The Amorality of Donald Trump

The recent frantic efforts by President Trump to have the Republican-controlled House pass a health care measure to repeal Obamacare, regardless what the nature of that legislation was, reveals the absolute amorality of Donald Trump.

After the initial Republican legislation didn’t proceed to a vote because it didn’t have enough support among Republicans, Trump was willing to bargain with any faction and agree to anything if they could bring the votes needed to get the legislation passed.  Regardless the impact on the public - especially poor people, the elderly, and those with previous conditions - who had come to depend on the benefits of Obamacare, all he wanted was legislation that passed.  His statements, his promises about how he would protect the public, how various provisions needed to be retained … all of that was just so much hot air.

After the House finally voted, his speech praising the passage was beyond pathetic.  While we are used to politicians using superlatives, his over-the-top, self-congratulatory, praise of both the legislation and House Republicans made me want to throw up.  

It brings to mind the famous accusation by Joseph Welch, Secretary of the Army, in response to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch-hunt of the Army during the McCarthy hearings in the early 50s:  “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”  The same accusation should be hurled at President Trump, “Have you no shame?”

It’s a sad day for this country.  Of course, almost every day since the inauguration has been a sad day for the country.  But at least for the most part he was doing pretty much what he said he was going to do, except for some foreign policy reversals.   Yes, he’s always guilty of grand-standing, but that’s the way he is.  And with the signing of his many executive orders, he made it sound like he was doing something great for his base, whereas in truth the orders typically resulted in very little.  

The nature of the negotiations on this legislation, however, and his speech reveal something far worse:  the President has absolutely no commitment to anything other than making himself look good, as he sees it.  He will sacrifice anything to that end.  He is totally amoral.   

One can run this country as a conservative, even a right-wing conservative.  I may very much disagree with their point of view, but typically they are men and women of conviction.  Donald Trump has no convictions, no commitments, other than to himself.  Besides being a sorry example of a human being, this leaves everyone guessing about where the country is headed, both in a macro and micro level.  This lack of stability is not good for any aspect of our country’s well-being.

In 2018, Democrats must succeed in engineering a massive turnout of voters, and not just those who normally vote, to change control of Congress and put a stop to the damage Trump is wreaking on America.  In the meantime, we have to hope that his badly divided party will not support what the more radical right-wing elements want.  It seems at the moment that Senate Republicans are going to take a very different tack when they get the Trumpcare legislation.   Let us hope!

Climate Disorder = Global Upheaval

Recently, the Trump administration made it clear that the U.S. does not intend to live up to its commitment made as part of the Paris Agreement to slow climate change.  As the second major source of climate change pollution (after China), this is significant.  This retrenchment has been met with howls from environmental organizations and the international community, but the U.S. public has been mostly silent.

This post seeks to examine this issue and the U.S. public’s apparent assumption that the impact, on us at least, will be slight and that technology can be depended upon to allow us to adapt to any changes.

Our Earth is undergoing changes.  We have been having a conversation about this using the phrases “global warming” and “climate change.”  Given the facts I will present in this post as to what is already happening and the predictions, I think the terms “climate disorder” which results in “global upheaval” are more accurate and appropriate.

The result of these conversations has not been significant.  Yes, there is a global commitment now (all countries, even China, are still committed despite the U.S. pullback), but it is at such a low level that while it may slow the process, it will not stop it.  Indeed, there is serious question whether we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing that could be done to stop it.

There are several reasons why our response has been so weak.  One reason is the persistence of those who deny that these changes, these disruptions, are man-made … they're just part of the natural cycle that the Earth has experienced over the ages.  This has found a receptive audience in many people owing to their habit of being in denial of inconvenient truths.

There are many ways to challenge that position.  But assuming for the moment that the deniers are right, wouldn’t it still be advisable to take whatever action we can to minimize the changes?  The problem with that question is that the changes have been presented as so non-threatening to us if not most of mankind that the answer is, “no.”

The next reason is that any action we could take to significantly reduce CO2 emissions (and thus slow or halt these changes) would involve such an alteration both to our lifestyle and to the operation of our industrial base that it has minimal support from either the public or industry.  From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit just doesn’t seem to be sufficient to warrant the cost.

