Impeachment Petition

Note: Accidentally came upon this document today. While still a federal official I presented this Petition to members of the U.S. House of Representatives in October 1973 urging the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. I just barely remember doing it. It seemed worth republishing in this way. One can read it looking for the similarities with what could be the content of a similar document regarding President Donald Trump. Moreover, it's timely: August 9th we commemorate the 44th anniversary of President Nixon's resignation. -- N.J., August 4, 2018.

A Petition to the House of Representatives Regarding the Impeachment of
President Richard M. Nixon
From
Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson [1]

October 29, 1973

In the course of history of men and nations there are times when citizens must take a stand.

The tumultuous, exciting experiment called the United States of America has brought a number of decision points to its citizens. The Declaration of Independence of our colonies from England was one of the first and hardest choices we had to make as a people. Each war—the Revolution, Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Southeast Asian War—has called for a personal commitment of support, or opposition, from each citizen. And so today, as we ponder the initiation of impeachment proceedings against our President, must each American man, woman—and, yes, even child—ponder the facts and issues as he or she is best able, and come to some judgment.

It is crucial to our decision that we understand what we are, and what we are not, called upon to judge at this time. A conviction following the impeachment of the President—that is, his removal from office, or not, based upon findings by the United States Senate as to his guilt or innocence of charges—is not the issue at this time. Presidents are no more beneath the protections of the law than they are above its prohibitions; President Nixon is entitled to the same presumption of "innocent-until-proven-guilty" as any other citizen.

No, the only question that is now before the American people—and it is they who are the ultimate actors in this drama—is whether the House of Representatives should send to the Senate for trial the allegations against the President regarding the constitutional grounds for impeachment: "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To borrow an analogy from our more conventional court proceedings, we are not sitting as a jury deciding guilt or innocence; we are merely sitting as a grand jury, deciding whether or not to indict and bring to trial. [President Richard Nixon departing White House August 9, 1974, following resignation; photo credit: U.S. Government; public domain.]

Prejudgments of guilt or innocence should no more frighten us into motionless inaction than should outrage propel us to judgment.

If ever there was a time to put aside partisan considerations, this is such a time. And I believe that, to the extent partisanship has been evident on these issues, it may have been evidenced in the reluctance of Congressional Democrats as much as Republicans. it is charged that some Democrats may have hesitated to act because the polls did not yet indicate majority support for a conviction of impeachment, that others may be fearful they will be charged with precipitate and partisan action, and that all are mindful of the political disadvantages of running a Democratic nominee against an incumbent Republican President in 1976.

I must admit that I am not free of fault on this score. Richard Nixon's political career has been a part of my consciousness for 25 years. During the course of his Presidency, I have detailed some of the offenses that we must now consider in evaluating the propriety of House hearings—his manipulation of the media, the role of big money, and the war in Camobdla. [2] The evidence regarding the conduct of President Nixon's 1972 Presidential campaign has been available to all of us for over a year. The uproar following the resignations and firings in the Department of Justice the weekend of October 20, 1973 was the moment of decisions for millions of Americans. Through all these events I have remained silent.

I can no longer.

As a Presidential appointee [3] and currently active federal official, I recognize the seriousness of this action. But I also recognize the seriousness of continued silence, that “not to decide is to decide.”

Accordingly, I am today sending a copy of this statement to members of the House of Representatives, urging them to support the prompt initiation of House proceedings regarding the allegations of impeachable conduct by President Richard M. Nixon. I am simultaneously urging those of my fellow citizens who share my views to write their Representatives.

It seems both appropriate and necessary that the reasons for my action be set forth.

It is with deliberation that this decision, and statement, have been delayed until the “resolution" of the tapes issue; because, in my view, the allegations compelling House action on Presidential impeachment are unaffected by the events and issues surrounding the tapes. And it has been my desire to present the case without the diversionary complications of that issue.

In the flashing headlines surrounding burglaries, buggings, bribery, and break-ins, the most serious allegations have often been shadowed or ignored. it seems to me useful to review them here.

War. President Nixon ordered a land invasion of the sovereign state of Cambodia by American troops in May 1970 without the Constitutionally-required approval of Congress, and in violation of Cambodia's neutrality, as recognized by principles of international law and the United Nations which the United States is pledged to support. Even prior to that time, he authorized a secret bombing war against Cambodia which was undisclosed and overtly misrepresented to the American people, the press, members of the Senate and House, and even the civilian officials of the Department of Defense.

Free Press. President Nixon has waged a systematic campaign against the news media, including, but not limited to, the subpoenaing of newsmen's notes and films, wiretapping of Washington correspondents, the unprecedented effort to enforce "prior restraint" of publication (the Pentagon Papers), the jailing of newsmen, fraudulent FBI investigations of newsmen (the Daniel Schorr case), frightening non-complaint networks and stations with ominous recriminations (while promising economic protectionism for good behavior), attempting to control the lyrics of popular songs, and trying to influence the funding, programming, personnel, and administration of the Public Broadcasting Corporation.

Impoundment. The degree to which President Nixon has used the impoundment process to defy the authority of Congress to fund legislative programs is unprecedented—over 640 billion for health care, housing for the needy, assistance for children of working mothers, and the handicapped.

Electoral interference. During President Nixon's 1972 campaign there were violations of federal law in the collection and illegal use of campaign funds; a list of “enemies” was compiled for purposes of harassment by the Internal Revenue Services; fraud, espionage, libel, burglary, wiretapping, extortion, false reporting, bribery, and perjury were designed to—and very probably did—have an Impact (whether or not decisive) upon the outcome of that election.

Use of Government Property. Unanswered questions remain regarding the use of government funds to improve private homes in California and Florida—as well as the private financial and tax transactions involving the acquisition of those properties.

Invasion of Privacy. Widespread use of wiretapping (including the wiretapping of his own employees), the secret taping of his own conversations with others, the investigations and spying on private citizens, the maintenance of dossiers on civilians by the military, all indicate a less than full commitment to the letter and spirit of the privacy guarantees of the Fourth Amendment. The President's July 23, 1970 approval of the interdepartmental intelligence project (subsequently abandoned at FBI Director Hoover’s insistence) and the 1971 creation of a special investigative unit (“the plumbers”), indicates an affirmative intention to violate such rights.

Legal Procedures. While Daniel Ellsberg was on trial, White House aides burglarized his psychiatrist’s office for possible evidence, and discussed with the Judge presiding over that trial his possible Directorship of the FBI. In May 1971 over 13,000 people were arrested in a Washington dragnet, on direct orders of the White House, and in a manner subsequently found by the courts to have been unconstitutional. Having agreed to abide by a court ruling regarding his tapes, the President subsequently refused to either appeal from, or comply with, a lawful order of the Court of Appeals—a position from which he subsequently retreated. Grand juries have been urged to return politically motivated indictments.

Intelligence Independence. There is evidence that the President and his aides sought to subvert the independence of the FBI and CIA, using those agencies to serve their own illegal, personal, and political ends.

Bribery. The evidence is not yet fully complied regarding the relationship between the $60 million that was collected for the President's 1972 campaign and every governmental decision that may have been influenced thereby. Sufficient facts have already come to light, however, to suggest that there were at least some instances in which “bribery" may have taken place for which the American people are now paying the high price of a government-ordered “inflation” of "regulated” prices.

Many of these items are, at this point, only allegations that may be proven to be false. They are, however, illustrative of the "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution as grounds for Impeachment.

it is precisely because of—and not in spite of—my patriotism that I believe these charges cannot be Ignored. My childhood was not so different from that of Richard Nixon. I, too, made an early commitment to public life, to study and participate in government, politics, law and law enforcement. I, too, was active in student government from the time of my grade school years. I, too, have participated in party politics throughout my adult life (though in much lesser roles than he). I, too, keep a flag in my office, and can sing the national anthem with the best of them. I, too, have studied the lives of our great American leaders, and have had the privilege of feeling the personal influence and inspiration of some of them—in my case, men like Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black and President Lyndon B. Johnson. I too, have served the federal government during the past decade.

And so I can say that it is precisely because I do love America, because I have a commitment to the genius of its Idea that is sentimental as well as intellectual, personal as well as professional, pragmatic as well as Idealistic, that I cannot sit by silently and watch its decline and fall.

Without a commitment to our Constitution, without a defense of our dream, without the inspiration of our Ideals, America is nothing but another authoritarian industrialized state with rapacious rich and ravaged poor, freeways and factories, and neon signs amongst the natural beauty.

