TRUMP: THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

History is punctuated by epiphanies as depicted in the fairy tale, Emperor’s New Clothes, by Hans Christian Anderson. There a small child innocently explodes with the obvious truth that all are too terrified to mouth, “..he isn’t wearing anything at all”. Up till then no one had dared to challenge the vain monarch, rather cowering and colluding, with his boast that he was wearing the finest set of clothing. The revelation is greeted by the crowd with wild agreement. Modern examples abound where loud mouthed powerful autocratic individuals, who out of fear do not have their obvious atrocious behavior challenged. The offenders are seemingly omnipotent, till someone states the self evident truth or there is an event which releases a safety valve in society so that all can simultaneously agree that the “Emperor has no clothes”.  

Anderson’s story gives us no clue as to how long the delusion can continue for. The fable chronicles the reality that long before the chicanery is finally revealed the “truth” has been out there for a long time. It is useful to realize that this societal fugue like state can only exist in an abnormal period of history. So before the readers go to sleep let us apply the message of the famed Danish author of children’s books to two major events in recent American history and finally to the Trump saga. The latter in the light of the call for his removal by the editor of the influential Christian Evangelical Magazine, “Christianity Today”, which was founded by the icon of the movement, Billy Graham. 

America has faced major crises that were seemingly resolved in the wake of a simple statement that was a revelation of the perfidy of a powerful individual. Watergate is the classical case when the Nixon finale was heralded in by the production of the missing tapes that revealed what everyone knew - Nixon was central to the Watergate cover up. Jay H. Ell will briefly discuss two other seminal moments that were credited to change history - one involving Bill Cosby the other Joe McCarthy and then muse over whether Donald Trump will ever have one.

BILL COSBY, HANNIBAL BURESS AND THE ME TOO MOVEMENT

The fact that men have discriminated against and abused women with no consequences since time immemorial is just that - a fact. It was only in 1921 that women were granted the franchise and since then there has been gradual progress. However their exposure to a man’s world increased their vulnerability to sexual abuse which was met by silence by the women and society. The MeToo hashtag has been around since 2006 when the phrase was introduced by a Taranya Burke in a an attempt to empower young women who had been victims of sexual crimes. The movement gained prime prominence in 2014 when an African American comedian Hannibal Buress, in answer to Crosby’s criticism of young black men, told the world what they already knew, “Bill Cosby has the f…..ing smuggest old black man public persona that I hate….   Yeah but you raped women, Bill Cosby”. 

They had been allegations of the Cosby misconduct for years but the Cosby mystique had not even been slightly dented. America resisted shattering its life long love affair with the man who had come to epitomize the poster child American father and husband. However this time round Buress’s comments were posted on the “Philadelphian’ website and the story went viral. It was a media sensation. News channels featured stories such as the one on CNN where scores of women claimed that Cosby had molested them. The bohaai became the focus of an election of the Attorney General in Philadelphia where the subsequent winner ran on the vow that he would prosecute Cosby. Cosby had been given a let off by a previous Attorney General who issued “America’s Dad” a pass after he settled a civil case with a former employee of Temple University who he had allegedly drugged and then sexually assaulted. The Judge ruled that the law officer’s promise not to prosecute was invalid. The upshot was Cosby with a succession of five other women testifying to his misconduct was sentenced to three to ten years in prison.

So Buress’s statement of the truth set into motion the takedown of one of the greatest American’s TV icons. The fact that the truth was well known and the world suddenly said, “Yes of course everyone knew” is testimony to two factors - the prevailing social attitude towards women and Cosby’s hold over American society with the all round fear of exposing him. The Me Too movement had received a boost which encouraged further victims to come forward.

After a half century of silence all would agree that Bill Cosby is a sexual predator who needed exposure and punishment. The icon was found to be undressed.

JOE MCCARTHY, JOE WELCH AND SENATE CENSURE

Senator Joe McCarthy a charismatic young politician from Wisconsin was elected to the Senate in the immediate post war period where there was a heightened and growing fear of Communism. By 1950 he had already established himself as the number one agent for rooting out the “red scourge” and was ruthless and indiscriminate in his approach. He gained national prominence when he announced, in a well publicized speech in Virginia, that he processed the names of two hundred and five card carrying members of the Communist Party in the State Department. As early as 1950 he was challenged by a Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith to produce the evidence for his wild claims which of cause he couldn’t. Ms. Smith made a speech which was labelled a “Declaration of Conscience”.

When her expose got no where the brave Senator maintained that was a fear of criticizing McCarthy which created mental paralysis and muteness. She argued that the Senate that had earned worldwide respect had become a forum for hate and character assassination. Freedom of speech she contended had been abused. Her observations were supported by six other Republicans but she was subject to more vitriol. McCarthy in his invective sneered that she was “Moscow - loving”. He was to continue his reign of terror in what came to be known as ‘McCarthyism” for another four years.

McCarthy backed by public opinion which was fueled by the expanding Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe became more and more brazen in his mostly unsubstantiated allegations. In 1952 he was re elected in Wisconsin with a resounding majority. Emboldened by national popularity he attacked President Truman calling for his impeachment, all but calling him a fellow traveller. Eisenhower held back on criticism in his Presidential election but the latter’s failure to endorse McCarthy’s wildcat attacks incurred his wrath who added the newly elected Republican President to the conspiracy.

IN 1953 McCarthy turned the Senate Internal Committee on Investigations into his vehicle for further outlandish persecution of anyone with liberal opinions whom he argued was a Communist. He hauled them before them Committees forcing some to take the Fifth Amendment because if they themselves denied being Communists they no longer had immunity and would be forced to name names of those who allegedly were Communists. He was joined by a notorious lawyer who had gained national recognition as the Counsel to Donald J. Trump Senior. Cohn believed in taking no prisoners.