Which brings me to the last and most important reason:  the presentation of the issue - the facts marshaled and its packaging - have been woefully understated and ineffective.  Even the more dire predictions, even slick media presentations like Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, seem almost irrelevant to most people.  The common reaction is, “So what?  So some people will be displaced by rising oceans and we’ll have to adapt to warmer temperatures.  No big deal.”  The general feeling is that the change will not be significant, and what change there is can be dealt with through adaptive technology.  Bottom line, no disruption. 

What we must therefore attempt is to accurately ... there is no need to exaggerate or embellish ... and clearly present the facts and predictions in a way which makes them relevant to people in the U.S. and around the world.

1.  What is happening already?

The enormous weight of the Greenland ice sheet impacts the axis of the Earth’s rotation and the location of the poles. As the Greenland ice sheet melts, as it is doing with increasing speed … each year the sheet is loosing 287 billion tons of ice … the axis and the location of the poles will change.  How much no one knows, but the loss of just a fragment of the Greenland ice sheet, as well as Antarctic and North Pole ice, is already having an impact with the North Pole moving ever so slowly towards the UK.  This will without question impact worldwide weather and climate, but in ways unknown.

The seas have risen 2.6 inches since 1993 and are rising at an increasing rate. In low-lying places around the world, from Miami Beach to islands in the South Pacific, the water at high tide is routinely covering land that was only flooded during serious storms in the past.

Large areas of Asia and Africa have experienced terrible drought; desertification is increasing.  California has experienced a severe multiple year drought.  Yes, they’ve recently had lots of rain and snow, but that does not signal the end of the drought; just a brief respite.

Due to flooding and drought and other natural disasters, areas of the world have been made uninhabitable and so there have already been masses of climate change refugees.  In 2014 more than 19 million people from 100 countries were forced to flee their homes (how many of these were just temporary evacuations is not available).

Warmer winter temperatures have already extended the range of a variety of pests with devastating impact on pine and other forests.  Moose in Maine are dying because ticks are not being killed by winter cold.  Alfalfa crops in areas of California have encountered a new disease due to climate change.  This is just a sampling.

2.  What are the current predictions?

Sea levels could increase anywhere from a conservative 3 feet up to nearly 10 feet by 2100, depending on CO2 concentrations in the air and the speed at which polar ice melts.  Even a 3’ increase will mean huge areas will become uninhabitable.  In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where rising sea levels will play a major role in the extent of flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

In the US, the south-west and the Great Plains will likely face decade-long droughts far worse than any experienced in recorded memory, including recent droughts.  The risk of drought from 2050-2099 rises to 96% in both areas compared to only 45% in the plains and 62% in the south-west from 1950-2000.  The will mean the end of U.S. food production as we’ve come to depend on it.  One quarter of all US food production occurs in the central valley of California; the great plains is the bread basket of the country.   Food production in those areas would suffer a major decrease.  

As for the rest of the world, most of Europe, the Middle East, large parts of Africa and parts of South America are at high risk for extreme drought.  The most serious impact for most people will again be on food production and water, which will be significant.

It is impossible to predict how many climate change refugees the combination of drought, increasing desertification, floods, and other natural disasters will bring in the future.  The estimates range anywhere from a low of 25 million to a high of 800 million.  But whatever the figure, the resettlement of these refugees will pose huge stresses on countries as so much of the world will be suffering.

There are no predictions on the change in insect infestations and plant diseases as a result of climate change.  But there is no question that the impact will be significant, given what we see happening already at the beginning of this century.

Then there are the national security questions.  In recent Congressional testimony, Defense Secretary James Mattis called climate change a national security threat, impacting stability in areas of the world where U.S. troops are operating.  Nations under stress from climate disorder will be subject to internal unrest and conflicts may erupt between nations to gain control of diminishing resources.  It also presents logistical problems for the military.  The extent of these problems are unknowable, but they will certainly occur.

Note that, to date, all the best scientific predictions have been significantly off in that greater change has occurred within a shorter period of time.  Whether it’s the loss of ice at the poles and Greenland, or the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, scientists keep saying we didn’t think this would happen for another 20-30 years.  So it would be wise to take these predictions as low.

