Presidential Privies

Remember last month, when the president seemed unhappy about refugees from certain countries and caused a kerfluffle that lasted longer than the usual one-day news cycle? It had to do with disposal of excrement, and where that might be done.

A bunch of people evaded discussion of the actual words used, apparently possible because of mis-reporting of the second syllable. Does it really matter whether he said  “shithole” or  “shithouse”? A privy is a privy.

What on earth makes a country a privy? A privy, just to be clear, is a toilet located apart from a dwelling or other building and is also known as an outhouse. Words being interesting in and of themselves, another meaning for the word is in the legal field:  “a person having a part or interest in any action, matter, or thing.” The origins of the word lie in Latin, privatus, meaning to be withdrawn from public life; this morphed into Old French, “prive” meaning private, and thence to the English “private.”

So in thinking about the deeply disturbing characterization applied by the president to Haiti and apparently, “African countries,” if we can get away from the vulgarity, we can remove the baggage because all a privy implies is withdrawing from public to undertake a private act—or, more intriguingly, someone (let’s say, a country?) that has a part or interest in any action, matter or thing, such as perhaps, Somalia and Libya are privies in the fight against terrorist organizations. (Strange right? But check the Oxford Dictionary; this is really a thing in legalese!)

The president, at the very least, should have availed himself of the first definition and removed himself from the company of other public servants if  he considers whole swathes of the community of nations to be no more than disposals for excrement and wants to say so. This is a reprehensible position, but as a private citizen, he's entitled to whatever misguided opinions he may have. As president of the United States, he's not entitled to inject such opinions into policy considerations.

Making a political demonstration (Albania)

Now that I’ve belabored the language beyond anything it merits, I’ll get to my point: why was this still a major talking point several days after it was said to occur? Not that I don’t agree that it’s a shocking statement. But there’s nothing new in the president denigrating people, either individually or collectively, in often appalling terms. Did observers just then notice? We can all be as affronted as may be, but it does beg the question why we haven’t been affronted before. And if we have, why is Congress not calling him on it? I don't mean a censure or a speech; I mean taking action that separates the nation from such irresponsible statements, something that clearly says "This is not the position of the United States."

Now a month on, in the context of immigration (which is where the comment arose) what is more to the point is the president’s erraticism on the underlying issue: in the public performance piece on January 9, 2018, where Congressional leaders and the president negotiated immigration in a televised meeting, the president said he’d let Congress decide what to do and would sign whatever Congress brought to him, so long as it addressed his four identified concerns.

When Congress suggested a bipartisan compromise solution (that did address those concerns) on January 11, the president said it was unacceptable, citing specific things that he wanted which were not being offered. In other words, Congress wasn't just to address his concerns, it was supposed to address them in the way he wanted them addressed. A wall, gosh darn it, is a big, beautiful physical wall and all the money for it has to be provided RIGHT NOW, for some reason, even before the hugely expensive prototypes have been fully evaluated or costed out.

So much for leaving it up to Congress.

He then claimed that Democrats had failed to negotiate, and were the reason that there was no progress. This again is a typical technique employed by this president: invite opponents to stand on a rug, then pull the rug out from under them, and say as they fall that they’re somehow responsible for the rug’s sudden removal.

In all the furor, Democrats ended up trying to force the president’s hand by shutting the government down. This was both heavy-handed and stupid; a good deal of the public support they'd garnered from the president's outhouse remarks was flushed straight down the sewer drain. Hard as it may be to do, Congress has to keep to the high road (or maybe it’s more accurate to say Congress has to FIND the high road).

Now the president's come up with his own solution--never mind what happened to his relying on  Congress; it's gotta be his way--which is cleverly designed to offer more than the Democrats asked for on DACA recipients, while draconian on all the other immigration issues.

This president, claim the members of his party, has to be worked with because, like it or not, he is the president, and besides, some of the GOP members like his policies. But here’s the thing: if everyone takes a deep breath, and realizes that they’re all privies to the U.S. national interest, and that the president is harming that interest, they might find a way to work together and work around the president, for better legislation that actually responds to the interests of ALL of the electorate. A veto can be overridden, after all.

It’s probably asking too much. It’s entirely possible that the actual outhouse might be Congress… though the excrement there is more in the nature of that excreted by large farm animals.

If All the Trees Fall, The Forest Disappears...