We cannot say “politics has been ever thus.” That is simply not true. The Presidents of my lifetime—Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson—may not have been paragons of virtue in every aspect of their lives. But I take pride in the fact that the cumulative allegations against all of them combined do not equal in seriousness the significance of any one of the nine categories of charges I have itemized regarding President Nixon.

We owe it to those who look to us for leadership to assert unequivocally that the past few years have not been "business as usual” in the land of Jefferson and Lincoln, that the lamp of liberty still burns bright from the Statue of Liberty to the eternal flame in Arlington Cemetery. We owe it to the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free” who look to us from across the seas, we owe it to our children—before the sparkle of youthful hope and Idealism turns forever to the hard, cold stare of cynical despair. And, not least of all, we owe it to ourselves— those of us in “the establishment,” the opinion leaders, the captains of industry, the educators, the ministers, the officials—who, If we are to lead, must feel of ourselves that we are fit to lead.

For America never promised the world it would be perfect. We are a bustling, brawling, boisterous people. We have a history of more materialism than is good for us, and more wars than have been good for anybody. All we have ever guaranteed is that "all men are created equal” and that no one would be bored. And, with occasional backsliding, we’ve struggled to make good on those promises.

We never said our Presidents, judges, and legislators would be free of fault. indeed, the genius of our system of government is that it quite candidly creates checks and balances to deal with fault. Our leaders are not figures descended from royalty, gods or angels who “can do no wrong.” They are quite human, "of, by and for the people,” with all the strengths and weaknesses of the other mortals they serve and represent.

Thus, the great shame of the actions leading to the charges against President Nixon has not yet come. That the charges have surfaced, that the press has reported them, that the Senate and courts have investigated them, should be a matter of greatest national pride. No, the great shame will come to our nation If, and only If, knowing the charges, the House of Representatives refuses to act.

And so I conclude as I began. It is not my judgment that the President should be convicted after a trial. Under our Constitution, it is the United States Senate that will hear that case and consider the question. And just as all American citizens now sit as an advisory panel to the House, so will we then all sit as judges with the Senate. The only issue before us now is whether the facts, charges, and allegations I have summarily outlined here are sufficient cause for the House to send the matter to the Senate. That they require such action seems to me clear beyond doubt—although I expressly reserve judgment on whether the President should be removed from office following his Senate trial.

It is encouraging and commendable that the House judiciary Committee has begun hearings. I urge every Member to support the efforts of that Committee and to expedite the transmission of this case to the Senate, where it belongs.

FOOTNOTES

1. The text of this petition was taken from Congressional Record, October 31, 1973
[https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1973.../GPO-CRECB-1973-pt27-8-2.pdf]. The heading was:

PETITION TO HOUSE
HON. ROBERT F. DRINAN
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 31, 1973 Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Speaker, all of us are aware of the achievements of Nicholas Johnson, a distinguished Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Johnson has taken the very bold and brave step of speaking out before the House of Representatives on the subject of an impeachment inquiry of the President of the United States. I am hopeful that my colleagues will read carefully Commissioner Johnson's petition to the House of Representatives regarding the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon. The petition follows:

2. For example, "Government by Television: A Case Study, Perspectives and Proposals," Earth (March 1971), pp. 50-69, 92-93; "Subpoenas, Outtakes and Freedom of the Press: An Appeal to Media Management," reprinted as "Stations Are Standing By While News is Threatened,” Television/Radio Age (April 6. 1970), pp. 69. 114, 116, 118, 120, 124, 126. 128. 132; “Dear Vice President Agnew," The New York Times, Oct. 11, 1970, p. D-17; “The Power of the People and the Obligation to Dissent,” Los Angeles Free Press (May 29, 1970). p. 15; "Evil Times and Great Wealth,” speech delivered at the University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Oct. 15, 1973.

3. July 1, 1966, by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, not President Richard Nixon.

# # #

GOP Healthcare: Just 'Tell 'em I lied'

An aide to Louisiana Governor "Uncle" Earl Long (1939-40; 1948-52; 1956-60), having faced a group of constituents demanding to meet with the Governor, and angry over his failure to deliver them a promised road, asked Long what the aide should tell the crowd. Governor Long replied,

"Tell 'em I lied."

-- Louisiana Governor Earl Long [full story in Endnote, below]

Why do the Republican members of the House and Senate seemingly feel compelled, like those who self-flagellate their backs with knives and chains, to march on to ever greater self-inflicted wounds, in order to make good on their promise to "repeal Obamacare"? [Photo credit: Gov. Earl K. Long speaking to the Legislature in June 1956; New Orleans Times-Picayune archive.]

Surely they are aware that the titular head of their party -- the President of the United States, Donald Trump -- with all of his lies and broken promises to supporters, has nonetheless enjoyed a successful political career. After all, as he's said of the media, "I'm president and they're not." [Michael D. Shear, "'I'm President and They're Not': Trump Attacks Media at Faith Rally," New York Times, July 2, 2017, p. A18.] As the Times has reported, "There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths."

"[H]ere are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days.
492: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day.
10: Number of days without a single false claim. (On six of those days, the president golfed at a Trump property.)
5: Number of days with 20 or more false claims. (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, March 20, April 21 and April 29, his 100th day in office.)" Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, "President Trump’s First 100 days: The Fact Check Tally," Washington Post, May 1, 2017.

And see, David Leonhardt and Stuart A. Thompson, "Trump's Lies," New York Times, Updated July 21, 2017 (with chronological itemized list; "There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths. Every president has shaded the truth or told occasional whoppers. No other president — of either party — has behaved as Trump is behaving. He is trying to create an atmosphere in which reality is irrelevant.")

As much as we may admire the congressional Republicans' ethical desire to keep commitments to constituents, why can't they, with regard to this healthcare business, follow their President's example, and that of Governor Earl Long, and simply say, "We lied"?

In fact, they even have a much more acceptable explanation than "we lied." I would suggest they consider something like this:

When Obamacare became law we did not like it. You did not like it. We did not like the process the Democrats used to get it enacted. During the years since, our efforts to repeal it have been frustrated by President Obama's threat to veto any repeal. As you've probably noticed, we've had our difficulties repealing it this year as well.

This is, in large part, a function of the passage of time.

There are things that even the Democrat Obamacare enthusiasts agree are wrong with the law. Whatever else happens, those defects must be fixed.

But after seven years of Americans living with Obamacare, getting access to insurance and healthcare, many of you have come to depend upon it. Few if any of our proposals to repeal it have had the support of more than 15 percent of the American people -- including Republicans. Changes that would continue, or increase, the tens of millions of Americans with no realistic access to Medicaid, Medicare or other adequate health insurance and healthcare, are neither good medicine nor politics.

We have not abandoned our quest, your quest, to improve on Obamacare. What we have come to recognize is that an outright repeal, with or without a replacement, is not politically possible. What is possible is to do better than the Democrats did in fashioning Obamacare while essentially locking us out. What we can do is to start over with the traditional legislative process of staff research, committee hearings with the nation's experts, and full floor debate regarding amendments -- a process that will enable Democrats and Republicans to work together. What we can do is create a process in which facts replace ideological arguments, a process in which every member of the House and Senate has some skin in the game, a process from which can come the best healthcare for all Americans that our representative democracy is capable of creating for the American people.

There's something to the old saying that when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. The Republicans continued digging. It hasn't worked. Perhaps it's time to call on Winston Churchill. As Churchill once observed of our democracy, "The Americans will always do the right thing -- after they've exhausted all the alternatives." Now that Congress has pretty well exhausted all the alternatives, perhaps the next step is to do the right thing.

# # #
Endnote The full story is told by Michael Kurtz and Morgan Peoples:

"During one of his campaigns for governor, Earl Long made a stump appearance before a crowd of farmers in rural St. Tammany Parish. In typical fashion, he promised that if elected, he would have a local road, heavily traveled and full of potholes, widened and paved. Long won the election abnd carried the rural district, but when the legislature convened, he failed to include the promised road work in his agenda of bills. Astonished and furious at this display of gubernatorial duplicity, a large contingent of irate citizens journeyed to Baton Rouge to see Governor Long. Earl would not see them, and they subjected his administrative aide to a barrage of threats and insults. Refusing to leave, they stood their ground and demanded that Long see them. Equally adamant, Earl turned down the impassioned pleas by his aid. The fist-shaking mob gave the aid one last chance, and out of sheer exasperation, he said to Long, "After all, governor, you did promise to have their road paved. What should I tell those people?" With a shrug, Earl replied, "Tell 'em I lied!"

