Page 4A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Publisher
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Managing Editor
TIM TRAINOR
Opinion Page Editor
MARISSA WILLIAMS
Regional Advertising Director
MARCY ROSENBERG
Circulation Manager
JANNA HEIMGARTNER
Business Office Manager
MIKE JENSEN
Production Manager
OUR VIEW
Election
interference not
a partisan issue
Reports of Russian interference
are better protected from interference
in future elections.
in an American election should
Questioning and condemning
be concerning to everyone in this
a foreign country’s involvement
country, regardless of their political
should not be conflated as an
affiliation. A foreign government
attack on our president. Unless an
meddling in our sovereignty and
independence is not a partisan issue. investigation determines a member
of Donald Trump’s campaign
And multiple nonpartisan U.S.
intelligence agencies, as well as
colluded in the interference or that
the president obstructed justice
intelligence agencies of some
regarding the
foreign allies,
investigation into the
have reported that
Questioning and matter, he should be
Russia attempted
innocent.
to influence our
condemning a presumed
No evidence has yet
democratic process
during the 2016
foreign country’s been presented that
either occurred.
presidential election.
involvement
There is
It doesn’t matter
ample
evidence,
who won the
should not be however,
that
election. Outside
conflated as an Russia attempted
interference is an
to influence
affront to our way of
attack on our
our election
life. It undermines
president.
and undermine
the belief that
our democracy.
Americans have in
That should be
our institutions and
concerning to everyone, including
our government.
the president, both political parties
Almost as scary as the fact that
and every elected official.
our country has been under intense,
During his testimony before
sustained cyberattack is the fact our
Congress, former FBI director James
population has become so polarized
Comey was clear he believes this
that some are willing to see their
will happen again and again. Russia
neighbors as enemies, rather than
and other enemies will look for
a foreign power actively trying to
any means they can to disrupt our
manipulate our country for their
nation’s free election process, and
benefit.
cyberattacks are the most efficient
This is something that should
bring us together. In the face of a real way to do damage covertly.
Election interference is not a
enemy, we should remember we’re
all on the same team, hoping to make party-line issue. It is a threat to all
Americans. We should demand
our country as safe and prosperous
answers from our intelligence
as possible.
agencies, and implore Congress to
We should all want to know
get to the bottom of what happened
exactly what happened during the
and figure out how we can stop it
run up to the 2016 election. We
from happening again.
should all demand the truth so we
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of publisher
Kathryn Brown, managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, and opinion page editor Tim Trainor.
Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
OTHER VIEWS
Stop public financing
of sports stadiums
The Journal Record (Oklahoma)
T
here are plenty of federal
government programs that manage
the money from taxpayers well.
Americans want safe water, good
highways, and a strong, well-prepared
military to keep us safe.
But there are programs that
leave taxpayers
scratching their
heads. Two members
of Oklahoma’s
congressional
delegation are trying to
correct one such bit of
fiscal irresponsibility:
the federal subsidization
of sports stadiums.
According to
research by the
Brookings Institution,
36 of the 45 stadiums
built or renovated since 2000 were
financed with public money, typically
municipal bonds.
Since municipal bonds are
tax-exempt, the IRS missed out on an
estimated $3.7 billion in revenue. Fifth
District Rep. Steve Russell and Sen.
James Lankford wrote bills this year to
end that practice.
Prior to 1953, sports stadiums
were privately built. But that year, the
Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee in
large part to take advantage of a new
stadium built with public money and
with that the horse was out of the barn.
Oklahomans gained nothing when the
New York Yankees got a new $2.3
billion stadium in 2009 but paid their
share of the $431 million federal subsidy
nonetheless.
The economic development argument
is that a sports stadium is good for
business, that the public spends more
in nearby restaurants, that more hotel
rooms are booked and that the panache
of having a major league team carries
with it such a powerful intangible
benefit that the whole community
benefits. Economists disagree.
“Few fields of empirical economic
research offer virtual unanimity of
findings,” economists
John Siegfried and
Andrew Zimbalist
wrote in The Journal of
Economic Perspectives.
“Yet independent
work on the economic
impact of stadiums and
arenas has uniformly
found that there is no
statistically significant
positive correlation
between sports facility
construction and
economic development.”
