MILITARY INTELLIGENCE?

Military intelligence?

Oxymoronic? 

It is one thing to ask members of the military to volunteer for particularly dangerous missions. But we do not, ( I think!)  ask infantrymen if they would like to learn how to use a rifle, ask artillerymen if they would like to learn how to put a shell in the breech of the weapon, or ask on-duty personnel if they would like to go to work today, or, for example, accept assignments like guard duty, pointing their weapons at the enemy, etc. You know, that kind of stuff.

We don't ask those personnel their druthers on these issues because the effectiveness of the unit depends upon 100% compliance with command directives. I was always taught the first mission of our military was effectively to defend the United States of America, and they cannot do that if each member of each unit decides to play in his or her own sandbox.

You do not have to be four-star General to know that a military unit cannot be at maximum effectiveness if 30 to 40% of the unit is not available for duty. That's why military training involves rules respecting maintaining the health and effectiveness of the troops. 

Once upon a time, I was in the United States Army. In the very first week after induction, I was taught how to how to clean the latrine, meticulously wash mess hall dishes, stand guard duty, etc., when it became my turn to do that. All that was important to maintain the health of my barrack mates and the military effectiveness of my unit. I was not asked to consent.

On day one after induction, they issued us uniforms and boots, and on day two, wearing the former, we were marched to the base hospital, where they lined us up single file and gave everybody a shot in the right arm. They may have told us what they were vaccinating us against -- I do not recall, other than I have a vague recollection that it involved several different diseases. I do remember they didn't use syringes with needles, but some sort of a gun they pressed up against your upper arm, and when they pulled the trigger, a high pressure blast forced a multi-serum vaccine  through your skin. Very efficient. The line moved fast. No consent required.

 At the end of the line, a clerk recorded your name and serial number. They did that to make sure that no less than 100% of the members of the unit were inoculated. Makes sense, non?

Now the United States is facing a grave threat. The Covid pandemic has, so far, killed more Americans than were killed in battle in World War I, World War II, and Vietnam combined. It is not hyperbole when both former President Trump and current President Biden have referred to our struggle with this pandemic as a "war" against this disease. 

Fortunately we now have effective weapons in the war. Maybe not enough of them at the moment, but we're working on that. We have established priorities for the distribution of our weaponry. In the military, if there were a shortage of rifles, the first tranche to receive them would be the front line troops, and the rear area clerks would have to wait until the supply increased. Similarly, in the war on Covid, we have also established priorities -- military personnel get the vaccine before encyclopedia salesman do. Well, that makes sense to me.

So how is it that I read in the press that 30% of our armed forces personnel have declined Covid vaccinations?. Indeed in some units it's as high as 40%! Am I dreaming? Does our  military really ask our soldiers if they consent to be immunized against a disease that could diminish the health, safety, and fighting effectiveness of the unit?

And if the foregoing is insufficiently astonishing, try out of the reported reason: all of the current Covid vaccinations ( Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson) have received only "emergency approval" from the FDA. If one digs further into that approval structure, one finds that the scheme is allegedly in accordance with the Food and Drug Act enacted in 1938. And pursuant the rules, the "emergency" nature of the approval may last for a year, or years. But whether the approval bears the label "emergency" or not, our government leaders have assured us that it is virtually 100% safe, urges all 300 million adults in the United States to get vaccinated, and we are spending millions of dollars on a sophisticated information campaign to change the minds of some 20% of the citizenry who, so far, say they are not going to take a vaccination. 

And if this is really a national emergency, doesn't that make 100% military compliance even more vital?

I don't know if the shots the Army gave me were "emergency pandemic" vaccines or not, but for sure, nobody asked me if I wanted to accept that serum shot in the arm in my first week of basic training. It would've been absurd to make that shot voluntary because an outbreak of any one of the communicable diseases against which I was vaccinated would obviously diminish the health, safety, and effectiveness of my military unit. 

I don't recall seeing any report of inquiry of the newly appointed Secretary of Defense about this. Was the  United States Senate so busy organizing itself up into adversarial political teams that nobody is paying attention to the merits? Nobody asked about this? 

Does the law really require consent from a soldier to receive a vaccination that his government has not only approved but is urging every citizen in the land to accept in the war against Covid? 

And if there really is a statutory basis for that absurd result, shouldn't Congress and the President change that overnight? Is this an issue as to which Republicans and Democrats could possibly disagree?

Are we really losing it?

A bientot.

............................

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">.

 

A MOTE OF DECENCY?

Once upon a time, I represented the widow of an assassinated President of the United States. Her name was Jacqueline Kennedy. She and her children were entitled to the benefits of a statute called the Former Presidents Benefits Act. The widow received Secret Service protection that ended with her remarriage. The children’s right to protection ended when they reached the age of 16.

