FLAG ON THE PLAY: EXCESSIVE (and PREMATURE) CELEBRATION OF THE MUELLER REPORT

Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report set off wild end zone celebrations by President Trump and his supporters. The President claimed, falsely, “complete exoneration” in light of Barr’s report that the Special Counsel hadn’t found “collusion” by Trump with the Russians in interfering in the 2016 election, and that Mueller wouldn’t decide if enough evidence existed for an obstruction of justice charge against Trump. Barr, despite acknowledging Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice, went ahead and did it himself. Trump surrogates hit the airwaves, using Barr’s proclamations in claiming the investigation was “over” and it was time the country “moved on.” 

 

Regrettably, the media egged on these touchdown dances by asking political figures (usually Democrats) if they “accepted” Barr’s conclusion that no one in the Trump campaign “colluded” with the Russians in their election interference. Quite frankly, we’re ready to throw a flag and call a penalty on this excessive celebrating and the questioners facilitating it. It’s premature if only because no one outside the Justice Department and the Special Counsel’s office has actually seen the Mueller report. How can anyone “accept” a conclusion without any knowledge of what led to that conclusion? 

Mueller’s Charge
We think it useful that we recall exactly what the Justice

Department asked of Mueller. In his May 17, 2017, Order appointing a Special Counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave Mueller three tasks:  investigate and prosecute (1) any “links or coordination” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign; (2) matters that arise or may arise directly from that investigation; and (3) crimes related to the investigation committed within the scope of a federal statue covering perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and witness intimidation. 

              

This narrow charge affected what we could ever have expected from the Mueller probe. Rosenstein’s Order specifically gave Mueller prosecutorial authority. The Special Counsel focused, therefore, on charging and prosecuting criminal offenses, not just uncovering the bad acts of Trump and his associates. Mueller certainly might have found evidence of “links or coordination” between the Russians and the Trump campaign, though that evidence wouldn’t support criminal indictments provable beyond a reasonable doubt. To date, we don’t know if Mueller found such evidence because Barr hasn’t released the full report. Mueller might intend that Congress examine Trump’s conduct, even though criminal prosecution wasn’t in order.  

 

We also note Rosenstein tasked Mueller with finding things that “arose or may arise” from investigating the Russia

“links.” Mueller found significant corrupt conduct by Trump and his colleagues that doesn’t concern election interference. Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, for example, will spend several years in prison for lying to Congress about when Trump’s Moscow tower project cratered, a lie that could only benefit Trump during the 2016 campaign. Cohen also arranged, at Trump’s behest according to the indictment, hush money payments to women who allegedly had affairs with Trump. Mueller turned such matters over to other federal prosecutors, especially in the Southern District of New York. We don’t know what else Mueller’s report contains that might suggest wrong doing by Trump and his aides that doesn’t concern Russian election interference. Barr’s terse letter didn’t mention those things and without the report, no one knows if evidence of such misdeeds exists. We think it worth noting that Barr’s summary, according to one cable host, quotes not one complete sentence from Mueller’s actual report.      
 
The Game is Not Over Until It’s Over

Trump’s celebrating ignores two basic facts. First, the Southern District of New York and other jurisdictions continue their probes into such matters as the president’s campaign finance violations, his business dealings, and his inaugural committee’s fund raising and spending practices. Second, his actions remain subject to Congressional investigation and oversight. House Democrats, even if not all of them articulated the limits of the Barr letter as we’d have liked, should know they still have a major job facing them regarding the Trump scandals. At least the leadership apparently understands Barr’s carefully crafted spin job isn’t the last word, however much Trump and his supporters tried making it so. The chairs of six key House committees called for release of the full Mueller report by April 2, with the threat of subpoenas lurking if Barr doesn’t comply. They also want testimony from both Barr and Mueller. 

The American people paid for the Mueller report and should

see it. The House of Representatives, in an unusual show of bi-partisanship, voted 420-0 for the report’s release. That report isn’t a four-page press release written by a Trump appointee who’s already decided a president can’t commit obstruction of justice. The report consists of all Mueller’s findings and the underlying documents that support whatever he found. Until we see that, no political leader or citizen can or should “accept” anything. The reporters who ask such questions should bone up on their logic skills. 

Football has rules against excessive celebrations during games. In a democracy, politics has rules, particularly the rule of law. In this game, democracy v. Donald J. Trump, it’s time for a flag on the play. Let the games continue.  