McCarthy wrecked havoc with the Hollywood film industry as a result of which actors and directors could not obtain work as they had been defamed by the Senator and or his Counsel. He nearly put an end to the influential “Voice of America”with his wild accusations. 

Cohn toured the libraries in Europe and examined the State Department’s recommendations as to what books should be on the shelves. McCarthy ordered the librarians to remove the books written by “Communists, fellow travelers and controversial persons. If all this wasn’t enough McCarthy appointed to his staff the author of an article that had written an article “Reds and the Churches”, which had maintained that Protestant clergy were the largest single group in America that supported Communism.

In all this McCarthy did not loose his popular support till he initiated an investigation into the Army. This served to show him at his worst and Republicans began openly attacking him. The transformative exchange occurred when the Army’s Chief Legal Officer, Joseph Welch, responded to yet another blatant smear that a certain Fred Fischer who had once belonged to “The National Progressive Lawyers Association” should be “looked into”. This retort was in response to Welch’s demand to Cohn that that he provide the list of 130 Communists in the defense plants that he was referring too. McCarthy continued with his unproven attack on Fischer, Welch interrupted him with the oft quoted line, “Senator you have done enough. Have you no sense of decency”. Cheers broke out and that signaled the beginning of the end.

Within a few months after the army hearings the Wisconsin Senators national approval ratings dropped from fifty percent to the mid thirties. In December 1954 the Senate voted to censure McCarthy by a vote of sixty - seven to twenty - two. His reign of terror had ended and he died in 1957 with his legacy of McCarthyism a pejorative in the American lexicon of politics.

WHERE DOES TRUMP FIT IN?

So like with Cosby it was not as if McCarthy’s totalitarian destructive behavior was not common knowledge, it was. The inquisitor had been from almost the word go been called out. The media had labelled his persecution a witch hunt. Respected journalists such as the legendary Ed Murrow had exposed his perfidy again and again. However rightly or wrongly history gives the credit to Joe Welch for the nation’s epiphany ignoring the role that several of his Republican colleagues played in his downfall. 

So how does Donald J. Trump fit into these two examples and Nixon’s Watergate? However this bleak period in history turns out his role will be seen to have heralded a departure from the traditional form of American Government as enshrined in the American Constitution with his Presidency heralding a radical change from being the Uniter in Chief to the Divider in Chief.

DONALD TRUMP, ABUSE OF OFFICE AND IMPEACHMENT

Donald J. Trump, a controversial real estate wheeler dealer television star extrovert braggart and showman whose business and personal behavior was unashamedly on the fringe was elected President in a tumultuous time in American and world history. He ran an unabashed racist campaign playing into society’s fears that those who were white and Christian were about to become the minority in the United States and that those were not white, especially if they were immigrants, were responsible for taking their jobs. His campaign was in sync with a world war fear that their identities was at risk. 

Trump also successfully tuned into the anger that was directed at the political establishment both Republican and Democratic that had stood by in the economic meltdown and subsequent housing crisis. Moreover not only did they not prosecute the financial establishment for their greed and irresponsibility they bailed their institutions out and allowed the executives to claim their bonus packages. Moreover he promised to reverse history back to the industrial/mining era. He was the billionaire representative of the blue collar worker. Added to all this he used his attack mode and projection style on his opponent labelling her “Crooked Hillary” using a sustained personal slander style which had successfully gained him the Republican nomination, (Obama was a Kenyan) and promises to render him a second term, (Joe Biden is a crook). 

He packaged his demagogic bile by utilizing social media with a skill as yet unseen in a political campaign and with Nuremberg style mass rallies.Trump welcomed, called for and received help from a sophisticated Russian hack and propaganda infiltration of the internet. All of this, with the help of an antiquated electoral system, allowed Trump with a minority of votes to become the forty - fifth President of the United States. 

Predictably his Presidency was more and more of the same. While he obstructed justice in the investigation of his campaign he could not prevent several of his campaign staff from being convicted of various crimes. He was named as the instigator of an illegal payment to a porn star where his personal lawyer was sent to jail for carrying out his instructions. In his first thousand odd days in office he lied over fifteen thousand times, he believed the Russian Premier over his own intelligence and law agencies, was found guilty during his Presidency of defrauding his own charitable organization of moneys he had not even put into it and generally behaved in a more unbefitting to the Office of the President of a banana republic.

 While much of this would have resulted in impeachment in any other time the Democratic Leader of the House held back. She realized that with the slavish backing of the Republican Party which had now morphed into a Trump cult the process would keep him in office. She was motivated to withstand the pressure to impeach by the interim election results which indicated that the Democrats had more than a credible shot at defeating Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Speaker Pelosi believed that impeachment was a risk not worth taking. 

However Trump abused his power in plain sight by leaning on an ally, the Ukraine President Zelensky to do his personal bidding to aid him in the 2020 election. He then withheld public monies in attempt to extort Zelansky. If that wasn’t enough he then obstructed justice to prevent the lawful oversight of Congress. So Speaker Pelosi had no choice. In the subsequent impeachment process the Republicans offered no defense of Trump’s behavior, rather they adopted his technique to attack and smear the Democrats and the hearings themselves. Not one of the close on three hundred Republican legislators have, to this day, claimed that Trump was an honest and honorable man and would never have committed such gross improprieties. 

What was plain and obvious to all was denied by the Republican establishment. His cult following wore T Shirts that told all “To Read a Transcript” which in fact is where Trump detailed his corrupt behavior. Trump, of course, alleged that he was being subjected to “fake news” and by criticism from the “Never Trump” Republican intelligentsia.