Recent articles about Trump’s post-presidential (yes, he is a former president) benefits bring to mind the secret service protection issue and a touch of humor arising out of the Kennedy secret service team's devotion to duty. Here it is:

Our trial team and our client daily attended a four-week trial that ended with an injunction against a photographer who was obsessed with the Kennedy family and made life miserable for them. We were on trial five days a week. On Fridays, the trial judge gave us the afternoon off so he could attend to other matters on his calendar and that’s when the trial team and client traditionally lunched at a super-nice restaurant near our office called “The Brussels.” Jacqueline, as you might expect, attracted a great deal of attention, and I suspect many of the sophisticated Friday diners suffered from indigestion from swallowing their food without chewing. But the star of that day was not Jacqueline, but Caroline.

I guess school was off or something and her mom invited her to join us for lunch. We were all at table when Caroline rushed in out of breath. She had neglected timely to inform her security team of the luncheon engagement, and when she did tell them, they scrambled to get the car out of the garage, circle around the block to pick her up at the front door of 1040 Fifth Avenue, etc. That process was way too time-consuming for Caroline and while the Secret Service officers frantically ran for their vehicle, Carolyn jumped on a Fifth Avenue bus and rode down to 54th Street. She arrived at the restaurant before her secret service detail did. The guys forgave her.

What brings all this to mind is an article I saw the other day about Donald Trump. The piece noted that as a former president, Trump was now entitled to i) a pension ($220,000 a year), ii) funds for his transition, (I can only imagine what it cost to move Melania’s wardrobe and Donald's golf clubs), iii) an office, iv) staff for the office, v) free medical care (apparently NOT contingent upon his telling his doctors to tell the truth in any public statements,) and vi) Secret Service protection for him and his wife for the rest of their lives. (Oh yeah, his wife is also entitled to a $20,000 annual pension!)

All of this in the face of a recent report that Trump made $1.6 billion in the four years of his presidency. How much of that income was captured via leveraging his position as the president of the United States can only be left to one’s imagination because the emolument clauses lawsuits seeking an accounting and recompense of those sums have been dismissed.

And this for a person whom a majority of the Congress of the United States has found to have inspired and provoked an attempted insurrection. His effort to frustrate the will of the voters and to make a mockery of our Constitutional scheme almost succeeded. A majority of the House of Representatives voted to impeach him for that seditious conduct, and 57% of the Senate voted to convict him. Included among the latter were seven Republicans. And the former majority leader of the Senate openly declared his guilt, but said he voted to acquit on the feigned incumbency issue. And a number of Republican Senators who voted to acquit also said they based their acquittal votes on the same phony issue.

What’s to be done about this? Aside from the overwhelming evidence of his insurrection attempt, and the fact that a majority of the Congress, and a majority of the public are persuaded of his guilt, there are now at least three jurisdictions pursuing criminal investigations into Trumps’ conduct before and during his presidency. Those investigations will be ongoing while he takes the taxpayers' money to play golf while protected by a squad of secret service officers also funded by you and me.

So here’s my proposal: The least we can do now is to strip this criminal from continuing to steal our tax dollars. To do that we would need a majority of the House of Representatives and 60 (not 67) votes in the United States Senate. The former is a lock, the latter is a close call but doable. One would need only three more votes out of the Republican caucus. And this time no one can hide behind the incumbency claim. The facts proving Trump’s attempted insurrection are simply undeniable. The very least the Republican Senate caucus can do in order to maintain a shred of dignity is to put together 10 votes to support a bill of censure that strips Trump of his benefits under the Former Presidents Benefit Act.

We could not expect the bootlickers who have visited him at Mara-Lago to do the decent thing, but there must be at least three Republicans who voted to acquit on make-believe incumbency grounds who are nauseated by the Trump post-presidency benefits, non?

Really, now, Is that too much to ask?

Yeah, it probably is, but I feel better already for putting the proposition out there.

A bientot.

......................................

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">.

..........................................

Additional details regarding the Onassis v Galella trial and appeal are reported in my memoir, The Client Decides, available on Kindle and on Amazon.

IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT

A historic day. Never before has a president been impeached twice. Years trying cases provokes the following discussion of but two of the many legal issues surrounding this Senate proceeding.           

                     I          

First is the issue of Trump testifying. It was my sense from the git-go that impeachment manager Raskin’s letter inviting Trump to testify was nothing more than gamesmanship. I do not believe for one moment that the managers wanted Trump to testify.

Raskin is a professional. He is not stupid. Certain basic strategic rules apply to all trials. Rule number one is, "Don't ask a question unless i) you know how the witness will answer it. or ii) what you will do if the witness misbehaves." 

Applying that rule to your direct case is easy because you will have rehearsed your witness exhaustively. You have gone over his direct testimony again and again, and planned what he will say to every imaginable question on cross-examination.

It's a little more complicated when you call a hostile witness. In that case, the rules for cross apply: You ask only questions as to which you know the answer. And if the witness departs from the truth, or goes on an evasive rant, you are prepared. You have the tools at hand to rein him in: such things as prior inconsistent statements or testimony,  contradictory documents, or other solid evidence with which to confront him. Lacking that, you don’t ask the question.

 And if the witness goes on a rant, fails to answer the question or is otherwise unresponsive, you have a judge who will cure the problem for you. He will rein in the witness. 

But there is nothing ordinary about this trial. There is no judge to help you control a nonresponsive witness. The "judge" here is the President pro tem of the Senate, Democrat Patrick Leahy, serving his eighth term in the Senate. Leahy might lecture witness Trump, but to no avail. Trump is an expert at evading direct response to a 

question. No matter how simple the question, you can always count on Trump giving a long evasive response and blaming everything on the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Socialists. And every answer will have 100 lies in it, and tracking each one of them down will take weeks and in the end just mess up the prosecution’s presentation.

Moreover, examining Trump at the trial will produce no new evidence. All the evidence of guilt is on the public record. Raskin need only bring a television set to the Senate floor, and there's no way Trump or the Republicans can cross-examine that.

It was predictable that Trump’s lawyers would immediately reject the offer. No sentient lawyer, having Trump as a client, would rely on that man's testimonial behavior. That’s courting disaster.

And the threat that a rejection of the invitation to testify would lead to an inference of guilt doesn't mean very much in this political atmosphere. This is not a jury of unbiased citizens who will be instructed by an impartial judge to use their common sense in reaching an impartial verdict.

Conclusion: score one for the Democrats: but a field goal, not a touchdown. They made their point and escaped a Trump filibuster consisting of a repetition of every frivolous item in his lawyers’ briefs.

                               II.

Now, a much more consequential issue: the effect of delay on the verdict:

It is the accepted wisdom of most political observers that Trump will be acquitted because there is no way the Democrats can patch together 67 votes for conviction. I count only 49 Democratic jurors. Presumably, President pro tem of the Senate, Patrick Leahy, will not have a vote because he is presiding and is therefore not a juror. If I am correct about that, the House managers would need 18 Republicans to vote to convict  —almost 1/3 of the entire Republican caucus. Most “smart people” have suggested the maximum Republican vote for conviction will be approximately four or five. 

But I have always thought delay works against Trump, and the Democrats know it.

Start out with the fact that the House passed the Articles of Impeachment on January 13, just seven days after the insurrection. Nevertheless, speaker Nancy Pelosi did not present the Articles to the Senate until Monday, January 25. According to extant Senate rules, that body was required to commence the trial on Tuesday, January 26, and to proceed thereafter “day-to-day.”

But the Senate did not do so. Instead, Schumer and McConnell discussed the “organization of the Senate” given its 50-50 constituency, and decided the trial would not start until February 9, almost a month after impeachment. Moreover, because President Biden wanted the Senate to be available to debate and pass his Covid response plan, Schumer and McConnell resolved that their members could "walk and chew gum at the same time" and as a result, the Senate trial would proceed for half of each proceeding day, and other business would occupy the other half. 

The result is that a trial that could possibly have been concluded by January 16, while Trump was still president, may not now be concluded until late February—as much as a month and a half after the January 6 attack on the capitol building and its inhabitants.

The more time the authorities have to investigate the rebellion, the worse it's going to be for the bad guys. As of yesterday, there have been 242 arrests in connection with the insurrection riot. How many of those knuckleheads will stand firm and take a jail sentence when offered prosecutorial consideration in exchange for cooperation? And how many who are identified as being part of the leadership for the attack will stand firm and risk a 20-year jail sentence for sedition, especially some who now feel they have been "seduced and abandoned" by Trump, who made a post hoc speech castigating “mob violence?”

Who will the conspirators turn out to be? Will there be members of Congress or members of their staff? Will any be found to have prior knowledge? Will there be leaders or staff members of the Republican party? Will any White House personnel be named?

Bottom line, the longer the investigation goes on, the greater the risk that Trumpian acolytes will be revealed to have been involved, and that will make it more difficult for Republican Senators to vote to acquit. 

That's only half of it. Every Republican Senator who is inclined to follow party discipline and vote to acquit now knows two things: 

1. It is not clear how much party discipline remains. McConnell has made clear his dislike for Trump and has even suggested he may vote to convict. And staunch conservative Liz Cheney, one of 10 house members who voted to impeach, nevertheless won a 2-1 Republican caucus victory defeating an effort to remove her from her Republican leadership position. And,
2. Perhaps even more persuasive is the fact that every Republican who voted to acquit will need to hold his or her breath for the ensuing months (years?) when it becomes likely that more evidence will be unearthed, and i) Trump and his allies will be revealed to have been guilty of attempted insurrection, and ii) the current Trumpian defenses are disgraceful, unamerican, unpatriotic lies. Those Senators who voted to acquit, especially those who need to run for reelection in 2024, will spend the entire election cycle trying to explain away their despicable votes.

Optimism? Yup. The Dems’ likelihood of success is slim, but I doubt we will see a unified Republican caucus voting to acquit. This impeachment is different from the first one. All it would take is one high-up Trumpian sycophant to blow this game wide open. Sort of a “Bad Guy Tom Brady?”

A bientot.