Why is it so hard to make accurate forecasts even with sophisticated computer modeling?  All elements of nature … the water we drink, plants growing, weather patterns … are dependent on a multitude of interacting factors.  The water we drink is the product of a complex interaction of meteorological, geologic, and chemical forces.  Plants are dependent on so many things - light, water, nutrients - which are in turn dependent on a variety of natural forces.  Weather patterns are again dependent on a complex interaction of meteorological and geologic forces.

The answer to the above question is that even the most accomplished scientists have an incomplete understanding of the interaction of the forces of nature that impact the changes we have already seen and will control what happens in the future.  Since the value of computer output is based on the value of the inputs given the computer, the computer cannot produce accurate results.

Clearly, this issue should be a big deal for everyone.  These are not things that one can just adapt to through improved technology.  The human dislocation will be massive.  Our food production system, which has developed over the past century, will be devastated; we will have to make changes, start over again in new places and perhaps in new ways.  And this at a time when the world’s burgeoning population needs a constant increase in food production to prevent disaster.   Pests of various types will appear in areas where they never have and wreak havoc on the native vegetation and animal life. 

The more accurate phrase to describe what is happening and what will happen in the future is not “global warming” or “climate change,” but “climate disorder” resulting in “global upheaval.”  We must do whatever we can, at whatever cost to both convenience and finances, to slow down this process so that our children and their children don’t inherit a hell on earth.

How Democrats Should Talk About Abortion

As Democrats engage in special elections and prepare for the 2018 midterms, it is vital that they change the way they address the abortion issue.  This post is not about changing Democrats’ unwavering support of Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  What this post is about is how Democrats discuss this controversial issue with the public.  In 2016 we lost the votes of many Catholics who traditionally vote Democratic because our message on this issue was too strident and unnuanced.

First, it must be absolutely clear that Democrats are not pro-abortion.  It is a sad event for probably most, if not all, women because it is either emotionally or morally a wrenching moment for them, regardless how necessary they view it.  Ideally, no woman, other than for health reasons, would ever be in a position where they felt it was necessary to abort their fetus.

That brings up the second point: the Democratic focus needs to be on government, organizations, and people doing more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.  The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions.  One statistic:  Among unmarried, young (20-29) women who became pregnant between 2001 and 2008, 69% were unintended pregnancies!  A large percentage of those were probably unwanted as well.

How to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Two of the means are well known and straight-forward: improved sex education of young adults and easy access to contraception, both condoms and the pill.  

But both are controversial for some Americans for moral/religious reasons.  These are concerns we have to respect, but there is no question that teaching abstinence doesn’t work; so that is not the answer.  It certainly is appropriate, however, to teach youth to question requests for or desires for sex:  to ask “Is this something I really want to do?”, to think about what the role of sex should be and what the consequences might be.

Even with all these safeguards in place, there will still be unwanted pregnancies.  And in those cases, abortion needs to be a legal option from both a societal and a moral perspective.  

The world is full of neglected or unloved children whose psyches are negatively impacted by their experience.  There are few things more destructive for a child’s well-being and emotional health than to feel unloved or be neglected.  This has negative social consequences because of the life choices such children are more likely to make.  And morally, it is not right to place children, who after all have no say in whether they are born or who their parents are, in such a damaging situation.

When Democrats speak to this issue, this is how it should be addressed.  Yes, the bottom line is support for Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  But the issue is much more complex than that.  And nothing that I’ve suggested takes away from those principles.  It won’t win back all lost Catholic votes, but it will make a difference.

So They Want Class Warfare? Let's Have It Then.

Major corporations and financial institutions, and the 1% behind them, have been waging class warfare against the average person for years.  They act in total disregard for the common good and have perverted our democracy into government of industry, by industry, and for industry.  President Eisenhower’s prescient warning against the power of the military/industrial complex has come true.  It is now past time to fight back.

What do you think is the major problem facing the United States today?  If you think it’s unresponsive government, government gridlock, the Democrats, or the Republicans, you are not getting at the underlying problem.  If you think it’s discrimination and bigotry, that’s certainly a big one, but that’s not it either.  