ENTER MARK GALLI - EDITOR OF CHRISTIANITY TODAY

 What however shook the POTUS to the core was an editorial by the editor of an Evangelical Publication, Mark Galli. Evangelicals, who make up twenty - five percent of the electorate, are the core of Trump’s support - eighty percent of them having voted for him in the 2016 election. Galli’s editorial was as obvious and as unchallengeable as the child who claimed that the Emperor has no clothes.

In describing, what had been already proved, the editor of Christianity Today claimed that, “The President attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of his political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution, more importantly it is profoundly immoral”.  He went to exhort his fellow Evangelicals, “To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior”. Galli summed Trump up as a “near perfect example of human being who is morally lost and confused”. He argued that the fact that Trump should be removed was not a matter of partisan loyalty but loyalty of the Creator of the Ten Commandments”

AT THE END OF THE DAY

The editorial did not produce a societal “aha” moment but this saga still has to play out in the Senate and probably in the 2020 election. If a similar number of Republicans that backed Senator Chase are emboldened by Mark Galli’s principled stand then who knows whether or not this might lead to one or other piece of information being central to Trump’s downfall and an acknowledgment that the “Emperor has no clothes”.

One fact is for certain the editorial has broken the Evangelical white monolith support for Trump. Christian Today lost two thousand subscribers but gained five thousand, mainly younger, readers. Another journalist left the Christian Post publication because it planned to attack the Christian Today editorial, while two hundred Trump supporters including Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman, Jerry Falwell Jnr. and  Evangelical leaders signed a letter in support of the President… to be continued.  

IS DEMOCRACY DYING? - THE CASE STUDY OF THE USA

Democracy, which involves checks and balances, accountability, a legal system to ensure that no one is above the law and participation by all its citizens, is under threat throughout the world. At best a democratic form of government is imperfect and to quote Winston Churchill in 1947, “It is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried from time to time”. Historically and broadly only two types of government were considered to be in operation - a monarchy/dictatorship and various forms of democracy. While no elected ruler would admit to being a dictator, the modern day autocrat is called a “populist”.

Implicitly in a democracy rulers are not only subject to the same laws as the citizenry but it is anticipated that they would behave in a manner that would engender trust between them and “We The People”. However, no constitution could encompass, for example, laws against pathological lying . Nor could the most comprehensively constructed instrument prevent subversion by a determined demagogue. While populists are springing up all over the world in countries such as USA, UK, India, Hungary, Poland and Turkey, widespread corruption is also threatening the democratic process in countries such as South Africa as well as attacks on the institutions that sustain democracies are evident in countries such as Israel.  

Jay H. Ell will focus on the United States as for practical purposes they are the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically. The consequence of their dominance being that for well over fifty years, they have flexed their muscles to encourage, prop up and financially support democracies throughout the world. Therefore whatever transpires in the USA’s upcoming fight for traditional Western Liberal values and morality will not only determine the future of America but the rest of the planet. Currently there are only two constitutional roadblocks to prevent democracy from dying in the USA - the impeachment and removal of the President Donald J. Trump in the Senate of the United States of America and the 2020 elections. 

THE FOUNDERS OF THE USA REPUBLIC CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AND THE SAFEGUARDS INSTITUTED TO PREVENT IT MORPHING INTO A MONARCHY.

The Founders of the Republic went to endless painstaking effort to prevent their democracy from failing. Their overriding objective is they wanted a “Republic”, with an elected ruler whose actions were answerable as opposed to a monarchy who had absolute power.  Armed with the writings of the enlightenment philosophers they cobbled together a network of three co equal structures to prevent despotism. These three institutions would be the Office Of The Presidency, the Legislature and the Judiciary.  Of the three, the Legislature was regarded as the most equal amongst equals. In order to dissipate power even further the Legislature would be divided into two co - equal bodies whose differing roles would be defined by their electoral constituency and their term of office. Thus the House of Representatives would be peopled by those who represented locally defined communitIes who only served a two year term while the Senate would be populated by the senior fathers of the Republic who would be representing the whole State and would serve for six years. The triumvirate would be completed by an independent judiciary who would be appointed for life. In spite of these safety valves the Founders sort to put in place one further remedy to prevent a President from turning into an absolute monarch - impeachment and removal which would require both legislative bodies to acquiesce. 

FOUNDERS CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT AS IT RELATES TO DONALD J TRUMP

Well how are the Founders’ efforts to prevent a monarch/dictator in this age of populism, faring? The Constitutionally stated criteria for removal were treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, leaving the legislature of the day to interpret what these words meant. However it is instructive to read what Alexander Hamilton, one of three chief architects of the Constitution, argued as to who should be impeached in the  Federalist Papers. The latter made up the working documents for the deliberations.

“When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune,….despotic in his ordinary demeanor… known to have scoffed … at the principles of liberty - when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity …. to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government and bringing it under suspicion…..”

Looking at Hamilton’s discussion of what represents an impeachable President he might easily have had the current POTUS in mind. Trump has boasted as to how “unprincipled in private life” he was. He Informed his adoring cult that he was the one to drain the swamp as he had been part of it. That statement was not considered as one of his 15,413 lies he has been found to have uttered in the first thousand and fifty - five days of his office. In full view of the body politic he has had to settle a case relating to his fraudulent Trump University, for twenty - five million dollars and was fined two million dollars for using his Charity Foundation for his political purposes. 

Then there is no one more “despotic in his ordinary demeanor …. known to have scoffed ….at the principles of liberty” than Trump . The Presidency has been dictated by total disregard for the rule of law and is encapsulated by one statement, namely that he was entitled to shoot anyone on Fifth Avenue without being charged - a position he has even argued in a court of law. 

There also will be no dispute that in order to effect his perfidy he has been, “seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity..”

