Unimaginably Immoral: Trump Fires FBI Director James Comey

President Trump’s May 15 firing of FBI Director James Comey unleashed a string of events the nation may feel for years.  By the end of that week, the Justice Department, under mounting public and political pressure, named a special prosecutor to pursue the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Published reports soon indicated investigators were targeting a “person of interest” working on the White House staff.  Those reports described the unnamed individual as “close” to the President. It’s now apparent that person is Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.  Cable news stories, editorial pieces, and blogs suggested Trump’s personal actions constituted obstruction of justice.  A few Congressional Democrats, and more than a few people around the country, openly began using the “I” word and Trump in the same sentence.

Facts aren’t in yet   We know some of the facts of Trump’s conduct, but not everything.  We know he has offered public statements that, on their face, seem like an effort to shut down or impede the FBI’s Russia investigation. He told NBC’s Lester Holt he fired Comey because of that investigation, despite the pretext of dissatisfaction with Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail matter. Published reports indicated Trump asked Comey to stop investigating his fired national security advisor, General Michael Flynn.  Comey supposedly wrote a memo shortly after that conversation, contemporaneously memorializing the President’s effort to get him to drop that investigation.  The Comey memo hasn’t been released and Comey hasn’t testified about that meeting. Reportedly, he’s agreed to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee in early June. Until everything comes out, we can’t know the exact facts. What we do know has the odious smell of obstruction of justice

We can’t say if the special prosecutor will conclude Trump’s actions constitute obstruction of justice. As Henry, the one of us who’s served as a judicial officer charged with applying the law of obstruction of justice, points out, federal obstruction statues are complex and subject to differing interpretations. As legally trained individuals, we recognize the importance of basing conclusions on complete factual development of the record and a full understanding of applicable law.

Woodson, however, has seen enough.  He says, “The President encouraged Flynn to plead the Fifth, though Flynn remains under investigation for operating as a foreign agent while serving as National Security Advisor and for colluding with the Russians in interfering in our national election. Trump fired the FBI director for not conducting the Russia/Trump investigation in a manner that suited hm.  He asked the heads of the National Intelligence and National Security agencies to declare that they found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia when they made no such finding. If those actions don’t constitute “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” I don’t know what does.

“I think few legal scholars would conclude Trump’s actions don’t amount to obstruction of justice. Ultimately, an elected Congress must determine the political question of what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  I align myself with Justice Potter Stewart’s sentiments when he explained his determination of pornography. I know “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” when I see them.”                   

No crime needed   Despite Rob and Henry’s unwillingness to now say that Trump has committed an impeachable offense, they have no difficulty expressing their moral, political, and patriotic outrage about what’s happened so far.  We titled this piece as we did because we could find no better phrase than Woodson’s characterization of the President’s behavior. “Unimaginably immoral” sums up our feelings about the potential irreparable harm Trump’s acts continue to do to our country’s political and social institutions. We all agree that if Congress and the courts – the co-equal branches of our government – don’t move systematically against him, removing him from office if the facts and law ultimately justify doing so – it may take years for those institutions to recover.

The political calculus concerning impeachment remains much the same as we suggested in our earlier comments on that subject.  With all due respect to Woodson’s belief that it will happen this year, a sober analysis of the politics still makes that a long shot. Special counsel Robert Mueller faces a potentially long and complex investigation. Criminal charges against Trump’s associates, if Mueller brings them, may take years to prosecute.  While Mueller builds cases against individuals, Republicans retain the levers of power in the House where impeachment must originate. They haven’t abandoned Trump and any honest assessment of the mood of Congress still must give him the advantage. Even revelations that Trump shared with the Russians sensitive American intelligence, probably given to the United States by Israel, didn’t pry Republicans from Trump’s side.

Trump’s conduct, especially this sharing of classified intelligence with a hostile foreign power, saddens and sickens us because we grew up in an America that considered such behavior treason.  We find watching the party of Lincoln hem and haw about Trump’s actions especially troubling, since Republicans so often found it convenient to run campaigns challenging Democrats as unpatriotic. The idea an American President could act in such a way long seemed unfathomable to us, but if holding power means everything, we suppose Republican acquiescence to his behavior follows. Trump’s conduct, if unpunished, suggests we’ve become a nation of men, not laws.

Not over until it’s over   We must admit, however, to borrow another overused sports cliché, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Neither Mueller’s investigation nor the probes by Congress have come to fruition. Indeed, Mueller just picked up the baton. He enjoys a reputation for determination, independence, and fairness.  Time remains for good Republicans to step forward and become heroes by putting country ahead of party.                        