The major problem we face is the control that corporations and financial institutions have over government and our lives.  Whether you are a small farmer, an under-employed former middle class factory worker, a consumer with a huge credit card debt, a person of color living in the ghetto whose children go to schools that aren’t schools, a resident of rural or urban America who sees your life getting worse, not better … the underlying problem is the same.

The problem is that because of the control of corporations and financial institutions, the focus of government is on their needs and interests, not the needs of the people.  They are not the same.  We long ago gave the lie to the saying, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”  Government thus is not meeting its purpose, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, of securing the peoples’ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Class warfare is a dirty word in the United States.  Whenever someone makes an argument against the power of corporations or the moneyed class, they are stuck with that critical label.  This was certainly the case with Bernie Sanders.  The implication is that class warfare is un-American.  It reeks of Communism or Socialism.

No type of internal warfare, whether with arms or merely verbal, is desirable in a civilized society.  But we have come to the point in the United States where class warfare is necessary if we are to survive as a democracy dedicated to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. There is no other way to reverse the control corporations have amassed.

The United States in 2017 is a land where all real power rests with major corporations and financial institutions.  Through their lobbying and vast donations to campaigns, corporations have taken control of Congress and their interests prevail.

Yes, we the people still vote and elect our representatives and the president.  But even that has been corrupted because corporate-funded political advertising, thanks to Citizens United, now exerts a huge influence on how we vote.  We are bombarded with deceitful messages in support of those who protect corporate interests, and so people have been fooled into voting against their best interests.  As Lincoln is credited as saying, “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time.”

And so big money has gained effective control of Congress and is now moving on the regulatory process.  This isn’t just a criticism of Republicans.  As I’ve stated in previous posts, while Democrats certainly fight for the interests of the average person and protect the environment, they too are beholden to big money interests.  And so while their legislative agenda is liberal and primarily centered around doing things that benefit the average person, the general good, everything they do is circumscribed by their need to not disturb big money donors too much.  That affected Dodd-Frank, it affected Obamacare, it affected the people President Obama brought in to run the Treasury Department … it affects everything.

Why is it so harmful for big money interests to control Congress?  Why is it that we can’t allow our country’s welfare to rest in the hands of the top 1%?  Many Americans think that powerful, rich people clearly know what they’re doing and so they are the logical people to entrust our welfare to.

The problem is that while they certainly know what they’re doing, it’s all about furthering their own interests.  If that’s at the expense of the interests of the average person, the consumer, the greater good … too bad.  Such is life!

Corporations exist for one reason and one reason only … to make and constantly increase profit for the benefit of shareholders and management.  Today that bottom line focus is worse than ever given the pressure of the stock market’s expectations.  

As for the top 1%, who are usually part of this corporate/financial establishment, they have concern only for themselves.  They are the ultimate poster child of the “me” generation.  

Corporations and people with that kind of money have become so separated from the average person that they just don’t connect anymore.  They have no concern for the needs of the average person or the greater good.  The fact that so many are now multi-national and as a result their prosperity is not tied to the United States economy makes their separation even more pronounced.

And so, as I’ve argued previously, we need to have a soft revolution in the United States.  The people need to rise up and truly take back government.  Not by electing a Donald Trump who has no intention of giving government back to the people … talk about putting a fox in charge of the hen house! … but by electing representatives who are honestly dedicated to protecting the interests of the average person by restoring and improving the balance that the United States built during its progressive period … roughly the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt through Jimmy Carter, 1901 - 1980.

The United States came to its full maturity and strength (economically and militarily) during the 20th century because it harnessed the potential of both the American people and its corporations.  It did this by creating a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

Because it’s about restoring this historic American balance, the soft revolution proposed is not about emasculating corporations, about removing the profit incentive, or removing them from positions of influence.  It is not about becoming a Socialist country.  Corporations are very important to the well-being of our country and its citizens, and so they not only deserve a seat at the table, they need to be at the table.  

But this revolution is about limiting their power, reducing the greed that currently drives corporate actions and causes them to disregard even the interests of their consumers, let alone the general public.  Even during our progressive period, there is no shortage of examples of corporations acting against the interests of their consumers and the general public.  The decision-making process in corporations needs to be transformed.  

But it should not be the role of government to micro-manage corporations.  We should not have to resort to regulations.  That is not healthy and it is not efficient.  What we need is the creation of an evolved corporate persona and decision-making process that is not at odds with the interests of their consumers, the greater good, and the environment. 

This will not happen without the aroused involvement of voters across traditional party lines in favor of Congressmen who will truly protect and further their interests, who see it as their prime responsibility to secure the right of all Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Who will work with corporations and financial institutions but insure a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

Hopefully we will prove the truth of the final part of Lincoln’s remark noted above … “But you can’t fool all the people all the time.”  Rise up America.

The Ethical Bankruptcy of House Republicans

Any objective observer of the known interaction between Russian officials and Trump campaign officials and allies during the campaign … not the transition … would say that at a minimum it creates the appearance of if not collusion, that is some agreement or understanding, then an effort on the part of the Trump campaign to encourage the Russians to intervene. 

Why else would there be so many contacts during the campaign?  Especially following Trump’s public invitation to the Russians to engage in cyber-espionage and hack Clinton’s private email server.  Then there is Roger Stone’s tweet prior to the DNC email dump by Wikileaks that “Wednesday @Hillary Clinton is done. #Wikileaks.”

If there indeed was collusion or cozying-up to the Russians by the Trump campaign for the purpose of encouraging them to engage in activities to degrade Clinton and swing the election to Trump, that would be an attack on our democracy far more serious than the Watergate break-in.  This demands an impartial inquiry into the events.

Yet we have Republicans in the House doing everything possible to play down the seriousness of this matter and turn it more into a hunt for the people who leaked information about the FBI investigation.

Recently Representative Nunes, who is chair of the House Intelligence Committee and thus is head of the House inquiry, committed various serious breaches of impartiality.  The first was when he took information he supposedly was given by an intelligence source and went straight to the White House and Speaker Ryan with it, without providing the information to the rest of his committee or even the ranking Democrat.  Then it was revealed that he met with this intelligence source in the White House, for a stated reason which is totally bogus.  And I used the word “supposedly” because he has refused to either say who gave him the information or reveal the specific pieces of information.

Given these lapses, together with the fact the Representative Nunes was on the Trump transition team and thus not just a supporter of Trump but close to him, one would expect that Speaker Ryan or some Republican in the House (the Senate does not interfere in the House’s business) would call for Nunes to recuse himself from the inquiry.  That has not happened to date.  Instead, the call has only come from Democrats.  And Representative Nunes has refused, saying, “It’s their problem.”

All of these Republicans are guilty of dereliction of the duty they undertook when they swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.  The Trump campaign activities vis a vis the Russians smacks of treason.  Congress and the public deserve to know the full facts so that they can come to a decision whether these interactions were innocent or not.

It is relevant to note that this is not the first time that House Republicans have acted in a cavalier manner on such a serious matter.  When the basic facts of Watergate became known, not a single Republican on the House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of strong subpoena powers.  And when the final vote on articles of impeachment was taken, only 6 of the 17 Republicans on the Committee voted in favor of impeachment.  After all the damning testimony!

Thankfully, the Senate Intelligence Committee appears as though it will be acting in a bipartisan impartial manner.  Senator Burr, the Republican Chair, and Senator Warner, the ranking Democrat, have jointly pledged to follow wherever the evidence leads, even to the President.  

I have not forgotten that the FBI is investigating these contacts, but their effort is limited to whether there was collusion.  This would be very difficult to prove, without a whistleblower.  So regardless how damning the circumstantial evidence is, given that their investigation is not open to the public, the public will never know absent their finding a “smoking gun.”

So You Want to Be Rid of Government Regulation?

Businessmen grouse about the burden of government regulations and paperwork.   They don’t want “pesky” inspectors snooping around.  The New York Times recently reported that small business owners are happy that Trump will free them from these burdens.   Investors are clearly cheered by the prospect of lower corporate taxes and less regulation.  

But does this put the public at risk?  Before the industrial revolution, when the people who made things had a very personal connection with their customers and took pride in the craftsmanship of their work, there was no need to protect the consumer or general public from the actions of business.

