Phrase of the Day: NOT LIKE IT USED TO BE

I have heard individuals complain about the world not being like it used to be.  Many times, it is a reaction to simply not wanting or accepting change of any kind.  With regard to many things, the status quo is safer, easier.  Sometimes change is for the better and sometimes it is for the worse, but change is, quite often, very hard to accept. 

Some observations and complaints are completely warranted.  I am fifty-six years old.  That is, in and of itself, not news, but it is germane to this topic.  (More on that later.)  While not limited to those who are in their sixties, seventies, and eighties, many of the not-like-it-used-to-be complaints that I have heard are from persons in those age ranges.  I can see why.  Part, again, is just a refusal to change, and part is having seen the world for so many decades giving them a wider perspective on life and the world. 

I find myself, at just fifty-six years of age, sharing in those complaints.

Some of these complaints can be regional observations (i.e. people in the northern United States tend to not be as nice as people in the southern United States) and some are about society in general.  One example (and this is an easy one) is music.  It seems that each generation as it gets older, flat-out dislikes or has some complaints about "music nowadays".  Count me in that group.  I can remember how I would really like a slew of songs each year.  (My musical tastes are pretty wide, so that list would be long.)  Nowadays -- there's that word -- I may like just a few songs each year and couldn't care less about the rest.  In short, in my opinion, music nowadays -- there's that phrase -- stinks.  People who really like today's music can disagree with me, and that's okay, but I am no longer a teen or in my twenties or my thirties anymore ... and maybe that's part of why I feel that way.

Okay, that's an easy one.  Now, let's get a little more serious.  As a society, we were nicer.  Now, when some folks read that, they think people like me think the world should be a real life 'Little House on the Prairie' or 'The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet', or some kind of Utopia, or a living Hallmark card.  I do not doubt that some who believe that way desire such a change, but mine is a general observation.  Were people nicer back in the "good ol' days"?  I think so, overall, even though there were bad people around then, too.  This is not to say that being nice has completely vanished from the norm -- there are always stories of good deeds and heartwarming stories out there -- but it certainly appears as though we are less hospitable to one another as a whole.

We cared about others' feelings more way back when than we do now.  It seems that the only feeling and emotion that receive any great measure of validity are hatred and anger.  We also cared about others' well-being more than we do now.  Yes, there are many, many individuals who do care about the well-being of others who are not in the caregiving professions, but we are not as interested in that as much as we used to be.  Even politics now has actions, speeches, and votes that reflect a false sense of caring ... actually, no sense of caring.  The "false sense" comes from empty words that are not always backed up by actions.   

America used to be a nation made up of individuals.  America is now a bunch of individuals who happen to live in a nation.  Individualism is not a bad thing, in and of itself, but it has now become the thing.  Sure, an individual received recognition for an achievement of some kind, good or bad (and that still goes on today) and we had national heroes generations ago, but there used to be this sense of a greater good, of something bigger than any one of us ... our country.  The neo-trinity of Me, Myself, and I has superseded that.  President John F. Kennedy's words from his inauguration speech -- "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." -- have been rendered irrelevant.  This nation's earliest motto "E pluribus unum" ("Out of many, one") is nothing more than something printed on U.S. coinage.

Knowledge has had a ridiculously topsy-turvy rollercoaster ride in terms of importance.  It used to be (and still is in many circles) something to which one would aspire.  We have made knowing this and knowing that so important, a kind of idolatry has taken shape, to the point where smarter has replaced more compassionate and more engaged.  We never used to do that.  Conversely, knowledge has also become a kind of odd, slippery slope, amoeba-like construct that merely serves as a convenience.  We were, as a nation, never afraid of knowing the facts.  Now, we live in a world of "alternative facts".

We used to have what we called national heroes.  Even if you did not follow or partake in an individual's field, they were still considered by many to be national heroes.  People like Joe DiMaggio and Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali and Wilma Rudolph, John F. Kennedy and George Washington, Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart, Pearl S. Buck, and many of the U.S. astronauts, to name a few.  There are people today who are inspiring, to be sure, but those highlighted here were people who inspired us as a nation, showed us the heights to which we could reach, made us proud of our country, and made us somehow feel better about the state of things.  What do we have now for the most part?  No national heroes, that's for sure.  What we have now are a lot of famous people.  The biggest and saddest example of this are people who are famous for being famous.  Sure, some of them do things, like starting charities that accomplish good, and that's fine, but their initial fame was never earned; it was simply given.  They were fillers for programming time, nothing more.  Their fame is purely manufactured.

