The main Democratic impeachment charge against US president Donald Trump is simple: Trump attempted to pressure and/or bribe the president of Ukraine to investigate a political opponent (Joe Biden), House impeachment managers say, both for corrupt motives (to win re-election) and in violation of the law (by withholding congressionally appropriated aid).

On fact and law, the Democrats’ case is air tight. Trump publicly confessed to the actions in question, and the Government Accountability Office’s report on those actions concludes that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

That leaves Team Trump with three defenses:

First, that the Constitution imbues the president with near-complete power over foreign policy and that this is therefore a mere matter of policy disagreement in which his opinion carries total weight. Unfortunately, the Constitution says otherwise.

Second, that Trump’s motives were pure: His actions were driven by moral outrage at the possibility of corruption. Why, he just wanted to get to the bottom of things! Unfortunately, no really one believes that, least of all those proclaiming it.

And third, that Joe Biden is himself corrupt, that he pressured Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor who investigated his son’s lucrative relationship with Burisma, an energy company based in Ukraine.

Let’s have a look at that allegation. Here’s a quick timeline:

Joe Biden was tasked with “overseeing” the US relationship with Ukraine in Marc 2014.

In April 2014, his son, Hunter, was hired by Burisma, and Biden traveled to Ukraine to offer $50 million in US aid. That spring, Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin opened a probe of Burisma.

In March 2016, Shokin was fired as a prosecutor.

In January 2017, Ukraine ended its investigation of Burisma after a settlement (or, some suggest, a bribe).

In January 2018, Joe Biden publicly  bragged about how he’d engineered Shokin’s firing by threatening to block $1 billion in US aid.

Looks like a pretty strong case against Biden. He probably abused his position as vice-president, at the very least to cover for his son, and perhaps for himself (was Burisma “buying influence?”).

Throughout this time,  US mainstream media covered the appearances of impropriety.

Throughout this time, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Did the Republican Congress investigate Joe Biden’s possible corruption? No.

Did the Republican House attempt to impeach Joe Biden over his possible corruption? No.

In the nearly two years between Joe Biden’s public admission and the Democrats assuming control of the US House of Representatives, did the Republican Department of Justice announce an investigation of his possible corruption? No.

Republicans suddenly — and conveniently — got interested in Joe Biden’s possible corruption when a Republican president got his posterior in a sling for similar actions.

In plain English, the Republican claim here is “since we didn’t do OUR job when WE ran things, you shouldn’t do YOUR job — or ask us to do ours — now.”

I’m no lawyer, but I doubt that law schools teach the “what about HIM? He did it too!” defense. It probably doesn’t fly in criminal trials. It shouldn’t fly in an impeachment trial either.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

According to its web site, Shields of Strength “provides fashionable, functional, and durable Christian fitness jewelry and accessories.” Those items include military “dog tags” engraved with quotes from scripture and sometimes the logo of the armed forces branch the customer belongs to.

When the Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained, the Marine Corps Trademark Licensing Office ordered the company to stop combining scripture references and the Corps’ emblem.

Most commentary on the dispute centers around “religious freedom” versus “separation of church and state,” but those seem like side issues to me.

When I served in the Marine Corps, many of my comrades wore crosses, St. Christopher Medals, and other religious symbols on the same chains as their dog tags. As long as a Marine is paying to have his own custom dog tag made with such things incorporated in them rather than hanging separately, and as long as that tag includes the relevant identification information, I just don’t see the problem.

What IS the problem?

According to MCTLO, “[T]he USMC Trademark Licensing Program exists to regulate the usage of Marine Corps trademarks such as the Eagle, Globe and Anchor worldwide. ”

Even assuming the correctness of “intellectual property” claims like copyright, patent, and trademark, such claims don’t past muster when asserted by the US government or its subsidiary agencies such as the Marine Corps. This is especially true of trademarks.

While the justifications for copyright and patent law have their own clause in the US Constitution (“to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”) US trademark law is justified in terms of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Marine Corps isn’t a private commercial entity. Nor should its symbols — which date back to 1868 in current form, to 1775 in various forms, and ultimately to the British marines the US based its service’s composition and mission on — be treated as the Marine Corps’ commercial property.

Just as written works created by government employees pursuant to their jobs fall into the public domain under copyright law, official government symbols should fall into the public domain under trademark law.

The Marine Corps logo is a piece of evolving history. It doesn’t belong to the Marine Corps as an organization, or even to the individual Marines who make up that organization. It belongs to all of us.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 20, comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan mentioned that he’ll “probably vote for Bernie” Sanders in the Democratic Party’s presidential primary. Rogan cited Sanders’s decades of “consistency” as a “very powerful structure to operate from.”

More interesting than Rogan’s quasi-endorsement was the Human Rights Campaign’s negative response. The organization called on Sanders to “reconsider” his acceptance of Rogan’s support.

What’s the organization’s problem with Rogan?

“Bernie Sanders has run a campaign unabashedly supportive of the rights of LGBTQ people,” says HRC president Alphonso David. “Rogan, however, has attacked transgender people, gay men, women, people of color and countless marginalized groups at every opportunity.”

But in 2016, HRC backed Hillary Clinton — who had clung to marriage as a “one man, one woman” proposition until about a minute before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise — over “unabashedly supportive” Bernie Sanders.

HRC’s official motto is “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Equal Rights.”

If political advocacy was subject to “truth in advertising” laws,  that motto would be “Turning Contributions for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Equal Rights Into Support for Establishment Politicians.”

As for Rogan, he doesn’t seem to have truly “attacked” anyone. He “jokes” about EVERYONE, which is a comedian’s job. And he muses, and lets his guests muse, about pretty much EVERYTHING through hours of podcasting every week.

I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of Joe Rogan’s podcast, and the one thing I’ve never heard come out of his mouth is hate for LGBTQ people or any other minority group.

What I did hear, in the same podcast in which he lauded Sanders, was this: “Treat each other as if they are loved family members. Treat people as if they’re you. And if you do treat them, and if they treat you like that … the world is a better place.”

Yes, Rogan has frequently expressed concerns about trans issues, especially in the world of sports. As a former professional fighter and commentator for professional fights, he’s interested in, and has talked extensively about, the difficulties of sorting athletes by gender in a gender-fluid age. But never, so far as I can tell, has he done so from a hateful viewpoint.

Yes, Rogan has made jokes at the expense of virtually every group on the planet. And he has a knack for turning those jokes into mirrors for himself and everyone else to see our shared humanity in.

I don’t always agree with Rogan, but he grapples honestly with tough issues instead of just pushing a  lucrative party line and denouncing all who dissent from that line. The Human Rights Campaign would better serve the community it claims to work for by adopting that approach instead of denouncing it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY