Editorial: “You’re Supposed to Keep Us Safe:” When Life Imitates an ABC After School Special

“You’re supposed to keep us safe.”

That was Senator John Kennedy’s (R-La.) response on Tuesday to acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf on the agency’s inability to give a satisfactory briefing on how well the U.S. is prepared to deal with the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Wolf’s answers to many of Kennedy’s questions were vague, or differed from the information Senators had received during an earlier Senate briefing that day.

“You’re supposed to keep us safe and the American people deserve some straight answers on the Coronavirus and I’m not getting them from you.”

This brings to mind one of the episodes of ABC television network’s After School Special from the 1970s. (For some reason, living under this administration brings to mind a number of applicable episodes.) In this particular episode, at least the way I remember it, the mom had a drinking problem that she thought she was hiding pretty well from her kids.

She repeatedly endangered her kids by doing things like falling asleep drunk while smoking in bed. The kids, who of course knew that mom drank too much, were so afraid that she would accidentally burn the house down that they decided to craft a fire exit plan and practice a fire drill so that they could get out of the house safely in case it caught fire.

Like this mom, the Trump administration also makes poor, dangerous decisions, as well as hiding things from “the kids,” the American people. Unlike this administration, however, when the TV mom realized the peril she was placing her kids in, and how unsafe the kids felt (and were) because of her, she got help so that she could stop endangering her family.

In contrast, the Trump administration, whose job it is to keep us safe, doubles down on defending its actions or further trying to cover them up when an error in judgment (or a lapse in ethics) comes to light. It has demonstrated that it values personal opinion over science and facts, and loyalty over competence.

Similarly to how it was for the After School Special kids, it’s left up to us to figure out how to keep ourselves safe from the ones who are supposed to keep us safe.

On Wednesday, President Trump held a press conference in which he updated Americans on the novel Coronavirus and how this administration was handling it. After allowing several infectious disease and public health experts on his newly formed task force to speak briefly, he contradicted much of what they said by downplaying the severity and the inevitable spread of the virus in the U.S.

He then announced that he was appointing Vice President Mike Pence to head up the task force. “He’s very good and I think — and he’s really very expert at the field,” Trump said about Pence, who has no health care background, who is not a fan of science, and who has had perilous public health failures such as failing to respond in a timely manner to an HIV crisis in his home state of Indiana.

One can’t forget, either, that Pence once wrote this in an op-ed: “Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”

Apparently in an effort to prevent contradictory statements, the Trump administration has instructed experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, not to speak to the public or the press about the Coronavirus without clearance from the White House.

If nothing else, the Coronavirus press conference served as a reminder that we can’t be sure that anyone in the Trump administration will keep us safe from a potential U.S. outbreak of the Coronavirus.
Come to think of it, neither is anyone keeping us safe from a treacherous Russian president who manipulates our president as if he were a marionette; or from election tampering; or from financial ruin if we have an expensive illness; or from unfair or injurious treatment if we’re a member of a marginalized group; or from the corruption in our own government and its impact on how our laws are interpreted and obeyed (or ignored).
While many aghast Americans place their hopes in the 2020 election to save us from this fire, others continue to say that they do, in fact, feel safer under Trump. They are the people who think Stephen Miller’s immigration policies are the best thing since sliced bread. They are the people who keep believing that their coal mining jobs will come back. They are the people whom Trump assures, “We won’t let them take away your guns.” And they are the evangelical fundamentalists who are willing to hand over their integrity in exchange for the pandering that they have convinced themselves means that Trump really has their backs.
They are the people who, through their enabling of this out-of-control and inept leader, hold a share of the blame for making the rest of us a little less safe.

Coronavirus: “You’re supposed to keep us safe,” Sen Kennedy to Chad Wolf – Appropriation hearing | C-SPAN/Sense in That [2020-02-25]

Trump frustrated by CDC’s coronavirus severity warning |
CBS This Morning [2020-02-27]

Bolton Willing to Testify; GOP Doesn’t Care, Continues with Trump Non-Defense

The U.S. presidential election is only 276 days away. Americans have no way of knowing how secure the ballot boxes will be. This is because as of Friday morning, January 31, it looks as if the Senate, during its impeachment trial, will acquit Donald J. Trump, who is accused of behavior that threatens the integrity of U.S. presidential elections.

The articles of impeachment against Trump are based on charges that Trump put pressure on Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open an investigation into Trump’s political rival, former vice president Joe Biden, and Biden’s son, Hunter, by withholding $391 million in already approved military aid.

The week started with revelations from the manuscript of former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton’s upcoming book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir. According to The New York Times, the manuscript contains details of President Trump’s phone call with Zelenskiy. Bolton has said that Trump told him directly that he was placing a hold on the aid until Zelenskiy announced the investigation Trump requested.

During the earlier impeachment hearings that took place in the House, Bolton had not shown up for a requested deposition before the House Intelligence Committee. If the House issued him a subpoena, Bolton said, he would take the matter to court. In early January, however, Bolton said that he’d be willing to give testimony in the Senate impeachment trial, if requested.

The question and answer phase of the impeachment trial has taken place this week, with Senators submitting questions for either side (in lieu of questioning actual witnesses and without benefit of relevant documents), to be read aloud by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The questions seemed largely aimed at restating the positions of those asking them, rather than discovering information.

Avoiding, or unable, to produce a substantial defense for the president, Trump’s defense team has turned instead to using distraction techniques, including focusing on such topics as Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities; the debunked myth that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered with the 2016 election; and the “great economy under Trump.” Finally, they settled on the position that even if Trump did do what he’s accused of, he did nothing wrong, because he’s the president. Or, at the very least, he shouldn’t be impeached because it would be “too disruptive.”

Alan Dershowitz, a member of the Trump defense team, put forth an argument that many interpreted as saying that the law gives the president nearly unchallenged presidential power.

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.

But what politician doesn’t think that being elected is in the public interest? One can draw one’s own conclusions about how far a politician could go to get elected if he or she could do anything without being kept in check.

On Friday, the Senate will vote on whether to call witnesses. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pointed out that the Trump defense team was making the case for calling witnesses with its argument that there was not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to remove the president from office. And as of Thursday, it appeared that the defense had enough votes to block witnesses.

Republicans are united in their efforts to support Trump by blocking witnesses and documents pertinent to the trial, ostensibly to “wrap it up” quickly (“for the sake of the American people”).

Meanwhile, the White House has reviewed Bolton’s manuscript and issued a formal threat to Bolton in an effort to prevent him from publishing his book, saying that some of the information was classified at “top secret” level, could cause grave harm to national security, and “may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information.”

One has to wonder why the White House is scrambling to protect this information as a “security threat,” when the president, through his public actions, words, disclosures, and tweets, regularly threatens national security.

As expected, Trump has begun his Twitter attacks on Bolton’s credibility, integrity, and reputation. Among his most notable was this:

“For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, “begged” me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying “Don’t do it, sir,” takes the job, mistakenly says “Libyan Model” on T.V., and…

” ….many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?”

Trump’s attacks are reminiscent of other attacks and threats he has made toward those he sees as having crossed him. These include former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, both of whom gave testimony during the House impeachment hearings; the whistleblower who first reported the troubling content of Trump’s call to Ukraine; former FBI director James Comey; and others.

If the Senate votes on Friday to hear witnesses, Trump has said he may try to invoke executive privilege to block Bolton from testifying. Legal experts, however, are saying that Trump may have undermined executive privilege with his tweets describing his conversations with Bolton regarding Ukraine.

Despite the fact that 75 percent of voters want the Senate to call witnesses, Republicans appear eager to eschew any new evidence that could change someone’s mind, and keep repeating, “Let the American people decide at the voting booths.” And this, we must be sure to do.

President Trump’s Impeachment Trial Has 16-Hour Q&A |
Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon [2020-01-30]

EXCLUSIVE: House Impeachment managers make their case on HillTV |
The Hill [2020-01-30]