Is Campaign Spying Another Watergate?

On May 17, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.’

“Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!”

Watergate, if you weren’t around in those days, was a major political scandal during President Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. It was the Congressional investigation of the June 17, 1972 burglary by five Republican operatives at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C.

Facing impeachment for covering it up, Nixon resigned. Based on an interview with Jeb Magruder (then deputy at the Committee to Re-Elect the President), the New York Times wrote that the purpose of the break-in, was to have the White House operatives wiretap Democratic Headquarters.

Nicknamed “the plumbers,” their intent was to plug a potential leak. They feared that Democratic campaign chairman Lawrence O’Brien possessed information concerning an illegal gift from Howard Hughes to Nixon, the disclosure of which might complicate the president’s re-election.

The wiretap was designed to dredge up political dirt useful in sealing potential Democratic leaks.

So is history repeating itself? Is Trump’s Watergate analogy reasonable? Not according to President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John O. Brennan.

Brennan, not unexpectedly, immediately accused Trump of lying and “mischaracterization” for saying his campaign was spied upon by the FBI. Brennan argues that the operative the president labels a spy was in reality a “confidential human source.”

Brennan then narrowly defines his terms to support his charge:

“A spy is someone who is recruited. Usually it’s a foreign national who is going to work on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies to provide information about issues related to our national security. A confidential human source is what the FBI uses in order to have some insight into what may be going on that could involve criminal activity.”

But is Brennan’s definition consistent with the commonly understood dictionary definition of a spy?

The Apple Dictionary defines one as “a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.” 

Merriam Webster Dictionary says it’s “one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information.” 

The Oxford Dictionary defines spy as “a person employed by a government or other organization to secretly obtain information on an enemy or competitor.”

Trump’s May 17 tweet was entirely consistent with its common dictionary meaning. More importantly, to call the president a liar, Brennan had to intentionally engage in his own mischaracterization.

The president did not simply tweet that the FBI spied on the campaign. He added the FBI used an “embedded information” or a “confidential informant” to spy on his campaign.

To have any rational basis for calling the president a liar, Brennan had to pretend that the president didn’t say the spy used by the FBI was an embedded informant or a confidential informant.


Indeed, Brennan seems to be saying that the FBI didn’t spy, it merely used a “confidential human source.”

So who is mischaracterizing? Trump or Brennan? Or is Brennan merely obfuscating? Is a spy usually a foreign national? Does a spy usually work on behalf of U.S. intelligence? Does a spy usually deal with national security?

What is a confidential human resource working on behalf of Corporation X who goes to work for a company for the purpose of stealing trade secrets but a spy?

"Spy" equals “confidential informant,” equals “embedded informant,” equals “confidential human source.”

If the real purpose of inserting the confidential human source was to protect the integrity of the election process, why wasn’t one inserted into the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Did FBI leadership insert a confidential human source into the Trump campaign? Why? The president believes it did, and that it was for partisan political purposes. If he’s right, how does this differ from Watergate?

The Mueller investigation goes on without end in sight. Congressional Democrats call for full disclosure. The president should oblige them. It is time for the president to order the FBI to provide Congress with every document Congress has requested — in unredacted form.

If FBI leaders defy the president, they should be fired.

Posted: QCOline.com June 21, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What's the Fairest Tax for Illinois? You Decide

You have just been appointed “supreme dictator” of the state of Illinois, and authorized to rule by decree. So, what’s your tax policy?


Sadly the state’s last governor and the members of the Legislature have left you with a god-awful mess.


Illinois has five major pension funds. As of June 2017, Illinois’ unfunded pension liability reached $137 billion. Each Illinois resident owes about $10,500.


In 2017, unpaid Illinois bills reached just under $17 billion. The law requires the state to pay 12 percent interest on bills unpaid after 90 days. A $6.5 billion bond issue was used to pay a portion of those bills. In April of 2017, Illinois still had $7.4 billion worth of bills to pay. Of course, principle and interest also will have to be paid on the bonds.

So Mr. Dictator, where do you start? You have two good friends — principle advisors. One’s a raving Clinton/Sanders progressive (CS). The other, a trumpeting Trumpist (TT).


CS: “The whole reason for this fiscal mess is that Illinois does not have, unlike the U.S. and many of our neighboring states, a progressive income tax.”


TT: “Hogwash!”


CS: “If only we had a graduated income tax, we could solve all Illinois funding problems. Illinois presently has a flat-rate income tax which was increased from 3.75 percent to 4.95 percent on individuals, effective July 1, 2017. Even so, the flat-rate income tax simply does not generate enough revenue to meet the state’s financial problems.”


TT: “Illinois has plenty of revenue. The problem is that the political hacks in the Legislature choose to spend more than they collect in taxes. You can’t blame Republicans for that. They’re virtually extinct in Illinois!”


CS: “It is also a fact that a progressive income tax (aka, graduated income tax) is fairer. Under a flat-rate tax, if a rich guy has net income of $100,000, he’d pay $4,950 in Illinois personal income tax. The poor guy with a net income of $10,000 would pay $495. That simply isn’t fair.”


TT: “Rich guy has 10 times the income; he pays 10 times the tax. What’s unfair about that? Does rich guy consume 10 times the public services? Is rich guy’s vote weighted so as to count 10 times as much as poor guys? What would be fair for you? Should rich guy pay 10 percent while poor guy pays 4.95 percent? Or 20 percent while poor guy pays nothing? Or is that too fair?”


CS: Illinois’ lack of a progressive income tax has contributed to Illinois budget deficits!


TT: “You just told us that the U.S. has a progressive income tax, and you claim a progressive tax would allow Illinois to avoid deficits. Are you unaware that during President Barack Obama’s eight years, the average federal deficit was $816 billion?


CS: “Illinois has woefully funded its public education! This has forced school districts to continually raise property taxes to make up for deficits!



TT: “Forced? We could give the schools a blank check, and they’d still want more money! Have your forgotten the recent 1 percent school tax increase you touted last fall?” Then assuming the offensive, TT queries, “Once we get your progressive tax, what stops the poor from exploiting their political power so as to increase taxes on the rich while lowering or abolishing their own taxes?”


CS: “That will never happen! You’re fear-mongering!”


TT: “Really? The United States government has had a progressive tax system since 1913. Are you aware that the top 1 percent of federal income taxpayers pay 39.5 percent of all individual income taxes, and that the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of all individual federal income taxes? Are you aware that the bottom 50 percent pay 2.8 percent? That over 76 million U.S. households — 45.3 percent of all households — pay no federal income tax? What’s fair about that? And even worse, to get votes, pandering politicians exempt the poor from paying any federal income taxes. How is that fair?


“We had a war over ‘taxation without representation.’ Representation without taxation is even worse! It encourages class warfare. The poor don’t want to pay any income tax, so they tell their friends in the Legislature, ‘tax the rich! The top 5 percent paying 50 percent of all income taxes aren’t paying enough! It isn’t fair’!”


So, Supreme One, what’s your tax policy?

Posted: QCOline.com June 13, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

‘

NFL: Invited Guest or Captive Audience?

My love of professional football goes back to my childhood.

When I was a small boy, living in Chicago, tears came to my eyes every time the old Chicago Cardinals beat my beloved Bears.

My dad, in those days, was a silent partner in a restaurant where members of the Bear’s team would gather to have dinner and relax after a Sunday game.

As a little boy, I was introduced to many of my Bear heroes as they came to dine. Dad’s main business had season tickets to the Bear games when they played at Wrigley Field.

I can still recall watching from the temporary stands as George Balanda, in the arms of a defensive lineman, completed a pass, seemingly from a “horizontal position.” I can recall Ed Sprinkle jarring the ball loose from an opposing back to set up a game-winning touchdown for the Bears.

I can recall watching Willie Galimore take a punt and sprint through a non-existent hole between two tacklers on his way to a touchdown. And I can recall sitting through the 1963 championship 14-10 win over the Giants with my brother and uncle in 10-below-zero weather at Wrigley Field.

And then one day, a number of National Football League players decided they weren’t going to stand for our national anthem. They were going to kneel in protest. When they did, I turned my back on the NFL, and quit watching its games.

Don’t get me wrong. As Americans, NFL players have constitutional rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. But I also have constitutional rights. I have a right to disagree with their protests, and a right to tune them out.

To me, it isn’t a question of constitutional rights. It’s a matter of civility and manners. I resent being a captive audience. If I go to a football game, or turn the TV on to watch a football game, I want to watch a football game.

From the time I was a child, I went to football games to see two teams play a football game. From 1948 on, if I wanted to watch “protests” or “political debate,” I could turn on TV and watch “Meet the Press” or some similar show.

The NFL teams, players and management alike, “invite” fans to watch their football games. When the fans come to see their games, the owners and players alike get rich.

Imagine being invited to your best friend’s home for dinner. He’s a Republican. You’re a Clinton Democrat. Then as dinner is about to be served, he brings out a huge portrait of Hillary Clinton, and rips it to shreds almost under your nose, saying, “I am protesting your worthless erstwhile candidate!”

Imagine going to the Quad City Music Guild to see a musical, or to Playcrafters to see a light comedy, and having one-third of the actors refuse to proceed with the show until they can educate you on the evils of abortion. Or the virtues of a woman’s right to choose?

Imagine going to church to participate in your church’s Sunday service, and having your priest or minister ask you to stand in silent protest against the president’s plan to build a wall. Or Bob Muller’s partisan investigation of the president?

When we are invited for dinner, attend the theater to see a play, or go to church to worship, we don’t come to be captive audiences to political protests. In each of these examples, the “hosts” have constitutional rights to speak and assemble. But the guests, in each case have, a right to expect that their hosts will act consistently with the purport of their invitations, and not use the invitations for a purpose foreign to the stated purpose of the invitations.

It is selfish, rude and ill-mannered to turn guests into a captive audience, and to force them to sit through something the host has to know may be offensive, as a condition receiving the contemplated benefit of the invitation.

The NFL owners and players invite their patrons to see a football games, and to pay a lot of money for that right. If rather than playing football, the players want to protest the country, the flag, or anything else, why not do it somewhere else?

Or why not be gracious and make an announcement? “The players plan to kneel down in protest against (whatever). That protest be in this stadium and will commence 20 minutes after the game. You are all invited stay and to participate.”

Posted: QCOline.com June 7, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea