Sitting to Stand

     San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick is sitting through the playing of the national anthem before his games to claim his solidarity with people who are treated unequally and unjustly in America.  Kaepernick said:

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

     It’s a gutsy, passive protest.  By beginning his protests during the preseason when the team could have cut him, he risked his career.  The NFL could have fined him for conduct that was deemed financially or critically damaging to the league.  He risked harm to his personal reputation and his personal safety.  But, Kaepernick embraced his Constitutional right to free speech and sat.

     The 49ers coach, Chip Kelly, stood by Kaepernick, telling reporters his quarterback’s action is “his right as a citizen” and “it's not my right to tell him not to do something.”  San Francisco 49ers teammate Eric Reid and the Seattle Seahawks’ Jeremy Lane supported Kaepernick and subsequently declined to stand for the national anthem as well.

     Readers might ask why I am bringing this up in a political blog.  I am highlighting this issue because it demonstrates one of the fundamental perceptual rifts in our society.

     On the one hand, people who never experienced systematic discrimination often react angrily to Black Lives Matter protesters.  They may blame the victims of police shootings and believe media excuses that victims had alleged gang affiliations, criminal backgrounds, or “reached for a gun” rather than a wallet.  They fail to note later media reports correcting initial false information, seldom ponder injustice, and simply go on with their grumpy day.

     On the other hand, there are people who have experienced injustice.  Women who know they are receiving a lower wage than their male coworkers know injustice.  People of color who were pulled over by police because they were driving at night know injustice.  Sick, working poor people who were denied Medicaid because they “earn too much” know injustice.  People in inner cities who live at the dead end of low-wage jobs due to inadequate elementary educations know injustice.  These people may live in resentful silence knowing discrimination is alive and well in America.

     These fast-moving, diametrically opposed perceptual undercurrents fuel voter decisions.  The choices people make about whether they will vote and for whom they will vote cannot be quantified by pollsters who want to predict how voters will express their emotional realities on Election Day.  We could predict a sports figure would take a public position on current events.  We could predict people would oppose and disagree with the sports’ figure’s position.  But, we still cannot imagine the impact.

     In closing, I will do something I have never done in this blog.  In my non-blogging time, I write poetry.  (http://chairthelyonkramer.tumblr.com/).  Here’s to you, Colin.  Fight the good fight.

Sitting to Stand

A half black man sits down on a bench

And stands for all people police have shot down

In fear and unbefitting no crime.

A man with grace and athletic elegance.

A man with a college degree and a fat paycheck.

A man who became what he is today,

He is a man with a right to sit and stay.

What is more American than this protest?

Risking health and reputation and career

He stands for his countrymen by sitting down.

You so-called fans have no right to stop him.

You, armchair critics who send a football player

This latter day gladiator

Out to the grids on a Sunday

To lay down his body for your entertainment.

You want him to stand because you say so

Like all of the American Negros in our nation?

“Stand up! Roll over! Play dead!”

You make his point with your condemnation.

Mr. Man, sit where you can

Sit down, sir, please, and make your stand.

A Word About the 24-Hour News Cycle

     As a long-time political junkie, I have, at times, rolled out of bed at five and started my day by flipping news channels.  CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS. Click, click, click.  Invariably, the national news lead stories were always the same with a slightly different spin.  If you've seen three in eight minutes, you've seen them all.

     For the past several weeks, I did a little experiment.  I tuned in to some of those cable news programs where a panel is assembled to discuss the political news of the day.  Honestly, I couldn't handle it. As readers can imagine from my blogger silence, the exercise rendered me speechless,

     For hours every evening, grown professional men and women barely control themselves, take sides like children in a divorce, and talk over one another to say... What, exactly?  More often than not, it seemed the "news" panel was reporting on itself.  I'm still not sure that I caught anything resembling reasoned journalistic commentary.

     Call me old school.  News is supposed to be informative.  We are supposed to receive the who, what where, when and how about local, national, and international events.  It is our responsibility to tease out the impact of these events on our lives and our communities. Having a bunch of panelists screeching simultaneously across the space of two desks is neither informative nor entertaining to this writer.  This kind of programming feels like very irresponsible journalism.

     Therefore, I am returning to the comparative solitude of reading my news.  If I wish to know what a candidate said in a speech I will use the power of the Internet to obtain a transcript.  I will read stories from a plethora of information sources with various interpretations of the same events and then decide for myself what impact (if any) a single event will have without the interruption of eight people screaming in the background.  I have returned to a state of political junkie bliss.

     I hope you all know how much I appreciate folks who read.  Thank you for taking the time to read me.

     Now, there is a big, fat, contentious presidential election at hand and it's high time that I got back to writing about the significance of local social and economic factors' impacts on who and how we select leaders.

 

A Redefining Moment

    No doubt, readers have noticed my conspicuous quietness regarding the Democratic candidates in this election cycle.  I am breaking my silence today.

As harshly critical as I have been of many Republicans in this blog, it may shock you that I am not and never have been a registered Democrat.  Philosophically, I am a centrist.  To me, extremism is dangerous territory.  Like the wilderness of geographical fringes, political fringes often are inhabited by people with wild ideas and few solutions.

     The folks who disturb me most are hypocrites who thumb their noses at the Constitution, rattle sabers, and use a twisted shield of “traditional values” to deflect “inconvenient” laws.  I also take umbrage to extremist leftists who burn and pillage in the name of “social justice.”  While I do not personally wear mink or support industries that negligently kill whales and cut down rain forests, assault or vandalism masquerading as protest is still a crime.  Without the courage to even show their faces, the fact that anarchists cannot organize a sentence let alone a political platform is a bonus.

     After reading a lot about moderates and centrists I realize that I fit the demographic precisely.  I am middle-aged, Caucasian, female, college educated, and socially tolerant.  I favor renewable energy and infrastructure investment, moderately conservative economic policies, and am politically engaged.

     Of all the candidates who ran in the GOP primary, I liked John Kasich best for his soft-spoken, moderate platform and his tenacity.  When it came to the Democratic primary, I had a harder time choosing a favorite.

     I admire Bernie Sanders, but with his “socialist history" I never anticipated that he would go as far as he did.  The announcement of his candidacy was completely unusual.  He stepped out of the Senate, told a throng of reporters he was running for President, looked at his watch, turned, and went back to work.  But, his legislative record is impressive.  His confrontation of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was epic.  His campaign message and crowd appeal was stunning.  For example, in my former home of Seattle, he packed the 17,000 seat Key Arena in early March. When 5,000 people had to be turned away, he returned two weeks later and filled the 47,000 seat Safeco Field.  His speeches and his platform were passionate, inclusive, progressive and incredibly appealing to a “No Party Preference” voters like me.

     Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, on the other hand, was a forgone conclusion.  If ever there was a time for her to make a successful bid for the Presidency it is now.  Her experiences as a Senator and Secretary of State make her the most qualified person who has ever run for the office of President, bar none.  I have absolute respect for her as a public servant.

     But, I worry about her political stock.  She continues to be the target for so much opposition, I have privately defined Clinton as “a s—t magnet.”  Opponents have tied her to the worst parts of her husband’s personal history.  She is smeared with gender bias, is said to “represent the status quo,” and is as despised by some as the terrorists who killed our diplomatic family in Benghazi.  Only Hillary Clinton could be targeted for a vindictive investigation regarding emails.  Meanwhile, adversaries deny her amazing tenacity, education, political acumen, and the broad international esteem she earned as Secretary of State.

     Clinton is respectable, but she is not viewed as likable.  She was part of the Obama administration, but she does not get to carry the same warm feelings of “hope and change.”  Not only is Clinton offering voters a thoughtful, moderate platform, she also presents a clearly defined path to accomplishing her goals.  With all that we know of Clinton, her record, her platform, and her tenacity, why is she still being treated as an unknown political quantity?

     Hillary Clinton is a woman.  Our basic human nature wants to put new concepts and items into “boxes” so we can compare new things to more familiar things.  There is no comparable, comforting box for a female United States President.

     As always, Hillary Clinton is defining herself.  American voters will either see or deny who she is and what she stands for.  Clinton likely will become America’s first female president.  A woman in the Oval Office most certainly will redefine for America and the world the strength and ability of women everywhere.

     Based solely on Clinton’s qualifications I support her bid for President.  As a woman, I look forward to the self-defining moment when the leader of my nation finally looks like me.

Part III: The Urgency of 1,826

This is the third in a three-part series written in response to three tragic events in America which began July 5, 2016.

“An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.”

-- Governor John Bel Edwards, Louisiana

     The 24-hour news cycle shifted away from the deadly July 4^th week and even more recent police killings in Baton Rouge.  Not talking about deadly force and retaliation does not make the problem go away.  Between January, 2015 and July 15 of this year a total of 1,719 Americans were killed by law enforcement officers.  This year 107 law enforcement officers have died on the job.