Trump has argued almost daily against one or other of the institutions of government including the Judiciary, the law enforcement and security agencies which actions are described by Hamilton this way -  “to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government and bringing it under suspicion…..” ToTrump the very institutions that allow for democracy to operate are “The Dark State”.

So there is very little doubt if Hamilton was looking for a President to remove from office Trump is the man.

THE CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP AND THE CONSTITUTION.

Having established what type of a person Trump is the charges against him should come as no surprise. A recurrent fear of the Founders, including George Washington, the First President, was foreign intervention in American elections. In addition to his scant regard for the rule of law Trump has repeatedly invoked and welcomed foreign aid in his personal Presidential election bids.

The articles of impeachment against him, which will be ratified by the House of Representatives this week, are that he abused his power and obstructed congress in Congress’s lawful oversight of him The two charges are specifically in connection to the months long conspiracy he orchestrated to criminally bribe, with tax payer money, a foreign country Ukraine, to assist him in his re election campaign and then obstruct justice in the investigation of this circumstance by Congress. 

The facts of the charges are not in dispute although one of the multiple, even contradictory defenses employed by his allies is an innocent interpretation of his written memo. Those Republicans using this counter ignore the fact that Trump himself has illegally with held the documentation and witnesses that might have attested to their interpretation of his actions. 

Generally speaking the contention of those defending him claim that he was given no due process, again ignoring the fact that he refused participation by ordering witnesses not to appear and not producing any documents that might have backed his claims. Ironically the same Congresspeople who claim there has not been a fair trial to date openly state they are not going to provide a fair trial in the Senate - they are just going to acquit him.

HOW ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS AND BALANCES, OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND THE JUDICIARY STANDING UP?

The Legislative Branch

The Legislative branch has two chambers, The House of Representatives which draw up the impeachment articles, that is the indictment, and the Senate which conducts a trial as to whether the President should be removed or not. The former has completed its task. The Senate is under control of The Republicans whose leader, Mitch McConnell, rivals the POTUS for his callous disregard for the meaning and intent of the Constitution. He has openly stated that he is working in tandem with the President’s defense team to coordinate a strategy for his acquittal at the soonest possible moment in the process. 

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham has told the world that he doesn’t pretend to be an impartial juror. He too has reached the depths of hypocritical depravity as he lead the prosecution of the trial of Bill Clinton for betraying his office by lying under oath about a consensual sexual affair. As a punishment Graham should have to stand in the public square and read out aloud all day the standards of behavior and integrity that he previously demanded from an occupier of the highest office in the land. 

No - one expects twenty Republicans in the Senate to defect and vote with the Democrats to remove Trump from office. However it is an open question as to how many might and more significantly will there be three or more that can at least object to McConnell’s rulings to prevent the fair trial that the Republicans have been screaming that they want ever since this scandal began. For example, should at least three vote with the Democrats then witnesses that Trump has withheld to date such as John Bolton, his former National Security Advisor and Mick Mulvaney, his current Acting Chief of Staff, could be summoned. Jay H. Ell would love to hear from Rudi Guiliani who states that he represents his client and who has just stated that he needed Ambassador Yovanovitch "out of the way".

It is fair to state that the Republicans to date have made a mockery of their Constitutional responsibility of Presidential oversight. In the House of Representatives it would be charitable to label their efforts as juvenile both in the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. There is still a chance that enough Republican Senators will help right the Democracy by at least allowing for a comprehensive trial in the Senate.

The Judicial Branch.

Thus far the lower courts have all upheld the Constitution in the disputes with Trump's actions and failure to produce documents. A crucial test is on the horizon, the production of Trump tax records which have been demanded by Congressional Committees as part of Constitutional oversight and one by a Prosecutor in New York investigating the illegal payments to Stormy Daniels, a porn star that he allegedly had an affair with. The fact that the Supreme Court is even hearing these appeals is a victory for Trump as production of documents for Congressional oversight and for investigation of a President for actions while not in office is settled law. The Supreme Court unanimously decided cases against Nixon and Clinton. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June. While this litigation will have no impact on the current issue at hand if Trump’s frantic defense of the secrecy of his financial records are anything to go by, their release will obviously have a colossal impact on the electorate in 2020.

Jay H. Ell cannot he too optimistic as to the role the Supreme Court might play as a check on Presidential over reach. Thus far the Conservative majority have exhibited no evidence that they will reign in Executive Power. Although there have been several hundred academics and leading jurists who have signed letters for Trump’s removal the number one legal officer in the land, Attorney General Barr interprets Trump’s powers as similar to those of a monarch - the very antithesis of the Framers, who enshrined a Republican democracy.

Many commenators hope that Chief Justice Roberts, who will be overseeing the Senate Trial, will take an active role in ensuring a thorough hearing. Jay H. Ell will be be agreeably surprised but he is not holding his breath.

AT THE END OF THE DAY.

The American Democracy experiment hangs by a thread as Republicans, generally, have abandoned all the principles of their party to create a cult of Trump. What is left of the credibility of the GOP is in the hands of a few Republican Senators .Trump’s populism has not supported the principles of democracy at home and worldwide he has shown a preference for autocratic leaders. The outcome of American democracy will have a profound impact, one way or another, on the international trend to abandon that form of government.

The electorate might have the final say on the type of government that will operate in the year 2021. The recent Fox Poll shows that fifty percent believe that Trump should be removed from office, while forty one percent don’t. The same poll showed that he abused power by soliciting interference by a foreign government by fifty three percent versus thirty eight percent, committed bribery, forty three to thirty eight percent and obstructed Congress by forty eight to thirty four percent.