Do we have no national heroes because of manufactured fame taking over or do we have manufactured fame because we have no national heroes?

We have become dismissive of things like "What our nation's founders said/did/thought about..." and old inspirational sayings and phrases.  While not everything from back then can be applied exactly today, we do not give a damn about what our founders said, did, and thought.  That is seen as nothing more than the stuff of history classes and that's where it should stay.  Inspirational sayings and phrases still inspire, but they, too, have been relegated to just making oneself feel better.

The concept of "American exceptionalism" has been co-opted.  It used to be a sense of exceptionalism that was not entrenched in arrogance and one-upmanship.  It was more based on our accomplishing more and better than others, akin to the slogan atop the World War II poster of Rosie the Riveter, "We can do it!".  It was striving for, and achieving.  It was pride in our country, plain and simple.  We were something that other peoples looked up to,  Don't get me wrong, many still look up to the United States to this day, but we were not simply better than the next person or country, however that was measured.  We were inspiring, both to others and to ourselves.  America in the twenty-first century has replaced American exceptionalism with nationalism: all of you are bad and we are good ... all of you are dumb and we are smart ... all of you are lesser people and we are better.  (Sadly, a wave of nationalism is happening in many other parts of the world, too.)  Dominance, a la some great conqueror, has been the cancerous tumor to national achievement and creativity.

Along those same lines, let me mention fear.  We have dove head first into the sea of fear, as if we have fallen overboard, as if we cannot swim, as if we do not have a life preserver or any kind of lifeline.  A close second place to showing fear, aside from fear itself, of course, is anger.  We have been permeated to a great extent by being fearful, along with an accompanying anger, as though being fearful and angry are normal.  If being angry all the time is not sustainable or healthy for an individual, how can it be sustainable or healthy for a nation?  The truth is it cannot.  The resulting question, then, is how long can we sustain that and how extensive will the damage from it be?

A great purveyor of fear is politics.  Mention the word "politics" to the average American citizen, and you are bound to get a variety of responses, most of them negative.  The word "politics" is derived from the Greek word "polis", which means "city-state", the standard community structure in ancient Greece.  The actual thing we call politics came from the concept of "polis" and the writings of Greek philosopher Aristotle on the subject in the fourth century B.C.   There have always been both good and bad elements in the world of politics, but politics in this country is no longer the work related to, of, or for the country (or to the city-state, as it were).  It is now a means by which the wealthy, or at least the financially well-off, serve themselves more than those they are supposed to represent.  Is it a means from which some good can come?  Yes, and it does, from time to time.  More and more, however, it is self-serving, divisive, and both socially and institutionally destructive.  To those politicians on local, state, and national levels who really do good works, I apologize, but you are caught up in a system that is, at its best, a joke.

And they wonder why the number of eligible voters actually voting is so low in this country.  Well, they wonder that publicly.  Privately, considering their self-serving interests, including keeping their jobs, they may not be nearly as concerned, just as long as they get re-elected.

The late comedian George Carlin once observed (in a televised special more than twenty years ago) the following about people complaining about politicians:
        "This is the best we can do, folks.  This is the best we can offer.  This is what our
        system produces: garbage in, garbage out.
        "Because if it's really just the fault of these politicians, then where are all the other
        bright people of conscience?  Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent
        Americans ready to step in and save the nation and lead the way?  We don't have
        any people like that in this country." 

Is he right?  Maybe.  I tend to think that one loses sight of their conscience with the acquisition of more and more money and power.  Are there some in politics who are, as I said, wealthy or financially well-off, who still have a conscience at the forefront of their minds?  Yes.  The problem is that there are far too few of them.  Clearly, having only those who are financially better off than most of us in power is ruining this country.  The words of the nineteenth century British historian Lord Acton come to mind here: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There are more things about which I could write, but let us look at the question that naturally arises: So, what do we do about all this?  The answer: stop doing this stuff.  Too simplistic?  Maybe it's too simplistic of an answer, but it is that simple ... IF you want it bad enough.  (That's the key.)  You stop this stuff by stopping this stuff.  Period.  If you do not stop, then it continues.  Still sounds too simplistic?  Maybe the societal "norm" of everything must be complicated, over-complicated, or just a total mess has an influence on you, too.  Ask yourself: If something is helpful, positive, curative, preventative, or maybe even empowering, would you stop it or continue it?  Then ask yourself if your answer is the same when talking about something being hurtful, negative, harmful, or discouraging.  Then apply those questions and your answers to the larger scale of an entire country.

I am only six years past a half-century of being alive.  That's a fraction of a fraction in terms of this country's history, a blip in terms of the history of all of humanity, and an even smaller blip in terms of the history of this planet, let alone the entire universe.  And yet, it's clear to me that things are not like they used to be ... and that is a damn shame.

Terry

Word of the Day: EVENTUALLY

In my last post, my 200th, I mentioned that I've written on the topic of gun violence here in America about a dozen-and-a-half times.  Sadly, I have another post today to add to that count.

On Friday, a school shooting took place at Santa Fe High School in Texas.  It resulted in ten persons killed -- nine students (one of them, an exchange student from Pakistan) and one teacher -- and another ten persons injured.  The shooter, a seventeen-year-old student at the school, is in custody.  His intention was to kill students and commit suicide. .Clearly, a troubled teen who took some of his father's guns with him to the school.

Texas senator Ted Cruz spoke powerfully against this horrific act at a press conference ... the same Ted Cruz who has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA and currently has an A+ rating from them.  Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's response was that schools should have only one entrance/exit and arming teachers .... more guns in schools.

The level of hypocrisy and stupidity in their statements is astounding.

With the news of the deaths at Santa Fe High School, came some shocking news.  In a recent report in The Washington Post newspaper, was the following sobering statistic:

There are now more students killed at school shootings 

this year than people killed while serving in the military.

Let that sink in.  We tend to think that lots of deaths occur in military operations.  Indeed, they do, but there have been, this year, more deaths here ... on our soil ... at our schools ... than in the military?  (And this year is not even half over!)  Could a goal of the death-for-profit crowd be to turn America into a war-torn piece of real estate?  Is the next move to have people bombing more and more buildings.  Will the ruins in cities like Aleppo, Raqqa, and Mosul eventually become the new norm in this country?  If that sounds far-fetched, consider the level of mental illness in this country and how it's addressed along with the ease of finding out how to make a bomb, all with the undercurrent of lax laws and law enforcement, and tell me just how far-fetched it really is?

And there are plenty of people around who are ready, willing, and able to take advantage of that ongoing perfect storm.

The Washington Post shared these graphs.  The first is the number of deaths from school shootings compared to the number of deaths in the military (both in-combat and not in-combat).

Compare the above graph to this one, showing the same comparison, but for all of last year.

And this graph, which shows comparisons among the number of deaths from 2000-2018 and among the number of shooting incidents for the same time period.

Seventeen-year-old Santa Fe High School student Paige Curry was interviewed after the shooting.  When asked if everything happening seemed unreal, she replied,

"It's been happening everywhere.

I've always kind of felt that, eventually,
it was going to happen here, too."

Eventually ...

This is what our youth is now thinking because Paige Curry is certainly not the only student in this country thinking that.  When I was in high school, we only had fire drills.  We even hoped we stood outside long enough to take up as much time as possible so that whatever period we were in at that time would be over.  (The other kids who were on their lunch period, though, were not as happy.)  My high school (or even elementary school, for that matter) never had a fire, so even though it certainly could have happened, it just seemed to us less likely.  That cannot be said for today's students.  When worrying about a test, your grades, and if your boyfriend/girlfriend was breaking up with you are no longer to biggest worries a student can have, but being killed is, normality has been ruined.  This is being normalized by referring to it as "the new normal".

"The new normal" is not normal.  It is abnormal.  It will always be abnormal.  And it must stop.

David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland shooting three months ago and outspoken activist member of the #NeverAgain movement, is someone who does not mince words when it comes to gun violence in America.  He immediately posted on Twitter in response to the shooting:

Sad to say, he is right.

Another Parkland survivor and #NeverAgain activist Emma Gonzalez also offered her words of support:

We are on a fast spiral downward to a world where schools are war zones ... no, not like war zones, literal war zones.  We must stop that from happening.  We can accomplish that only if we keep at it.  If we do, our schools will go back to being solely places of learning and not the last place our youth inhabits before their far-too-early funerals ...

... hopefully.

Terry

Ordinal Number of the Day: 200TH

Almost six years after the first post of this blog, today marks the 200th post.  These milestones amaze me -- marking, for example, both the fifth anniversary and passing 10,000 views last year -- since I did not think about such things when I started.  Never even considered it, but here it is.  I'd like to take a look back at a few stories I covered in the previous 199 posts.  It has been quite the spread of issues.

The name Richard Glossip may not ring a bell, but in 2015, his name was very much in the news.  In that year, Richard Glossip was scheduled to be put to death.  Eleven years earlier, he had been convicted of arranging the murder of Barry Van Tresse, Glossip's boss.  (Glossip was a hotel manager and Van Treese was the hotel's owner.)

Glossup had received a stay of execution that had expired, but then, in the light of some executions going horribly wrong, Governor Mary Fallin halted all executions.  The major dispute was the use of the drug Midazolam in executions causing unintended pain to the one being executed.  Sister Mary Prejean, whose work with inmates was highlighted in the 1995 film 'Dead Man Walking', has been one of Glossup's loudest defenders, even with the banner of the page on her 'Ministry Against the Death Penalty' website dedicated to the Richard Glossup case reading, "Richard Glossup Is Innocent". 

UPDATE:  To this day, Richard Glossup remains on Oklahoma's death row.  Read about Glossup's case here.

Sadly, we live in a world in which terrorism is a regular thing.  Additionally, sarcasm, and its written and/or published grown-up cousin, satire, can be a dangerous venture, especially when using it to make a point.  The two have clashed before, but in the first week of 2015, the clash took a deadly turn with the attack on the offices of France's satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.  Radical Muslim activists take great exception to the depiction of their prophet Mohammad in any manner, satirical or not, and often threaten violence and death in response.  Charlie Hebdo's offices had been firebombed in 2011, but on January 7, 2015, extremists stormed the offices and killed twelve. including two police officers, and wounding another eleven persons.  The extremists shouted, "The Prophet is avenged" and "Allahu akbar" (Arabic for "God is great") during the attack.  Massive protests against the attack arose in France, which gave rise to the saying "Je Suis Charlie" ("We are Charlie").

UPDATE:  Charlie Hebdo magazine continues publishing, undaunted, now in its thirty-seventh year.

In June of 2014, I posted a much more personal story.  The son of a friend of mine had gone missing.  Anthony Howell was stationed at the Army National Guard base, 11 Bravo, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after serving a nine-month tour near the Gaza Strip, when he went missing.  He was also suffering from PTSD after his time serving abroad.  He had been missing for three weeks when, just a week-and-a-half after my original post, he had been found.  His mother told me privately that my blog posts were a huge help in finding him. 

UPDATE:  Anthony Howell lives in Tennessee with his wife, Alexandra, and their eighteen-month-old daughter, Maisey.  He now works for disabled veterans as a Lead Mobility and Accessibility Technician, installing ramps, stair lifts and car lifts, as well as repairing wheelchairs and scooters.  His life has clearly turned around and I am so happy for him.

Having worked in retail in the past, I know how trying it can be for those so employed.  What I have noticed over several years is how much profits have become even more important, to the point of idolatry, to retailers, especially around the "holiday shopping season".  Specifically, how many more hours retailers can open their stores, forcing their employees to work or else face losing their job.

Growing up, Black Friday (the Friday after Thanksgiving Day) was when Santa first showed up at shopping centers and was the first day of the holiday shopping season that employees worked, not Thanksgiving Day.  In the only post title where I used not one, not two, but three phrases (Phrases of the Day: THANKSGIVING NEUTERED -- CHRISTMAS FORCED -- FAMILIES DEVALUED), I focused on how retailers are living out that idolatry of profits at the expense of its employees.  Read my 2013 post here. 

UPDATE:  Sadly, the earlier and earlier hours continue and show no signs of stopping.

Pipelines for the transport of crude oil have been a focus here.  Most notably, the Dakota Access Pipeline, where Native American tribes fought to stop to progress of building the pipeline across sacred lands and to avoid the possible tainting of the water supply, was in the news in 2016.  (The whole debacle began two years earlier, but hit a peak in news coverage in 2016.)  The pipeline was drawn to be built through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.  The stand taken up by Native American tribes at Standing Rock was covered by and joined by those who were not Native American, locals and celebrities alike.  Protesters were met by law enforcement with water cannons (with frigid temperatures), rubber bullets, and tear gas.

