Crossing the Line

"If this be treason ... " -- Patrick Henry

"An it be so, it were a grievous fault." -- Shakespeare

And grievously shall we all pay for it.

   News media are finally having an attack of conscience, after realizing they were taken in by the shiny showman who played on the basic courtesy of interviewers to foist his alluring message on listeners eager for a promise of good news and increasing prosperity.
   The reality that good news and increasing prosperity were already on the way did not deter the salesman to pitch the benefits of his product and urge listeners to ignore potential risks.
   He honed his skills on the gossip sheets and tabloids, which helped build his reputation as "a good interview" who could always supply "good copy."
   And this skill at manipulating media helped propel him to bigger and bigger audiences, then to voters and eventually to the White House.
   But how far is too far? What does it matter when someone crosses the proverbial line and nothing happens, especially when the line keeps moving?
   How many times does the line have to move until the public, encouraged finally by an awake media, finally says, "Enough. No more. You've gone too far."
   Answer: When the public feels betrayed, and members of Congress believe their own positions are in danger of forfeit for tolerating outrageous behavior on the part of a president.
  Journalists are now pushing more aggressively for answers to questions that should have been asked forcefully long ago, and academics are joining in, posting their knowledge of constitutional law and giving examples of how the president may well have violated the law and should face impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office.
   The latest scandal emanating from the Oval Office is the allegation the President Barack Obama was behind a scheme to wire tap communications at Trump Tower. The current president provided no evidence, and his charges were refuted by several leading present and former officials, who noted that such an action would be illegal.
   And whether the allegation were true or not, wiretapping someone without a warrant is a criminal offense. Either way, "False and defamatory speech isn't protected by the First Amendment," according to Noah Feldman, professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University, writing on Bloomberg.com.
   Moreover, "the constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment," Feldman added.
   Adding to that suggestion is George Lakoff, distinguished professor of cognitive science and linguistics (retired) at the University of California at Berkeley, who raises this question about Donald Trump's "Russian connections and his unwavering support" for that country. "Is treason the reason?" Lakoff asks.
   The president's tax returns "could show of Trump is deeply involved in debt to Russians or if he is involved in illegal financial activity," Lakoff writes on his blog, https://georgelakoff.com.
   More importantly, Trump has created a distraction from his own issues by accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower. So, "faced with the biggest scandal in American history -- presidential treason -- Trump, with a tweet, accuses Obama of a scandal bigger than Watergate."
   Fortunately, an aroused news media will not be distracted by this diversion strategy, but will actively and forcefully cover both stories.
   Why? Because they are both related. Whether the story of unauthorized, illegal presidential wiretapping is true or not, the very allegation may be an impeachable offense.
   Who's making book on the odds of the current president leaving or being ousted by the end of this year?