Thus while all the indicators are for Trump’s guilt and in the event of his survival the same factors that allowed his minority election ln 2016 are still operational - namely a bizarre distribution of votes in the Electoral College and foreign interference to assist him.  

As Winston Churchill noted, Democracy can be easily subverted. He would have known as he witnessed Hitler being democratically elected by a minority as well as Stalin who from 1901 onwards was repeatedly kept in power by various "democratic" processes. Between them they murdered over sixteen million souls…..

PELOSI PULLS THE TRIGGER ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AND ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE

With events moving faster than the body politic can follow, the Democratic Speaker of the House wasted no time in instructing the House Judiciary Committee to draw up articles of impeachment against President Trump. The speed and decisiveness of her actions, only six weeks after announcing the beginning of proceedings against Trump, have rocked the body politic. The Democratic leader has choreographed a tight irrefutable case leaving Trump's enablers with no possibility of challenging the facts and the POTUS himself appearing an unprincipled hack in contrast to the dignified House Leader. She is calling the shots and he is playing second fiddle.

 Pelosi is operating under the accepted wisdom that whatever case is developed twenty Senate Republicans are unlikely to vote with the Democrats to remove the POTUS from office. Pelosi, who felt forced to go ahead with impeachment in the first place, is anxious to return to the business of electing Democrats to the legislature and the WhiteHouse. She has no desire to keep Trump center stage where he loves to be. 

The Democratic Speaker, pressured by her caucus and the gravity of Trump’s abuse of power to press on, knew that the decision was a calculated risk from the get go. On the other hand if even just a few Senate Republicans cannot stomach the 'treasonous' behavior of Trump and vote for his removal it would represent a major victory for the Democrats.

PELOSI OUTMANEUVERS TRUMP

If Pelosi’s principle objective was to remove Trump from office she would stick around waiting for the courts and all the other side issues that might produce the public groundswell that would force the Senate to respond. These other issues include his personal lawyer, Rudi Giuliani, being investigated, Lev Parnas, his lawyer’s sidekick fessing up to the House Intelligence Committee of the WhiteHouse’s role in the Ukrainian conspiracy, his tax returns released and the courts forcing the witnesses such Chief of Staff Mulvaney and former National Security Advisor Bolton to appear before Congress, to mention but a few of the factors that will strengthen the case against Trump. Pelosi knows that whenever those events happen it will still help the Democrats in the election. It is obvious that the Democratic belief is that they can beat Trump second time around if they can concentrate on health care, income equality, climate change and gun control, and allow the megalomaniac Trump to run against himself as he did in the midterms.

Pelosi left all wandering as to what the extent of the articles of impeachment might cover when she once again affirmed that this was really all about Russia. 

There is a persistant theory out there that Pelosi can get the articles of impeachment voted on and not send them to the Senate. Then they will be hanging over the President if and when she is ready to move. Jay H. Ell does not believe that is The Speaker’s modus operandi. 

TRUMP REACTION IS PREDICTABLY ALL OVER THE SHOW 

Ironically, Pelosi’s dramatic decision was welcomed by both sides - Trump because he cannot tolerate the uncertainty. Having shrugged of his disastrous international visit, where he literally was a laughing stock, and bolstered by the booming America economy he is gung ho for the battle. He feels emboldened as his poll numbers remain around forty percent which he feels keeps him in striking distance of a second term. Trump is ultimately placing his reliance on the fact that the Senate has a Republican majority and that he will never be forced out. 

Nevertheless his messaging is still chaotic. He hailed Pelosi’s thrust to expedite the process while on the other hand he claimed that the system was rigged and should be abandoned. Added to the general confusion he creates he refused once again to be represented at the Judicial Hearings weakening a central argument of his House Judicial Committee enablers who cry that he is not receiving due process.  Pelosi's objective is the 2020 election and to put the focus back on the issues that resonated in her gigantic success in the midterms, which was to ignore Trump as much as possible. 

This speeding up of the probe is counter to the House Republican strategy who have sought, with Trump, to delay and delay wailing that the investigation is being obscenely rushed. They even selected as their Constitutional expert, who to put it at its kindest has regularly changed his outlook  on what constitutes impeachable behavior, whose only argument was that Trump’s impeachment requires more witnesses and investigation. A rapid conclusion is also out of sync with the overall Trump game plan where he is forcing court battles on his failure to allow members of his administration to be witnesses or to produce documents with the ridiculous argument that the Constitution allows him absolute power. Even he knows that argument will eventually fail but by then he reckons he will be reelected. Trump’s team can hardly argue a more measured investigation now that their fearless leader has screamed “Bring it on”.

There is little doubt that Trump will make his obsequious defenders task harder by his contradictory attitude and his culpatory tweets. However, Trump doesn’t care a hoot about the mess and the fools he is making of his supporters. He expects their blind support as a divine right. As Cabinet Member Rick Perry opined and he doubtless agrees that he had been ordained by G-D.

SO IT IS OFF TO THE RACES -  THE DEFENSE OF TRUMP 

Trump will accelerate the number of rallies and his tweets although his legal team will tell him to shut up. He is going to fight this politically. He is already putting out a ridiculous witness list including, Hunter Biden, Chairman Schiff, the whistleblower and Speaker Pelosi. What Trump does not fully comprehend is that he cannot stand up in the Senate and spout rubbish.

His defense is threefold, a counter narrative, that there is a deep state out to “get him” and some sort of different interpretation of his perfect call. He is trying to maintain that Ukraine not Russia hacked the 2016 election. That kite ultimately won’t fly because his biggest supporter in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, has already stated that he is a thousand percent sure that it was Russia. So has Mitt Romney. However even though the Republican Senate found in 2016 that Ukraine did not interfere in the election there are a couple of Republican senators that are prepared to reopen this repeatedly discredited Russian misinformation. Rudi Giuliani is running around Ukraine trying to rake up evidence to help them. (With allies like that who needs enemies).