            

A Matter of Faith: Three Approaches to Religion

We haven’t spent much time writing about it yet, but as will become evident as this blog continues and in our memoir, all three of us take matters of religion and faith quite seriously.  Though we grew up in traditional, all-black, Protestant (Baptist and Methodist) churches, each of us has taken a spiritual journey that puts us in a different place from where we began all those years ago. With this piece, we start periodic exploration of our journeys in an effort to convey the faith experiences that have taken us to the spiritual spots in which we now reside.

Who we worship with represents one issue we think many may find interesting, given where we started. The issue isn’t insignificant. One of us views the ethnic and racial composition of a congregation as a defining factor in the substance of his faith.  Another of us finds himself torn between an ideal and the practical when it comes to the need for and function of congregations composed of certain kinds of people.  Finally, one of us puts his focus on the theology of his places of worship, sacrificing undoubtedly desirable demographic characteristics for theological purity. None of these approaches is necessarily “right” or “wrong.”  They are just “different” and explain an important component of our religious and spiritual existence.

Woodson’s Mosaic Woodson attends and participates actively in a multi-ethic, multi-cultural, socio-economically diverse church.  Mosaic of Little Rock operates from a decidedly Christian perspective and its members, by and large, strongly profess a belief in redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ as personal lord and savior.  They present varying denominational histories and, most important, arrive at the church from a potpourri of racial and ethnic backgrounds, widely varying economic and social strata, and lacking the homogeneity typically associated with churches in the United States.  If 11 a.m. Sunday remains, as Martin Luther King once said, the most segregated hour in America, Mosaic’s members opted out of that circumstance some time ago.  

Mosaic’s big tent character, for Woodson, includes a substantive theological component.  He says, “Worshiping in a multi-ethnic church demonstrates our commitment as co-laborers with God in bringing the Peace of heaven to earth.” He adds, “If the Kingdom of Heaven is not segregated, then why should the local church on earth be? Failure to overcome racial division within the church makes us less credible witnesses to the faith.” He roots in scripture his view that worshiping in a diverse church means something real spiritually. He cites John 17:21-22, quoting Jesus speaking to God: “That all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one.”   An adherent of the multi-ethnic church sees joining together different kinds of people in worship as a way of bringing people together spiritually, economically, and politically and, therefore, to bring God to all people.

That Old Time Religion Mosaic, and fast growing churches like it (many Christian denominations stagnate or shrink now), may represent a new ideal that connects different cultures. Henry, however, still sees a need for “a place that offers rest for the weary.” Despite his hope and wish that congregations “care not at all about skin colors or the diverse cultures within,” a need remains for churches that primarily serve the spiritual and practical needs of particular ethnic populations. Given what he calls “cultural reality,” he acknowledges settling for a place called “the black church,” despite his desire for a different world. In other words, the practicalities of race and racism demand the continuing existence of places that primarily serve the needs of a historically disenfranchised group. These churches, for example, help preserve a history too often overlooked.

Henry prefers “to express my love in a place where diversity reigns and understanding abounds.”  But, he knows, the realities of America, even in 2017, do not always make that possible. Ministries that focus on the black community remain essential to the spiritual needs of many black people.  Community service that black churches render represents a significant part of the continuing need for such places.  So, Henry attends Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, an iconic black church that traces its history to 1803. According to Henry, it serves a need and that’s just a fact.

Purity   Rob, for the majority of his adult life, has attended Unitarian Universalist Churches.  He’s been a member at Northwoods UU in The Woodlands, Texas since 1991. In the last few years, as his interest in and affinity for progressive Christianity deepened and expanded, he has sometimes attended United Church of Christ (UCC) churches.  These UU and UCC churches are overwhelmingly white, raising the issue of how much it matters what one’s fellow travelers should look like. Theology, not demographics, determines his answer.  That theology makes God as an all-encompassing concept with no all-powerful deity ruling the world and envisions Jesus not as savior but as a human, historical figure who walked the earth for an all-too-brief period teaching timeless lessons that remain models for living.        

Having attended Mosaic with Woodson, Rob finds that church’s diversity amazing, almost seductive.  Mosaic “looks like America,” to quote a former President. He admires the ministerial outreach and commitment to social justice at Alfred Street that Henry reports.  But, he knows, he could never attend either on a regular basis because the theology doesn’t match. The theology at his UU and UCC churches defines church for him. Nothing about the color of the people in the pews changes that.

So, there are three ways of looking at this. How do you look at it?        