Michael L. Kurtz, Morgan D. Peoples, Earl K. Long: The Saga of Uncle Earl and Louisiana Politics, (LSU Press, 1990), Preface

I will leave to others the search for other possible indicia of similarities between President Trump and the Governors Long, such as, "[Huey] Long became a dictator, disdaining the ordinary processes of constitutional government and flouting the principles of separation of powers. . . . [H]is successors engaged in outrageous acts of personal enrichment, stealing an estimated $100 million from the state [roughly $2 billion today]. . . . [Earl Long] openly practic[ed] spoils politics. He wrecked the state civil service system, fired civil servants for 'political halitosis,' and openly accepted 'campaign contributions' from gamblers and mobsters." Id., p. 9.

# # #

What Trump Needs to Know About Libel

[This commentary is not legal advice, and we do not have a lawyer-client relationship. If you are involved in, or contemplating, suing or being sued for defamation you should consult a lawyer, preferably one with experience in such matters. Lest you wonder, that cannot be me; I've long since turned my bar memberships in Iowa, Texas, and the District of Columbia to "inactive" status. -- N.J.]

I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. . . . So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace . . . we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected. . . . we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

-- Presidential candidate Donald Trump, Rally, Ft. Worth Texas, Friday, February 26, 2016, Hadas Gold, “Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws,” Politico, February 26, 2016.

President Donald Trump campaigned, and now governs, with ongoing attacks on the judiciary and the media – two institutions designed by the drafters of our Constitution to provide a check on presidential abuse of power. For those who look to the “original intent,” that was the original intent.

The president’s attack on the media has included the assertion that he is going to “open up our libel laws” so that he can sue newspapers like the New York Times.

Trump can already sue for libel. For starters, he already has the legal right to sue any newspaper or other media outlet for defamation (“libel” if written, “slander” if spoken). Anyone can sue for defamation. That includes the president.

Whether the plaintiff will win involves many elements of a defamation claim, but here’s a summary. There is a statement, about the plaintiff (not always obvious), the meaning of which must be ascertained (not always obvious), as understood by the individuals of relevance (such as customers of the plaintiff, neighbors, or members of the plaintiff’s profession), that was factual in nature (as distinguished from “opinion”), false, and which caused a measurable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation (among those individuals of relevance).

In short, it's simply not true, as Trump has asserted, that the reason he hasn't sued the media is he has "no chance of winning because they're totally protected."

(Many of the president’s tweets and other informal comments attacking and demeaning individuals and institutions would seem to fall within that definition of defamation. But the issues involved when a citizen wishes to sue the president for defamation would require another commentary.)

Different standards for plaintiffs who are public officials. If what Trump meant to say is that, as a public official, he must meet a slightly different standard than you or I to recover a judgment for defamation, he is right. That standard was set in a Supreme Court case.

What was new about Justice Brennan’s analysis for the Supreme Court in the landmark defamation decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 967 (1964), was that he approached the language involved from a First Amendment perspective rather than, or in addition to, solely a defamation analysis. [Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., photo credit unknown.]

He wrote,

“[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Sullivan, the plaintiff, was one of three elected commissioners in Montgomery, Alabama –- and therefore a “public official.” As such, the Court held, he had a right to sue for defamation, but to prevail on the elements just itemized he would need to show not just that the Times story had some factual errors.

He would need to show what the Court called “actual malice” – an unfortunate choice of words, since the everyday meaning of “malice” was no part of the standard. “Actual malice” meant that he would need to show “that the statement was made . . . with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

The standard involving plaintiffs who are ordinary citizens focuses on, recognizes and protects the asset value of individuals’ reputations – with the byproduct of reducing remedies involving violence. Unlike the standard involving ordinary citizens, which only requires a false statement, public officials must show a measure of fault on the part of the media. This is because of the First Amendment value of speech involving public policy and public officials – speech that lies at the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Balancing the desire to offer citizens a means for protecting their reputations against the value of First Amendment speech, this is where the Court came out.

Constitutional restraints on congressional and presidential law making. Article I of the Constitution lays out what in high school we call, “how a bill becomes law” (in Article I, Section 7). Clearly the president cannot create “law” all on his own; he cannot “open up our libel laws,” or any other laws for that matter.

Nor can Congress make any laws it pleases. Congress only has the power to legislate regarding what the Constitution grants in the 18 clauses within Article I, Section 8 – none of which come remotely close to libel laws. The “interstate commerce clause” (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3: “The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . ..”) has been stretched pretty wide by the courts. But defamation? Originating in the English “common law” (judicial decisions) at least in the early 17th Century, if not before, has been considered a matter for the U.S. states.

Hopefully, Mr. President, you’ll find this analysis helpful in your quest to “open up our libel laws.”

# # #

Collusion, Treason, Trump and Putin

Collusion 1. a secret agreement, especially for . . . treacherous purposes; conspiracy

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally . . . or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

-- Dictionary.com

Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . . and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

-- 18 U.S. Code §2381 (1994)

Impeachment The President . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

-- U.S. Constitution, Article II, §4 (The 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides alternative procedures following a finding that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.")

_______________
What can we pluck from the speculation and wild accusations, alternative facts and devious denials, regarding Russia's involvement in our last presidential election? Here's a quick, three-part summary:

Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not fond of Hillary Clinton and preferred Donald Trump as the next U.S. president. Individuals in Russia were involved in hacking into computers of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Campaign, and facilitating release of some of their content. They, or others in Russia, prepared propaganda and false damaging information about Clinton and distributed it throughout the U.S. through social media. However probable it may be that some voters were, to some extent, influenced in their opinions of the candidates, and even ultimate choices at the ballot box, there is no procedure for collecting the data necessary to prove or disprove such suspicions. It is unlikely that, but for these Russian efforts, Clinton would have won the electoral vote (although there's no way that can be proved or disproved). There have been assertions that Russians wanted to manipulate voting machines, but no evidence that, if so, they were successful in doing so.

Trump. A second, related, line of inquiry has involved the past and present ties that Trump, his family, campaign and other associates, may have with Russian oligarchs, banks, politicians and government officials. This includes Americans' interests in investments there (or payments from there) and Russians' investments or payments here. A significant number of individuals in both countries, meetings, and transactions have been identified and reported. Of course, a substantial impediment to a thorough understanding is Trump's refusal to comply with the norm that presidents reveal their past tax returns. And the Trump Team's case has not been strengthened by the number of instances in which their contacts with Russians (or payments from Russians) have been denied, only to have been unequivocally confirmed later.

Collusion. A third, and seemingly final inquiry addresses the possibility that there was "collusion," a "conspiracy," among the joint forces of Putin and Trump, working together in their efforts to defeat Clinton and elect Trump. Such a finding ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to prove without documents (e.g., electronic messages, meeting notes, transcripts of conference calls) or the testimony of those present at such meetings. If a "secret agreement" or "conspiracy" (as "collusion" is defined at the top of this post) can be shown, fine. But an inability to do so should not be the end of the matter. Indeed, it should not have been the beginning, either.

Here is an effort at an explanatory analogy for where the Putin-Trump inquiry should have begun.

Consider the terrorist attack on 9/11. That involved collusion, or a conspiracy -- an organization, communication and control, financing, training, a plan, and the execution of that plan. That was the case with some of the terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere. But as our government, intelligence community, and international cooperation became more sophisticated, loose affiliations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS found it increasingly difficult to carry out such organized attacks. Did they give up? No. What did they do? They changed strategy and procedures.

They began sending out to everyone in the world with an Internet connection the equivalent of the computer-generated emails we all get from time to time notifying us that we can't "reply" to the email. They said, in effect, "Don't leave your country; don't try to contact us or come to the Middle East for training; don't try to organize massive destruction like 9/11. Do what you can do where you are: shoot somebody or throw them off a rooftop, make a car bomb or drive your car into a crowd." Many to most of those who were persuaded by these Web pages and social media messages, persuaded to engage in some terrorist act, were not a part of a conspiracy, or collusion with a terrorist organization's leadership. They had attended no meetings, had no conversations, received no electronic communications personal to them. What they do is "consistent" with the organization's goals and strategies, but it does not constitute "collusion."