With regard to the Deep State theory it has been leaked that both the Inspector General of the Justice Department and servile Attorney General Barr’s Special Investigator have found that  the FBI initiation of the Russia probe, which included Trump’s campaign, was justified. He can however rely on his Attorney General to once again say that the report means what he, Barr, says it means not what it says,

How the Senate Republicans can defend Trump’s obstruction of Congress will be a spectacle 

to bewonder. Then there will be those that argue that because Trump didn’t actually say -  “Look Zelensky you are not getting the money I am constitutionally obliged to send you or an Oval Office meeting unless you announce an investigation into the Bidens and admit that it was the Ukrainians, not the Russians that hacked the 2016 elections. Also you have to concede that this intervention was in favor of Hillary Clinton not me. In case you don’t get it I am bribing and extorting you.” - you cannot conclude that he was attempting to bribe or extort Zelensky

There also might be an attempt to interpret the Trump memo as legitimate by arguing that Ukraine is corrupt and Hunter Biden’s appointment to the Burismo Board was evidence of this. Furthermore they will argue that Hunter’s father then the Vice President used his position to prevent his prosecution. Trump has to explain if he Ukraine is so corrupt why is it that he is only interested in one instance - the Bidens. To this end Trump would want to subpoena the Bidens as witnesses as well as some discredited Ukrainian judicial officers. The fact that this lunacy is counter productive and implies that there are going to be live witnesses in the Senate hearing which could result in Mulvaney and Bolton being dragged before the body as well, may not stop his desperate enablers from resorting to the tactic.

The GOP best bet would be to admit that the behavior was inappropriate but that it does not rise to the level of undoing an election. Trump of course has gone ballistic at the suggestion that they would concede that he has done anything wrong. They will probably just maintain that they see nothing wrong in the call - to quote Lindsey Graham, "A nothingburger". 

Any rate they need a ton of luck and chutzpah to a mount a credible defense for a client who is patently guilty and won’t cop a plea. 

BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME HESITANCY FROM THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS

The country witnessed a total dispassionate demolition of Trump’s defense in the impeachment hearings which may have been responsible for the increase in the polls to fifty percent of the electorate who support his impeachment and removal from office with only forty three percent indicating that they do not. Round about the same time a Federal Court ruled against him on his refusal to allow the former Whitehouse special counsel to appear before Congress. The indignant Judge arguing that Trump was not a King. Then three Constitutional expert witnesses concluded that if the Trump behavior did not amount to impeachment then nothing did.

None of these outcomes resulted in any Republican Senators publicly distancing themselves from the President, although there is reported disquiet amongst them. The number that are said to be uncomfortable ranges from between from five to thirty. The reason for the reticence is that those who support Trump’s axing are still taking into account that the percentage that are calling for his termination, has only slightly increased in spite of the weight of evidence produced. 

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has been strangely quiet on how a Senate trial will be conducted. Reports from insiders indicate that McConnell is more than mindful that he has several vulnerable Senators in 2020 so if he is too partisan he could lose the Senate. He previously let out that the trial would be for real and they would sit six days a week. He has now blotted out the Senate calendar for the whole of January indicating that it will last a month. Another factor he has to address is that for any of the outrageous moves suggested by the Trump team it will only take three defections to have them thrown out. Only time will tell if McConnell will allow his legacy to be further sullied by turning the trial into a circus. In the meantime he is appointing wing nut life time Federal Judges to keep his mind off the storm at hand. Insiders have leaked that he may well cooperate with Minority Leader Schumer as to how the Senate trial will be conducted, but Jay H. Ell wouldn’t hold his breath.  

WHERE MATTERS STAND 

With so many cookies about to crumble it is impossible to predict the future. 

The House Judicial Committee meet this week sans Trump representation. 

Three cases are being considered by the Supreme Court as to whether or not they are going to hold a trial on the release of Trump’s finances or just let the lower court rulings against him stand, thereby opening up the floodgates to his financial records. 

Rick Gates, Trump’s assistant campaign manger is to be sentenced this week while his decades long advisor, Roger Stone, is facing sentencing soon. 

Another five hundred legal academics have issued a statement in favor of impeachment and removal of the POTUS. 

Chairman Schiff says he has more evidence in his ongoing investigation of the POTUS. 

Trump will use whatever happens to feed into his victimhood and paranoia. Never underestimate this survivor.

Whichever way the crisis is diced and sliced Speaker Pelosi has Trump stone cold. She has come through as authentic and is the only source of stability in a Government that has gone insane. 

Even in the likely event that Trump is still President in Febuary 2020 he can look forward to a year of legal and political setbacks that will weaken his electoral chances. His best bet being an unelectable Democratic Presidential Candidate.

So everybody hold onto your seats as this hectic merry go round speeds up. 

CORBYN’S ANTI - SEMITISM CONTROVERSY DISRUPTS BRITAIN’S BREXIT ELECTION

The tiny Jewish population of the United Kingdom representing only 0.5 percent of the citizenry has become front and center in the midst of the crucial Brexit election. Jeremy Corbyn the Labour Party leader’s association with anti - semitism has catapulted the nation into a major fracas. While the immediate trigger for the uproar was the unprecedented attack by the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom on the Labour Party and particularly its leader, the matter has been simmering in the public arena for years. Eighteen months ago seven Labour MP’s resigned over the question of anti semitism in the Party, while sixty parliamentarians joined a protest. Even if all the Jewish voters were to heed the warning of the formerly apolitical Chief Rabbi Mirvis, as to “What will become of Jews if Labour Wins The Election?”, they  cannot have any meaningful numerical impact on the outcome. Nevertheless the outcry evoked by the Rabbi might alter the course.

