Today we head back On the Road with Charles Kuralt...though in fairness that's a bit of a misnomer this week. That's because this time the good fellow isn't on the road at all, but rather up in the air in the Goodyear Blimp, but still leisurely meandering his way across the countryside.
0 Comments
I'll add one other thought to the mix about all the pundits saying that Trump is "sending a message" (indeed, a "chilling" message) to people who may be called to testify that "Don't worry" he'll pardon you.
I think anyone who has dealt with trump for any amount of time longer than, say, a week doesn't remotely rely on what Trump tells them, "Don't worry," he'll do. They KNOW -- just as well as you and me -- all the lies Trump has told on the campaign trail and daily in the Oval Office. They KNOW all his promises that he has backed out of. They KNOW his history of screwing anyone if it's to his benefit (and make no mistake, they know that Trump may well be given the advice that too many pardons could be seen as obstruction of justice) -- and so they have no idea who Trump will actually pardon when it comes down to it, until the paper is sign, sealed and delivered. People who *don't* know Trump know his word can't be relied on. People who DO know him KNOW that as being Rule #1. The only message Donald Trump ever actually sends is -- I'm unreliable, and can change my mind in the middle of a sentence, and I'm the only one who matters to me...ever. And I include his children and son-in-law in this. They certainly are the most-likely to expect that they really will get a pardon. But they are also the most-likely to know that absolutely nothing is certain with their father, and if he can save himself by screwing anyone -- including them -- he will. As a result, anyone called to testify KNOWS that they'd better cut the best deal they can -- if offered -- rather than wait in anticipation of a pardon. A pardon could come after that -- but if they testify against Trump, I wouldn't count on that. And if Trump pardons them before they testify...well, then you can start the countdown to obstruction of justice charges for impeachment. Of course I think most of the Trump inner circle do believe they are likely to get a pardon. And I think that they are likely to get a pardon. But I also feel quite certain that they more than anyone know that his word CANNOT be relied on. To be very clear: I'm not saying they will testify against Trump -- I'm only saying that they know that any "message" of a promise Trump supposedly sent is meaningless. Because they know any Trump "promise" is meaningless. As galling as the pardon of Joe Arpaio is, there's some perspective to keep in mind now that it's done. First, pardons only cover federal crimes, and he can still be charged with state crimes. That seems unlikely, with Republicans holding the Arizona governorship and Attorney General office -- but the state is turning Blue, there are elections coming up soon enough, support for the pardon was only polling at 20+% in Arizona, and the statute of limitations has not run out. So, while unlikely, the possibility does remain.).
Second, while many in the public are furious that Arpaio won't be going to jail, my sense is that their presumption is that he'd have been put away for a long time, maybe a decade for his civil rights violations. The reality is that isn't the case at all. He was found guilty only of violating a judge's order, and at most he would have gone to jail for just 60 days, and possibly less, maybe even much less, for all we know. This wasn't a case of him being sent to prison and throwing away the key. Given that he's 85-year-old, the sentencing judge may have made it as short as a couple weeks. That doesn't assuage the public anger, but I think alters the perception of what was actually at stake. Third, by accepting the pardon, it's an admission of guilt by Arpaio, who has always insisted on his innocence, and indeed has said his "innocence" is the reason he welcomed a pardon. Well, he no longer can claim innocence. (He will, of course, but it's not true.) This admission of guilt could also have negative impact on Arpaio in any civil suits against him -- though it's important to know that his conviction was for violating a court order, not any actions against the rights of individuals. However -- if Trump's pardon covers all acts by Arpaio (the final paperwork isn't public yet), then that would mean the former sheriff is admitting guilt to all actions. And if Trump's pardon doesn't cover all acts, then that means Arpaio remains at risk for them. And fourth, and perhaps most importantly, history has shown the public gets outraged at what they consider inappropriate pardons. Most notably, it is considered to be what cost Gerald Ford the presidency after he pardoned Richard Nixon. (The plummet of Ford's public approval was the biggest drop in Gallup Poll history.) No, certainly, "Forever Trump" voters will be thrilled by the pardon, but it's the independent voters and even his more moderate supporters who will likely be outraged. (As I noted, support for the pardon in Arizona was only around a paltry 20%. I suspect the reality of the actual pardon will make Trump's action more visceral.) In the end, it doesn't matter of the diehard support of Trump stays diehard. That's only 20-25% of the public. A politician