All posts by Dr. ESP

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Media, Politics

The purpose of today’s post is not to make light of the second attempt to assassinate former president Donald Trump.  Political violence, under any circumstances, is not acceptable in a democracy where their vote is the only weapon citizens should wield.  Nor do I have the definitive answer how the Secret Service can guarantee the safety and security of any public figure.  My goal, as always, is to ask questions that no one else seems to proffer.  But first, two important facts.

#1: The following picture taken by Palm Beach Post photographer Thomas Cordy shows the section of the perimeter where Ryan Routh camped out for close to 12 hours on Sunday morning.

This photograph also appeared in an article by BBC News correspondent Madeline Halpert in which she describes the situation Sunday morning as follows.

The gunman – who investigators say did not fire any shots – was concealed by the well-manicured shrubbery and tall palm trees that line the perimeter of the 27-hole course.

He had been lurking there on the public side of a fence since 01:59 local time on Sunday morning, according to mobile phone records, cited by federal officials.

#2: Unobstructed line-of-sight photographs of a golfing Trump taken from outside the course’s perimeter set off alarm bells among those tasked with the president’s security.  On Monday, Washington Post investigative reporters Carol Leonig, Josh Dawsey and Isaac Stanley-Becker reminded readers these concerns existed from day one of the Trump presidency.

Soon after Donald Trump became president, authorities tried to warn him about the risks posed by golfing at his own courses because of their proximity to public roads. 

These two facts raise the question, “If security was such an issue when Trump was playing golf, no infrequent situation, why would HE permit those responsible for the perimeter of HIS golf course, to configure the barrier between public roads and his private property in such a way that they literally created a shooting blind for a wannabe assassin?”  If only the “well-manicured shrubbery and tall palm trees” had been INSIDE the fence, there is no way anyone on the public side of the fence could go unnoticed, especially if he camped out for 12 hours.

What’s more, putting the bushes and trees INSIDE the fence would add an additional level of difficulty for anyone targeting Trump.   The gunman would have to aim and shoot through the shrubbery, not from it.

One answer, of course, is vanity.  It is easy to imagine the conversation between Trump and course designer Jim Fazio back in 1999 when Fazio was commissioned to lay out what became Trump’s first golf property.

Jim, you know, it’s not enough for the course to be beautiful.  I want all those people who cannot get in, but pass by, to see how magnificent it is.  We need to surround the course with the most perfect, beautiful landscaping in the world.  It can’t look like a prison.

That may have been acceptable when the owner was a bankrupt real estate developer turned reality show host.  But not as president or now former president/MAGA party nominee.

There is one other option.  The next time Trump hosts a rally at Mar-a-Lago, he can reach deep down into his bag of greatest hits and revive the chant, “Build that wall.  Build that wall.”  To save money, he could replicate the winning design from the border wall competition, 30-feet high, black paint with spikes on the posts.  And he could sell official DJT golf apparel and equipment to pay for it.  Maybe even auction the polo shirt he was wearing at the time of the intended assault.

Of course, the fence might serve a future and quite different purpose.  Trump International could become his personal minimum security prison, if Judge Merchan and others sentence him to house arrest.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

And the Winner Is…

Culture, Politics

Anyone who watched the “Philly Stake” debate on Tuesday night probably thinks picking the winner was, like one of the candidates on the stage, a “no brainer.”  So, how could I,  a self-described champion of counter-intuitive thinking, make a case that was not the case.  No, I’m not going to raise Donald Trump’s arm in victory.  But what if the real winner was not who outperformed his or her opponent, but how they did it.

The winner and new champion is “the field of psychology.”  Below is the evidence.

PSY-OPS

Much post-debate commentary pointed to Kamala Harris’ suggestion people attend Trump’s rally to see how exhausting and boring the MAGA nominee has become.  What they missed is the fact the “mind games” began 12 hours earlier.  On Tuesday morning the Harris campaign released a new TV ad that included Barack Obama’s now famous innuendo about Trump’s obsession with “crowd size.”  To make sure the former president saw it, it ran twice on “Fox and Friends.”  Instead of focusing on putting on his game face,  Trump more than likely spent Tuesday stewing about his nemesis Obama mocking him.

WAHOO-WAH

Every morning I get an update about what’s new at my alma mater, “Mr. Jefferson’s University” AKA the University of Virginia.  Among recent articles was a background piece on alumna Linsey Davis, who ABC News chose to be a co-moderator of the Trump/Harris standoff.  What I did not previously know and learned from the article was the anchor of the Weekend Nightly News was not a communications major.  She holds a B.S. in psychology.