UPDATE:  Even after a 400,000-gallon leak last year, originally reported to be only half the size, the Dakota Access Pipeline continues to operate.

Earlier in 2016, another pipeline was causing similar concerns, with similar problems, south of the equator.  The Northern Peruvian Pipeline has caused problems with various water supplies, including the Amazon River, and ecosystem imbalances.  At the time I wrote about the pipeline (February 2016), there had been three oil spills in the course of just three months.  Another oil spill in August of that year shut down the pipeline until the following year. 

UPDATE:  As of February of this year, eighteen organizations representing many of Peru's indigenous peoples whose water supplies and personal health had been severely affected by pipeline leaks started a protest.  A workers' strike began on February 6, 2018, and was initially intended for seventy-two hours.  However, it was made to be "indefinite" due to little governmental response.  On February 9, river blockades along oil barge routes were put into place, including the capturing of a number of boats.  A key piece of the impasse is the strikers' demand that the Council of Ministers president Mercedes Aráoz to be present at negotiations not being agreed to by current Peruvian government officials, and all bids for clean-up operations have been rejected.

While negative affects on water supplies are part and parcel to the above stories about pipelines, a water supply crisis of a different kind rose to the top of the news in the earlier part of 2016.  The focus was on Flint, Michigan, a town of approximately 425,000 residents.  My three-part series, titled 'Parts Per Billion', focused on how the whole crisis came about via poorly-made, intentional choices by several public officials that resulted in raising lead levels in the water to dangerous levels.  Even though I wrote about it in 2016, the problem began two years earlier with the changing of from where the city's water would be drawn. 

UPDATE:  Last month, a free bottled water and water filters distribution program was ended by Governor Rick Snyder, who claimed the water in Flint was far better.  Residents of Flint do not believe the water supply is better, many citing the water pipelines have not been replaced as a basis for their distrust.

Gun violence has become all too commonplace in this country, to our national shame.  (Just yesterday, another school in Texas took place, with ten persons dead and ten injured.)  The latest writings on that here have been about the youth from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the #NeverAgain movement.  I have devoted nearly a dozen-and-a-half posts on the topic:
> a three-part series after the Aurora movie theater shooting,
> after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting,
> in response to a 2013 Washington Post report about nearly 100 children being killed by gunfire the year before,
> after the Charleston shooting at the Emmanuel AME Church,
> after the San Bernardino shooting,
> after the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando shooting,
> after the Las Vegas shooting,
> in the shadow of the Las Vegas shooting,
> my coining of the phrase "death-for-profit",
> my opinion piece on the distortion of the Second Amendment,
> my opinion piece on the idea: "They're coming for your guns",
> my opinion piece on the soul of this country and abuse of the Constitution,
> after the deadliest church shooting in U.S. history,
> my opinion piece on the idea of a "lone gunman",
> my opinion pieces on how the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School were let down by the state's legislature and by law enforcement,
> an example of how the NRA also targets not just politicians but also judicial candidates,
> regarding the National School Walkout and the March for Our Lives, both this past March

UPDATE:  Mass shootings are still legally allowed.

I have highlighted a number of films and videos on this blog, mostly documentaries.  Some of the topics covered include:
> the global consolidation of power ('Thrive: What in the World Will It Take?'),
> Robert McNamara's far-too-late opening up about his part in the start of the Vietnam War ('The Fog of War'),
> a benefit blues concert that celebrated the 100th anniversary of the blues ('Lightning in a Bottle'),
> the events on and following 9/11 possibly being a deception ('The Anatomy of a Great Deception'),
> how global banking/finance and politics are relegating more and more people into poverty ('Four Horsemen'),
> the story behind the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 ('Tora, Tora, Tora: The True Story of Pearl Harbor'),
> Robert Reich's short video on how to identify a tyrant ('7 Signs of a Tyrant'),
> the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which tends to get overlooked because of 9/11, on the 25th anniversary back in February of this year ('Minute by Minute: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing').