     The British-based Guardian news agency and their open-ended report “The Counted” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings) not only tallies the number of deadly force incidents, but also analyzes the data to provide breakdowns by race, age, cause, the victims’ armed or unarmed status, and several other important factors.  Readers, PLEASE READ “THE COUNTED.”  This information is incredibly important because raw facts speak louder than American reporters, protests, Tweets, and knee-jerk responses by elected and appointed officials.

     This excellent journalism when compared to the FBI’s attempts to operate a database capable of similar functions prompted FBI Director James B. Comey to call the federal operation, “embarrassing and ridiculous.”  Rather than relying on public news reports and independent fact-checking as journalists do, the FBI relies upon the voluntary (not compulsory) reporting of America’s 18,000 policing agencies.  Clearly, if federal agencies cannot even look at facts there is no chance of proactive prevention or external oversight of the police departments with the highest per capita and/or total rates of deadly force.

     Here are some revelations from “The Counted”.  First, be aware the data for 2016 changes daily.  On December 31, 2015, The Guardian reported the total number of deaths by police use of deadly force in 2015 was 1,134.  The vast majority (89%) of fatal civilian injuries were gunshot wounds.  The remaining deaths involved Tasers (4%), physical altercations in custody (4%) and being hit by a police vehicle (3%).  Police most often responded with deadly force in cases involving domestic violence (21%), attempts to serve a warrant or apprehend a known fugitive (16%), traffic stops (14%), violent crimes (13%) and non-violent crimes (7%).  Only 18 of these incidents resulted in criminal charges against the officers. Another 255 incidents were ruled “justifiable” homicides.

     The raw total associated with the racial composition of deadly force victims was surprising in that more white people were killed by police than were other races.  But, African Americans are rightfully alarmed.  Blacks comprise approximately 12.9 percent of the total U.S. population and black men age 15-34 represent a mere two percent of the total U.S. population.  Therefore, it is shocking that young black males accounted for 17% of the victims of deadly force.  More dreadful is the fact that 25% of those black men were unarmed.

     These facts, when taken in context, point to a terrible dilemma for police.  Law enforcement personnel have a very dangerous job.  Police are now targets for armed retaliation.  On a daily basis they deal with people who have a history of violence and who present a danger to the public.  Police must act in the moment, using their training and professional judgement in a split second.  In most cases, police use proper procedure and protocol to protect innocent victims from harm.  They are heroes.

     Incidents that draw the most public protest and scrutiny are those which involve police who failed to follow training, directives, and protocol.  As was the case with Philando Castile, police draw weapons for no imaginable reason and later try to explain it away by saying the victim “matched the description of a person of interest.”  The public is further infuriated when an “internal investigation” performed by the officer’s coworkers concludes the officer did the right thing.  After all, how could the mirror lie?

     Because dash cams “fail” routinely and body cameras are (mis)used at the discretion of the errant officers, I applaud cellphone camera witnesses.  Police spokespeople have demonized these citizen photographers then leveled threats at the same witnesses who uploaded videos of police brutality to social media sites to protect themselves.  Witnesses must “lawyer up” to maintain control of their videos because they are afraid the truth will be buried.  Mayors, governors and Presidents need to have the same courage when it comes to the truth about police departments.

     We can talk all day about poverty, race, and gun control; but the missing element in halting police brutality is effective external oversight.  Cities, counties, states and the FBI all are embarrassed by their lack of information and inability to manage departments that are out of control.  Amidst the old standard of internal review, local and federal leaders are wrongly made to feel guilty for examining work environments that condone violence.  For victims and survivors of deadly force, leaders need to grab the reigns and grow a spine.  This isn’t about the 99 percent of great police officers who never draw their weapons.  This is about systems that allow one percent of bad cops to be bad.

     At a point in our history when British newspapers and cellphone cameras are documenting exactly what individual police officers are doing, it is clear that the age of the incident report and internal investigation is over.  The number of citizens and police who have died in America as a direct result or as a retaliation for deadly force will exceed 2,000 before the end of this year.  Citizen lives matter.  Law enforcement lives matter.  The loss of 1,826 lives is an emergency.

     We, as a nation, are hungry for change.  Change is not an event, but a process that begins with our willingness.  Let us build upon our common sense of urgency and have the courage to innovate and find solutions that begin with honest communication.  Let us find the will to build America’s future on a peaceful path rather than a bloody street.

Part II: In Silence

This is the second in a three-part series written in response to three tragic events in America which began July 5, 2016.

