contents of their discussion.

Trump has allowed Putin’s unlawful grab of Crimea to go virtually unpunished and according to evidence the watering down of the Russian sanctions at the Presidential Nomination Convention was directly at his behest. More recently he unilaterally dropped the sanctions of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin. When Steve Mnuchin his Treasury Secretary briefed Congress as to the reasons he was laughed out of court. The POTUS has taken to coughing up ludicrous Russian talking points which amount to revisionist history. These include justifying Putin’s invasion of Crimea on the basis that it belonged to Russia as all the Crimeanians talk Russian. He recently, out of the blue, announced that the USSR invaded Afghanistan because of terrorists.   

All these activities have taken place while he has openly obstructed justice starting with his firing of Comey after pressuring him to drop his investigation of his National Security Advisor whom he knew had lied to the FBI about his meeting with the Russian Ambassador. He admitted on TV that he fired Comey because of “The Russian Thing”. Then what has followed is the almost daily harassing of Mueller and his investigation and Jeff Seasons his former Attorney General whom he publicly admonished for recusing himself from the Russia Investigation and therefore being unable to protect him from it. 

All this and so much more provide, together with evidence of his lying about his business connections with Russia while campaigning, to put it at its lowest, public evidence of his cosy liaison with a foreign adversary.

WHAT INITIATED THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

What evidence there is in plain sight, which in of itself represents a prima facie case of treachery there has to so much more intelligence available to allow such an unthinkable sensitive intrusion into the Commander in Chief to take the place. It must be remembered that the counter intelligence investigations into "The Russian Thing” started in July 2016 ten months before the firing of Comey. From that period onward the FBI investigators had legal permission to collect highly sensitive information including e mails, phone conversations and whatever else it took to analyze the Russian act of war. While Trump himself was not under investigation it is more than likely information was gathered that might have implicated him as collaborating with the aggressors. So while the counter intelligence investigation was said to have been precipitated following the firing of Comey ten months later that just had to be the cherry on the top.

It was also following the firing of Comey that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Council ostensibly to investigate whether Comey’s firing constituted obstruction of justice. Now Rosenstein was no supporter of Comey whom he in fact believed was unsuited to be FBI Director and had offered a memorandum to that effect. The basis for Rosenstein’s rationale was Comey’s defying of Justice Department convention in discussing Hillary Clinton’s e mail investigation close enough to the election to influence it. Trump tried to get Rosenstein to state that his disillusionment with Comey was because of “The Russia Thing” but he refused. That unlawful pressure on Rosenstein again makes one wonder what Trump’s motive might have been.

So everything points to the fact that the Counter Intelligence Investigation was put into place on the basis of what Trump was saying and doing in plain sight of day added to ten months of intelligence. It has been reported that allies also provided intelligence to the FBI as to what the Russians were up to. There was also The Steele Document, which was uncorroborated intelligence gleaned by a former British MI5 operative initially for Trump’s opponents in the Republican Primary and then by the Clinton Campaign, none of which has been disproved and has proved uncannily accurate in several key areas. 

It would be in the interests of Republican Lindsey Graham to ponder all these facts as he shoots off his mouth that the FBI went rogue. He was one of the ninety - eight Senators who voted for Russian sanctions. He might reflect why his newest best friend Trump lifted the sanctions, by executive instruction, of Derepaska. He could also mull why not one Republican Congressman who was briefed by Steve Mnuchin did not contradict Nancy Pelosi’s assessment of Mnuchin’s explanatory briefing being the worst she has ever heard. 

It is one thing that Fox and Trump’s other friends claim that the investigation was malice but for elected Republicans to argue that is another. 

WHAT GOVERNS A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION

Counter Intelligence is conducted by the FBI and is specialized activity which endeavors to obtain information on what enemies of the State are plotting or putting into effect. It has been argued by some former intelligence operatives that to mount such an operation into a President must have been a tough and scary decision ans could only have been taken after much soul searching. For those who believe that any old body within the FBI can initiate one they need to visit the government web site and see the lengthy regulations and oversight that such an action takes. To quote Chuck Rosenberg who was a long serving employee in the Justice Department who worked on high profile terrorism, espionage and public corruption cases, “The FBI acts scrupulously within the rules, consistent with the Constitution and the laws of this nation with rigorous oversight. Those rules ensure that civil liberties are respected and protected, particularly where American citizens are concerned”. 

Lindsey Graham is now Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that has oversight capabilities why doesn’t he bring in the head of the FBI and make sure that they are following their mandate? He runs a risk in so doing as he might not like the answers he gets. Lindsey Graham needs reminding that he initially claimed that if Trump axed Jeff Sessions that would be the end of his Presidency. How does he now feel that in addition to all Trump's interference in the probe, General Mathis has now left the Cabinet following Trump’s inexplicable withdrawal of troops from Syria, a policy supported by Graham as if his life depended on it?

AT THE END OF THE DAY

No - one is above the law and Trump’s public behavior towards the Russians, especially in the light of the fact that it is incontrovertible that they intervened in the US Presidential election in his favor, is highly irregular. Putin has publicly admitted that he wanted him to win. Yet Trump’s  negation of the unanimous finding of governmental agencies of comprehensive and prolonged Russian interference and that he believes President Putin’s “strong denial” is treacherous in and of itself. 

In spite of all that has transpired to this day Trump openly indulges in activity that makes him appear to be an unquestioning supporter of the Russian regime by echoing talking points on their expansionist activities and removing sanctions from an oligarch who was implicated in the Russian intervention in the Presidential election. 

Trump being a witting or unwitting asset of the Russians has been the elephant in the room throughout the campaign and his Presidency. A reality that he has not only not dispelled he has willfully reinforced. Bearing in the mind that the FBI CounterIntelligence Agency is the receiver of massive amounts of classified material and had been investigating “The Russian Thing” for ten months prior to Comey's dismissal, so that it does not come as a surprise that they had found enough material that warranted them initiating an investigation into the POTUS. 

If Trump and his supporters are convinced that this will turn up nothing they should eagerly await the Mueller findings. In the meantime they should be protecting Mueller and his investigation so that the country could learn the truth. Nancy Pelosi has withstood the anger of the more militant Democrats in refusing to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump pending the Special Counsel’s report. If she can suspend judgement so should the Republicans. 

Mitch McConnell should in the wake of two years of threats against Mueller stop pretending that he has no reason to believe that a need for a motion to shield him and the investigation has no credible basis.

Republicans are you listening........