Death is a part of life, and I have covered some famous deaths over the course of these posts.  Those I have covered include singer/songwriter/actor David Bowie, comedian/director/actor/philanthropist Jerry Lewis, apartheid prisoner/South African President Nelson Mandela, legendary actor Peter O'Toole, actor/comedian Robin Williams, blues legend B.B. King, and the very high number of celebrity deaths in 2016.

Even with all of this, it feels as though I have only scratched the surface.  And so, on this 200th post, I say much has been written and more will be. 

Terry

Word of the Day: QUESTIONS

Special Counsel in the Russia investigation Robert Mueller has questions.  Robert Mueller has lots of questions.  Robert Mueller has lots of questions for President Donald Trump.

Recently, The New York Times newspaper released a long list of questions that the Special Counsel is anxious to get answered by the President.  It now appears, by reporting in the Washington Post newspaper, that the questions were likely leaked by a member of President Trump's personal legal team, Jay Sekulow, and are a list of questions Sekulow (and/or others) believe Mueller will want to ask the President.  Let's take a look at this lengthy list:

The first group is related to former National Security Advisor (for all of about two-and-a-half weeks), Michael Flynn:
What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?  Flynn called Kislyak regarding sanctions against Russia, urging little to no reaction.
What was your reaction to news reports (revealing Flynn's phone calls to Kislyak) on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?  Was Trump worried about Flynn having broken the law and thus wanted to shield him?
What did you know about Sally Yates’s meetings about Mr. Flynn (possibly being vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians)?  What exactly President Trump knew about these warnings has never been clearly articulated.

How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?  Flynn remained on the job as National Security Advisor for more than two weeks, resigning on February 13, 2017, instead of being fired immediately.

After the resignation, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?  Trump's lawyers began to raise the possibility of a presidential pardon after it was disclosed Flynn might cooperate with Mueller's investigation.


The next group of questions, perhaps not surprisingly the longest list, deals with former F.B.I. Director James Comey:

What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?  Trump had only good things to say about James Comey, except regarding his handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation.  Trump publicly stated to NBC News anchor Lester Holt a year ago that the Russian investigation, not the Hillary Clinton investigation, was part of his reasoning for firing Comey.

What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?  That briefing included American intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

What was your reaction to Mr. Comey’s briefing that day about other intelligence matters?  Here, the focus would be on what is called the Steele Dossier, compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which suggested Russia had collected dirt on Donald Trump.

What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?  Comey has stated that, at that dinner, Trump wanted Comey to pledge his loyalty to him.  Comey said he would be honest with the President, eschewing the word "loyalty".

What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?  At that meeting, Comey testified that the President said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," and that he interpreted that as a kind of directive or strong suggestion.

What did you know about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey’s testimony on March 20, 2017?  Did Comey's investigation into Trump family members possibly working with Russia have anything to do with Trump's firing of Comey?

What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony (of James Comey)?  Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.  The Washington Post had reported that Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence for the U.S., was asked by Trump to try and get Comey to back off the Russia investigation.

What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?  Does Mueller already have information about this and wants to see what the President will say?

What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?  Comey has said Trump asked him twice, in phone calls, to say he was not under investigation publicly.  

What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to [Fox Business Network's Wall Street and financial host] Maria Bartiromo?  Trump told Bartrimono that he had no problems with James Comey, even though he had previously stated that Comey was fired for publicly discussing the Clinton investigation.

What did you think and do about Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017, testimony?  Comey was fired six days after giving detailed testimony about his handling of the Clinton investigation.

When was the decision to fire James Comey made, why was it made, and who played a role in it?  This is likely another compare-what-he-says-to-others question.

What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?  In an Oval Office meeting with Russian U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russian envoy Sergey Lavrov a year ago, with no American press present, Trump said, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I.  He was crazy, a real nut job.  I faced great pressure because of Russia.  That’s taken off."  (We only learned about it from Russian news media reports later.)

What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?  This was the first time Trump said the Russia Investigation had something to do with the firing of James Comey.

What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?  Trump tweeted, "James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!"

What did you think about Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?  Comey said that Trump was preoccupied with the Russia investigation.

What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?  Comey's testimony was being characterized as false and that the Department of Justice should investigate him.

What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?  This likely relates to ongoing intent on the President's part with regard to the Russia investigation.


U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is also an area of inquiry for Robert Mueller:

What did you think and do regarding the recusal (from anything regarding the Russia investigation) of Mr. Sessions?  Trump has publicly criticized, and (according to The New York Times) privately humiliated, Jeff Sessions because of his recusal from the Russia investigation.  