             

            

                

     

One of Life's Inevitable's: Cheating in College Football

Constants exist in life. Some things seem inevitable -- death and taxes, Wyoming voting Republican, the New England Patriots making the Super Bowl, and, until this year, the Connecticut women’s basketball team going undefeated. In the years we’ve been following sports, we’ve seen one more -- cheating in college football. The NCAA recently passed recruiting changes designed to streamline the process and reduce incentives to bend rules.  We doubt these so-called reforms will change much because none of them – an early signing period, adjustments in the calendar regarding visits and contact with recruits, limits on hiring relatives and people close to prospects – address either major recruiting abuses or the culture of impatience that fuels rampant cheating.

The Major Problem   There always has been cheating in college football.  We think there always will be cheating in college football.  If you can’t un-ring a bell or take politics out of politics, you can’t get cheating out of this sport.  That doesn’t mean fans, media, and administrators shouldn’t think about the problem.

One part of the equation involves coaches who funnel under-the-table payments to players.  We see nothing wrong with banning coaches, for as much as three years, proven to have engaged in this conduct, so long as the NCAA retains discretion to mitigate penalties under certain circumstances.  Another part of the problem involves the presence on college rosters of players whose character makes them unfit to represent institutions of higher education.      

Anyone who keeps up with the sport knows about the horror stories like the sexual abuse scandal at Baylor. What people who don’t follow the sport might not know is how close to the line many programs operate by taking risks on players who, before they enroll, showed a propensity for bad acts that predict future problems like  sexual misconduct, academic fraud, and drug and alcohol abuse.  Many coaches, especially in their early years at a school when they’re trying to establish a winning culture, know the risks associated with particular players, but recruit and sign them anyway because they see no alternative.  If they don’t take them they likely will never win enough to get or keep a college head coaching job.

Hot Seats   While athletic directors and presidents claim they want things done the “right way,” college football’s dirty little not-so-secret maxim is that doing things the “right way” works only so long as the team wins 8-10 games a year and regularly gets a bowl invitation.  Drop below that and no matter how good the team’s academic record, no matter how many good citizens the program turns out, the coach will find himself on the proverbial hot seat.

Take, for example, Arkansas coach Brent Bielema.  We all follow Arkansas for one reason or another – each of us grew up in the state, one of us went to school there for a short time, two of us have daughters who earned degrees from Arkansas.  Bielema arrived in Fayetteville in 2013 off a 68-24 record and three Big 10 championships at Wisconsin. He followed two major Arkansas coaching disasters – Bobby Petrino’s implosion in a sex scandal and the ill-fated John L. Smith interim experiment that resulted in a 4-8 record for a 2012 team some predicted would win the South Eastern Conference championship.

Bielema faced a major overhaul project at Arkansas.  Aside from the team’s on-the-field shortcomings, Razorback players performed dreadfully in academics and more than a few couldn’t stay out of legal trouble.  The published indicators show marked academic progress among Arkansas players and the number getting into legal difficulties has dropped to almost nothing.  Arkansas appears to now have a team in which the university and its fans can take pride. This progress, however, may come with an expensive price tag for Bielema.

No one other than Athletic Director Jeff Long and a few other top UA officials know if Bielema really is on the hot seat as the 2017 season approaches.  But, read websites and fan message boards and you can feel unrest building.  Last season ended badly for Arkansas. The Razorbacks finished a pedestrian 7-6, suffering a crushing loss to a bad Missouri team in the regular season finale and an embarrassing bowl defeat at the hands of Virginia Tech, despite a 24 point half time lead.  The bottom line: all Bielema’s progress in cleaning up the program won’t mean much if he doesn’t win more games. Fans and media acknowledge that Arkansas plays in the toughest division of any conference in America – the SEC West – but nobody cuts Bielema slack for that.  It won’t save his job if the Hogs don’t get better soon.

Limits   Many college football fan bases dismiss or ignore the limits under which the program they support operates.  Arkansas, for example, sits in a geographic area that makes it unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely) the Razorbacks can compete, year in and year out, for SEC and national championships without cutting corners on players.  Arkansas’s small population base makes recruiting against Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and the like exceedingly difficult.  Arkansas can develop and nurture enough high character players to field an outstanding team every three or four years.  But, without player personnel compromises, the Arkansas fan base shouldn’t count on winning ten, 11, or 12 games every year.  That hasn’t happened since Arkansas joined the SEC in the early 90s and nothing makes us think it’s about to start.

So, what’s reasonable under such circumstances?  What’s wrong with supporting a program that every year produces a bevy of graduates headed for careers as businessmen, professionals, corporate executives, teachers, coaches, community leaders, and government officials? What’s wrong with cheering for players who stay out of trouble, even if they win “only” seven or eight games a year?  Nothing we can see, especially when the program must live with built-in limitations that likely make doing better contingent on cutting corners and compromising its integrity.  Like we said, nothing we can see.