It’s been 17 days since Donald Trump was protected from seeing anything associated with the USS John S. McCain during his trip to Japan.  I know, that is a lifetime ago in this misdirection du jour political environment.  But, the fact a commander-in-chief’s mental equilibrium could be thrown off by merely viewing the name of the Senator he blames for taking away his ability to deprive millions of American of health insurance is laughable.  If it were not so serious.  But not for the reason, politicization of the military, raised by most critics, reporters and pundits.

While we should be concerned  someone requested the Navy move the destroyer outside Trump’s field of vision, the larger significance of this episode is the way Trump tried to deflect any responsibility.  Whether intentional or not, it should be considered a beta test of Trump’s likely defense if and when we see an un-redacted version of the Mueller Report or the House Judiciary Committee begins impeachment proceedings.  And, although you are not going to like it, my guess is he will be successful.

On May 30, Trump was asked about the incident during a a White House lawn gaggle.  After denying he knew anything about it, he let the cat out of the bag.

I was not a big fan of John McCain in any shape or form. Now, somebody did it because they thought I didn’t like him, okay? And they were well-meaning.

The sequence of this statement is important.  First, he reaffirmed his public disdain for the deceased Senator.  Second, everyone knows that.  Third, someone was just trying to please me.

Fast forward to the next day when we first got to see a transcript of a November 22, 2017 voice message from Trump’s defense lawyer John Dowd to Michael Flynn’s counsel Rob Kelner.  It suggests two things.  First, Trump’s implication in any wrongdoing would be a national security issue (not true) and Flynn should not forget the president still has feelings for him (whatever that means).  Impeachment enthusiasts were quick to jump on the voice message as evidence of obstruction of justice.  Trying to cloak executive malfeasance as a classified, national security matter was exactly what Nixon asked of the CIA during Watergate.  And the “my guy likes your guy, wink, wink” constituted witness tampering and a veiled reference to a potential pardon.

If Trump is ever cornered and required to comment on Dowd’s outreach to Kelner, I expect nothing less that a replay of the USS John McCain shake and shimmy.

Yeah, I like Mike Flynn.  Everyone knows that.  He was with me throughout the campaign and given the chance, he would have been a great national security advisor.  I still think he has been railroaded by Mueller and his posse of angry Democrats.  John Dowd knew that and wanted to help.  He may have crossed a line, but he was well-meaning.

When you have an actual recording of me asking Dowd or anybody else to do something illegal, give me a call.  Until then, how about reporting real news.

Remember, Senator Barry Goldwater did not lead a delegation of Republicans to the White House to seek Nixon’s resignation until they heard him on tape, directing subordinates to make payments to Watergate defendants and to use the national security apparatus to prevent the FBI from investigating the burglary and other campaign dirty tricks.

Without corroborating evidence to back up testimony that Trump personally directed anyone to obstruct justice, do not expect Mitch McConnell or even Mitt Romney to beat a path from Capitol Hill to the White House.  Every Republican member of Congress with the exception of Justin Amash will think he/she represents Missouri and demand the Democrats “Show Me” just one instance where Trump has attached his name in writing or his voice to the actions under scrutiny.  Watergate would have remained a “third rate burglary” without Nixon’s audio endorsement of obstruction.

What does all this mean in practical terms?  My alternate title for this post was “The Late Schiff.”  An obvious pun on the term “late shift,” it relates to my belief the job often gets done by those who are on the shop floor while the majority of us sleep.  And that person is House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA).  He knows, without a “smoking” text, email or recording of Donald Trump personally ordering a crime, there will be no trial or impeachment leading to a conviction.

Last week I suggested the 2020 election will be the equivalent of a re-trial following the non-unanimous vote in the Senate if Trump is tried on articles of impeachment.  Schiff, a former prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office understands this, from his own experience.  His most famous prosecution was that of FBI agent Richard Miller, accused of passing classified information to the Soviets.  Miller was convicted on the THIRD try after two mistrials resulting from hung juries.

You could see the lessons he learned from that experience on display during his response to committee Republicans who demanded he step down as chair for wanting to continue the investigation into Trump/Russian connections.  Present the argument in a way the jury must agree or appear to condone the defendant’s indefensible behavior.  Upon taking the committee gavel last January, Schiff refused to resign his position, saying:

My colleagues may think it’s okay that the Russians offered dirt on a Democratic candidate as part of what was described as the Russian government’s effort to help the Trump campaign.  You might think that is okay.

My colleagues might think it’s okay that when that was offered to the son of the president who had a pivotal role in the campaign  that the president’s son did not call the FBI.  He did not adamantly refuse that foreign help.  No, instead that son said he would love the help of the Russians.

You might think it’s okay he took that meeting.  You may think it’s okay Paul Manafort, the campaign chair, someone with great experience running campaigns also took that meeting.  You might think it’s okay that the president’s son-in-law took that meeting.  You might think it’s okay they tried to conceal it from the public.  And you might think it’s okay their only disappointment at the end of that meeting was the dirt they received on Hillary Clinton wasn’t better.

You might think it’s okay that when it was discovered a year later they lied about that meeting and said it was about adoptions.  You might think it’s okay that the president is reported to have helped dictate that lie.  You might think that’s okay.  I don’t.

I have always said whether this amounts to a case of conspiracy is another matter.  That decision would be up to the special counsel and I would accept his decision.  And I do.

But I do not think that conduct, criminal or not, is okay and the day we do think that is okay is the day we look back and say that is the day America lost its way.

And I don’t think it’s okay that during a presidential campaign, Mr. Trump sought the Kremlin’s help to consummate a deal in Moscow that would make him a fortune.  I don’t think it’s okay that he concealed it from the public.  I don’t think it’s okay he was advancing a more favorable policy toward the Russians as he was seeking the Kremlin’s help to make money. I don’t think it’s okay his attorney lied to our committee.

As a former university professor, I know plagiarism is wrong.  But every Democratic candidate for president, whether they support impeachment proceedings or not, should memorize Schiff’s words.  And when asked about impeachment, should respond, “Whether you agree with me or not, you have to agree with Adam Schiff, as I do, when he said (and quote him word for word.”  And don’t rely on pithy chants like “Lock him up” to get the crowd worked up.  All they need to do is look at individuals in the audience, whether live or on television, whether it consists of Democrats, Republicans or independents and ask, “Do you think that’s okay?”  And dare them not to say, “NO.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP