The Kenosha Chaos Our Guns Have Wrought

Folks are sharing this NY Time timeline as evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. It will be up to the courts to sort that out, but it appears obvious that his possession of a gun is the source of his situation today. And the possession of guns by others did nothing to make a tense and tragic situation better. They only served to turn chaos into tragedy.

According to photos and video in the accompanying story, a gun was fired and Kyle Rittenhouse turned towards the sound. Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36 year-old father then apparently moved toward Rittenhouse. It is certainly just speculation, but it is quite likely that in the confusion he believed Rittenhouse was the shooter because he had a rifle in his hands. Thus, Rosenbaum was possibly trying to disarm what he thought was an active shooter. He was shot in the head and killed by Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse then flees. One would expect he would be agitated and anxious, having just shot and killed someone (there is video elsewhere where he seems to be heard saying he had just shot someone). In any event, his adrenaline and fight or flight response are almost certainly high at this point, not a circumstance that is going to make for what we might call "good choices."

Meanwhile, the nearby crowd, having heard at least two gunshots and seeing one person with fatal injuries, is also certain to be in a highly agitated state. Others exercising their Second Amendment rights apparently pull out their guns, as multiple gunshots can then be heard. Whether they were in response to Rittenhouse's act, the first gunahot that had drawn Rittenhouse's and Rosenbaum's attention or just the general chaos is impossible to discern at this point, but those folks firing can be viewed no more, nor less justified than Rittenhouse at this point. In fact, it could be possible that they, too, were the subject of attacks from others who might have thought THEY were the source of the original gunshot and thus, active shooters in need of takedown, the only difference being their gunshots hit no one.

Amid all this chaos, Anthony Huber, a 26 year-old skateboarder, runs towards Rittenhouse, who bystanders are identifying as an active shooter. Rittenhouse trips and falls, at which point Huber appears to try to hit or tackle him. Rittenhouse, understandably agitated turns and begins firing blindly, killing Huber. He also shot Gaige Grosskreutz, who was holding a hand gun.  Grosskreutz was shot in the arm and ran off.

It is important to keep in mind that by this point, Rittenhouse has fired his gun repeatedly and killed two people. This is precisely the type of situation where the argument for concealed carry is often made - when the so-called good guy with a gun is needed to take out the bad guy with a gun. But in a chaotic scene like this, who is to decide who is good and who is bad? Herein lies the entire problem with our misplaced faith in guns to deliver peace, safety and freedom. They do not. They only deliver what we witnessed here, and apparently witnessed in Portland overnight as well - chaos and death.

Kyle Rittenhouse is no hero. He shot three people, killing two. If he was acting in self defense,  it was only because his gun appears to have made him the subject of suspicion when another gun went off. And we have no idea why that other gun went off (perhaps they were acting in self-defense as well). It is a simple case of armed insanity. This is what our fascination with firearms has wrought. And we can expect more of it. The cycle of insanity must stop. It is hard to see how it can.

We Ignore Disenfranchisement at Our Own Peril

At the end of his first live show after the lockdowns ended, Dave Chappelle closed by warning that if we don't begin to take the concerns being expressed by the George Flynn protesters seriously and act upon them, rather than simply paying them lip service, we risk an ugly progression of the frustration into something more than protests (the last words spoken were a drawn-out "rat-a-tat--tat---tat----tat"). It wasn't a threat, but a warning - a warning of what can happen when the oppressed and downtrodden feel ignored and powerless.

It is not just the violence against blacks and other people of color. It is the lack of a voice. It is troubling how many still dismiss the violence with an "all lives matter" retort, but the dismissal of systematic disenfranchisement is even more troubling. From the Electoral College to Senate representation to gerrymandering to outright efforts at voter suppression, the combination of institutional violence with an intentionally limited voice in the halls of power is a dangerous and combustible mix.

We are all aware that Donald Trump won the presidency despite being favored by 3 million fewer American citizens than was his opponent. But are we aware that in 2018, the Democrats received 59.3% of the votes for the US senate, yet LOST two seats? Granted, California's method of running the top two primary vote getters - both Democrats - skewed those results, but even absent that aberration, the Democrats still out-polled the GOP 55/45, yet are in the minority in the upper chamber of congress.

In the House, Ohio is instructive. As the table below shows, the GOP edged the Democrats in statewide voting by a slim 52 to 47.3 percent margin, yet the GOP won 12 seats to the Democrats' four, a 3 to 1 ratio. Regardless one's political views, it is foolhardy to think folks in a nation that claims its government is of, by and for the people will continue to quietly and peacefully acquiesce to non-representation.

Conservative commentator David Frum has stated that if conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically that they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy. No true believer in America, no one who truly loves this country and what its ideals proclaim to be, can accept or support such an outcome.

Much is made of the United States being a republic rather than a democracy. But a republic is not defined as a system where the minority rules, as has become the case today, where an ever-shrinking number of voters rely upon archaic rules and nefarious means to maintain a grip on power. Instead, a republic is meant to provide all segments of the citizenry with representative government in the truest sense of the word - a government that is representative of the wishes of the governed. The further we stray from that truth and the longer we ignore it, the greater the strife this nation will suffer. And it will not be the fault of the aggrieved, but of those who choose to look the other way. Eventually the day will come where the couple in St. Louis will become a metaphor for the American ruling class - fearful, gun-toting citizens hiding behind gated walls of their own making. We owe it to both our forefathers and our children to be better citizens than what we've become. 

Paramilitary Groups Find Their Target in Michigan

Does anyone recall how the Michigan Militia gained notoriety after it was learned that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, co-conspirators in the Oklahoma City bombing, flirted with the organization in the 1990's? Michigan has long been home to numerous paramilitary groups, many with anti-government leanings. In 2010, Michigan was second only to Texas in such groups.

The rise of these groups parallels the evolution of the NRA from a sporting and gun safety advocate into a gun rights organization increasingly focused on the threat of an overbearing government intent on robbing the people of their rights. It should come as no surprise that Michigan, which long had more licensed hunters than any state in the nation, would follow the one-time sporting and gun safety group down the extremist, anti-government path.

We are now witnessing the next step in that evolution, with the armed protesters taking up position within the halls of the Michigan Capitol Building. This is one more example of the normalization of the anti-government mindset that drove McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City. In the twenty-five years since, these para-military groups have continued to grow (some would say fester), building their ranks on a foundation of fear and mistrust. As is so often true, one sees what one seeks, and in the case of these groups, what they've been seeking - expecting - is government overreach. The demands of public health in the face of COVID-19 provides the ideal opportunity to find such overreach and put their decades of paramilitary practice to work.

To date, these protests have remained thankfully peaceful, but as happened when a similar showing of paramilitary groups in Charlottesville drove state police to refrain from confrontation for fear of provoking violence, they risk allowing anarchy to rule in ways that leads to violence regardless.

The well-worn phrase that the pen is mightier than the sword underlies the reason that freedom of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances are enshrined in the First Amendment, coming before the right to bear arms in the second. It is also the well-educated, thoughtful intellectualism of the men who put those rights into our Constitution that made both our revolution against Great Britain and the nation that resulted a model for the world, rather than the inflamed mob Alexander Hamilton warned his contemporaries might arise when passions are fanned.

These so-called patriots believe an America flag and an AR-15 makes them Patriots. They do not. It is the hard work of rational thought, reasonable debate and defense of democratic principles that make a true patriot. Armed reactionaries wearing masks meant to conceal identity rather than protect public health are not patriots. It is hard to see them as anything but weekend warriors looking for a chance to play patriot. Unfortunately, they don't know the meaning of the word. Thus, our increasing tolerance of their unpatriotic acts threatens the very foundation of our democracy, and quite ironically, the liberties found therein. Their evolution, allowed to continue, will not end well. This, I fear, is but a mere way station on the path to disaster.

Wealth Gap, Agitated Populace, 2nd Amendment a Volatile Mix

The last time we faced massive government spending that helped pull us out of an economic dive this deep was when WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. We paid for that by increasing top tax rates to over 90 percent. It was a time when we took fiscal responsibility seriously (which coincided with our greatest period of middle class economic might and global respect). It will be interesting to see how we proceed this time once the need for stimulus has passed. I would not expect similar tax rates, but I do believe our current tax structure and faith in the myth that tax cuts pay for themselves will need to come to an end.

On a related note, I was pondering the oft-repeated claim that  prior to onset of COVID-19 we were in the greatest economic period in our nation's history. On a GDP and unemployment basis, there is some merit to that claim, but how does it stack up by other measures such as income inequality and overall measures of economic security of the middle class, including number of bankruptcies due to medical bills, ability to pay for a 4-year degree without incurring significant debt on a middle class income, retirement security? I've done some preliminary research and it is not quite as rosy as it's been portrayed, which should surprise few.

That such struggles were increasing, as are federal deficits, while the economy was humming on all cylinders should be a matter of concern for all regardless their income level. Sadly, I fear the IBGYBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone) attitude that lured so many to dismiss the threat of the looming mortgage crisis a decade ago because they figured they'd cash out before the bill came due, has now become an IGMYGY attitude (I got mine, you'll get yours). It's a kind of Gadsden flag, don't tread on me approach to economics. However, history has rarely been kind to societies with vast wealth gaps.

The last time the US faced such inequality was during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, which eventually saw the rise of the American Communist Party as a valid political player. Its appeal grew even greater with the onset of the Great Depression, which increased the calls for wealth distribution and overthrow of the old economic system. Ironically, Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by fighting fire with fire, implementing a vast array of socialist-style works programs, as well as Social Security, as part of his New Deal. They alleviated the pain of the Great Depression and quieted the most extreme calls for action, but it was only WWII (as noted at the opening of this post), which finally put an end to the economic hardship. Oddly, the real savior of capitalism may have been the man who started that war. We can only guess at how prolonged economic hardship would have played out had the war not intervened.

All this is to say that those who look the other way as income inequality grows without considering the long-term consequences risk fomenting a rebellion that the support of Bernie Sanders-style socialism only hints at. A return to the gilded age puts all at risk of becoming victims to the adage that hungry people gripe, starving people revolt. In a nation founded in rebellion, with a populace prone to agitation backed by Second Amendment rights, it will only take a skilled demagogue with the wrong message at the right time to light a fuse we may wish we had doused long before.

Beware Attempts to Politicize the Voice of America

The president made a point of referencing the need to replace the head of the Voice of America during yesterday's coronavirus briefing. I happened to attend a talk at the VOA museum here in West Chester, OH last fall by Elez Biberaj, the VOA's Eurasia director, where he made it clear the mission of the VOA is to provide truthful reporting rather than propaganda because gaining the trust of those in nations without a free and open press is critical to US influence in those countries (the accompanying photo shows the level of that trust in select countries). He went on to say the VOA has taken pride and comfort in the fact that their mission has never been politicized, allowing them to freely broadcast the good, the bad and the ugly, which is what underpins those high levels of trust abroad.

The president's comment yesterday that the current director is allowing "horrible things" to be broadcast almost certainly was driven by that "good, bad and ugly" aspect of the VOA's factual reporting. In fact, it was directly related to their reporting on the coronavirus pandemic, which he apparently feels has not been critical enough of China. If he succeeds in placing a director more intent on propaganda than truth, global trust in the VOA will crater, its effectiveness will plummet and any influence the US garners from our shining example of press freedom will be forever lost.

This is just one small but significant example of the many ways this administration is not just damaging our global influence, but more dangerously, undermining the very principles countless Americans have fought and died to gain and protect. It may seem insignificant, but it is an attack on the very concept of what America is.

The President's Underwhelming Performance

Supporters of President Trump often argue that his detractors ignore his successes and thus, their opinions are based upon intangible emotions. A look at those alleged accomplishments may help quell that argument. This review will put the coronavirus impact and response aside, looking only at the performance through December 31 of last year, the date China first revealed it was dealing with a new infectious disease. It will also focus exclusively on policy, refraining from touching on rhetoric, personality and other apsects of the president's behavior, save for how those might influence policy. Suffice it to say, this is by no means an exhaustive review of presidential shortcomings as viewed by his detractors.

First, the economy. Despite the president’s boasts, it has been every bit as sluggish/robust as it was under his predecessor (one must choose which adjective to use, since the numbers are nearly identical). In Obama’s last eleven quarters (the number for which data exists under Trump), annual growth was 2.3 percent. Under Trump it has been barely a quarter point higher at 2.56 percent. Comparing the most recent five quarters for both makes for a statistical dead heat, with both coming in at 2.1%, well below the 3% considered robust and even further shy of the 4% or more the president had promised.

The president may actually be fortunate that the economy has been hammered by the coronavirus, because the global economy had been sliding into a recession and early warning signs, including a significant drop in truck capacity utilization nationwide, suggested the US economy was beginning to teeter on the brink of a downturn (see Fig 1). That will now be more than masked by what has transpired in the past few months. 

Fig. 1: Logistics Manager’s Index of Transportation Utilization

The other thing the president proudly boasts of is the stock market. There, too, it is not all it’s cracked up to be. Given that the president’s signature economic achievement - his tax cuts - did not take effect until January 1, 2018, it is instructive to look at the markets performance in their wake. Ironically, the market quickly peaked on the first anniversary of his inauguration (I typically begin assigning credit to a president for the economy beginning on that date), then remained essentially flat or underwater for the next twenty-one months. Only in the last quarter of last year did we see any improvement in stock prices, and even then, from his one year anniversary to the peak during his term on February 12 of this year, the Dow grew at a substandard 6% annual rate, significantly below the historic return of 7.75% return that excludes dividends. (see Fig 2)


Fig 2: Dow Jones closing prices January 3, 2017 - March 18, 2020

Under virtually any comparison, President Trump’s performance versus Obama’s is substandard.  During the first three full years (12 quarters), President Trump’s market lags Obama’s in every one except the first, which is typically a quarter a new president inherits rather than can take credit for the market. (see Fig 3)



Fig 3: Comparison of Cumulative Change in Dow Jones 

The most troubling aspect is the price we’ve paid for an economy and a market that has barely budged versus their performance under his predecessor. Deficits were already crossing the $1 trillion mark before the recent COVID outbreak (see Fig 4). These tax cuts predictably fueled deficits normally seen during economic downturns, leaving little in the tank when true need arose, as we are now experiencing. Furthermore, the regulation rollbacks the president boasts of put the health and well-being of workers and communities at risk with virtually no payoff. One of the most ironic - some would say, hypocritical - regulatory rollbacks involved auto emissions and fuel economy, where the Trump administration has gone to court to overturn California’s strict rules. Given how this administration seeks to argue for state’s rights to oversee health regulations and a host of other policy measures, one can only question the motives behind such moves.



Fig 4: Federal Deficits 2009 - 2019

Bottom line, the president has virtually nothing to show for putting our physical and fiscal health in peril. Therefore, this can arguably be called a net failure in terms of governance and economic policy. And we have come nowhere close to paying the full bill for those policies.

So much for economics. On healthcare, the president has offered nothing in terms of a plan. He promised one during his first campaign, referring regularly to “repeal and replace,” but he offered nothing but repeal. No replacement plan was offered. Now, he again promises a “beautiful” plan after his reelection, but refuses to say what that might be. Volumes could be written regarding the perils of repealing the ACA without a replacement, but the one thing that has been floated - allowing insurance companies to offer tiered pricing for preexisting conditions - is a cynical attempt to have their cake and eat it, too. In this case, they would get to take credit for protecting those with preexisting conditions, while avoiding the inconvenient fact that such tiered pricing will effectively make coverage for those conditions prohibitively expensive. For people not covered by large group plans, including small businesses, contract workers, freelancers and gig workers, it would make insurance affordable for those who don’t need it and unaffordable for those who do,effectively making insurance pointless. That is the strategic vision of this administration’s health policy, which means there is neither a strategy nor a vision. We can only hope this plan never comes to fruition.

Regarding immigration it is difficult to separate the policy and the rhetoric, but much can be questioned simply on a policy basis. Beyond the cruel aspects of family separation and denial of asylum, there are real economic costs to our growing aversion to immigration. But first, let's clear up the common misconception often made by the president's supporters that the family separation policy began with Obama. There is a vast difference between the two in that federal law prohibits the jailing of minors when their parents have been arrested. Thus, children were only separated from their families when their parents or guardians had been arrested for felonies that included drug and human trafficking, in accordance with the law. The Trump administration's separation policy went well beyond that and forced families apart even when parents had a perfectly legal basis for requesting asylum. This is where the outrage arose, and rightfully so.