“The truth is that the police reflect America in all of its will and fear…”

 -- Ta-Nehisi Coates

Let me say unequivocally that I am horrified by the senseless murders of Dallas’s law enforcement officers.  I hold police and members of the military in the same high regard.  For most of us, even when we are angry about the actions of a few, we also know the majority of police personnel are good people with a dangerous job.  The shootings of Dallas law enforcement officers by a U.S. Army Reservist has agonized me.

The Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas on Thursday, July 7 was peaceful.  Approximately 800 citizens came to voice anger and sadness over the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile on Tuesday and Wednesday.  Marchers were chaperoned by 100 Dallas Police Department and Dallas Area Rapid Transit security officers who protected protesters from motorists, opportunistic anarchists, and people in opposition of their cause.  Officers were prepared for insults, prepared for someone throwing a rock, and trained for crowd containment.  A lone sniper was the last thing on anyone’s mind.

Micah Xavier Johnson, a 25-year-old former U.S. Army Reservist and an aide worker for mentally challenged children, began shooting from an “elevated platform” at 8:58 p.m.  Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said Johnson fired from several floors of a building near the protest route.  Unsure of the origin of the shooting, many officers rushed into intersections and became targets.  The first police victim returned fire, took cover behind a pillar at an intersection, and was killed by multiple gunshots at point blank range.  In all, Johnson killed five officers and injured seven officers and two protesters.

Twelve officers reportedly returned fire, wounding Johnson.   Police followed Johnson’s blood trail to a parking garage where they negotiated with him for hours before detonating an explosive to kill him.  He reportedly said he was motivated by anger and revenge against white police who killed black men.  Johnson apparently had internalized the message of African American Defense League founder Mauricel-lei Millere who has repeatedly called for violence against police “across the land.”

Former classmates at John Horn High School in the Dallas suburb of Mesquite were “flabbergasted” by what they perceived to be a drastic change in Johnson’s personality.  He was remembered as an easy-going, smart, funny teenager who socialized effortlessly with white students in his high school.  He was involved with junior ROTC and joined the Army Reserve in March, 2009 prior to graduation.  He lived with his mother in their quiet neighborhood until he died.  He had no history of violence.  He had no criminal record.

Johnson’s troubles began to surface when he was serving an eight-month tour of duty in Afghanistan from November, 2013 to July, 2014.  He was a carpentry and masonry specialist who never saw combat.  He also reportedly was accused of sexual harassment by a female Army soldier.  According to his attorney, Bradford Glendening, Johnson’s behavior was so “egregious” the woman sought an order of protection which asked that Johnson “receive mental help.”

Glendening said the Army initiated proceedings to oust Johnson with a less-than-honorable discharge, a move he described as unusually harsh.  “They didn’t like him,” said Glendening.  “That was very clear from talking to his commander.”  Johnson returned to Texas where he continued as a reservist until April, 2015 when he was honorably discharged.

So, what was happening in his mind?  Several mental illnesses manifest in one’s late teens and early 20’s including schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder.  The onset of these illnesses may be sudden. More often, onset is gradual and defies diagnosis particularly in teens and young adults who already are emotionally erratic due to physical changes and the stresses of growing up.  Friends and family may have ignored the excitement of an early manic episode or explained away minor depression as “a case of the blues.”

Maybe Johnson did not have symptoms of mental illness.  Was Johnson suddenly tipped over the edge when he was away from home for the first time in a place where nearby mortar explosions created an environment of constant fear?  Did he become obsessed with a female soldier?  Was his ego crushed when she rebuffed inappropriate advances?  Did the Army that he joined as a high school senior break him by labeling him “less than honorable?”  In a combat zone, stress reactions are normal.  Military personnel practice using deadly force until the aggression feels normal.  Did the confluence of undiagnosed mental illness and military life break him or did he think that what he was feeling was normal?

The year 2014 marked a turning point for Johnson.  His Army accuser saw a person in need of mental healthcare.  An unnamed friend reportedly said Johnson began to watch film of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles over, and over, after returning from Afghanistan.  Neighbors noticed he was practicing shoot-and-scoot maneuvers every day in his backyard.  How did this young man’s increasingly worrisome behavior escape intervention?

The answer lies in the stigmas associated with mental health care and the individual isolation linked with undiagnosed/untreated mental conditions.  Johnson had a job; but after work, he was alone.  Seeking mental health care particularly in military organizations is stigmatized as a weakness.  Coming from that environment, Johnson may have internalized this message.  His distress may have been compounded by an inability to realize his confusion and mood swings were not “normal” but symptoms of a treatable medical condition.  Expressing his troubling thoughts and feelings to friends or coworkers surely would have jeopardized his social life and his job.  Although Johnson had a Facebook presence, his “friends” likely knew nothing of the man’s inner struggle.  Essentially, Johnson was able to slip into a world of murderous rage because he was invisible.

Our mental healthcare systems failed Micah Johnson just as surely as they failed Dallas, Omar Mateen, Orlando, Tashfeen Maleek, and San Bernardino.  There is no question that bigotry and terrorism threaten public safety, but isn’t insanity the greatest risk?  These killers are no longer a threat, but what of the rest of the invisible souls who twist in feelings of rage and despair waiting to break and act and ultimately die at the hands of the brave police who protect us daily?

Part I: The Unwritten Laws of Being Black

This is the first in a three-part series written in response to

three tragic events in America which began July 5, 2016.

“There ain’t a white man in this room that would change places with me. None of you. None of you would change places with me, and I’m rich.”

-- Chris Rock, 1999

The first time I heard comedian Chris Rock utter the line above I did not laugh.  For this white woman raised in an upper middle-class home, the truth was like a kick to the head.  Not once in the history of African descendants in America has it ever been safe to be a black man.  This week’s shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana underlined that fact again.

The first shooting occurred Tuesday in Baton Rouge, LA.  Alton Sterling, 37, was selling CD’s outside the Triple S Food Mart when Officers Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake responded to an anonymous 911 call saying Sterling was making threats with a gun.  Cell phones began to record the tragedy as officers arrived.  Video shows Sterling being thrown against a police vehicle, being tasered, being thrown against a second vehicle, then being tackled and pinned to the ground.  Someone shouted, “Gun!” and Sterling was shot six times.  It was not until he lay dying on the ground that officers removed an object from his pants pocket.  Sterling’s hands were empty.  Though his probationary status temporarily prohibited from carrying a firearm under Louisiana’s open carry law, the victim apparently felt he needed protection.

On Wednesday in Falcon Heights, MN, a suburb of St. Paul, Philando Castile, 32, was pulled over by Saint Anthony Officer Jeronimo Yanez reportedly for “a busted tail light.”  Castile told the officer he had a weapon and a permit to carry it.  He then reportedly reached for his license and registration and the officer fired four bullets into his chest as he remained seated in his vehicle.  Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, used her cell phone to stream what followed live on Facebook.  Castile died before the eyes of the world as Reynolds calmly and respectfully assured the officer she would keep her hands right where they were.  The video shows Castile’s hands were empty.

In the aftermath of their deaths, false stories circulated that both Sterling and Castile had gang affiliations.  According to his police record, Sterling had to register as a Level 1 sex offender following an incident when he was 21.  He also was found guilty of a domestic assault and drug possession.  According to Minnesota court records, Castile was found guilty of 31 traffic-related misdemeanors including driving without proof of insurance, not wearing a seatbelt, and parking tickets.  If these men were white, no one would ever raise the specter of gang affiliation unless they had swastika tattoos on their skinheads. These African American men were not gang members.

These murder victims were imperfect humans, contributing members of society, and fathers of young children.  Sterling reportedly was living in a half-way house, getting his life back on track after serving his sentence for domestic assault.  Castile was a nutrition services supervisor at the J.J. Hill Montessori Magnet School where he served meals to 500 children with “patience and a friendly demeanor.”

Castile’s case is particularly troubling.  It is clear from his 31 traffic-related tickets that he was a victim of police harassment for a very long time.  Authorities stopped him repeatedly because he was “driving while black.”  This appears to have been the case on the day of his death as well.  While the officer cited the reason for the traffic stop as “a busted tail light,” the stop was made in broad daylight when the fully functioning tail light (photographed by witnesses) was not a safety factor.

How often are black men treated like this by police?  When a white man drives a newer model car in a lawful manner, no one notices.  When a black man does the same thing, officers decide the matter requires further investigation.

Why?

In America, black men are not supposed to succeed.  From the substandard elementary school classroom, to the poverty of a single-parent home, to the “loitering” charge leveled upon the teenager who goes to hang out with his friends until 10:01 on a school night, everything is stacked against African American males from birth.  The assumption of criminality is stamped on every black child who reaches puberty by police officers everywhere.  For many urban black boys, a marijuana conviction is practically a rite of passage.  If a youth is white, that first dime bag comes with a suspended sentence.  For a black kid, the precipitous fall into a life marked by economic insecurity accelerates when he has to serve 60 percent of a 30-day sentence.