Her academic training was in full display Tuesday night, the prime example being her fact-checking Trump’s accusation Democrats, including Governor Tim Walz, support “abortion after birth.”  She did not say, “President Trump, that is not true.”  She knew the audience could figure that out on their own if presented with one clear and simple fact, “There  is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

THE PREGNANT PAUSE

In his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert B. Cialdini suggests a target audience is more likely to buy into an argument when they are allowed to reach their own conclusions.  This principle was apparent when Trump attempted to score points by blaming Joe Biden and Harris for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.  After presenting the history of Trump’s agreement with the Taliban that precipitated the hurried departure of U.S. troops, she wanted to put an exclamation point on her argument by reminding  viewers her opponent had invited the Taliban to visit Camp David, a site reserved for more serious occasions. 

She looked directly at Trump and began, “This…” before taking a moment to let the audience fill in the blank.   Post debate, on-line viewers turned the pause into a game of political “Mad Libs.”  What did Harris want to say before she caught herself and referred to Trump in the more politically correct term “former president?”   Her audience was more than ready to fill in the blanks.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person’s behavior and beliefs do not complement each other or when they hold two contradictory beliefs.

~Medical News Today

Donald Trump believes he is a “stable genius.” On Tuesday night, he was anything but.  If he were still alive, Leon Festinger (1919-1989), the Stanford psychology professor who coined the phrase “cognitive dissonance,” would certainly add excerpts from Trump’s appearance in the post-debate “spin room” to illustrate the behavior which carries the label Festinger attached to it.  Trump can believe he won the debate.  His behavior showed just the opposite.

In conclusion, Tuesday was a pretty good day for Kamala Harris.  Not so good for Trump.  But the clear winners were Freud, Jung and generations of their disciples.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Mirror, Mirror

Culture, Politics

If one thing is certain after every school shooting, it is the search for scapegoats.  The death of two students and two teachers at Apalachee High School in Barrow County, Georgia has more than its share.  Except the one which truly deserves the title.  Let’s look at the candidates.

First, school resource officers are often the targets.  In this case, these law enforcement professionals performed exactly as required.  They confronted the shooter within minutes and prevented what might have been a massacre of much larger proportions.

Second, we have the 14 year old gunman, himself, described by MAGA vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance as “a psycho.”  The full story is yet to be told, but whatever mental challenges the boy may have had, the revelations about his family life seem to be more than a contributing factor.

Third, Colin Gray, the boy’s father, should be at the top of everyone’s list.  Talk about psychos?  Who in his right mind, after being told his son had threatened a school shooting on social media, would think an assault weapon for a 14 year old’s Christmas present was a good idea.  And, when questioned by law enforcement, likely lied on multiple occasions.  His son would never post that kind of language.  He only owned hunting rifles.  And they were secured.  Despite being charged with manslaughter, I have no doubt his defense lawyers will argue prosecutors cannot name a single state law their client violated.  He legally bought the rifle.  He legally gave it to his then 13 year old son.  He had no legal responsibility to store it safely.  He had no legal obligation to inform authorities of his son’s potentially destructive tendencies.  After he and Colt moved to Barrow County, there was no requirement that Gray notify authorities of the 2023 investigation in neighboring Jackson County.

Fourth, Governor Brian Kemp.  Do not forget Georgia’s lax gun laws (46th in the USA) were not good enough for Kemp.  He proudly signed legislation which expanded Georgians’ ability to carry firearms without a permit or training.  And opposed common sense gun safety laws such as universal background checks, safe storage or red flag laws.  The latter would have given Jackson County police and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation the right to remove “hunting rifles” from the Gray household after they discovered Colt used his social media sites to post threats of a school shooting.

Fifth, Congressman Mike Collins, who represents the district in which the shooting took place.  Mike Collins, who has a 100 percent rate from Gunowners of America, the self-proclaimed “no compromise” Second Amendment advocates, and a 92 percent rating from the National Rifle Association.  Mike Collins, who referred to the incident as “heartbreaking,” and of course, extended thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families.  Mike Collins, whose 2022 campaign included an ad of his firing an AR-15 with the tag line, “Send me to Washington and I’ll blow up the Democrats’ coverup.”

Which brings me to the sixth scapegoat, the one NO ONE is talking about.  As I watched horrified parents rushing to the Apalachee football field to reunite with those who had survived the shooting, I wondered, “How many of these concerned parents voted for Kemp and Collins?”  In 2022, 74.6 percent of Barrow County voters cast their ballots for Kemp and 76.3 for Collins.  In other words, three out of every four individuals who prayed their children were safe and will attend the funerals of those who were not as fortunate had no qualms about supporting candidates who claim to be pro-life, but time after time, choose the right of gun owners and manufacturers over the rights of children to go school without worrying if they will return home safely.