is an empty vessel with 20-25% support. It's the stripping away of the wavering support that is so problematic for Trump over a paltry matter of keeping Joe Arpaio out of jail for at most 60 days. While marking it an admission of guilt. (Further, though related to this, it remains to be seen if Trump callously making the pardon during a Category 4 hurricane will come back to hurt him. I suspect that to at least some degree it will.) None of this is to say it's "good news!" that Joe Arpaio was pardoned as a slap in the face to the system of justice, but it's to add a wider view on something that's over and done, and has a more-negative side for both Trump and even Arpaio than is apparent at first glance. Both of whom should be reminded -- Be careful what you wish for. Actually, there's a final point, and I think it's the most-important of all. There have been many legal analysts who have said the big problem with the pardon is that it's Trump sending a signal to potential witness against his administration that they'll be pardoned, so they're safe. But I think that view is surprisingly missing a much bigger point. (And one I've heard other legal experts reference.) By accepting a pardon, a person loses their 5th Amendment protection (since, being pardoned, you can't incriminate yourself). There'fore, someone who is pardoned MUST testify if subpoenaed...and -- most importantly -- do so openly and honestly. If not, if prosecutors believe or can prove they aren't testifying fully, they can be charged and convicted of perjury or obstruction of justice. By potentially giving potential witnesses the comfort of knowing they might be pardoned, Trump actually caused far-bigger problems for *himself*. And ultimately, that's the main goal here. Yes, I want to see others go to jail for crimes...but FAR above all, I want to see Trump out of office. And , I believe he just helped push that forward. Consider this, as well. I think repeated "I don't recall" from just a single pardoned-witness, let alone ALL pardoned-witness will have a difficult time standing up against national outpouring of outrage, an aggressive Special Counsel, and the cleansing disinfectant of sunshine. I don't know that for certain, of course. I also don't know if Trump will even be around to give pardons, nor if Mike Pence would risk his re-election by granting pardons like Halloween candy. Nor do we know if Robert Mueller will even need their testimony, but get it instead from lower-level people never charged with anything so they didn't even need apply for a pardon. AND I think the risk of being charged with state crimes is a strong reality here, as well, for everyone under investigation, and I suspect that Mr. Mueller is already working closely with New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The point being, in the end, fFor something that was so minor, making a point to his base that was never leaving him anyway, all to save Joe Arpaio from going to jail for no more than 60 and maybe just a couple of weeks, I think Trump dug himself a major hole. A couple weeks back, we had a yowza of a video here -- the 1960 Tony Awards, when it was still just a local broadcast, and included most-memorably a special award and wonderful acceptance speech by James Thurber. Today, we have a worthy companion piece. It doesn't have anything quite at the level of a Thurber (or the legendary George Abbott), but it's still pretty impressive on its own -- the very next year, the 1961 Tonys. Again, this is still just a local New York broadcast. And similarly, there's no entertainment, just speeches, many winners who today are little know to the public, and a pretty dry broadcast overall, so this is really for major theater buffs and theater historians to watch all the way through. But -- not to fear! For all others, it's still a remarkable treat to scroll through and watch for appearances. Oddly, perhaps the most-memorable thing here is not who won, but who comes up on stage to deliver acceptance speeches for winners who couldn't be there that night. Today, awards shows have gotten out of the habit of using time to let someone else accept an award "on behalf of" the winner who isn't in attendance, but this is before that time. And usually, that's was an understandable disappoint for viewers to not get to see the winner but merely "someone else," whoever they were. But here -- the "accepting on behalf of..." is almost preferable, because we get such acclaimed subordinates as Lilian Gish, Julie Andrews, Richard Burton (this is the year of Camelot, as you might have guessed) and the rarely seen on film legend, Beatrice Lilly. Again, these are people who did not win the awards they're accepting! Just willing to get up on behalf of others. (All are identified by the announcer, except for some reason Lilian Gish. So, I can't be 100% that's her, but I'm 95% certain.) This year is notable also for being a terrific example of the strange Tony rule for who is eligible in what acting categories, the result of which meant for decades (until it was finally changed) that stars of shows often weren't eligible for the 'Leading" award, but would get nominated as Best Featured performer instead. (To be a leading actor, your name had to be either above the title or if below, specially set off by the words "Starring,") That meant, for instance, that