This is something we experience in our daily lives. Local street demonstrations -- whether the global "Women's March" demonstrations on January 21, or those throughout Russia on March 26; whether those of the Tea Party or Occupy -- often emerge and grow without any need for a conspiracy, collusion, or communication. Nor need it always be as dramatic as terrorist acts or demonstrations. The same is true of fads in food, dress, sports, or smartphones.

And that, I believe, is how we should approach the actions of Putin and Trump before, during, and after the November 8, 2016, presidential election. It is not necessary that they and their teams talked strategy with each other, or enabled each other's actions, or coordinated their campaign strategies and tactics. [Photo credit: Reuters/Alexander Zemlianichenko, AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Business Insider/Skye Gould]

"Treason," defined at the top of this post, only speaks of "giving [enemies] aid and comfort." Clearly, Putin derived "aid and comfort" from the outcome of the election, and the attitudes and actions of Trump's Team that have paralleled Putin's own.

So where's the evidence? Here are some excerpts from Newsweek's take last August:

Not since the beginning of the Cold War has a U.S. politician been as fervently pro-Russian as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. . . . Trump has praised President Vladimir Putin as a real leader, “unlike what we have in this country.” Trump has also dismissed reports that Putin has murdered political enemies (“Our country does plenty of killing also,” he told MSNBC) . . .. When Russian hackers stole a cache of emails [from the DNC] . . . Trump called on “Russia, if you’re listening,” to hack some more. . . .

“Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights,” [says U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014] Michael McFaul. “A U.S. retreat from global affairs fits precisely with Putin’s international interests.” . . . Kremlin-sponsored propaganda outlets like Sputnik and RT . . . have lavishly praised Trump, . . . supported Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama “founded ISIS,” and Russia’s world-class army of state-sponsored hackers has targeted Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. . . .

[T]he Kremlin’s support for Trump is part of a longstanding strategy to sow disruption and discord in the West. Whether it’s by backing French ultra-nationalists . . . or boosting Donald Trump’s chances by blackening the Democrats, the Kremlin believes Russia benefits every time the Western establishment is embarrassed. . . .

Former CIA Director Mike Morell wrote . . . that Putin “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation” with flattery. But the truth is more nuanced. Trump’s pro-Putinism goes back to at least 2007, when he told CNN that [Putin] was doing “a great job” rebuilding Russia. Trump was pushing real estate deals in Moscow at the time and, according to one Moscow-based American businessman . . . Trump’s admiration for Putin was rooted in “pure self-interest. . . . He was looking to make friends and business partners” among Russia’s politically connected elite. . . .

Trump’s . . . political career has made him an important part of Putin’s wider strategy to weaken the West and court conservatives around the world . . .. into a grand anti-liberal alliance headed by Russia. In August, Moscow hosted a gathering of nationalist and separatist activists from all over Europe and the U.S. . . ..

“The target of the hacks wasn’t just Clinton,” [former head, Estonian intelligence] Eerik-Niiles Kross, wrote . . .. "What the Russians have in their sights is nothing less than the democratic fabric of American society and the integrity of the system of Western liberal values. . . . The political warfare of the Cold War is back -- in updated form, with meaner, more modern tools, including a vast state media empire in Western languages, hackers, spies, agents, useful idiots, compatriot groups, and hordes of internet trolls.” In other words, Trump is merely a useful stooge in the Kremlin’s grand design to encourage NATO disunity, U.S. isolationism and the breakup of Europe.

Owen Matthews, "How Vladimir Putin is Using Donald Trump to Advance Russia's Goals," Newsweek, August 29, 2016.

OK; keep the search for "collusion" or a "conspiracy" on the back burner. But what the media's investigative reporters, House, Senate, and any other investigative committees ought to be focusing on is making the case for what Putin and Trump are doing in parallel that results in weakening the world's great democracies -- whether or not it is the result of joint planning.

_______________
Comparable analyses and conclusions are found in many other sources, including "The view from the Kremlin: Putin's War on the West," The Economist," Feb. 12, 2015; and Mark Galeotti, "Putin’s Chaos Strategy Is Coming Back to Bite Him in the Ass," Foreign Policy, October 26, 2016 ("The Russian president has sown confusion and conflict around the world the past two years. But his short-sighted meddling isn’t the work of a mastermind.")

And compare what Putin and Trump are seemingly trying to accomplish with this 2004 UN General Assembly list of the necessary elements of a successful democracy:

• Separation and balance of power
• Independence of the judiciary
• A pluralistic system of political parties and organisations
• Respect for the rule of law
• Accountability and transparency
• Free, independent and pluralistic media
• Respect for human and political rights; e.g., freedoms of association and expression; the right to vote and to stand in elections

Michael Meyer-Resende, "International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy," Democracy Reporting International (October 2011).

And see also, "Tracking Trump," November 9, 2016-January 19, 2017; "Resources for Trump Watchers," February 11, 2017.

# # #

Tracking Trump

Contents
Updated Daily

Introduction: Why Track Trump?

Issues (an outline of categories in weekly compilations)

Week 1 -- November 9-15, 2016

Week 2 -- November 16-22, 2016

Week 3 -- November 23-29, 2016

Highlights and Trends

Week 4 -- November 30-December 6, 2016

Week 5 -- December 7-December 13, 2016

Week 6 -- December 14-December 20, 2016

Week 7 -- December 21-December 27, 2016

Week 8 -- December 28-January 3, 2017

Week 9 -- January 4-January 10, 2017

Week 10 -- January 11-January 17, 2017

[Note: Because of the physical volume of entries, beginning with Week 3 the blog post you are now on will remain the opening post for this series, and the links in its "Contents" section at the top of this post will take you to the new blog pages for subsequent weeks.]

Introduction: Why Track Trump?
Of the 1200 or so blog essays in FromDC2Iowa, most stand alone -- they treat a single subject, or event.

Occasionally a thread emerges, as a single, ongoing subject is dealt with over a period of months. For example, the Board of Regents' selection of University of Iowa president Bruce Harreld (someone with as little experience with higher education administration as Trump has had with the administration of government), was an ongoing subject of blog essays over a period of months.

See, e.g., "Business Background: Enough for University President?" September 2-October 31, 2015 (with links to 20 collections of material and comments); "UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015," November 1-30, 2015 (with links to 10 collections); "UI President Harreld - Dec. 2015," December 1-31, 2015 (with links to 10 collections); "UI President Harreld - Jan. 2016," January 1-31, 2016 (with links to 10 collections); "UI President Harreld - Feb. 2016," February 1-29, 2016 (with links to 11 collections).

The election of Donald J. Trump cries out even louder for such ongoing attention.

Every new U.S. president brings some measure of uncertainty as to what he will say and do. However, most have arrived with a package of clues as to what that might be, based on some sort of track record in the public sector.

President-elect Donald Trump brings no such record. Moreover, his unprecedented refusal to reveal his tax returns, and the sketchy, largely unproven assertions about his business record -- whether praise or criticism -- means we have even less solid information about his behavior in the private sector. [President-Elect Donald J. Trump; photo credit: Wikipedia]

In this, and succeeding, blog posts we will attempt to identify the issues requiring attention, and begin the process of finding and revealing the clues that may emerge regarding how a Trump Administration might deal with them. Where available, we will provide media reports with more detail. Our principal sources will be The New York Times and The Washington Post. For a full collection of New York Times' stories, see generally, "The Trump White House; Stories on the Presidential Transition and the Forthcoming Trump Administration," New York Times undated/updated.

____________________

The Issues
Transition. Regardless of agendas and intentions, a functioning executive branch of our federal government requires some 4,000 presidential appointees, and supporting civil service staff, who are experienced and knowledgeable. Those resources are now in place. Most of those folks will be gone by, or soon after, the inauguration of Donald Trump, January 20, 2017. Have their replacements been found? Are they being brought up to speed by their predecessors?

Leaders. One of the most significant subsets of an administration's staffing are those chosen by a president as his closest advisers. This is particularly significant for a president, like Trump, who has no experience and very little knowledge of what is required of a president. Who are those individuals? What do their experience, knowledge, ties to special interests, and ideological orientation tell us about the advice they'll be providing?

International. The president of the United States wears many hats, among them CEO of the executive branch, commander-in-chief of the military, leader of his or her political party, cheerleader in chief for the American people in times of trouble. But none is more important than the president's role as America's face for the 7 billion people living elsewhere (sometimes referred to as "leader of the free world"). Every one of these roles can benefit from a depth of knowledge and a breadth of experience -- for which Trump has neither. Will he reach out to America's (and the world's) "best and the brightest"? Or will he continue to rely on his questionable confidence that he "knows more than the generals" -- and the diplomatic corps?

Conflicts. For the last 40 years, every president coming into the office with investments has put them in a "blind trust" -- a separate legal entity, managed by an independent wealth manager during the president's term in office, during which time the president has neither control nor even knowledge of how the assets are being managed. During the campaign Trump did not agree to do this, saying that his business interests would be managed by his children. If that turns out to be the arrangement it would be an unprecedented conflict of interest.

Temperament. During the campaign, Donald Trump often engaged in behavior and speech that many, perhaps most, Americans (including many of his supporters) found unacceptably divisive, hateful, disrespectful of others -- and potentially dangerous in international relations. Will this continue from time to time, or was Trump's campaign performance merely that: a "performance"? Will he successfully transition into a new role as a responsible president?

Media. During the campaign Trump was unrestrained in his attacks on both individual journalists and "the media" in general. Since winning the election this seems to have toned down a little. An intimidated media cannot well serve a self-governing democracy, and there are many ways a president can intimidate -- especially when the media is a part of a much larger conglomerate with a diverse range of relationships with the federal government (e.g., proposed mergers, defense contracts).

Divisions. As the exit polls on election day confirmed, rarely have Americans been as deeply divided as they are now -- the economic 1% and the rest of us, urban and rural, old and young, college educated and high school, professionals and working class, whites and minorities, male and female, American-born and immigrants, religious and not so much, fact-driven and ideologues. Tragically, this has carried over into increases in everything from offensive speech to physical attacks. Regardless of the extent to which it is a consequence of the campaign Trump conducted, it seems to be a reality. He can choose to help with the healing, or simply pour more salt in the wounds.

Policy. There will be, potentially, a very long list of law and public policy areas to watch. There are many things he advocated during the campaign that he has already backed off from somewhat, may never have intended to do, or may discover he can't do. Meanwhile, those who would be adversely affected by the execution of his campaign rhetoric are understandably anxious. Here are some obvious matters with which to begin, starting with what Trump has identified as his top three. There will be more to come.

Immigration. Millions of individuals now living in America, Hispanics and Muslims immediately come to mind, will be impacted by whatever a Trump Administration decides to do.

Healthcare. "Repealing Obamacare" has been a Republican mantra since it was introduced. It never was a universal single-payer healthcare plan (like Medicare or Veterans' healthcare), it was a health insurance plan. But it was better than what many Americans had previously. Will it be replaced before it is repealed or afterwards? If it's only modified, how will Americans then be better or worse off?

Infrastructure. A central question -- aside from how much will be spent, and over what period of time -- is who will most benefit? Will the projects, and jobs, go to the most vulnerable Americans -- a rising tide to benefit those who don't yet even have a boat? Or will it go to upgrading the luxurious airline lounges and other airport facilities for the one-third of Americans who fly at least once each year? Will the money go to wealthy contractors and those with the skills to earn the median American wage (or more)? Or will it (like FDR's WPA and CCC) help those living in neighborhoods with 50 percent unemployment?

Energy. During the campaign Trump aligned himself with the climate change deniers, urged maximum development of U.S. oil, and indicated support for a return to coal as a source of energy and jobs for those in coal country. Whatever these policies prove to be will also have an impact on America's participation and cooperation with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Clues to policy will come from Trump's appointments in the executive branch agencies and his White House staff.

Education. Many education policy proposals were put forward during the campaign -- including a nod from Trump in favor of the general idea of making college "more affordable." Others' proposals have included tuition-free community college, our following the European policy of tuition-free higher education (either for all, or for those below a set income cap), tying payback on student loans to a percentage of income, and ideas regarding an expanded opportunity for pre-K education.

Week 1 -- November 9-15, 2016
Transition. Transitions are always difficult -- 60 plus days to put an executive branch federal government together. Trump's meeting with President Obama was a good sign, as was what was reported about what both of them said during and after the meeting. Somewhat troubling is that the designated leader of the transition, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, has indicated he'd like to go on being governor of Indiana until a week or so before the inauguration. There have been questions about the formal role of Trump's children (discussed under "conflicts"). Governor Chris Christie has already been replaced as Chief of Staff-designate by Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus. And apparently whoever is in charge has been somewhat slow in responding to offers of assistance from current office holders (including those in the CIA, Departments of State and Defense). Ben Carson has indicated he is not interested in a cabinet appointment because he lacks the experience and knowledge to do the job. The designated security adviser, former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, has announced he will not be serving. But this is only one week in; there will be changes to come -- whether more stabilizing or chaotic.

See the detailed report in Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Mark Mazzetti and Maggie Habermannov, "Firings and Discord Put Trump Transition Team in a State of Disarray," The New York Times, November 16, 2016, p. A1 ("President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition was in disarray on Tuesday, marked by firings, infighting and revelations that American allies were blindly dialing in to Trump Tower to try to reach the soon-to-be-leader of the free world."); and Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller, "Key figures purged from Trump transition team," Washington Post, November 15, 2016 ("'“It became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipops, things you give out to good boys and girls, instead of the sense that actually what you’re trying to do is recruit the best possible talent to fill the most important, demanding, lowest-paying executive jobs in the world,' [Eliot] Cohen ["a leading voice of opposition to Trump during the campaign who had advised those interested in administration jobs to take them, abruptly changed his mind, saying the transition 'will be ugly.'] said.").

Leaders. During the campaign Trump and his followers shouted out that he would "drain the swamp" -- meaning that he would rid Washington of special interests and their lobbyists. What he found when he drained the swamp were the creatures that lived there: lobbyists looking for jobs and contacts in a new administration. The Trump team was willing to take them on board. The Times detailed the process and named the individuals and their conflicts: Eric Lipton, "With Trump's Election, a Bonanza for Washington Lobbyists," New York Times, November 11, 2016, p. P1 (an inside look into who they are and how they do what they do); and Eric Lipton, "Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team," New York Times, November 12, 2016, p. A1 ("President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.")

Later into the first week the headlines involved Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President, a position he's characterized as equal to that of Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. The controversy involves Bannon's prior role as CEO of Breitbart. (You can examine for yourself its Web site here and its Facebook page here.)

See David Weigel, "Is Trump’s new chief strategist a racist? Critics say so," Washington Post, November 14, 2016 ("some of the highest praise for Bannon’s appointment came from white nationalists and white supremacists. . . . [C]omments celebrating the news have posted on Stormfront, a website for the 'White Nationalist Community,' including this one from a reader called Pheonix1993: 'Stephen Bannon: racist, anti-homo, anti-immigrant, anti-jewish, anti-establishment. Declared war on (((Paul Ryan))) Sounds perfect. The man who will have Trump’s ear more than anyone else. Being anti-jewish is not illegal.'”); and David A. Fahrenthold and Frances Stead Sellers, "How Bannon flattered and coaxed Trump on policies key to the alt-right," Washington Post, September 15, 2016 ("[W]hat policies Bannon may try to push can be gleaned from a series of one-on-one interviews on Bannon’s radio show between November 2015 and June of this year. In those exchanges, a dynamic emerged, with Bannon often coaxing Trump to agree to his viewpoint, whether on climate change, foreign policy or the need to take on Republican leaders in Congress.") Michael D. Shear, Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt, "Critics See Stephen Bannon, Trump's Pick for Strategist, as Voice of Racism," New York Times, November 15, 2016, p. A1 ("A fierce chorus of critics denounced President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday for appointing Stephen K. Bannon, a nationalist media mogul, to a top White House position . . ..")

Katie Zezima, "Trump pits establishment against populism at the top of his White House team," Washington Post, November 14, 2016 (" Trump named his top two advisers [Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus] on Sunday [Nov. 13] . . . setting up what could be a battle within the White House between the populist, outsider forces that propelled his winning campaign and the party establishment that dominates Washington."); Michael D. Shear, Maggie Haberman and Alan Rappeport, "Donald Trump Picks Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff and Stephen Bannon as Strategist," New York Times, November 14, 2016, p. A1.

International.

Conflicts. The Trump children hold formal positions in the transition, as well as responsibility for running the Trump companies. The request (it's not known from whom) that they all receive top security clearances was apparently blocked by someone. But here's a story of one specific example of private profit from public position, along with ethics advisers general concerns: Drew Harwell, "With Ivanka’s jewelry ad, Trump companies begin to seek profit off election result," Washington Post, November 15, 2016 (Ivanka Trump's company using her family's appearance on "60 Minutes," with Ivanka wearing her company's $8800 bracelet, "marked one of the first moments since the election during which the Trump companies have sought to use Trump's presidential prominence to boost their private fortunes. But it may not be the last. Ethics advisers have increasingly voiced concerns over the unprecedented conflicts of interest that could arise from the soon-to-be first family's empire of real estate, luxury goods and licensing deals.").

