A Walk in the Woods*

I

know when I have been away too long

the senses have been dulled

by the glass and asphalt world

I

walk much too quickly

but the senses slowly awaken

my eyes now focus on what

I

had missed ten minutes ago

my hearing becomes more acute

I

now begin to revel in the aromas

permeating the air

my pace slows to a crawl

everything excites me

how could I have missed the salamander

resting on a moss covered log

I

get down on my hands and knees

turn over rocks

smell he earth

the air

is delicious

I

 breathe slowly

I

exhale on a fern frond

I

know we share

some primitive DNA

I 

marvel at the 

Dragonfly

perched on my shoulder

I

see its great ancestor

in the multifaceted eyes

and once again

I 

am king of kings

on dragonfly wings

###

Robert Louis DeStefano

Somewhere in the Berkshires

* I have just discovered that my younger brother Robert has turned to the writing of poetry. For years and years I have known him as a master science teacher and naturalist but recently he showed me a little collection of poems he has written, most based on his great love of nature. He claims that he wrote these poems to pass the time while proctoring classroom exams but it seems to me that they reflect a lifetime of experiencing nature at close hand. 

A walk in the woods with him is a true adventure. As he meanders among the trees and shrubs behind his log cabin in the Berkshires he points out, identifies, and discusses practically every plant and tree. He says his interest began in the garden of the back yard of our grandparents home in Woodside, NY. Of course, the woods had long disappeared in Woodside but the garden was an oasis. I also grew up in the same garden with its vegetables, flowers, grape vine, cherry tree and mysterious fig tree that came to life again each year after severe pruning, but I never developed his interest in nature especially in seemingly common forms like ferns and salamanders. It was a gift, a gift that is evident in the poems he has written like the one published above.

Impeachable Offenses

"Impeach the m...f..."
Representative Rashida Tlaib

The impeachment trial of President Trump is going on right now even though the charges brought by the Democratic managers seem flimsy at best. There are no charges of treason or bribery and no “high crimes and misdemeanors” have been alleged. The President has merely been accused of misuse of power, and obstruction of the efforts of the House of Representatives to impeach him.

Almost since day one of his Presidency, they have been looking for a reason to remove him from office. In May of 2017, Representative Maxine Waters of California called for his impeachment. On January 4 of 2019, long before the phone call to the Ukraine, newly elected Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib claimed that “we’re going to impeach the m----- f-----. “

Now it appears as if the Democrats have really lowered the bar for what constitutes offenses worthy of impeachment. Using their new standards, a number of actions of President Obama and his administrators were far more serious and worthy of prosecution.

Benghazi cover-up. President Obama’s response to the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi and the murder of our ambassador and other Americans would certainly call for an impeachment investigation under the new standards. The attack itself could have happened under any President but the cover-up that followed certainly was designed for President Obama’s political advantage. Republican Mitt Romney was running the President hard in the 2012 election campaign but didn’t press the Benghazi issue, much less call for his impeachment.

Speaking about the election of 2012, on an open mike President Obama asked the President of Russia not to make any waves before the election, and promised that he would have a freer hand to cut a deal with Russia after his re-election. Under the new standards, that would certainly have warranted an impeachment process. He asked a favor that would help him win re-election.

Resisting Congressional Subpoenas. During the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly resisted Congressional subpoenas to the point where he was actually held in contempt of Congress. He was head of the Justice department but the Mueller investigation, and the Inspector General’s report clearly showed that it was one of the most partisan Justice departments in history.

Misuse of Power. Two agencies in the Justice department, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), formerly renowned for their probity and non-partisanship, became arms of the President and his party. The IRS targeted conservative political groups and organizations, and delayed applications for tax-exempt status. Only now are we learning of the shocking partisanship and dirty tricks of the FBI leaders appointed by President Obama.

Bribery. The Democrats have dropped charges of bribery against President Trump for lack of evidence. Nevertheless, under the new standards President Obama might have been impeached for bribery when he offered special deals to Senators and their States in order to secure passage of the Affordable Care Act early in his administration. In the old days, that would have been called politics but now, who knows?

Assassination. President Trump has been blamed for the targeted killing of an Iranian general in Iraq. Some have called it a violation of the law against political assassinations. When President Obama took out the notorious Osama bin Laden, the terrorist was not a military target and he presented no “imminent” danger. Where was the outcry then? Democrats lauded the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who for once enjoyed bi-partisan support. All agreed that it was good riddance.

In all of the above instances, no one ever suggested that President Obama be impeached. He had virulent opponents and critics but no one claimed that he was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that might initiate an impeachment investigation. With the impeachment of President Trump, the Democrats have opened a window that in the future could come back to haunt them and the country.

###

COMMENT:

TD from CT offers these excellent comments.

When the Founders debated impeachment at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they considered making maladministration an impeachable offence. After debate they decided this standard was dangerous and would bring a huge number of frivolous impeachments, so the idea was voted down.

You wrote: Now it appears as if the Democrats have really lowered the bar for what constitutes offenses worthy of impeachment. Yes, but what they are really doing is resurrecting the previously rejected standard of maladministration. They are redefining the legal standard of impeachment without amending the Constitution, on the fly. Is Trump guilty of maladministration? I'd say yes. And so what?

Here's my take on the rest:

Article Zero (the Russia investigation) - If the Mueller investigation had led to an article of impeachment, it should have been dismissed by the Senate upon arrival for lack of evidence.

Article One (Abuse of Power) - To my mind this one might have something to it. We certainly don't want Presidents directing criminal investigations for partisan reasons. The issue here is that it has to be proved that there was no probable cause for an investigation, we can't just assume it. I see zero effort being made to prove that an investigation of Hunter Biden was undeserved - after all, pursuing criminal investigations that [especially] involve foreign governments is part of a President's legal obligations, notwithstanding how crass or bungled (maladministered?) a President's execution of that obligation might be. Prove it to me and I'll support a conviction Until then...

Article Two (Obstruction of Congress) - Sorry, to my mind this is highly conditional. If any president is impeached for reasons other than high crimes and misdemeanors, then he or she would have a legal right to maintain the impeachment was unconstitutional and that obstruction was justified. Convict on Article One, and a conviction on Article Two can be justified. The reverse (convict on Two and not One) is totally indefensible.

Article Three (a fictional charge of illegal withholding of appropriated money to Ukraine) - There is at least one Federal statute that would seem to support this, and which was cited in that GAO report that said Trump broke the law. So, where is Article Three? Alan Dershowitz has opined that the application of such a statute to a foreign aid appropriation would be unconstitutional, since foreign affairs are almost entirely a Presidential responsibility. Also, it would seem that there are statutory exceptions, since such appropriations have been withheld by past Presidents. So it stands to reason that either the GAO report is a lie and the Democrats know it would not survive Senate scrutiny and are using it just to blow more smoke.. ###

Democratic Persona

We are now at last in the election year and it seems time to make some observations on the candidates remaining among the Democratic hopefuls for the Presidency. The field has been whittled down but as the Iowa primary draws neat here are my observations not so much on their respective ideas and position papers but on my impressions of their TV persona.

Joe Biden: I watched a little of the last debate and the 78-year-old former Vice-President looks remarkably fit for his age. He actually looks better than he ever has. His fitness coach has done a great job. Nevertheless, there is something in his voice that betrays his age. I detect a little hesitancy as if he is not as quick on the uptake as he used to be. 

He is also not as belligerent or pugnacious as he used to be in debate. Perhaps it’s age but I suspect it is hard for him to pull out all the stops in attacking fellow Democrats and he might also be leery of offending progressive sensibilities. If he attacks Senator Warren, he could be branded as a male chauvinist. Harsh words against Mayor Pete Buttigieg might brand him as a homophobe. Attacks against Senator Bernie Sanders could cause him to lose favor among the millennials partial to Socialism.

Senator Bernie Sanders: In the debates Senator Sanders reminds me of a cranky old man that you are likely to meet at your local Senior center who talks incessantly but rarely listens. Moreover, he says the same thing over and over again since his views have never changed with age or experience.