if a cast was presented as an ensemble below the show's title, the star could only be nominated in a Featured category. One of the turning points for changing the rule came after William Daniels famously took his name out of contention for being nominated as Best Featured Actor in 1776 for his role as 'John Adams.' There are several such instances in this year's awards, but the most interesting is Dick Van Dyke in Bye, Bye Birdie getting nominated as Best Featured Actor in a Musical, when it was the starring role that launched his career. And though it's disappointing that he too is among those "unable to attend," what's fun is seeing that his award is accepted by his understudy -- a very young Charles Nelson Reilly. And how young is he? He's introduced as "Charles Reilly." There are some other notable moments. One is an award to the legendary producer David Merrick, who was unlikable enough even back then to get humorously-chided by host Phil Silvers. (Hey, just having Phil Silvers as the show's host is pretty good on its own...) And also intriguing is the category of Best Leading Actor in a Musical, since not only is one of the nominees Richard Burton for Camelot, but also -- Phil Silvers himself, for Do Re Mi. And when Burton wins (hey, I'm not giving much away -- this is Richard Burton in Camelot, after all. And it was 57 years ago!), it's fascinating to see how gracious he is to host Silvers, and how Silvers handles it all when he has to go back out to host after not winning. (By the way, it was by all accounts a wonderful performance that Phil Silvers gave in Do Re Mi, including his memorable "11 o'clock" soul-searching number, "All of My Life," I wrote about the show and embedded that song here, if you want to hear it and know more, along with the final with Silvers joining in on the show's most famous song, "Make Someone Happy.") All that aside, here's the 1961 Tonys. Oh, what the heck. I wasn't planning on having a third version in a row of "What a Wonderful World" -- but why not? All three have something special to offer, and the affection of the song is such a balm for these days. This version, in particular. It's from the late Hawaiian singer Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, and is very much in the style of his well-known and glorious rendition of "Over the Rainbow." And hey, if you want to celebrate Sebastian Gorka resigning, this is as good a way to start... Since you've put up with three versions of "What a Wonderful World," I thought I should toss in a bonus. Most here I suspect will know it, but if not you're in for a treat. This is Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's best-known recording, the afore-mentioned and ethereal "Over the Rainbow." It's utterly wonderful on its own. I was talking with a friend yesterday about Democrats who might run for President in 2020. And though some very good names came up, I mentioned that I had very recently read an interesting article in the Des Moines Register by Jason Noble about some under-the-wire (and young) liberal Democrats who’ve been traveling Iowa already and who had gone to the big Iowa Wing Ding political event. I like all three mentioned, though I don’t think any of them are actually eyeing 2020. The three explain they're trying to build support for the party, which I'm sure is the case, although I agree with the article in suggesting that they are also probably looking ahead to the 2024 Presidential race (or even beyond) and creating a foundation of support in the state. Not mentioned in the article is something else I also think – that they’re creating support for VP consideration in 2020. One is Rep. Eric Swalwell who’s been on Rachel Maddow’s show a lot as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee. He's a very smart guy. Another is Rep. Tim Ryan who you may recall challenged Nancy Pelosi for minority leadership. And though he lost, he presented a very good progressive perspective for the party The third is former Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander, who’s the nephew of my friend dating back from my days at Camp Nebagamon, John Kander II – which is enough for me to like him, though he's terrific all on his own merits. He ran for the Senate this year against conservative incumbent Roy Bount and came close in a mostly-Red state, barely edging ahead with a week to go, but lost. As I said, I like all three, but especially Swalwell and Kander. They’re both quite impressive. Among other things, Swalwell is a former DA in northern California, and Kander is a former Army captain who served in the Afghanistan War. Both are especially well-spoken, focused and very thoughtful. You can read the full article here. By the way, when Kander ran this past fall, I wrote a piece about him that included an excellent five-minute video of him effectively presenting himself and his positions. And I've seen other pointed videos of him, as well, And he's been all over the media, too. But it was one other off-beat, yet substantive video that got him the most attention during the race. You may have seen it, but if not, I think you'll appreciate it. And as unique as it is -- combining something so rare for a political ad with a strong, actual message -- it's the last line that makes the whole thing meaningful. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|