Among those responsible for this tragedy are WE THE PEOPLE, especially those who missed the iconic Walt Kelly cartoon, in which Pogo echoes the words of Naval Commander Oliver Perry during the War of 1812, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Civics Advocate, Heal Thyself

Culture

In June, 2024, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) surveyed 3,000 college and university students to determine their knowledge of American history and politics.  The resulting report, “Losing America’s Memory 2.0:  A Civic Literacy Assessment of College Students” lays the groundwork for upcoming recommendations to address the identified deficiencies in civics education.  As an admitted over-degreed student of political science and policy wonk, I applaud any effort to promote a better understanding of the American system of governance as messy and complicated as it so often seems.

However, a review of the survey instrument raises serious questions whether ACTA’s efforts will produce the desired outcome.  I will share two of the first six questions to make my point.

Q1. Who is the current President of the Senate?  Mitch McConnell? Charles Schumer? Kamala Harris?  Joe Biden?  Not Sure? 

This does not address a matter of history nor politics.  It is a current events quiz.  If you want to understand this position identified in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution, the options are:  Leader of the Minority Party?  Leader of the Majority Party?  Vice President of the United States? President of the United States?  Not sure?

When raised as a question about the structure of Congress, the student is forced to think about the rationale.  Surely, the minority party would not pick the presiding officer.  If the president was also president of the Senate, then it would be an enumerated power of the executive and should have been in Article II, Section 2: Powers.  From a perspective of consistency, the logical answer is Senator Majority Leader.  If the president of the senate is the presiding officer, how is that any different from the chairman of a corporation being selected by a majority of the board of directors?  Furthermore, if the Speaker of the House, the presiding officer in the lower chamber, is elected by a majority of House members, why isn’t the same true in the Senate?

That the right answer is “the Vice President of the United States” is a real head scratcher for students of other systems of governance, especially parliamentary ones.  It appears to violate the separation of powers giving an executive officer a role in the legislative process.  There is no “president of the Supreme Court” who breaks a tie when the justices are evenly split.  Why would the founding fathers make what appears to be a significant exception to the principle of majority rule? That, not the name of the current occupant of this constitutional office, is a teaching moment.

Q4.  Who becomes President if both the sitting President and Vice President die, become incapacitated, resign or are removed from office by impeachment?  The Speaker of the House of Representatives? U.S. Secretary of State?  Runner-up from the previous election?  President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate?  Not Sure?

Are you kidding me?  If you’re going to promote civics education, the least you could do is develop a survey that is FACTUALLY correct.  What was the author’s transgression?  It leaves out the essential phrase “at the same time.”  The question would be valid, if and only if, it was 1964 or earlier.  Following John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Congress passed and the states ratified the 25th Amendment which establishes the procedure by which, in the case of a vacant presidency, the vice president becomes president and appoints a new vice president with consent of the Senate and House.  Only if both die at the same time or before a vacancy in the vice presidency is filled is the Speaker of the House sworn in as president.

Talk about historical amnesia.  Whoever created this question should schedule an appointment for a full neurological workup.  Why?  In the history of the United States, with the exception of the 14th Amendment, no newly ratified amendment became relevant faster and more visibly than the 25th.  In 1973, when vice president Spiro Agnew resigned, no one was sitting around waiting to see if Richard Nixon, already being investigated for Watergate, would resign so House Speaker Carl Albert would become president.  Nixon appointed Gerald Ford vice president.  If that was not reminder enough how the 25th Amendment worked, when Nixon resigned in August 1974, Ford ascended to president and immediately selected Nelson Rockefeller to fill his former office.  And Speaker Albert stayed exactly where the Constitution required, ready to take over if both Ford and Rockefeller exited the scene in unison.

I often refer to my late colleague at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Michie Slaughter who frequently reminded us, “That which is not important is easy to measure.  That which is important is difficult to measure.” I wish more students understood the 10th Amendment which reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (my emphasis).”  Why?  It raises the question whether an issue such as “reproductive freedom,” if returned to the states, should be decided by State Legislators or voters in the respective states.  How does one measure that?

Do I care if students know exactly which amendment gives the people that right?  Not at all.  What I do want them to question is whether a state legislator should override the will of a majority of the people.  For example, through a statewide referendum, Florida voters changed the state constitution to give felons who had completed their sentence or parole to the right to register and vote again.  Immediately thereafter, the state legislature and governor revised the definition of “sentence” in the state code to nullify the will of the people.  Or when it became clear a majority of Ohio voters supported a state constitutional amendment to restore a woman’s reproductive rights, the governor and state legislature supported a superseding referendum to raise the voting percentage to approve a a constitutional amendment from 50 to 60 percent. 

We saw how important this differentiation in the 10th Amendment between “the state” and “the people” can be when Donald Trump and his surrogates tried to pressure governors and state legislatures to overturn the results of the 2020 election in several swing states.  While the process of conducting elections has always been a state responsibility, for the first time, one candidate believed “state officials” could determine the result, not just administer the process.

In the next blog, assuming there is not an intervening issue to address, I will lay out an entrepreneurial approach to civics education.  One that recognizes the need to create “market pull” not just “supplier push.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Sanctuary Buildings

Politics

The attorney-client privilege does not cover statements made by a client to their lawyer if the statements are meant to further or conceal a crime. For this exception to apply, the client must have been in the process of committing a crime or planning to commit a crime. The exception may apply in some types of civil cases as well, such as when a client is planning to perpetrate fraud or another tort.

~Crime-Fraud Exceptions/JUSTIA.COM

To understand the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States, in which six justices declared a president of the United States has absolute immunity when conducting “official business” delineated in Article II of the Constitution, one need only examine the verbal gyrations Special Counsel Jack Smith employed to comply with the newly imposed standard.  It goes far beyond the question whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime.  Equally important, it inhibits the ability of a prosecutor to submit evidence if it involves communications between the president and his staff, even if that exchange was equivalent to the crime-fraud exception in the case of any other defendant.

It is ironic an administration that threatened to withhold federal funds for jurisdictions described as “sanctuary cities,” where municipal laws protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or prosecution, argued the Oval Office should serve the exact same purpose.  Most legal scholars would contend this violates a basic principle of American jurisprudence, that no person is above the law.  If the CEO of a private business plans a crime with subordinates in his office or corporate boardroom, records of those conversations are permissible evidence.  Why then is the president of the United States, the CEO of a public enterprise, not subject to the same standards.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts makes the distinction on the basis of what he refers to as “official acts.”  But the Constitution does not delineate acts, Article II, Section 2 is titled, “Powers.”  And where an individual has authorized “power” there is also the potential for “abuse of power,” a fact completely ignored by the 6-3 majority which blessed the “absolute immunity” argument.  How ludicrous is this omission?  Imagine Trump v. United States becoming a defense for the chief executive of any other institution.  Consider the following hypothetical filing in defense of a corporate CEO.

The phrase “no one is above the law” dates back to the Magna Carta.  For centuries we have assumed that meant any person, regardless of their station in life, could be judged on a single set of laws which applied to everyone.  That standard stood until the Supreme Court, in Trump v. United States, laid out a new standard.  Many believe it now gives the president rights and privileges unavailable to other citizens.  However, what if the basic premise “equal justice under the law” is not what changed.  Rather, the Court, probably unintentionally, changed the law repealing what amounts to a broader interpretation of the crime-fraud exception which covers advisors as well as legal counsel.  Should this apply, not just for the president, but for the chief executive of any organization for which the defendant is being prosecuted for an “official act” within his powers under his company’s corporate charter and by-laws?

Our client is charged with conspiracy to sabotage the operations of his largest competitor.  We have presented a job description, drafted by the board of directors and approved at the last stockholders meeting.  Under powers, the CEO is authorized to take such actions as required to ensure the company’s competitive advantage.  Therefore, any discussion related to that authority falls within the definition of an “official act.”

To make their case, the prosecution produced taped conversations and emails between my client and members of his executive team.  Furthermore, every single one of these events took place either in our client’s office or in the corporate boardroom.  How does that differ from the Oval Office or cabinet room?  Since the Supreme Court ruled that communications between a chief executive and his senior advisors are inadmissible, especially those that occur within the privacy of the defendant’s workspace, we demand the same standard apply to our client.

In summary, we ask this court to acknowledge that the basic principle of “no man is above the law” is still the standard and, therefore, when the Supreme Court created a new crime-fraud exception, it applies equally to our client as it does to the president.  Thank you.

When asked about this interpretation of Trump v. United States, Justice Clarence Thomas told reporters he needed some quiet time to ponder the question.  Maybe a week on Harlan Crow’s yacht would be sufficient.  Or as Thomas might refer to it, his “sanctuary.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP