Welcome to the 21st Century

The Wisconsin State Assembly passed a measure recently, with
bi-partisan support 82-13, that would allow pharmacists to
prescribe hormonal birth control to women over the age of 18,
both in pill and patch form.  The Bill still has to go to the Senate
for approval and then on to the Governor for his signature.  It
is being opposed by right-to-life activist who say it will lead
to an increase in extra-marital sexual activity and an increase
in unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.  DUH! I may be
dense, but how will using effective birth control lead to
unwanted pregnancy and more abortions?  We will leave that
objection for the time being.

If the birth control bill passes, and becomes law, Wisconsin will
join ten other states and the District of Columbia that have
already enacted similar legislation.

Five years ago, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
issued a policy statement saying it is time to make hormonal oral
birth control an over the counter drug.  The American Association
of Family Physicians support the measure also, saying it would
greatly reduce unintended pregnancies.  However, only the FDA
can change the status of a drug from prescription to over the
counter, and as of yet no manufacturer has petitioned the FDA
to do that.  Even if a manufacturer did request a change in status,
it would be years before the FDA could conclude the testing
required to move hormonal contraceptives from prescription to
over the counter status.

One other concern is selling the pill to persons under the age of
18.  Right now the pill may be prescribed to those under 18 but
no states allow for purchase of the pill without a doctor's orders.
Researchers say there is no evidence that teens are at risk from
using the pill, in fact the reverse is true, teens do not have the
increased risk of blood clots that some adults do.  And studies
have shown there is no increase in sexual activity, in fact, teen
pregnancy rates are down in the United States by 36% from
2007-2013, and the abortion rate has fallen also.

The hormonal birth control method has been around for nearly
sixty years, it was first approved for use in June of 1960, but
didn't begin to be used as a contraceptive until July of 1961.
At that time, it could only be prescribed to married women for
birth control, and it was not until 1972 that doctors were allowed
to prescribe it to unmarried women for use as a contraceptive.
Though many doctors were prescribing it off label use for acne
and to regulate a woman's cycle.

The pill was the first form of birth control that did not interfere
with the spontaneity and sensation of sexual intercourse. It
allowed women to take control of when and how many children
she wished to have.  It was a key player in expanding women's
economic role.  After the pill was introduced, there was a sharp
rise in college attendance and graduation rates for women.  There
was no longer the fear of unplanned pregnancy interrupting a
woman's life, and employers were more inclined to invest in a
woman's future in their corporate structures.

Today the pill is used by 100 million women world-wide and
12 million women in the United States, and if used correctly,
it is 0.3% effective in preventing pregnancy.  For most of the
world, the pill does not require a doctor's prescription, and in
many countries it is free or at very low cost.  The biggest obstacle
in the United States is the cost.  Since the Affordable Care Act,
insurance companies must cover the cost of birth control pills,
and Medicaid also covers their cost.  But, and this is a big but,
insurance and Medicaid will not cover over the cost of the pill
if it were over the counter.

It is unclear whether that means the pill has to be prescribed by a
physician or if insurance will still pay for the pill if you can get it
through the pharmacy.  Regardless, those states that have opted to
by-pass the doctors prescription for a pharmacist direct filling of
the script, have not seen a big increase in pharmacy participation.
The service is not mandatory in most states and in California
only 11%  of retail pharmacies are offering the service.  The
requirements for such a service vary from state to state, but all
states require some training of the pharmacist, forms to be filled
out and filed and blood pressure must be monitored.  The initial
consultation cost may vary also, but range from $25-$50 and it
is not covered by insurance, however Oregon is the only state that
requires Medicaid to pay for the consultation.

So as usual it is the ones who need the help the most who will be
priced out of receiving it.  A family with more children than they
can afford, is priced out of the one thing that could help them
prevent another pregnancy.  Fifty dollars would go a long way
to feed the brood around the table.  We know that the hormonal
birth control method is safe and effective, now we must make
it affordable and easy to access for all women.

I'm just sayin'.
control

Get it Done, Get it Over, and Move On

And so it begins, I was eagerly tuned to the radio last Thursday,
(Halloween, of all days) but I fear I was in the minority, even
amongst my fiends.  They are getting tired of me and my obsession
with all things Trump.  They have moved on with their lives.  In
the beginning they were as appalled as I at Trump's unpresidential
behavior, his speeches elicited laughter, his demeanor resulted in
head shaking disbelief.  There were jokes about his limited
vocabulary and his penchant for lying in the face of overwhelming
evidence to the contrary.  But the jokes have wore thin and the daily
onslaught is wearyingly banal.

If these women, strident female libbers that they are, can ignore the
ever-worsening news from the White House and not be incensed,
ignore the increasing aberrant antics of a man who seems to be losing
his grip on reality, if they can say they just don't care anymore, what
chance is there for the rest of us?  The general consensus seems to be
nothing will ever change, it's all a tempest in a teapot, all done for show.
Both side prancing and preening for their constituents and nothing more.

But there is something more, and everyday more and more of it is revealed,
and with each new testimony something new is discovered.  It is becoming
harder and harder to deny the evidence.  So, what do the Republicans do,
they attack the proceedings.  They say the hearings are done in secret, and
they are not allowed in, both of which are blatantly false, they stormed
the hearing room at the behest of the President, and when the pizza ran out
they quietly went home like sheep being herded out of the pasture, and
like sheep they may be headed to the abattoir.  

The Republicans protested the closed-door hearings and when the House
announced that the hearings will be opened to all, including TV, they protested
that also.  They don't like the rules, though they are the same rules that they
established for the Clinton impeachment.  They want to see the transcripts
from the closed-door hearing, and when Rep. Adam Schiff said the
transcripts will be available in the coming week, the Republicans said,
not soon enough.  There seems to be a pattern emerging here.

Trump had said that the call to Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president-elect, was
beautiful and his denial of wrongdoing just doesn't hold water anymore.
What now? Trump and the Republicans say that, OK the President did
ask Zelenskiy to look into Hunter Biden, but that there was nothing wrong
with that.  Holding back money and presidential influence is done all the
time.  It is at the discretion of the President.  So, the defense changed; Trump
did it but it wasn't wrong, except his own intelligence people saw it differently.
The testimony of Lt. Col. Vindman, a decorated war hero, who was listening
in on the call, said he found it 'troubling'.  The President was asking a foreign
government to investigate a potential political rival in exchange for money
and a visit to the White House.  And his testimony was just one of several others.
In addition to asking about the Bidens, Trump also asked about the computer
server that was used to hack into the DNC data base in 2016.  It appears
that Trump just cannot get over the vote count in 2016.

So let us reiterate, first Trump didn't do it, then he did do it but it wasn't wrong,
and finally it was wrong, but it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and
misdemeanors necessary for impeachment.  Ah, but obstruction of Congress
does, and the more the administration stymies the investigation the closer
it get gets to obstruction.  The cover-up is what brought down the Nixon
presidency.

Today, November 3, 2019, is exactly one year to the date of the 2020
presidential election, and only three months to the Iowa Caucasus, and
what is going on in Washington hasn't even rippled the waters, but it
should.  A president who believes what he is does is justifiable because he
is the president is dangerous.  If Donald Trump is allowed to walk away from
this, he will be emboldened to try something else.  After all it was just one
day after the Mueller Report announced no collusion with Russia during the
2016 election, that Trump tried to coerce the Ukraine government to
interfere in the 2020 election.  it is frightening to think of what he would attempt
after being found not guilty in the Senate trial.  And if the Senate thinks they
could contain him in 2020 they are bigger fools than I believe them to be.  It is
time for the Congress to stand up and take back the powers they have been
ceding to this president.   Or...There may be another way out; censure!

Censure by the entire Congress, the House and Senate with a super majority vote.
Andrew Jackson was censured by the Senate, and John Tyler was censured by the
House, both were strictly political actions.  I firmly believe there are enough
Republicans who think that Donald Trump is unfit for the presidency, and they
would be judged harshly by history if they acquitted him, but they are afraid to
come forward.  The Democrats know if they proceed with the impeachment,
they will lose.  They will lose the trial and the House and the White House in
2020 and who knows how far beyond.  That is a big price to pay.

But Trump cannot get away with his distain of the Constitution, he must be
brought to heel.  A record of censure by the entire Congress would be something
Trump has never had to deal with, being told he is wrong, by his peers.  And
there is always the threat of prosecution once he has left office.

Time is running out and to quote the bard: "If it were done when 'tis done, then
'twere well it were done quickly... That but this blow, might be the be-all and
end-all here".

I'm just sayin'.

 

Where in the World is Billy Barr?

It appears the United States Attorney General is MIA. He
was last seen hiding out in Rome espousing President Trump's
handling of the Ukrainian congratulatory phone call to Ukraine's
president-elect. A phone call, Trump said was "beautiful".  He is
also gathering information from countries he feels have the
inside dope on Hunter Biden's activities while he was on the
board of the Ukraine natural gas producing company, Burisma.
And while he is at it there, he is looking at whether the Ukraine
was also involved with the server that processed Hillary Clinton's
missing emails.  Both of the these incidents have been debunked
by the United States intelligence agencies.  The Democrats have
accused Barr of using the Justice Department as Trump's personal
law firm.  This would not be the first time Barr would have
interfered on behalf of a president.

Billy Barr is a lifelong proponent of the 'unitary executive theory'
that allows for unfettered presidential authority.  Much of Barr's
thinking has been influenced by his strong religious convictions,
he is a staunch Roman Catholic.  He believes that Roe v Wade
was incorrectly decided, and in 1992 he wrote a report in
favor of increased incarceration.  However, upon independent
examination, the data Barr used to support his conclusions
did not corroborate his theory that mass incarceration reduced
the crime rate anywhere.

In 1990, Barr was appointed Deputy Attorney General by then
president George H. W. Bush.  Bush was so impressed with Barr's
work that he nominated him to be his Attorney General in 1991.
Barr's squeaky-clean record allowed Barr to be confirmed by the
Senate in two days.

In 1992, an Independent counsel was formed to investigate the
Iran-Contra Affair, it was headed by Lawrence Walsh.  Walsh had
found documents from Casper Weinberger's office of evidence of
a conspiracy among the highest officials in the
Reagan administration, to lie to both Congress and the American
people.  The cover-up was the sale of arms to Iran for their help in
freeing the hostages taken by Hezbollah and being held in Lebanon.
Weinberger was to stand trial and contradict President Bush's
assertion that he had no knowledge of the exchange of arms for
hostages.  It was apparent that Bush would be called to testify in
the court case also.  Billy Barr went into action, He convinced
Bush to pardon Weinberger and five others from the Reagan
administration who were already found guilty, only day before the
end of Bush's term of office.  Thus saving the reputation of the Bush
presidency.  Lawrence Walsh complained, insinuating that Bush and
Barr had covered-up the Iran-Contra Affair.

That wasn't the end, Barr also refused to appoint another Independent
Counsel to investigate 'Iraq-gate'.  Iraq-gate is not as well-known as the
Iran-Contra Affair but it was much more insidious.  For those not as
familiar with what went on, I will try to give you a thumbnail sketch.

During the Reagan/Bush administrations, and while Bill Clinton was
governor of Arkansas, in a small town in Arkansas called Mena, there
was an operation that was working out of the Mena airport that involved
drugs, guns, and billions of dollars under the radar, but with the knowledge
and consent of the CIA.  Drugs were smuggled into the United States,
weapons were smuggled out, and money was laundered thru the banks
in Mena and Atlanta Georgia.

The money and drugs went to support Saddam Hussain in Iraq, yup, that
Saddam Hussain.  Money from the United States, supposedly for agricultural
support, went instead to buy weapons back from the United States.  It
was estimated that more than $5 billion in aid and also weaponry, and
military intelligence, and special ops went to support Hussain's war
against Iran, which by now was in control of the Ayatollah.  All of
which was against the will of the Congress.  The money came from
the drug operation in Mena.  All in all, over a thousand kilos of heroin
was smuggled into our country and over $5 billion of money was laundered
prior to being sent to Iraq.  Everyone involved with the operation in Mena
is now dead, in fact, more than 26 deaths were attributed to it, some under
suspicious circumstances, some were outright hits.  All covered-up by one
Billy Barr, in defense of presidents Reagan and Bush.  His argument;
'a president has complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement
proceeding'.

So why is Billy Barr hiding out in Rome?  Has he finally found a president
he cannot support?  Or is it that this president has implicated him in his
tawdry business dealings?  Squeaky-clean Billy may have finally got
his hands so dirty even he cannot live with himself?

I'm just sayin'.

 

What Every Working Woman Needs

Back in the 1970's, when the talk around the executive
dining room table amongst my female colleagues and
myself - the four of us amid a sea of males - turned to
child care, the standing joke was; what every working
woman needs, is a wife at home to cook, clean and
watch the kids.  Each of us had paid dearly for the
privilege of becoming executives, sacrificing our home
life and time with our children to advance our careers.
Was it worth it?  It appeared that each of us had a different
view.  For me the answer was more than monetary,
though that didn't hurt, but the personal fulfillment of
reaching the top of one's profession was exhilarating.
It is the sense of giving your best and getting recognized
for it, that is incredibly satisfying.

Four female executives were about par for the course in
the 70s in most mid-size companies, even if two of those
were executive secretaries, one for the company President
and the other for the CEO.  After all it wasn't until 1972 when
Kathrine Graham became the first female CEO of a Fortune
500 company.  And women aren't doing that much better
today, women represent less than 20% of the Board members
of the top 1000 major corporations.  Why don't women climb
the corporate ranks at the same rate as men?  It's not that they
are lacking in talent or drive, no, the major root cause of women
being left behind in their careers is the lack of decent, affordable
child care.  This is the motherhood penalty.  When women are
forced to stay home with their children they cannot participate
fully in their chosen field, hence they are not going to have
equal career growth opportunities.

In today's economy, child care can cost as much as college
tuition in most states.  Infant day care costs range from
$5,000 to $17,000 a year, and pre-school day care ranges
from $4,450 to $12,000 per year.  Multiply that by two
or three, and even with a multiple child discount, it is
apparent that child care costs exceed the average net salary
of a mid-level executive.  It takes a gross pay of $36,000 to
cover the cost of $20,000 of day care, and that is assuming
the combined income for husband and wife is in the lowest
tax bracket.  Seventy percent of families spend 10% of
their gross income on child care and forty percent spend
more than 15% of the gross income.

Lack of decent, affordable child care is having a financial
impact on our economy.  New Census Bureau figures out today
show that in fifteen years, in 2034, the over-65 age group will
out number young  children .  This does not bode well, and it
can be traced back to the child care problem.  In a study of more
than 4000 participants with small children, 63% of parents
reported that they made workplace changes to be able to afford
child care; switching from fulltime to part time hours, and 25%
of women quit the their jobs to be stay-at-home caregivers.
The financial impact is more dire; 31% of families said they
went further into debt, 37% said they stopped adding to their
IRA retirement, 37% said they stopped paying off debt, and
44% said that child care costs precipitated major budget cuts.
The effect on the family unit is even harder; 36% said child
care cost was a cause  of relationship tensions, 39% said it
impacted their family planning, and 39% said they chose to
have fewer children.  This is the future of our economy,
who will fund the retirement of those over-65s?  If today's
parents can't afford to have children, we had better change
our immigration policies.

Access to good child care drives local economies as well as
overall economic growth.  Women who have decent child
care available are more likely to enter the workforce and
stay employed.  They are more likely to stay off welfare
 and more likely to pursue a higher education.  The long-
term benefit of subsidized child care is not just a 'women's
issue', its effect will be felt in the hear future, fifteen years
from now when Social Security and Medicare become
unsustainable budget items.  We will need a viable work-
force to support them.  We need the children.

Several of the Democratic candidates running for the
presidency have child care plan options, it behooves
you to check them out, and if your favorite candidate
doesn't have a plan, ask them why.

I'm just sayin'.

In the Land of the Pharaohs

I have just returned from a wonderful trip to Egypt, and
I can definitely recommend the trip to anyone, it is a
beautiful country filled with lovely people who will go
out of their way to make your trip memorable.  And at no
time did I feel that I was not safe, and I am a woman who
travels alone.

Today's Egypt is a very poor country, 31% of the population
is considered living in poverty.  Much of this is due to the
tough economic reforms called for after the $12 billion loan
from the IMF in 2016.  Reforms that included devaluing the
Egyptian currency and cutting the fuel subsidies.  The latter
raised the fuel costs 78% overnight, and with the Pound being
devalued, there are now more people living  below the poverty
line.

On the plus side, however, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Egypt's president,
has raised Egypt's credit rating to a 'B' and the economic growth
has exceeded 6.5% for the past three years.  Al Sisi enjoys an
overall approval rating of 78%, something that Donald Trump
would kill for.  Since taking over from the Muslim Brotherhood
in June of 2013, Al Sisi has had the backing and support of the
Egyptian Army in all things, leading some to say he heads a
military junta.  However, the Egyptian people know they have
only two choices for a government, Al Sisi and the Army, or
the Muslim Brotherhood, 97% chose Al Sisi in the last election.