What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?  The New York Times reported that Trump tried to get White House Counsel Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing himself -- he was unsuccessful -- and that Trump wanted an Attorney General to protect him.

Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?  (Going back to the previous question...)  Trump has cited Robert F, Kennedy and Eric Holder being loyal to their respective presidents (John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama), and how he respects that loyalty.

What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the Special Counsel?  Trump has blamed Jeff Sessions' recusal as the reason for Mueller's appointment as Special Counsel.  (How ironic it is to be asking the one being questioned about yourself!)

Why did you hold Mr. Sessions’ resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?  Trump ultimately refused Jeff Sessions' resignation, likely on the advice of some of his aides.  (Note here that Mueller already has sworn testimony of those aides' accounts of what happened.)

What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation, and with whom did you discuss it?  Another comparative question, as Mueller already has testimony from Reince Priebus about this.

What discussions did you have regarding terminating the Special Counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported on in January 2018?  The New York Times reported that Trump wanted White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, which McGahn refused to do.  (Just last month, The New York Times also reported that Trump made the same push again in December of last year.)  

What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?  Trump slung a number of attacks at Jeff Sessions, months after his recusal.

Finally, the topic of the Trump campaign's involvement with Russia is included:

When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting? The now infamous meeting that included Donald Trump, Jr. (who said, "I love it," at acquiring dirt on Hillary Clinton), Jared Kushner, Trump Campaign Advisor Paul Manafort, Russian lawyer (and now also Russian informant) Natalia Veselnitskaya, and several others, certainly points to a quid pro quo scenario being set up.

What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?  Trump drafted a false public statement about the meeting after The New York Times wrote about the meeting taking place.  

During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?  Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov and his father Aras Agalarov (a Russian billionaire real estate developer with ties to the Kremlin) were among those who arranged the Trump Tower meeting.  Could Trump and Aras Agalarov both being wealthy real estate developers have any significance here?

What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?  Here, Mueller is focusing on the failed attempt at building a Trump Tower in Russia during the 2000's.

What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin?  Did you discuss it with others?  While there are several known examples of Trump and Putin subordinates trying to arrange meetings between the two men, any direct involvement in those arrangements by Trump is still unknown.

What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?  This is part of investigating why Trump remained silent and acquiescent regarding Vladimir Putin, even praising him, during his presidential campaign.

What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?  Another possible comparative question, since it has been reported that the Trump campaign forced the Republican National Committee to soften and/or remove language in its 2016 Republican National Convention platform condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?  Trump acted publicly as though he had heard about Russia's hacking Democratic National Party E-mails through the news media and Wikileaks.  It turns out that one member of his presidential campaign, George Papadopoulos received information that Russia had hacked some compromising E-mails related to Hillary Clinton.  Not likely he kept that information to himself.

What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?  Again, a potential compare-what-he-says-to-others question ... and clearly a big one.

What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?  Trump has publicly praised Wikileaks -- "I love Wikileaks!" -- and Stone, who was officially with the Trump campaign for a short time, is supposed to have worked with Wikileaks regarding hacking Hillary Clinton E-mails. 

What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?  It was Jared Kushner's suggestion to establish back channels, which included -- get this -- the Trump campaign's use of secured telephones inside the Russian U.S. embassy.  (The idea was rejected.)

What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving [Blackwater USA founder] Erik Prince?  Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, arranged the meeting between Erik Prince and a Russian investor with ties to Vladimir Putin.  The reason for the meeting is already known to Mueller through testimony of an adviser to the Crown Prince.

What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?  Michael Cohen has publicly stated that he never discussed the peace proposal with Trump.

Robert Mueller's questions are not limited to these, and he can certainly expand on these questions.  Just by the nature of these questions and the areas they cover, Special Counsel Robert Mueller clearly feels he needs to head in a certain direction ... and that direction includes collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia to usurp an American presidential election in Trump's favor. 

This may be why Trump wanted to have Hillary Clinton's campaign investigated for illegally affecting the election results, even with him winning the election!

Yes, Robert Mueller has lots of questions for President Trump.  So do we.  He wants answers.  So do we.  This country deserves answers.  I truly hope Special Counsel Mueller will get to ask President Trump these questions, and any others he sees fit.

Terry