Eric Lipton and Susanne Craig, "Donald Trump’s Far-Flung Holdings Raise Potential for Conflicts of Interest," New York Times, November 15, 2016, p. A1 ("The layers of potential conflicts he faces are in many ways as complex as his far-flung business empire, adding a heightened degree of difficulty for Mr. Trump — one of the wealthiest men to ever occupy the White House — in separating his official duties from his private business affairs.").

Temperament. After his election it was like someone threw a switch on Donald Trump -- he had kind words praising Hillary Clinton in his acceptance speech, and was deferential and praising of President Obama in the Oval Office. Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump and Obama Hold Cordial 90-Minute Meeting in Oval Office," New York Times, November 11, 2016, p. A1.

For one of the more detailed descriptions of Trump's executive "style" by those who have worked with him and know him best, see Marc Fisher, "Trump’s huge transition will start with his tight inner circle," Washington Post, November 10, 2016 (e.g., "He reads little and rules by his gut. He picks people by first impressions, sometimes without even talking to them. He is laser-focused on how he is perceived and what people say about him.")

Media. Given the importance of an independent, First Amendment-protected media, it is unsettling when Trump says he wants to dilute the First Amendment. Marc Fisher, "Trump’s huge transition will start with his tight inner circle," Washington Post, November 10, 2016 ("Trump has also used the threat of lawsuits as a cudgel against those who block his way or criticize him in public; that’s an avenue he won’t have as president, though he has said he wants to dilute First Amendment protections of free speech.")

Divisions. Many commentators seem to believe what is intuitive: that Trump's hateful campaign rhetoric has in fact contributed to a deepening divide in America. Abigail Hauslohner, Sandhya Somashekhar and Susan Svrluga, "Vitriol only intensifies after bitter election," Washington Post, November 11, 2016 ("Three days since businessman Donald Trump won the presidency, it is clear that the animosity wrought by a historically divisive election did not simply die in its wake, but may have intensified. U.S. cities have been convulsed by anti-Trump protests. Swastikas, racial slurs and personal threats have appeared on public buildings and dorm room doors. And online, the vicious word-slinging between supporters of the two candidates has escalated to include videotaped accounts of personal confrontation and retribution."); Matt Zkapotosky, "Hate crimes against Muslims hit highest mark since 2001," Washington Post, November 14, 2016 ("Hate crimes against Muslims spiked last year to their highest level in more than a decade — an increase that experts and advocates say was fueled by anger over terrorist attacks and anti-Islam rhetoric on the campaign trail.") Eric Lichtblau, "U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims," New York Times, November 15, 2016, p. A13 ("[A]ttacks against American Muslims surged last year . . .. The data . . . is the most comprehensive look at hate crime . . . by researchers and outside monitors, who have noted an alarming rise in some types of crimes tied to the vitriol of this year's presidential campaign . . ..")

Immigration. Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Donald Trump Appears to Soften Stance on Immigration, but Not on Abortion," New York Times, November 14, 2016, p. A1 ("On immigration, he [Trump] said the wall that he has been promising to build on the nation’s southern border might end up being a fence in places. But he said his priority was to deport two million to three million immigrants he characterized as dangerous or as having criminal records . . . [not] all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.")

Policy. There is a variation in many political campaigns between what the candidate says before and after election, once in office. Because so many of Trump's campaign assertions were frightening to many Americans, there's more interest than usual in what he's actually going to do. Some are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, that "of course, he'd never really do that." Others warn, "Don't be so sure. He's told you what he's going to do." So far it appears that he is backing off on some of his promises. There are other promises it will be hard to keep even if he'd like to: Sean Sullivan and Dana Priest, "Many of Trump's sweeping promises will be hard, if not impossible, to fulfill," Washington Post, November 10, 2016 ("Some of Trump’s most dramatic undertakings — such as canceling Obama’s “illegal” executive actions — can be done in his first hours as president. Other priorities, such as repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act or building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, will require the approval of Congress, which will be controlled by Republicans but could still squabble over details. Others still could run into political or legal obstacles that may be difficult to overcome." The story includes a detailed run-through of many categories and detailed examples.)

Immigration. Jose A. DelReal, "Trump and advisers hedge on major pledges, including Obamacare and the wall," Washington Post, November 11, 2016 ("Trump built his campaign message around bold vows to, among other things, force Mexico to pay for a massive border wall, fully repeal the Affordable Care Act and ban Muslims from entering the United States. But in the days since his upset election victory, he or his advisers have suggested that those proposals and others may be subject to revision. . . . 'I want to solve health care, jobs, border control, tax reform,' he [Trump] said.")

Healthcare. After meeting with President Obama, Trump backed away from total repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Reed Abelson, "Donald Trump Says He May Keep Parts of Obama Health Care Act," New York Times, November 12, 2016, p. A1 ("Just days after a national campaign in which he vowed repeatedly to repeal President Obama’s signature health care law . . . Mr. Trump even indicated that he would like to keep two of the most popular benefits of the Affordable Care Act [preexisting conditions; children on parents' plans].")

Infrastructure.

Energy.

Education.

Week 2 -- November 16-22, 2016
Transition. Michael D. Shear, "Trump Says Transition's Going 'Smoothly,' Disputing Disarray Reports," New York Times, November 17, 2016, p. A14

Leaders. Here's a useful description from the Washington Post of "who's on first" during this second week -- the players and the plays inside the transition team: Philip Rucker and Robert Costa, "In Trump's Washington, rival powers and whispers in the president's ear," Washington Post, November 17, 2016; Karen DeYoung, "Trump defends pace of transition work as process remains opaque," Washington Post, November 17, 2016 ("The 'landing teams' for the State Department, the Justice Department, the Pentagon and the National Security Council will be announced and begin interacting with the Obama administration Thursday [Nov. 17], Republican National Committee communications director Sean Spicer said late Wednesday. Economic policy landing teams will be announced next week, followed by teams devoted to domestic policy and independent federal agencies.").

The role of Trump's children and their partners continues to be an issue. Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Maggie Haberman, "Donald Trump's Son-in-Law, Jared Kushner, Tests Legal Path to White House Job," New York Times, November 18, 2016, p. A1 (This thorough review of the legal, ethical and conflict of interest issues surrounding Trump's son-in-law's involvement begins, "Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of President-elect Donald J. Trump, has spoken to a lawyer about the possibility of joining the new administration, a move that could violate federal anti-nepotism law and risk legal challenges and political backlash.") And let us not overlook Jared's wife: Monica Hesse, "To understand the Trump presidency, we must decipher Ivanka," Washington Post, November 17, 2016.

National Security Adviser: Matthew Rosenberg and Maggie Haberman, "Trump Is Said to Offer National Security Post to Michael Flynn, Retired General," New York Times, November 18, 2016, p. A1 (this detailed critique of Flynn leads with, "President-elect Donald J. Trump has offered the post of national security adviser to Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, . . . who believes Islamist militancy poses an existential threat [and who] will be a critical gatekeeper for a president with little experience in military or foreign policy issues. . . . [T]hey [Trump and Flynn] have both at times crossed the line into outright Islamophobia [and] exhibit a loose relationship with facts: General Flynn['s] . . . subordinates . . . called them “Flynn facts.”) Editorial, "Michael Flynn: An Alarming Pick for National Security Adviser," New York Times, November 19, 2016, p. A22 ("It's likely, given his record, that he will encourage Mr. Trump’s worst impulses, fuel suspicions of Muslims and bring to the job conflicts of interest from his international consulting work.")