Al Sisi has done some great things for Egypt since taking power;
he ordered and oversaw the construction of a separate Suez canal
along side the present canal, this time using only Egyptian money,
doubling the capacity of ships that pass thru the canal, from 47 to
95, and generating the income for Egypt alone, and he is building
a new capitol city close to Cairo to help with the overcrowding
conditions in the existing capitol.  The unofficial population of
Cairo is estimated at 25 million people.

Today, 96% of Egyptians live on the 3% of Egypt's land along-side
the Nile river, the remaining 97% of Egypt is desert. Egypt is trying
to convert 240,000 additional acres of desert into arable land to increase
food production.  Right now Egypt relies on the Nile river for 90% of
it's fresh water supply.  And that has led to a huge problem.  Ethiopia is
in the process of building one of the largest dams on the Blue Nile, in
Africa and the seventh largest dam in the world.

The new dam, GERD (Greater Ethiopian Renaissance Dam), is scheduled
to be completed in 2022, but some turbines will be put into operation
this year.  The fear is that filling the reservoir, which will take up to
three years or more to complete,  will greatly reduce the water supply
down river. If it is done on the timetable proposed by Ethiopia, it will
dry up Lake Nassar, according to Egypt's calculations.  The three
countries involved, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan have been in negotiations
since before the project began.  Egypt initially signed the agreement in
2015, to show good faith, but since that time several changes have been
made and now Egypt wants to renegotiate the agreement.  Sudan wishes
to remain neutral as they are anticipating buying electricity from Ethiopia.

The latest talks are scheduled for October 23 and 24, 2019 in Moscow,
during the Russian-African Summit. Al Sisi is to meet with the Ethiopian
Prime Minister, Abiy Ahman, to try and work-out a solution to the stalemate.
Al Sisi proclaims that Egypt has plans for the Nile river through 2037,
costing 900 billion Egyptian pounds, or $55 billion.  They have already
spent 200 billion pounds to that end last year, and intend to spend another
400 billion pounds this year.  The plans include a huge desalination plant
and increased sewage treatment facilities.

In meetings with the United States on the sidelines of the United Nations
General Assembly this past September, Al Sisi stressed that failure in
negotiations with Ethiopia will have dire consequences for the stability
across the region.  He appealed to the international community to aid in the
negotiating process.  Al Sisi has proposed a seven to ten-year time-table
for filling the reservoir, and measures that will allow for 40 billion cubic
meters of water to flow annually.  Both of these proposals were soundly
rejected by Ethiopia.

Initially, Ethiopia presented Cairo with a project for a dam that would be
90 meters high with a reservoir capacity of 14.5 billion cubic meters of
water. Ethiopia than began to implement a totally different design with
a dam height of 145 meters and a reservoir capacity of 74 billion cubic
meters of water.  Ethiopia also extended the scope of the dam project
beyond just electricity production and has plans to place 4 million acres
of land under cultivation using water deducted from Egypt's share of the
Nile.

By way of comparison, while Egypt has only the Nile river as a water
source, Ethiopia has twelve rivers.  Egypt gets less than 1.3 billion cubic
meters of rainfall annually, while Ethiopia gets more than 800 billion
cubic meters of rainfall annually, which is 50% of the total rainfall received
by all ten Nile Basin countries.  When Egypt signed the Nile Waters Agreement
in 1959, it's per capita share of the Nile water was 2,500 cubic meters.  Today
Egypt's population has topped 104 million and the water quota remains fixed,
which means the per capita figures are 20% of what they were when the
agreement was signed.

In March, an International Crisis Group report warned of a humanitarian
crisis if there is no agreement reached, millions of Egyptian farmers and
Egypt's food supply could be threatened.  Al Sisi has said, "...you cannot
expose a people whose lives depend on the Nile to the danger of cutting
off their water supply without having an impact on the stability of the
region".

In talking with several locals in Cairo, I was surprised at the vehemence
of their replies, to a man they said they will go to war behind Al Sisi if
it came down to it.  They all supported covert actions to blow up the
dam.  When I countered that it seemed to be extreme to me and that
perhaps the UAR and the rest of the world may not back their actions
they were not phased.  "We will die one way or another; without water
or fighting for it," was the consensus.   Another tinderbox waiting for
a match?   Remember where you read about it.

I'm just sayin'

 

Please Quit Helping...

Our Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Purdue, addressed the World
Dairy Expo in Madison Wisconsin, (my hometown, right now that is)
last week, and he could have brought better news.  He told a gathering
of dairy farmers that, and I quote: "In America, the big get bigger, and
small go out.  I don't think in America we, for any small business,
we have a guaranteed income or a guaranteed profitability". Thank
you, Mr. Purdue!  Farming is not just any business, we all eat Mr.
Purdue, and just looking at you, you do your share of eating.

Wisconsin has, for many years, been known as the 'Dairy State', and
with good reason.  The independent dairy farmer has been the
backbone of the state's economy for over a hundred years.  But
things are changing rapidly, Wisconsin has lost 551 small dairy
farms so far this year, as of August 31, 2019. Last year, 2018, we
lost 638 and in 2017 465 dairy farmers gave up milking.  That is
a 37% increase in loss of dairy farms in 2018 over 2017, and lordy
knows how many there will finally be this year.  And much of it is
due to the tariff wars between the United States and China, the
exports of dairy solids to China fell by 43% this year due to those
tariffs.

The sad news is that Wisconsin leads the nation in farm bankruptcies
even though it is eleventh in number of farms.  And sadder yet, is
that suicide among farmers is five times higher than the rest of the
population, figures that have not been seen since the depression.
Much of this is due to the projected rate of return on their farm assets.
the Farm Bureau calculated the rate of return will be 1.3% in 2019,
that is below the ten-year average of 2%.  Last year farm subsidies
accounted for 73% of production returns.  Farmer's think that these
subsidies are hurting more than helping, as family farms are being
bought up by huge corporations.

The Farm Bill lacks the language to keep these large corporations
from taking advantage of the subsidies that were designed to help
the struggling family farms.  Dairy lobbyists in Washington DC,
spent $7.5 million in 2018 to insure their piece of the pie. The top
spender, was Land O'Lakes, a multibillion-dollar Minnesota
agricultural co-op.  They spent $1.3 million alone.

Across the nation, the projected net farm income, in 2019 will
be the third lowest in the past decade, though higher than 2018
which the second lowest in the past decade.  Farming is, and
always has been, a risky business.  In 2018, there was $15+ billion
in agriculture and dairy subsidies, Wisconsin's share of that
was more than $352 million, and of that, $4+ million went to
out-of-state addresses, and $580,000 went to addresses within
fifty miles of Chicago

However, 58% of Wisconsin farmers did not collect any subsidy
payments.  Wisconsin is 16th on the list of subsidies received,
and receives approximately $9 billion or 2.3% of the government
pie, far below its neighbors; Iowa - 8.3%, Illinois - 6.9%,
Minnesota - 5.8% and Indiana - 3.5%.

Trade wars and the stalling in Congress of NAFTA 2.0, have caused
farm markets to plummet, as there is a backlog of normally exported
crops and dairy products.  And all the signs lead toward consolidation
of agriculture and dairy businesses into factory farms, squeezing out
the family-owned farmers who have acted as stewards of the land
for generations.  These factory farms produce waist on a grand
scale and present a real danger to the environment.  The term
'factory farm' is a misnomer, these are not farms as much as they
are large scale productions, and those that operate them are not
farmers, they are producers with a greater eye to the bottom line
than the health and welfare of the animals and the land.

And this is the future that the Trump administration is promising
you.  Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Purdue, you can stop helping
any time now.

I'm just sayin'.

Those Who Forget History Are Bound to Repeat It

The legal description of conspiracy is: An agreement
between two or more persons to commit a crime at
sometime in the future.  It is not required that any
steps have to be taken to put the plan into effect.
note: repentance by one or more persons involved
does not affect liability, but may reduce sentence time.

I bring up the matter of conspiracy because it is what
brought the Nixon White House down in 1974, not that
long ago.  What began as an innocuous break-in by five
men at the Democratic National Committee headquarters,
in the Watergate Hotel, on June 17, 1972, to bug the offices
and garner information on the Democratic presidential
campaign.  After the five perpetrators were caught with
money in their possession from the Republican Presidential
slush fund, the depth of the conspiracy began to unravel.
Ultimately, sixty-nine persons were indicted, and forty-eight
were convicted.

Among the high-profile figures in the Nixon White House
were:
   E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, both members of
the intelligence community, and referred to as the 'plumbers'.
Hunt was convicted of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping.
Liddy was convicted of burglary, conspiracy and refusing to
testify before the Senate. Both spent time in federal prison
  John Mitchell, United States Attorney General, was convicted
of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury.  He spent time
federal prison.
   H. R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff, convicted of
conspiracy and obstruction of justice, he spent time in prison.
   John Ehrlichman, Assistant Domestic Affairs Officer, convicted
of obstruction of justice and perjury, he spent time in prison.
   Charles Colson, White House Counsel, convicted of obstruction
of justice, he spent time in prison.
And who can forget baby-faced, John Dean, the White House Counsel,
on the witness stand, his wife, with her little pearl earrings, sitting
in court, so stoic.  They both looked so young.  Dean, who was the
'master manipulator' of Watergate, pled guilty to obstruction of
justice, and agreed to testify.  As a result, he received a lighter
sentence, and he was disbarred.
While all these men had their sentences reduced, they all spent time
in federal prison for felonies.
Articles of impeachment were being drawn up against President
Nixon on one count of Abuse of Power, however, he resigned
before they could go to the Senate for trial.

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's deja vue all over again."  It now appears
the necessary requirements for a conspiracy have been met, even if
there are only four participants: Donald Trump, William Barr, Mike
Pompeo, and Rudy Giuliani.  Giuliani began the process by convincing
the president that the Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for the
interference in the 2016 election, and that somehow, they had information
on the whereabouts of the Clinton e-mail server.  The President then
made an unscripted call to the Ukrainian President-elect, and it is
purported that the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, was listening in
on the call, a fact that he first denied to the press, and later confirmed.
During the call, President Trump asked the President-elect of the Ukraine
to 'do him a favor'.  The favor entailed getting dirt on Trump's 2020 election
rival, Joe Biden.  That, in itself, would be a problem.  But the President's
staff, realizing that the phone call might pose a problem, decided to put
the transcript of the call in a hyper-secure data base, hence the cover up
begins.

It is unrealistic to believe that there are only those four participants
involved, as we've seen, the President's staff participated in the
cover-up.  At this juncture, Attorney General, William Barr, is in
the EU soliciting help to try and dispute the Mueller Report.  He
is introducing United States Attorney, John Durham, who will
be leading the investigation of the investigation, hoping to discredit
the intelligence services; the FBI and the CIA.  So far Barr, has been
to the UK, Italy and Australia.  It is widely felt, by the Democrats in
the House, that Trump is again using the powers of the Presidency
for personal retribution of his adversaries.  Is that abuse of power yet?

The House has requested that former Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch, who was brought home early, as Trump tweeted that she
a 'joker', Kurt Volker, Deputy Assistant Secretary, George Kent,  EU
Ambassador, Gordon Sondland, and State Department Counsel, Ulrich
Brechbuhl, testify before them in the next two weeks.  So far, only
Kurt Volker, who resigned his position in the State Department, has
agreed.  The House has also subpoenaed documents from Barr's
office.  Barr has said that those State Department people do not have
to appear, citing harassment.  If so, they will be subpoenaed, forcing
them to testify under law.  Is that obstruction of justice yet?

As it appears this impeachment inquiry bears a strong resemblance
to the Nixon inquiry.  Nixon believed his popularity would help him
ride out any notion of impropriety, that and the destruction of the
tapes that implicated him in the conspiracy.  He was wrong, in the
end, the Republicans saw the gravity of the actions of the President
and put the country ahead of their party loyalty.  Nixon also put
the country first, and rather subject the country to an impeachment
trial that he most likely would lose, Nixon resigned.  Donald Trump
will never resign, he is a man obsessed, first with the fact that he
did not win the popular vote, he was confirmed by the electoral
college, not by a vote of the people.  Second, his popularity has
never reached the fifty-percent mark, and third, he is running behind
all three of the top candidates in the polling for the Democratic
nomination.

Trump's ego will not let that stand, he is Captain Ahab and his
'White Whale' is the 2016 election, and he will replay it until
he is satisfied that he actually won it, on his own, with the
most votes.  And like the white whale, it will be his downfall.
But his minions had best remember 1974; Nixon walked away
to that waiting helicopter, waved to the cameras, and flew off
to his home in California, while his staff walked thru the gates
of the federal prison.  I hope they think it's worth it.

I'm just sayin'.