LINGERING LABOUR ANTI - SEMITIC CRISIS OVERSHADOWING ELECTION AND BREXIT CRISIS 

The crisis must also be evaluated in the light of the smears of racism against Boris Johnson, the increase of anti - semitism in Europe generally, the wide spread support that the Chief Rabbi has garnered and in the wake of the carefully worded warnings on the growth of manifestations of hatred of Jews both in the UK and Europe by the internationally respected theologian and philosopher, former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks. Three further Labour law makers have recently resigned over this controversy within the past few months, the most recent being Tom Watson the number two in the Party.

The whole rumpus over anti semitism is obscuring the very reason that Boris Johnson called the early election, namely to resolve the Brexit impasse. The newly elected Conservative Party leader had high hopes that he would gain a clear cut majority to just get the hell out of Europe come hell or high water. So he has greeted Corbyn’s discomfort with undisguised glee. He has trumpeted the fact that he is a great friend of the Jews while in the same breath announcing that Islamophobia is justified!  Corbyn had been generally regarded as a moderating influence on Johnson’s “hard Brexit”. The one party that could potentially detract from a large Conservative majority is the Liberal Democratic Party but currently it is in a shambles.

The electorate in general has been thrown into no man’s land. Their problem has been magnified in that Labour now represents the hard left and the Conservatives the hard right, both parties having been purged of their moderates. So those voters who oppose discrimination of any sort cannot vote for either major party thereby forfeiting having an influence on the future of the country’s relationship with Europe. Those who believe that Brexit overrides all issues will hold their noses and vote their choice. Of course there are smaller parties and many are looking to the weak middle of the road Liberal Democratic Party to register their frustration and anger. 

CHIEF RABBI’S PROTEST TO WHICH CORBYN OBJECTED

The despairing political statement by the decidedly apolitical Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, shocked the British body politic. The cleric did not mince his words, in his much publicized declaration he claimed that  “…. a new poison, sanctioned from the very top has taken root in the Labour Party (where the Jews) are treated by many as an irritant as opposed to a minority community with genuine concerns. It is not my place (to tell) anyone how to vote. I regret being in this situation at all. I simply pose this question: what will the election result show about the moral compass of our country? What will become of Jews if Labour wins?”

Dolefully the leader of the UK Hebrew faith opined that elections should be a celebration of democracy. He continued that the majority of British Jews, just a few weeks before the forthcoming electoral contest, “were gripped” by anxiety. Lest there be any hope for comfort Ephraim Mirvis underlined that the fear was “justified”. The bottom line was, “… the very soul of our nation was at stake…. (Corbyn) was unfit for high office”. 

 Following this clearcut outspoken denouement of the years’ long agonizing dialogue between society and the Labour Party, where inter alia there was a perceived failure of Labour to act against the anti semitism sentiment and behavior within their party, everything cried out for a conciliatory reassuring rejoinder from the Labour Party Leader. This was not about to happen. 

The fact that the would be Prime Minister was given the opportunity on four occasions, by the British Broadcasting Corporation interviewer to apologize for the Labour position and refused, could not have gained him the support of any waverers. His irritation at even being questioned came through when he had to be asked again and again whether he thought it was anti semitic to opine that the Rothschild family runs Israel and global government. Finally, after “sidestepping” the enquiry he commented that it was an old anti semitic trope.  Corbyn’s behavior was reminiscent of his seething anger during the House of Commons debate on anti semitism within his party over a year ago. Jeremy Corbyn reinforced his claim that he had done more than anyone else to rid his Party of anti - semitism. He took the highest exception to the current Chief Rabbi’s response to the assertion that he had investigated every case of anti semitism amongst the Labour Party members as “mendacious fiction". 

Corbyn’s litany of actions that have offended Jewish sensibilities are endless and still linger out there, not having been convincingly rebutted. They range from calling Hamas and Hezbollah “friends”, attending memorial services for Black September terrorists that murdered Israeli athletes in 2011 as well as laying a wreath on the grave of the PLO leader who planned the attack, not objecting to a grotesque mural which crudely depicted Jews with hooked noses in scenes from the infamous fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion and more.

It would appear that Corbyn “doesn’t get it”. He would have done well to have listened to Lord Sack’s intervention both in the House of Lords and his invitational address to the European Union as to the manifestations of anti semitism in the twenty - first century. Former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks maintained that anti semites rarely acknowledge that they are anti  semitic - rather they have other rationalizations for their discriminatory behavior. Corbyn has only himself to blame for letting the anti semitism accusations simmer. Even if he genuinely believed that he had answered the criticisms, he needed to meet this devastating charge of racism against him and his Party. While Corbyn has support to his claim including from a number of Jews, the overwhelming consensus of those that matter don’t believe him. 

What has to overhang this whole tragic debate is that there had to have been extensive thought and consultation preceding the unambiguous condemnation of the Leader of one of the two major British political parties and a possible Prime Minister.

SUPPORT FOR CHIEF RABBI MIRVIS

The religious community of the United Kingdom have publicly come out on the side of Rabbi Mirvis. Most notably the leader of the English Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, made it clear where he and the Church stood by tweeting, “…That the Chief Rabbi should be compelled to make such an unprecedented statement at this time ought to alert us to the deep sense of insecurity and fear felt by many British Jews”. The Muslim Council of Britain called anti - semitism in politics unacceptable while condemning the Islamophobia which is rife across the spectrum. The United Kingdom Hindu Party echoed Mirvis’s criticism adding that, the Labour Party had become racist under Corbyn. The Sikh viewpoint was articulated by Lord Singh who pointed out that discrimination was directed to other minorities as well. 