Alton Sterling wasn’t brandishing a gun, he was selling CD’s while being black.  Philando Castile was not driving a broken car.  He was pulled over for having a car.  The unwritten laws of prejudice permit African American men to be systematically punished for the small successes in life that white people take for granted.  Both men were deemed “dangerous” by police because they exercised their legal right to carry a firearm.  Both men were sentenced to death for violating the greatest of the unwritten laws for being black:  In claiming the Constitutional right to bear arms, they were equal.

Chris Rock was right.  All the money in the world cannot make a white person wish for a lifetime in the deadly shadow of the unwritten laws of bigotry.

The Company He Keeps

In presidential voting years we choose a candidate, in part, by his or her alliances and by the kinds of people they attract.  For example, a socially conservative voter would often be offended by a candidate who attracts members of the LGBT community, protesters who burn flags, and extremist environmentalists.  Likewise, a left-leaning voter would not approve of a candidate who attracts people who condone racial injustice, the limiting of women’s health care options, or who deny global warming.

At various times candidate Donald Trump and his allies have criticized Democratic Party candidates for their stances on marriage equality and abortion.  Likewise, candidate Hillary Clinton has condemned Trump for his comments on Hispanics, Muslims, and women.  While the media has focused negative attention on the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, an equal amount of attention has been placed on the actions of skin heads around Trump rallies.

However, the media has been almost eerily quiet on Trump’s personal relationship with billionaire investor and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  The 63-year old is a former Bear Stearns financier who formed his own investment firm, J. Epstein & Company, in 1982.

In March, 2005, a Florida woman contacted Palm Beach police to report Epstein paid her 14-year-old daughter $300 to go to his mansion, strip and massage him.  This allegation resulted in an 11-month investigation and a search of Epstein’s home in which authorities reportedly found photos of nude girls and a camera system allegedly set up to record the sex acts of prominent house guests for the purposes of blackmail.  The investigation resulted only in a single conviction of solicitation of a minor and an 18-month sentence.  Epstein served 13 months and was required to register as a Level 3 sex offender.

In 2008, a 19-year-old Jane Doe from Virginia filed a $50 million civil suit in federal court alleging that three years earlier Epstein solicited her for a massage at his home, had intercourse with her and paid her $200.  Many suits followed and most were dismissed; however, Epstein reportedly has made 17 out-of-court settlements in suits citing similar allegations involving women who were minors at the time of their interactions with Epstein.

One pro per law suit filed in California by a woman named Katie Johnson, was dismissed for technical errors in May 2016 and refiled (with counsel) in New York in June.  This law suit stands out because it does not only name Epstein as a codefendant who allegedly held the plaintiff as a sex slave and raped her at his New York home in 1994 when she was 13 years old.  The other defendant named in this case is Donald Trump.

Trump immediately denied the “perverted and depraved sex acts” alleged in the suit.  (Read it here https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen ).  He stated the charges were:

“…not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated…  There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

Though the allegations are 22 years old and long past the 5-year statute of limitations for such complaints, the suit may be allowed due to the plaintiff’s fear and duress.  The suit states: “Both defendants let plaintiff know that … they had means to carry out their threats.”  Trump is alleged to have threatened that if she reported the incidents involving him “her family would be physically harmed if not killed.”  Interestingly, while the first of this plaintiff’s filings asked for $100 million, the second filing specifies no dollar amount.  It is not financially motivated.  Even more interestingly, this is not a matter of she said, they said.  This plaintiff’s lawsuit includes a corroborating eyewitness statement by “Tiffany Doe” who recruited adolescent females for Epstein’s parties and brought the plaintiff to the party with a promise of a modeling career.

Trump should have distanced himself from Epstein long, long ago when the criminal charges and law suits began to pile up.  Trump has been making political noises for almost a decade, now.  Rather than having the good sense to cut ties with a Level 3 sex offender, Trump verbally gave Epstein an atta boy.  A few years ago Trump reportedly said: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.  No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Terrific guys.  Peas in a pod.  In the presidential vetting process we can learn lots of unsavory things about people.  This lengthy candidacy process is a tradition in America for this very reason.  After election, a sitting President can be impeached for the crimes of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  While impeachment procedures have begun, no sitting president has been impeached… yet.

My guess is that if Trump were elected, he could be the first.  Given the charges that have been revealed in his vetting process, Congress will have a selection of crimes to choose from.