       

 

POVERTY IN AMERICA: WHERE DO WE START AND WHO SHOULD ADDRESS IT?

We’ve been talking among ourselves and with others about income inequality and poverty in America. Many 2020 Democratic presidential candidates indicate they plan on making income inequality a major part of their campaigns and we see poverty as part of that. We will discuss these issues often in this space in the months ahead.

We begin by laying out some dimensions of the problem and by considering who bears responsibility for attacking it. As we’ve talked about the poverty part of the issue, we’ve realized we must consider the wide divergence in how Americans see what we should do about poverty and who should do it.

Poverty: What is it?

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 estimate put the poverty rate at 12.3 per cent of the population (39.7 million Americans) with the poverty threshold set at an income of $17,330 for a family of two adults and one child. The statistics show the dimensions of a problem affecting all races and ethnic groups . Over 17,000,000 white people, nine

million black people, and nearly 11 million Hispanic people live in poverty. That doesn’t count those living in “near poverty.” Including that metric, some students of the subject say, puts the poverty number at nearly 100 million people, almost one-third of the U.S. population.  

Poverty particularly affects people of color and children. An Annie E. Casey Foundation study reported 33 per cent of African American children, 33 per cent of Native American children, and 26 per cent of Hispanic Children live in poverty. Eleven per cent of white children suffer the same fate. Few would argue this issue does not require attention. But who should address it?  We hear different answers to that question.

A Chorus of Solutions

Deciding who bears the greatest responsibility for reducing or eliminating poverty depends on one’s experience, political orientation, and social outlook.  Consider:

*The religiously focused – Many religious leaders and their faith community followers assign responsibility to individuals and institutions that attack poverty through charitable giving, community outreach, and group action. This philosophy emphasizes making and collecting donations of money, food, clothing, and household goods for distribution through churches, food banks, and private social service organizations. Such organizations deliver goods and services directly to impoverished people. Both liberals and conservatives endorse and support this approach, though many liberals view it as only a partial solution that cannot substitute for governmental action on tough, systemic problems.

*The politically driven – Such individuals, usually, but not

always, progressive in their political orientation, believe we can only reduce poverty through public policy. They favor expansion of entitlement programs like Medicaid and Medicare and believe in a higher government-mandated minimum wage. They argue for a more progressive tax system that puts a greater burden on the rich and reduces in on middle and lower income taxpayers. Better enforcement of civil rights laws and more emphasis on combatting race discrimination attracts significant support among advocates of these approaches.

*The individualists – Often politically conservative, people in this category believe first and foremost that individuals bear responsibility for their own economic circumstances. They advocate limited government intervention in the economy and often resist entitlement programs that directly support low income citizens. Advocacy of income and wealth management training at an early age and a rugged individualism approach to life often characterize the views of many in this group.

No One Best Way

As we’ve contemplated and discussed America’s income inequality and poverty issues, it appears these approaches are not mutually exclusive. We think it unlikely any one of the above orientations – or others—used alone will solve the problem.  For one thing, the problem is too big and involves too many parts of the American economy.

No matter how much charitable giving increases, the structural concerns that go with many elements of America’s poverty problem will eventually overwhelm the contributions. Charitable giving does not, for example, eliminate systemic and institutional racism that condemns people of color to generational poverty and prevents accumulation of wealth.

President Roosevelt signing New Deal

Public policy based solutions also go only so far.Beginning with The New Deal in  the 1930s and continuing through the War on Poverty in the 1960s, we’ve tried government programs as a way of eradicating poverty, yet poverty remains with us. Lots of reasons account for this. Some argue the country

scrapped these programs too soon and they should have been refined, not eliminated. Additionally, other government policies have widened the income and wealth gaps. We also recognize government is a blunt instrument that ill serves people in need of things government isn’t very good at supplying and developing, like individual incentive and work ethic.

Individualists don’t have a monopoly on wisdom on this set of issues either. Learning wealth management, for example, does not address a lack of job skills, or the problems of a family saddled with a mountain of debt and facing poverty because of an illness insurance didn’t cover.

America’s income inequality and poverty problems remain complex issues with no magic bullet solutions.  We’re happy the 2020 candidates talk about them now.  We hope they will make intelligent comments and proposals, rather than just produce noise and platitudes.  A candidate who does that would deserve all our votes.        

LOVING WOMEN’S BASKETBALL: HOW WE BECAME FANS

We’ve mentioned several times all three of us love basketball. For

most of our lives that meant following men’s college basketball and the NBA, with interest in boys high school basketball thrown in occasionally because of an outstanding team or player. Now, we’ve developed an affinity for women’s basketball, especially the women’s college game. We each have a story for how that came about.

Rob Finds His Two Loves

Late one afternoon in early 1981, brand new to graduate school at the University of Texas, I sat in my communication department cubicle when several of my graduate student colleagues stuck their heads in my door and asked that I go with them to that night’s women’s basketball game. In the interest of being sociable, I agreed, though I should have declined because work for my own classes and my teaching assignments was already piling up.

I got hooked that night on the Texas women’s team – the “Lady Longhorns” as they were then known. They played fast on offense, pressed all over the floor on defense, and demonstrated a contagious enthusiasm I couldn’t resist. I went back time after time.

In May, after basketball season ended, I began dating a law student named Ida Stewart. Early in our relationship, over drinks one evening, we discussed our mutual interests. She made clear she didn’t share my affinity for college football. 

“I play soccer,” she said, “but I’m not into spectator sports, except Lady Longhorn basketball.”

My ears perked up. “I go to those games too.” 

“I’ll go with you to that,” she replied. “I’m not interested in football.”

Over the next 29 years, we attended countless UT women’s basketball games together. After we married and had children, we took them along. The sport remained our shared interest until Ida died in 2011. I’ve often wondered if things would have turned out for us as they did without UT women’s basketball.

Oh, she finally changed her mind about football.  

  

It Took A Village To Bring Henry To Women’s Basketball

Rob correctly notes my love of basketball. Both my sons and a granddaughter played while growing up. I watched and enjoyed them as much as I could during my working years.  I told them they stopped playing before I wanted to stop watching.  I didn’t follow women’s college basketball as my sons and granddaughter played, though I kept up with girls high school basketball in Arkansas to an extent. Now, I watch my three young grandsons play AAU ball.

Henry's Grandsons: AAU Champions!!

My granddaughter chose not to play past high school although she was talented enough to go much further, as directors of basketball camps she attended insisted. At some point, I decided I wouldn’t push it. After all, it was her choice. As I reflect on it now, I believe how little attention girls basketball garnered compared to boys basketball may have influenced her.  Maybe I regret I didn’t push her as hard as I should have.  

My interest in women’s college basketball for the last eight years or so has been influenced by Rob and by a friend and golfing buddy, Jim Lewis. The reason for Rob’s influence is obvious. Jim’s experience coaching men and women at the professional and college levels, and the insight he brings to our conversations about the sport, has kept me even more interested. I’ve bought into the excitement of the women’s game and the skill displayed there.

I’ve also been influenced by one of my college roommates,

Norman Bender.  He  may be the number one fan of the UCONN women’s team. I know more about that team than I could have ever dreamed because of the joy he brings to our conversations. Because of that joy, I pay attention.  I have become a fan.

Woodson Came Late to the Women’s Game

Saying I’m late to the women’s game may stand as my personal sports understatement of the decade. I paid some attention to

women’s professional  basketball for about ten years though generally, only at the urging of my son, Chike. I found the game interesting, but not enough that I embraced it. Chike continued encouraging me to watch the women’s college game for the last 10 years. I wasn’t listening. 

I grew up in rural Conway County, Arkansas in the 60s and played basketball throughout high school. In those days, women played six-on-six, with a three-player defensive unit on one end of the court and a three-player offensive unit on the other. That rule assumed women lacked the strength or stamina for full court play. I didn’t find it an interesting brand of basketball. That experience kept me from taking a real interest in the women’s game.

Chike persisted. He told me watching the UConn women play

“was a thing of beauty” and that Geno Auriemma was a coaching genius. So I watched. I was partially sold. I followed the UConn women for several years. My real breakthrough came I went to see

    Woodson & Hope                      Teaira  & Woodson

Mississippi State play UALR in 2019, again at Chike’s urging. He wanted me to see Teaira McCowan, Mississippi State's 6-7 post player.  I saw her and even got my picture taken with her.  But it was the Lady Trojans who caught my eye. They are as well coached as UConn, have won their conference championship for 14 of the last 16 years, and play their home games within a 15 minute walk of my front door.  

UALR'S discipline and team chemistry are things of beauty.  Right now they are 14-2 in conference play. I am now hooked on the Lady Trojans and women's basketball.