Harpswell forest, 2017

       You know that old saying about failing to see the forest for the trees?
       Listening to the latest wrangling and speechifying, I’m beginning to wonder if anyone’s noticing the trees are falling. If we keep it up, there may not be a forest to see at all.
        Let me back up. Someone recently questioned an observation I made about the president and his apparent disregard for the rule of law. I was asked, “Can you please tell us where Trump has ignored or crossed the line to negate the rule of law?” The question was civil, and made me stop and think about how to answer it in kind, leading me to give some thought to the concept of “rule of law.”
        The clearest example I could come up with of the president ignoring  what I understand as the rule of law is the pardon of Joe Arpaio. Readers may remember that the former Arizona sheriff was convicted after a bench trial of contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order. (The Sheriff’s people were using racial profiling to detain Latinos they suspected might be illegally in the country, and the court ordered them to cease doing so.) Upon conviction, there was a process available: first sentencing for the criminal conduct, then appeal, which if accepted, would lead to review on appeal.
          Before sentencing occurred, the president issued a broad pardon that included not only the conviction at issue, but also any other offense with which Arpaio might be charged thereafter in connection with the case.
          There are two rule of law issues here that concern me. First, Arpaio, as the record shows, blatantly ignored the court order and continued to perform in a manner contrary to law. Second, the president implicitly ratified that behavior by pardoning him. Moreover, rather than letting the judicial process play out, he issued the pardon even before sentencing.
          Whether you believe racial profiling is warranted to find illegal aliens or not, in fact the law does not permit it, and the sheriff is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. He did not do so, but arbitrarily substituted his own judgement for the law. And the president in essence ratified that abuse of authority and violation of his sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
           Fast forward through the woods to the Nunes memo concerning FBI investigatory procedures and possible bias by certain FBI personnel. If Joe Arpaio represents the felling of a single, fairly small, tree, the Nunes memo would take out a whole stand of trees.
           First, it’s a memo! It is not a report, hashed out and debated by the full committee. Due to its nature, it cannot support its claims and arguments with underlying evidence and citations; and there is a charge, which seems to concern some in Nunes’ own party as well as the opposition, that the wording approved by GOP representatives for the memo’s release was changed before it was submitted to the White House for review. If that were true, not even the GOP members on the committee approved the draft in the form in which it will be released.
           Second, there is another memo meant to stand against the Nunes memo and point out what the opposition feels are its inaccuracies. This memo must go through the same vetting process as the Nunes memo. Which means the White House has to approve its release. It may end up doing so, though I doubt it, but in any case, by that time, the damage from the Nunes memo will have been done. As I understand it, the House hasn’t approved release of the opposition memo.
           Third, the FBI has expressed grave concerns about release of the memo. I don’t know what the memo says, but based on Rep. Nunes’ history, it seems safe to presume it is drafted in a way that emphasizes anything that could bring the FBI as an impartial fact finder into question; if the complaints already heard about the memo are, in fact, the case, Nunes manipulates innuendo to reach a desired conclusion. Process isn’t empty. If the House Intelligence Committee has real concerns about the performance of the FBI, it should carry out an investigation. Release of a memo that everyone acknowledges is partisan serves no national interest.
            Watching this administration and its friends, we often learn eventually that where claims and charges they make are loudest, they themselves have engaged in the conduct they attribute to their opponents.
            All of this begs the broader question: is ANYONE in authority in Washington even remotely concerned about the fact that a very powerful foreign adversary has been and continues to play games with our national interests? Whether there was conscious collusion by GOP operatives to gain the presidency or not, there was interference by the Russians, and continues to be. Ferreting out these efforts is part of the FBI’s work and critically important to our future as a democratic nation. I’m not saying the FBI, or any organization, is perfect, but there are institutional ways of dealing with imperfections without cutting down the forest to obtain a specific tree.
             Or, perhaps the GOP is willing to let the forest go—they certainly seem prepared to see actual forests go—in favor of securing profits. Russia has built a fairly successful oligarchy, and our current president noted in a passing remark at the GOP retreat on 1 February that he’d accomplished more with regulation (getting rid of them) than a president who served 16 years…         Now, it’s rare for presidents to mention FDR’s length of time in office when rallying their troops, so the reference took me a bit aback.
             Then the story teller in me popped up: Is he thinking ahead? Why should a little constitutional amendment that sets a term limit on the president bother him? There’s a national emergency, after all, all those dark-skinned illegal immigrants, all that carnage… or if there isn’t an emergency yet, he’s sure there will be. It’s how we’ll unify and come together, he says….
             I don’t write horror tales, but if I did…