This obscures the far more troubling aspects of our immigration policy. Influenced by Stephen Miller, our immigration policy is geared not only to stop illegal immigration, but to limit and reduce legal immigration as well. This is foolhardy at a time when we face an aging population, a demographic trend that economists are virtually unanimous in citing as the precursor to a stagnant economy. We have seen this at work in Japan for nearly two decades, where birthrates and limited immigration have hamstrung every effort - including sub-zero interest rates - to kickstart their economy. We are headed down a similar path under our current administration. Furthermore, the immigrants we are discouraging are now remaining in their homelands, where they will compete against us rather than contribute for us. Imagine how much weaker the NBA, NHL or MLB would be vis-s-vis the rest of the world without immigrants. The same holds true for our businesses. Yet we are foolishly turning talent and dedicated workers away, while stigmatizing them at the same time. It cannot even be justified as short-term thinking. It will hurt us today and tomorrow, as worker shortages translate into higher prices due to shortages of products, services and most critically, innovation. The price we pay in the next couple of decades will thus be paid in both dollars and influence as our economy sags further in relation to the rest of the world.

Internationally, the president has achieved virtually nothing. His supporters often argue that his two signature achievements - moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un - were successes, measured by the fact that the worst case scenarios failed to materialize in their wake. This, however, fails to take into account that our reticence to pursue either of those initiatives was not fear of repercussions, but the unwillingness to give them up as bargaining chips. With regard to the embassy, we saw the move as something we could use to entice Israel to make concessions to the Palestineans as part of a long-term peace solution. Likewise, we refused to give Kim Jong Un the legitimacy he sought unless he permitted real and lasting concession regarding inspections and cessation of nuclear weapons and missile development. In both cases, we gave up our biggest bargaining chips for nothing in return. To classify those as not just failures, but monumental missteps with historic implications would not be hyperbole.

Those are just two of the most glaring foreign policy blunders, but the loss of U.S. prestige and influence on the global stage is both pernicious and likely permanent. We earned that position of leadership through the blood and sacrifice in two World Wars and the aftermath that saw us as the most magnanimous victor in human history. We have simply given that away. We should hope it doesn’t require a similar price to regain it.

An argument can be made that changes in the global balance of power were inevitable, as was a concurrent loss in U.S. influence. And some will argue that Barack Obama sped that along. However, the Obama approach was one that sought more to manage that shift, whereas the Trump approach is to, quite honestly, it is nearly impossible to know what it might be. That is to be expected from someone who has never revealed the slightest hint of strategic thinking, save for bluster (that is less a dig than it appears - it does seem that bluster is a Trump strategy). There is no Trump doctrine, however, beyond "America First," whatever that means (it is standard operating procedure for Trump to use catch phrases that allow others to assign their own meaning, which is one reason so many believe he thinks as they do. What those supporters fail to realize is that they are only thinking as they, themselves, do. Whether the president thinks alike is no certainty).

These are just a handful of the areas where even this president’s alleged successes are really no such thing. And this does not touch on the corrosive nature of his personality or politics. All the evidence points to the truth that this man is poorly informed, incapable of anything but the shortest of short term thinking and incredibly sensitive to his own ego,which far too often takes precedence over the demands of his office. In time, history will view him as every bit as unqualified as so many of us have argued from the start.

==============≈

Here is a link to a story citing our need to manage America's relative loss of influence as other nations inevitably rise:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/04/opinion/america-rome-empire.html

This is Not Politics as Usual

To those who would attempt to dismiss the actions of the Trump administration, arguing they all “do it,” I have to respectfully disagree. We cannot dismiss behavior by saying they all do it, for two reasons. First, it creates a false equivalency that all actions are equally amoral, illegal, untruthful or damaging. They are not. It is why I consistently ask for evidence to support such claims. Often they are non-existent, and when they do exist, they're almost always taken so out of context that comparisons become unsupportable. In fact, it is often when one is unable to justify the action or behavior being questioned that they fall back upon the "they all do it" argument, trying to equate the hard evidence they cannot dispute with unspecified acts committed by a nebulous someone. That neither justifies, nor excuses the act in question. It is simply deflection.