Attorney General: Eric Lichtblau, Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, "Donald Trump Selects Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General," New York Times (online edition), September 18, 2016 ("Mr. Sessions, a former prosecutor . . . has opposed immigration reform as well as . . . proposals to cut mandatory minimum prison sentences. . . . [H]is nomination [to judgeship, by President Reagan] was rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee because of racially charged comments and actions. . . . Mr. Sessions had referred to the N.A.A.C.P. . . . as 'un-American' and 'Communist inspired.' . . . [He's] also accused of speaking disparagingly of the Voting Rights Act . . ..") Editorial, "Jeff Sessions as Attorney General: An Insult to Justice," New York Times, November 19, 2016, p. A22 ("Donald Trump ran a presidential campaign that stoked white racial resentment. His choice for attorney general — which, like his other early choices, has been praised by white supremacists — embodies that worldview. We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986 [who rejected President Reagan's appointment of Sessions to a federal judgeship], to examine Mr. Sessions’s views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.") Thomas J. Sugrue, "Jeff Sessions' Other Civil Rights Problem," New York Times (online edition), September 21, 2016 ("Mr. Sessions [as] Alabama’s attorney general . . . left an indelible mark. He used the power of his office to fight to preserve Alabama’s long history of separate and unequal education.")

C.I.A. Director: Mark Mazzetti and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Mike Pompeo Is Trump's Choice as C.I.A. Director," New York Times (online edition), November 18, 2016 (Pompeo is a graduate of West Point (first in class) and Harvard Law School with three Congressional terms, and a member of the House Intelligence Committee who was especially critical of Hillary Clinton during the investigation of the 2012 Benghazi attack).

Secretary of Treasury: Ylan Q. Mui and Renae Merle, "With Treasury candidate come possible conflicts," Washington Post, November 18, 2016 (Steven T. Mnuchin, formerly with Goldman Sachs, is "A leading candidate to be ­President-elect Donald Trump’s treasury secretary [who] was deeply involved in running a bank that has received $900 million in federal bailout money and that has been accused of discrimination — examples of the potentially thorny conflicts of interest that could plague Trump’s nascent administration.")

Secretary of State: Phillip Rucker, "Trump mulls a secretary of state: Clone, crusader, statesman or clean slate?" Washington Post, November 19, 2016 (no indication of choice when this story ran, but South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and former Governor (and Republican presidential candidate) Mitt Romney are in the running for Secretary of State, along with those who bring ideological baggage and other concerns). Michael S. Schmidt and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump Meets With Romney as He Starts to Look Outside His Inner Circle," New York Times, November 20, 2016, p. A1.

Editorial, "Donald Trump's Swamp Gets Murkier," New York Times, November 21, 2016, p. A 22 ("Now that he is president-elect, Donald Trump’s anti-corruption promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington lobbyists and powerful insiders seems to be rapidly dissolving in the swamp itself. An untold number of lobbyists and special interest players have been helping the Trump team’s transition to the White House, their path made easier, according to news reports, by vague and porous ethical standards. The most mischievous of these is a rule by which applicants merely have to de-register as government lobbyists one day to be ready the next for transition and administration jobs.")

Not only does the Trump team seem to be favoring lobbyists and other corporate representatives to head agencies that are supposed to regulate the appointees' former employers, but some of their investments, like Trump's, raise potential conflict of interest problems both here and abroad. Matthew Goldstein and Alexandra Stevenson, "Trump Adviser Takes Stake in China Ride-Sharing Company," November 19, 2016, p. B2 ("A hedge fund billionaire ["John Paulson, who made $15 billion betting against the housing market before the financial crisis"] who was an economic adviser to [Trump] . . . has taken a position in a fast-growing Chinese ride-sharing company that recently signed a deal to acquire Uber Technologies’ operations in China.")

International. Among many concerns one might have about Trump's first two weeks, his and the Transition Team's handling of international relations for our next president rank near the top. It can only be described as "reckless." They have rebuffed the Department of State's willingness to help. Global leaders have been left on their own to figure out how to reach Trump, or know who they should contact. The first face-to-face meeting is to be with the Japanese prime minister -- seemingly without thought to how this "decision" (to the extent there was one) might be received by those nations with which we are said to have "a special relationship." Here is a little lengthier excerpt than usual from the Times' take:

It has been noticed at the State Department that since his victory Mr. Trump has been talking with foreign leaders without any consultation on the often complex protocol involved. “We stand ready to support him and his team with any information that they might require,” said John Kirby, the State Department spokesman. “We are ready and able to provide context if it is desired.” “There has been no outreach to date,” Mr. Kirby added. Japan has been scrambling to find Republican foreign policy experts to advise Tokyo on Mr. Abe’s meeting with Mr. Trump, but have had little luck, according to Japanese officials. Nor, the officials said, have they been able to find anyone in Mr. Trump’s transition team to discuss talking points for the meeting. One official said that the planning for the meeting had been largely limited to logistics, and that was primarily handled by Matthew Freedman, the lobbyist and transition team member who was working on national security issues. But Mr. Freedman was fired on Monday.

Carl Hulse and Helene Cooper, "Donald Trump and Japan's Leader to Meet, With Plenty to Sort Out," New York Times, November 17, 2016, 4:00 a.m. update version.

Conflicts. Donald Trump's seeming refusal to follow the usual presidential protocol of selling his properties and putting the assets in a blind trust, managed in his interest by independent wealth managers who do not report to him, creates uncounted and uncountable conflicts of interest both at home and abroad. Numerous U.S. state and federal agencies, and foreign governments, impact his 500 LLC corporations, other interests, their operations and profits. The New York Times' Editorial Board provides some examples: Editorial, "Donald Trump's Tangled Web," New York Times, November 17, 2016, p. A30 ("Donald Trump refused to release his income tax returns during the campaign and now seems determined to lug every piece of financial baggage connected to his hotels, golf courses and other businesses into the White House.") Jonathan O'Connell and Mary Jordan, "For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be," Washington Post, November 18, 2016 ("About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel. . . . Now, those venues offer the prospect of something else: a chance to curry favor or access with the next president. Perhaps nowhere is that possibility more obvious than Trump’s newly renovated hotel a few blocks from the White House, on Pennsylvania Avenue. Rooms sold out quickly for the inauguration, many for five-night minimums priced at five times the normal rate, according to the hotel’s manager.")

Like gravity ("it's not just a good idea, it's the law"), Trump's global businesses may pose serious constitutional challenges as well as violating ethical norms regarding a president's conflict of interests. Adam Liptak, "Donald Trump's Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit," New York Times, November 22, 2016, p. A1 ("[T]he Emoluments Clause [of the U.S. Constitution; "no person holding . . . office [shall] accept any . . . emolument . . . of any kind whatever, from any . . . foreign state"] . . . now poses risks for [Trump] should he continue to reap benefits from . . . companies controlled by foreign governments.")

So long as Trump has even a general notion of what and where his business interests are, the only trust that could be truly "blind" would be one following his sale of all of his interests, and turning over the cash to an independent wealth manager to invest on his behalf -- but without his participation or knowledge. Regardless of how "independent" the manager may be, so long as Trump knows what he owns he will have both the appearance, and the reality, of a conflict of interest whenever a federal administrative agency, its proposed regulation, legislation, or the position taken in litigation by the Department of Justice, or hundreds of other examples, could have an impact on the profits or net worth of his investments. This is made even worse, of course, if (as he has proposed) his children will be continuing to run the businesses.

A recent example of his conflicts is illustrated by this double whammy quote from a Times' story: "Mr. Trump, as he used his golf resort as the backdrop for his official activities, gave no indication that he was concerned about news reports over the weekend that he had held meetings last week with three Indian business partners even as he was starting to assemble his administration." Michael S. Schmidt and Michael D. Shear, "Trump Turns Staid Process Into Spectacle as Aspirants Parade to His Door," New York Times, November 21, 2016, p. A1. (1) Whenever he selects a Trump-branded property (Trump Towers, or golf courses) for meetings he's promoting his business. (2) And he obviously sees no problem with continuing to manage his businesses abroad (the meeting with business partners from India) while considering the possibility of appointing Nikki Haley (born of immigrants to the U.S. from India) as his Secretary of State.

Drew Harwell and Anu Narayanswamy, "A scramble to assess the dangers of President-elect Donald Trump's global business empire," Washington Post, September 21, 2016 ("Donald Trump’s company has been paid up to $10 million [for his "brand"/name] by . . . one of Turkey’s biggest oil and media conglomerates, [that] has become an influential megaphone for the country’s increasingly repressive regime. That, ethics advisers said, forces the Trump complex into an unprecedented nexus: as both a potential channel for dealmakers seeking to curry favor with the Trump White House and a potential target for attacks or security risks overseas. . . . [They warn] of many others . . .. At least 111 Trump companies have done business in 18 countries and territories across South America, Asia and the Middle East.")

The problems are also illustrated by the unsavory and unprecedented spectacle of a president-elect having to take time to deal with a lawsuit regarding his prior fraudulent business practices, practices of sufficient significance and breadth to produce a settlement of $25,000,000. Steve Eder, "Donald Trump Agrees to Pay $25 Million in Trump University Settlement," New York Times, November 19, 2016, p. A1 ("[Trump] reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign. . . . [T]the allegations in the case . . .: Students paid up to $35,000 in tuition for a programs that . . . used high-pressure sales tactics and employed unqualified instructors.")

Temperament. Will Trump, as president, continue his campaign instinct to strike back against and and all -- and especially the media -- whenever others are not entirely to his liking? The continuing middle-of-the-night tweets are not reassuring. Michael D. Shear, "Trump Says Transition's Going 'Smoothly,' Disputing Disarray Reports," New York Times, November 17, 2016, p. A14 ("President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that his transition was not in disarray, assailing news media reports about firings and infighting and insisting in an early-morning Twitter burst that everything was going 'so smoothly.'”)

He's continuing his disparaging adjectives (as in, during the campaign, "crooked Hillary"). Prior to a first meeting with the New York Times he refers to it as "the failing nytimes." Michael D. Shear and Carl Hulse, "Trump Reinstates New York Times Meeting While Pulling Back on Pursuing Case Against Clinton," New York Times (online editiion), November 22, 2016, 10:37 a.m. version (the widely publicized scheduled meeting Tuesday [Nov. 22] between Trump and the New York Times was abruptly cancelled by Trump with a 5:16 a.m. tweet: "I cancelled today's meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice." Fifteen minutes later it was back on again: "Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!")

Nor are his tweets limited to public and media figures; he's monitoring entertainment as well: Andrew R. Chow, "Alec Baldwin Returns to 'S.N.L.' as President-Elect Trump," New York Times, November 20, 2016 ("Alec Baldwin's return to 'Saturday Night Live' this weekend prompted another fiery response from President-elect Donald J. Trump on Twitter." The tweet read, "I watched parts of @nbcsnl Saturday Night Live last night. It is a totally one-sided biased show - nothing funny at all. Equal time for us?" [Nov. 20] Two hours earlier [5:22 a.m.] he tweeted about the cast of "Hamilton" statement to Mike Pence requesting a protection of their rights, "The cast and producers of Hamilton, which I hear is highly overrated, should immediately apologize to Mike Pence for their terrible behavior." Pence has made no public statement objecting to the cast's message. "Mr. Pence, who was greeted by a smattering of boos as he entered the theater, got it right when he said later, 'I nudged my kids and reminded them that’s what freedom sounds like.'” [Editorial, "Can Trump Tolerate Dissent?" Washington Post, November 22, 2016])

Media. Probably there will always be tension between the White House press corps and the sitting president and his or her staff. So far the focus has been on Trump's savage attacks on individual journalists and "the media" in general. But an equal, and perhaps even more significant aspect of president-press relations are the protocols regarding press presence and access, as the Times has editorialized: Editorial, "Trump Shouldn't Ditch the Press," Washington Post, November 17, 2016 ("In case of an emergency, it [the press pool] is on hand to provide timely and important information. Think, for example, of 9/11 and how the country was helped by knowing where the president was . . .. Equally important is the day-to-day information . . . about where the president is . . . and whom he is meeting with. Mr. Trump is not yet president, but the information protocols of the office still apply. His spokeswoman . . . said that the next administration intends 'to follow precedent in regards to access as soon as possible.' That commitment is reassuring. It should take effect now.")

He seems to be avoiding news conferences (although, in fairness, it should be noted that Hillary Clinton was also faulted for doing so during the campaign, as have previous presidents). Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump, on YouTube, Pledges to Create Jobs," New York Times, September 22, 2016, p. A1 ("The brief YouTube video offered one of the few opportunities for the public to hear from Mr. Trump directly since he was elected two weeks ago. The president-elect has declined to hold a news conference since his victory, and instead has used early-morning Twitter bursts to communicate.")

He called TV network executives and news anchors together for what could have been a conciliatory session between two major institutions (the presidency and the media) that need each other, and turned it into another attack. Michael M. Grynbaum and Sydney Ember, "Trump Summons TV Figures for Private Meeting, and Lets Them Have It," New York Times, November 22, 2016, p. A18 ("Mr. Trump, whose antagonism toward the news media was unusual even for a modern presidential candidate, described the television networks as dishonest in their reporting and . . . criticized some in the room by name . . ..")

He's continuing his disparaging adjectives (as in, during the campaign, "crooked Hillary"). Prior to a first meeting with the New York Times he refers to it as "the failing nytimes." Michael D. Shear and Carl Hulse, "Trump Reinstates New York Times Meeting While Pulling Back on Pursuing Case Against Clinton," New York Times (online editiion), November 22, 2016, 10:37 a.m. version (the widely publicized scheduled meeting Tuesday [Nov. 22] between Trump and the New York Times was abruptly cancelled by Trump with a 5:16 a.m. tweet: "I cancelled today's meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice." Fifteen minutes later it was back on again: "Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!")

Trump demonstrated during the campaign his ability to manipulate media to his ends, picking up an estimated $2 billion of free TV time in the process. He's continuing with one of his techniques: Paul Farhi, "Were Trump's 'Hamilton' tweets 'weapons of mass distraction'?" Washington Post, November 22, 2016 ("As he illustrated with tweets about the musical “Hamilton” over the weekend, President-elect Donald Trump knows how to change the subject — and the entire news cycle. Just as questions were mounting about Trump’s appointments, his business conflicts, his $25 million fraud-case settlement — bam! — Trump had everyone talking about something else.")

Divisions. Here's a post-election report worth reading whether you're concerned, or merely curious, about what appear to be increasing divides among Americans. William Wan, Tanya Sichynsky and Sandhya Somashekhar, "After Trump's Election: 'There are two Americas now,'" Washington Post, November 22, 2016 ("Two weeks after the election of Donald Trump, this is how divided America has become: People have moved beyond staring at the vast gulf that divides them and proceeded to arguing over who is to blame for it, what to do about it and even whether it exists at all.")

Samantha Schmidt, "‘Hijab grab’ defense: As reports of hate crimes spike postelection, Muslim women turn to self-defense," Washington Post, November 21, 2016.

Policy. Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump, on YouTube, Pledges to Create Jobs," New York Times, September 22, 2016, p. A1 ([In Trump's YouTube video, "he vowed to create jobs, renegotiate trade agreements, end restrictions on energy production and impose bans on lobbying. . . . [H]e steered clear of his most inflammatory campaign promises to deport immigrants and track Muslims and his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act.")

Immigration. Early reports indicate that Trump's promises to get tough on immigration, and "build a wall," have brought more immigrants and associated chaos rather than less: Joshua Partlow and Nick Miroff, "Fearing Trump’s wall, Central Americans rush to cross the U.S. border," Washington Post, November 19, 2016 ("President-elect Donald Trump has promised major change to the U.S. immigration system at a time when Central American families are flowing into the United States in growing numbers, many fleeing warlike conditions and poverty back home. . . . By winning the election, Trump may have inadvertently made his job even harder. His plans have become a selling point for the smugglers urging people to cross the border before a wall goes up, . . ..")

Healthcare.

Infrastructure.

Energy.

Education. Trump's election has already had a negative impact on U.S. colleges' enrollment of international students. Nida Najar and Stephanie Saul, "Is It Safe? Foreign Students Consider College in Donald Trump's U.S.," New York Times, November 18, 2016, p. A12 ("This year, the number of international students in United States colleges surpassed one million for the first time, bringing more than $32 billion a year . . .. College admissions officials in the United States . . . are worried that Mr. Trump’s election as president could portend a drop in international candidates. Canadian universities have already detected a postelection surge in interest from overseas.")

Lands. National parks, forests and other public lands are not the product of a mapmaker's whim. An even greater political battle than at the time of their creation is the continuous fight for their preservation. We are coming into a time of such a fight. Jack Healy and Kirk Johnson, "Battle Lines Over Trump's Lands Policy Stretch Across 640 Million Acres," New York Times, November 19, 2016, p. A9 ("Uranium mines around the Grand Canyon. Oil drilling rigs studding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. New coal and timber leases in the national forests. States divvying up millions of acres of federal land to dispose of as they wish.")

[Note: Because of the physical volume of entries, beginning with Week 3 the blog post you are now on will remain the opening post for this series, and the links in its "Contents" section at the top of this post will take you to the new blog pages for subsequent weeks.]

# # #