But after the industrial revolution, that relationship  changed.  There was no longer a direct connection, no craftsmanship.  Mass production became the norm, with workers toiling under terrible conditions, and profit became the main premium for the businessman, the main source of pride, not the product.  During this period, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, both smaller industries and large conglomerates became rapacious, with no concern for either their workers, their consumers, or the environment.

To protect workers, consumers, and the environment, the federal government began to pass laws and enacted regulations to force industry to act in a responsible way.  (See my post, “The Responsibility Crisis.”)  The need for such oversight is as great today as ever because of investor pressure on industry to constantly increase profits.

If the business community wants to get rid of government regulation, then all businesses must have in their articles of incorporation language that speaks to their responsibility to their workers, their consumers, and the environment.  And those articles must provide for both regular impartial reports regarding their actions and an easy means for workers or effected third parties to complain and sue if they are not meeting their responsibility.

Corporations are a creature of the law and are protected and favored in many ways because they were perceived as providing a benefit to the greater good.  If they cannot be depended upon, on their own initiative, to protect others by refraining from actions that would harm their workers, their consumers, or the environment, then it is government’s responsibility in its role of protector of public safety to regulate their actions.

Where Is Trumpgate’s Howard Dean?

Here are the basic facts as we know them at this time.  

1.  The Russian government, either directly or through surrogates, made numerous efforts to degrade Hillary Clinton in the eyes of the public and so swing the election to Donald Trump.  These efforts included not just the hacking and release of DNC emails, but using social media to bombard Clinton fence sitters with negative fake news stories.   

2.  Several highly placed members of the Trump campaign team and people close to the campaign had numerous contacts with the Russian government, including intelligence figures.  One of them, Roger Stone, stated on Twitter prior to the Wikileaks’ dump of the DNC emails that "Wednesday @Hillary Clinton is done. #Wikileaks.”  Without question he knew what was coming.

Given these facts, several conclusions seem warranted, indeed obvious.

1. The Russian attempt to influence the election was so nefarious that it far surpasses Watergate’s break-in of the DNC headquarters.  If members of the Trump campaign team knew of this activity and stayed silent, they are guilty of treason.  If Trump was aware, he is guilty of an impeachable offense.

2.  Given the extent of contacts between Trump surrogates and the Russians during the campaign … not during the transition … it is at a minimum highly suspicious and more than likely that they were aware.  Also, remember that Trump at a news conference back in July said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.  I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”  The official spin was that he was being sarcastic.

This last little nugget seems to have been forgotten as I have not heard it mentioned in connection with the questions raised about the campaign’s contacts with Russians.  It is relevant that two Federal courts in reviewing the Trump travel ban referred to his statements during the campaign about barring Muslims from the country as evidence of the intent of the ban.

The investigations currently being conducted into this matter are behind closed doors, both by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and by the FBI.  And it is more than likely that nothing will come of these investigations because it will be very difficult to prove that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Collusion requires having a secret understanding.  And that's what both the FBI and the committees are looking into.  But I think that bar is too high.  Even if there was not a secret, unspoken, understanding, if there was just knowledge by the campaign that the Russians were acting to subvert the election and they remained silent, that should be sufficient to prosecute them for treason.  Likewise, if Trump was aware, that would constitute an impeachable offense.

But let’s say that, despite Roger Stone’s Tweet, the campaign was not aware of Russian efforts to subvert the election and swing it to Trump.  If they were trying to cozy up to the Russians during the campaign, letting them know that they would end the sanctions and in other ways carry out Trump’s pledge to have better relations with Putin, the question becomes “why?”  The only thing to be gained by the Trump campaign by such conversations with the Russians would be if they acted to influence the election.  

There is no other possible reason that would explain such conversations during the campaign, as opposed to during the transition.  So, I would hold that merely having such conversations, making such assurances, while perhaps not grounds for criminal prosecution, would if known by Trump be grounds for impeachment.

This matter is of such a high importance that there needs to be a Watergate-style public hearing in Congress so that the American people learn first-hand the full extent of the Trump campaign’s treasonable activity, if in fact that is what occurred.  But barring the emergence of a Howard Dean, who gives the lie to all the denials by Trump and his campaign associates of contact with the Russians regarding sanctions and other matters, it is quite probable that nothing will ever be proven.