Like many seniors Senator Sanders complains about everything and leaves the impression that he has voted against everything in his long career. Now that his beloved Soviet Union, the place where he took his bride on their honeymoon, has collapsed, he even complains about Russia. Still, his greatest complaints are leveled against American corporations despite the fact that they have made it possible for millions of his young supporters to have enough surplus cash to contribute to his campaign.

Senator Elizabeth Warren:  Senator Warren leaves the impression of a schoolmarm in the same way that Hillary Clinton did. She knows everything and has a plan for everything. She knows what’s good for us and the country must take its medicine whether it likes it or not. Actually, of all the candidates she most resembles ex-President Obama. I can’t wait for her to say, “If you like your medical plan, you can keep it.”

I didn’t stay around at the debate to see her give the bird to Senator Sanders by refusing to shake his hand after their spat about the chance of a woman being President. Doesn’t Senator Sanders know that when a woman makes a charge, it must be believed?

I have to admit that I had only fleeting glimpses of the other three candidates on stage during the debate. Senator Amy Klobucher leaves little impression and that is probably her problem. She has no charisma, something so important in the age of American Idol. 

Billionaire Tom Steyer is completely lacking in face or name recognition. Even though his wealth exceeds that of a thousand millionaires, he doesn’t even wear a tie.  Does he want to leave the impression that he is a common, ordinary guy? He reminds me of the suburban women who wear tattered designer jeans as a sign of their solidarity with the working poor.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s persona as a combat veteran was severely damaged before the debate by an article in the Wall Street Journal that detailed the true nature of his service in Afghanistan. If he fails to win the nomination, it will not be because people dislike homosexuals, but because they do not like him, and perceive him as a lackluster mayor of a failing, crime-ridden city.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg was not on the stage but this latecomer to the race has so far spent more money on TV ads than all the other candidates combined. It will take a lot more of his money to make people forget that he went to a black church in Brooklyn recently and apologized for his continuation of Rudy Giuliani’s “stop and frisk” policy. Bloomberg argued in the past that the policy saved thousands of black lives but now he is sorry.  It will also take many more millions for him to overcome the “Little Mikey” label that President Trump has pinned on him.

Finally, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was not invited to the debate. She strikes me as the only real person running for the Democratic nomination but she needs more experience on the big stage. I would like to suggest that the Governor of Connecticut offer to trade Representative Rosa de Lauro to Hawaii for Representative Gabbard. The elderly De Lauro is more experienced and has more clout in the House of Representatives, but Gabbard would be a welcome addition to the Connecticut political scene.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

###

Impeachment Questions

In December the House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment against President Trump but so far has delayed officially sending them to the Senate for trial. The House vote was strictly along party lines. The Democratic leadership in the House claims to have conducted a full and transparent investigation of the charges against the President, despite the fact that many of the hearings were held behind closed doors. 

 Nevertheless, I still have some questions that so far I have not seen answered. 

First, why it is a “high crime or misdemeanor” to ask the new President of Ukraine to give an accounting of what happened to a billion dollars of US aid that was given to Ukraine during the administration of President Obama? I would think it would be a dereliction of duty for the President not to ask for an investigation especially before releasing almost another half-billion of aid. Does anyone care what happened to the money?

The President of Ukraine has admitted that his country was rife with corruption under his predecessors.  We also know that former Vice-President Joe Biden openly admitted that he personally held back a billion-dollar aid package to Ukraine until its government bowed to his demands and fired a prosecutor investigating a Ukrainian energy company for corruption. 

We also know that Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, had been placed on the Board of Directors of that company at a salary of $600000 per year. Officials of the company have admitted that the younger Biden owed his position to his name only. He had no qualifications for the position, knew nothing about the business, and never even went to Ukraine. Was there a quid pro Joe?

This leads to another question. Why should Joe Biden or any politician be immune from investigation just because he is now running for office? Does merely running for office shield someone from investigation for something he might have done while in office? Why weren’t Vice- President Biden, his son and the administration of President Obama investigated in the first place? 

Traditionally impeachment has been reserved for crimes committed only while in office. Biden claims that he and his son did nothing wrong or illegal in Ukraine but the whole deal is certainly worthy of investigation. When the Republicans controlled the House, they would have had more grounds for impeaching Vice President Biden, than the Democrats have for impeaching President Trump today.

###