Second, and far worse, is that dismissing illegality and amorality with the excuse that they all do it undermines all faith in our system of government. It effectively tars all public servants as corrupt, which is patently untrue. The damage this does to our ability to self-govern is beyond measure, especially when it is used to dismiss precisely the type of behavior we should not tolerate.

I have said for years now that when faith in any system is destroyed, the system itself is destroyed. When faith in banks is destroyed, banks fail. When faith in a currency is destroyed, the currency fails. And when faith in the institutions that make self-government possible is destroyed - faith in a free press, the rule of law, the validity of free elections, the system of justice, the loyalty of the opposition - self-government fails. One side, led by this president, has consistently and deliberately worked to undermine faith in all the above.

I realize an argument can be made both ways on many of those issues, but one needs to ask why so, so many conservatives have spoken out on precisely these issues. George Will, Bret Stephens, William Kristol, Charlie Sykes, Rick Wilson, Mike Murphy, the late Charles Krauthammer (and his son), David Frum, George Conway, David Jolly, Justin Amash, Max Boot - the list goes on and on. Can you ever recall an administration that has driven so many of its own party to not just criticize, but warn of the dangers this administration represents?

I realize many think this is politics as usual, but it is not. Every demagogue in history first sought to discredit the truth-tellers, whether the intelligentsia, the elites or the press. If one seriously considers which side has worked tirelessly discrediting each of those for the past several decades, culminating in where we stand today, there is only one answer - and many of those conservatives listed above, including Charlie Sykes and Rick Wilson, who were part of the conservative media ecosystem, have issued mea culpas for their complicity in destroying our faith in the truth.

Yes, both sides play the game, but one has taken it to an extreme rarely, if ever, seen in American politics. As former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum (another insider) has stated, "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." He said that for a reason and he is warning us about it now.

All this and more are why I’ve added my name to the list of one-time Republicans who have walked away from the party that once represented reasoned thought and responsible government, but now turns its back on both.

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Burisma

Long before any of the Ukraine brouhaha came to light, I had read several books on corruption in the former Soviet Union and around the globe. Corruption was rampant as formerly state-owned properties were being privatized at ridiculously low prices (just one tiny example - a Russian fleet of fishing trawlers valued at $1 billion was sold off for $2.5 million). With such deals available, every manner of thug and criminal was attracted, none more ruthless or powerful than Vladimir Putin. And if a single fleet of fishing trawlers could be worth a billion dollars, imagine what oil and natural gas reserves might be worth.  Thus, corruption throughout government in all the former states of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine became the norm.

Officials were not just on the take, but involved in government shakedowns where prosecutors and their henchmen would raid corporate offices to steal documents and corporate seals that allowed the government to falsify ownership records, literally stealing the companies back from rightful private owners. They used these types of threats to extort billions from companies who refused to play along. Not coincidentally, one company that refused to play along was represented in court by Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death for his efforts, leading to passage in the US of the Magnitsky Act (which was what the Russians sought to discuss at the Trump Tower meeting, but that is beside the point). What is important is that the Magnitsky Act was part of the U.S policy to penalize corruption in the former Soviet Union. This was all told in “Red Notice,” released in early 2015, before Donald Trump had even announced his candidacy, thus a book that makes zero mention of him. But it sheds light on the type of corruption surrounding Ukraine.

Based upon that book, Amazon's algorithms recommended “Thieves of State,” published in early 2016 (while Donald Trump was still considered a long shot). The author, a former journalist, left the profession to stay and help rebuild Afghanistan after the 2002 fall of the Taliban. Witnessing the effect corruption had on undermining trust and the rule of law, she became an active opponent of tolerating foreign corruption because she saw how doing so undermines our aims. In one passage, she counters the excuse that even if 80% of aid is siphoned off by corrupt officials, at least 20% still gets through, arguing those who the aid is meant for become resentful that we are essentially giving 80% to their oppressors. Our good deeds are seen as just the opposite and thus become not only a complete waste of money, but counterproductive.

Notably, in this book, she points to our stand against Ukraine corruption in 2015 as marking a sea change in US policy regarding our tolerance of corruption in pursuit of foreign policy objectives, instead making opposition to corruption an integral part of foreign policy.

All this was background reading that had nothing to do with the current president, but which provides a foundation for what I’ve learned since.

That said – and again, this is more background - as soon as Paul Manafort was named Trump’s campaign manager, I read into what his role was regarding Ukraine politics. It is not pretty.  Yes, politics is never pretty, but the difference between Russian/Ukrainian politics and the dirty nature of our politics is the difference between anarchy and the rule of law. It cannot be so easily dismissed. Going back to review that history provides additional color to what was transpiring in Ukraine from 2009-2015, with Russia successfully - with Manafort’s help - placing Putin’s chosen candidate in the Ukraine presidency. Thus began the corruption that eventually became the focus of Western democracies, the International Monetary Fund, the Obama administration and finally, Joe Biden.

It is instructive to understand the timeline leading up to the events that placed Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma and his father’s call for the removal of the prosecutor looking into the firm. In 2009, Hunter formed an advisory firm with two partners, Christopher Heinz (John Kerry’s stepson) and Devon Archer. Heinz preferred to stay away from high-profile opportunities, but Archer was unencumbered by conflicts of interest and sought opportunities where they arose. After pitching a real estate investment opportunity in Ukraine, Archer was approached by Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky about joining the Burisma board, as part of what he claimed was a desire to adopt Western transparency standards. These reforms were in response to investigations into the firm and Zlochevsky by then-Ukraine prosecutor Viktor Pshonka. Zlochecsky had already recruited a former president of Poland known as an ardent reformer to Burisma’s board.

When Archer told Hunter Biden of the board’s need for expertise on corporate governance, Biden suggested a law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner (David Boies’ firm), where he was “of counsel.” That eventually led to Hunter being offered a seat on Burisma’s board in 2014. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election battle over the Florida recount, is clearly a Democrat, but that is not a crime, nor evidence that one was committed in connecting Biden with Burisma. The important point is that Hunter was introduced to Burisma by his business partner, not his father. Furthermore, he was brought on as what was believed to be an attempt to create more transparency.

As it turned out, Zlochevsky was not the reformer he presented himself to be and pressure mounted for an investigation into his Burisma dealings. However, Viktor Shokin had replaced Pshonka as the prosecutor responsible for investing Burisma. Shokin was seen as weak on corruption at best, and likely involved in it at worst, prompting Europe, the IMF and eventually Joe Biden, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, to call for Shokin’s removal. Notably, Joe Biden was applauded while addressing the Ukrainian parliament in December 2015 when he attacked Russia, but his call to end corruption and limit the power of Ukraine’s oligarchs was met with “stony silence,” suggesting just how deeply-rooted that corruption was. That his call was backed by a threat to withhold $1 billion in aid was the “sea change” in policy that Sarah Chayes praised in “Thieves of State.” Withholding aid to stop ongoing corruption is prudent, whereas withholding it after the fact is as effective as whipping the dog today for what it did yesterday (which is what Donald Trump sought).

There is more, but there is nothing that says Joe Biden secured the role for Hunter or that he profited from his son's role. Furthermore, the evidence shows his call for a change in prosecutors was to increase scrutiny of Hunter’s company, not stop it. That is the crux of the matter.

Finally, a look at the character of those involved is warranted. Hunter is a mess, with serious addiction and relationship issues, but go back to around this time and you’ll find a video of Lindsey Graham speaking about Joe Biden’s character, choking up as he says you will not meet a better person than Joe Biden. That sentiment is common among people on both the left and right. Yes, he plagiarized a British Labor leader’s speech a couple of decades ago, and he does engage in some creepy, beyond old-school shows of affection. But I’ve yet to come across anything that suggests he is anywhere near corrupt. If anyone can provide something beyond leaps of assumption, I am all ears.

I’ve often said that one of life’s biggest disappointments is seeking evidence to back up a claim and finding you were wrong, while one of life’s biggest mistakes is making such a discovery and refusing to discard the claim. I’ve discarded many such claims when the evidence shows otherwise. In other words, I can be convinced – but the argument must be convincing. To date, the argument of corruption and Joe Biden regarding Hunter and Burisma has been nowhere close.