The letters to editors as has social media been replete with comments on this controversy both for and against Corbyn’s position. However the majority seem to be empathetic to Mirvis’s indignation. Particularly significant was a strong statement from a diverse group of artists, writers, intellectuals, notables and historians who urged Britains to vote against Labour in the forthcoming election. Inter alia they argued “…the prospect of a prime minister steeped in association with anti semitism… Mr. Corbyn has a long record of embracing antisemites as colleagues”. To add to the Labour Party woes they are being investigated by the country’s Equality and Human Rights Commission for institutional racism against the Jews. 

In fairness to Corbyn and his party there are those that believe that the Labour Party has done everything possible to cleanse itself of anti semitism but they have an uphill battle against the record.

BEHIND MODERN DAY ANTI SEMITISM

Before proceeding Jay H. Ell would like to make a full disclosure, the reason for which will become apparent as he develops his narrative. He has blogged ad nauseam about the need for a two state solution, the plight of the Palestinian citizens and his fervent opposition to the Premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu. In addition atrocities and discrimination committed by the Israelis have been condemned.  

(Jay H. Ell’s analysis will not attempt to explain why the Jews have been the societal scapegoats for two thousand years but rather on the rationale behind modern day anti semitism).

The current anti semitism derives, in one way or another, from the mantra that, “The Israelis and Zionists are the new Nazis and the Palestinians are the new Jews”.

The basis to the above line of reasoning by the protagonists is that the Jews aren’t the problem just the Zionists and Israelis. No distinction however is made between the Israelis who desire a two State solution which percentage is similar to that of the Palestinians at approximately fifty percent. Nor is there any allowance made for those Israelis who publicly oppose any discrimination of the indigenous Arab citizens and the Palestinians. In addition in the United States, for example by far the majority of Jews have oppose the current Israeli Government but support the nation State of Israel. Yet the Nazi smear does not discriminate between the latter and those Israelis and Zionists who support the annexation of the West Bank for example. To take that strain of reasoning one step further the increase in murder, hate crimes and desecration of all things Jewish throughout the world is usually linked to “Israeli imperialism” even though the indiscriminate victimization is on those not remotely connected with Israel.

Another variation to the argument is that Israel has no right to exist anyway. - the Israelis have stolen the land from Palestinians. Therefore the polemic is not against all Jews but only Jews that agree with the establishment of the State of Israel. Without resorting to the two thousand year history argument of Israel’s legitimacy, the creation of the State of Israel was initiated under the UK Labour Government and voted by a two thirds majority of United Nations members. The land was to be divided between the Palestinians and the Israelis on the basis of the occupancy in 1947. Had the former and the surrounding Arab Sates agreed the State of Palestine would have been much bigger than Israel.  Notably there would have been minimal displacement of both Palestinians and Jews. Roughly a similar number of Palestinians and Jews have been displaced. The latter from the surrounding Arab States where they had resided for centuries. The rationale for their expulsion was the establishment of the State of Israel which those Jews had absolutely nothing to do with. The majority of the displaced Palestinians left voluntarily of their own accord. Those that remained in Israeli territory are full citizens of Israel today, albeit that the Netanyahu administration have discriminated against them.

The other side of this coin is while the alleged abuses of human rights of the Israelis and the diaspora jewry that support them are condemned, no finger is pointed at the Hamas and the PLO’s  alleged terrorism and oppression of their own citizens. The fact is that it is common cause that whether the Israelis are justified or not in responding to “terrorist” or “freedom fighter” attacks Palestinian citizens, especially children, are placed in harms way. This behavior passes unnoticed. Nor are the military operations initiated under the cover of hospitals or schools criticized. Without belaboring the point further if human rights are the issue there is on its face plenty of blame to go around. Then has Corbyn read the Hamas Constitution which is a racist diatribe with its principle goal being the destruction of Israel? Has he even acknowledged the resurfacing of the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is explicitly referred to in the Hamas Constitution which accepts as fact that Jews, (not just the Israelis and Zionists), are involved in a conspiracy to take over the world.

Just for one moment there should be some reflection on the situation in Israel which unhappily is not bucking the trend of world wide populism. In spite of the Israeli leadership's totalitarian tendencies there is still the rule of law, a free press and universal franchise. In one area however Israel is ahead of the world in that the alleged corruptive excesses of their leader have resulted in his criminal indictment in the belief that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law.

The irresistible conclusion is that the rationale of the new world wide anti semitism scourge, is on the basis of the establishment of the nation state of Israel. An analysis of Corbyn’s alleged failure to root out anti semitism in his party generally can well be traced to the modern anti semitism rationale. As the anti semitism escalates It is evident that Israel’s creation is just as well as where else, for example, could the Jews of the United Kingdom go if a Labour Government comes into power and they perceive they are no longer equal citizens?

AT THE END OF THE DAY 

The United Kingdom is in a political mess. The same country that saved the world from totalitarianism, racism and bigotry is ironically enmeshed in a racist controversy of its own. In addition this crisis has emerged when there is a polarization of the two main political parties and the country is deciding its geopolitical future.

The bewildered British electorate has to live with the consequences of a decision they made, in an ill-conceived simplistically framed referendum, to leave the European Union. Ironically at the time of the Brexit referendum both major political parties, who the selfsame electorate had voted for, vehemently opposed leaving Europe.

The agonizing that many will have to face is whether or not to participate in the election as to the type of Brexit they are going to have. The recommendation they have received from many activists is that even if they desire the more acceptable Brexit that Labour may offer, their racism needs to be condemned at the ballot box, as in this election, to quote Chief Rabbi Mirvis, “The soul of the nation is at stake”.  

It can all change in a minute Donald J. Trump is coming into town for the NATO Meeting