Oklahoma cities chose the fiscally
conservative course; arenas here
were built without debt, including
the Chesapeake Arena. That good
sense can’t be forced upon other
municipalities, but when a local
government in another state decides
paying for a new stadium is a good idea
it doesn’t mean Oklahomans should help
foot the bill.
Russell’s HR 811 and Lankford’s
Eliminating Federal Tax Subsidies
for Stadiums Act would eliminate the
effective subsidy by making it illegal to
build stadiums with tax-exempt bonds
but they would also make it possible to
subsidize stadiums with taxes on tickets
and in-stadium purchases.
That would shift the burden to the
community that benefits, and that’s
exactly where it should be.
36 of 45
stadiums built
since 2000
were financed
with public
money.
OTHER VIEWS
Five more notes on Trump’s
current predicament
N
ot long ago I wrote that the
counsel Kenneth Starr and the
danger President Trump faces
prosecutors who worked for him of
from the various investigations
misconduct, of leaking, of bias, of
into the Trump-Russia matter had
all sorts of unprofessional behavior.
changed dramatically in recent weeks.
Clinton’s lead defense attorney,
Now, in just the last few days, the
David Kendall — the kind of deeply
situation has changed even more. In five
experienced Washington fighter Trump
ways:
could use now — took Starr to court
1. The Mueller office: Investigative
over leaks, while the president’s other
Byron
arm of the House
surrogates slammed the prosecutors
York
The Washington Post reported
every day on television.
Comment
recently that special counsel Robert
In other words, when things got
Mueller is investigating the president
serious, Clinton and his team went to
for possible obstruction of justice. The
the mattresses against federal law enforcement.
possibility of Trump facing legal jeopardy
And it worked. It is in no way clear that Trump
raises the question that has been part of every
could pull off the same thing, but a war on the
big Washington scandal involving the White
prosecutor may be his only option.
House: Can a sitting president be indicted?
4. An ever-expanding investigation
The generally agreed-upon answer is no;
Just what Trump-related subjects is Mueller
impeachment is the constitutional remedy
investigating? A better question right now
when presidential misconduct rises above a
might be what Mueller is not investigating.
certain level. That is what would happen with
There has been talk of looking at allegations
Trump, if it came to that.
of money laundering in the
So what is Mueller doing, as
Trump circle.
far as the president himself is
And looking at the
concerned? The special counsel
president’s conversations
is known to be investigating
with a wide variety of people
a number of figures around
— not just members of his
Trump for possible charges not
administration, but friends
related to the 2016 election.
and whoever Trump might
Those figures could certainly
have talked to in his nighttime
be indicted if the evidence
call sessions. And looking at
warrants.
Michael Flynn’s business arrangements with
But as far as the investigation into alleged
Turkey, Russia and other places. And Paul
Trump obstruction is concerned, Mueller’s
Manafort’s business and finances. And perhaps
work will end up not in an indictment, but
even the Holy Grail of NeverTrumpism: the
in the House of Representatives. The House
president’s tax returns. And, oh, the allegation
is constitutionally charged with originating
that used to be at the core of the case, that
articles of impeachment. But it does not
Trump or his associates colluded with Russians
have the investigative powers of the Justice
to try to influence the 2016 election. The point
Department and, if impeachment is on the
is, Mueller can determine the scope of the
table, will rely on the evidence Mueller
investigation, and if Washington history is
gathers. Which makes Mueller’s office, for the
any guide, investigations tend to expand, not
purposes of Donald Trump specifically, not a
contract.
prosecutor’s office but the investigative arm of
5. The Comey ‘what if’
the House.
A key lesson emerged from the recent
2. Mueller’s team of killers vs. Trump’s
testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions
amateurs?
before the Senate Intelligence Committee:
Recently a Republican lawyer who supports Without the president’s decision to fire FBI
the president and has experience in government Director James Comey, the Trump-Russia
emailed an article he had read about the team of investigation would be on a downward
prosecutors Mueller is assembling. “This ain’t
trajectory. The collusion charge would be
good,” he headlined the email, which went on
fading for lack of evidence.
to discuss the legal stars Mueller has hired.
Investigators would be going down side
Contrast that, he said in a later conversation, roads involving Flynn and Manafort in
to the Trump team, led by Trump personal
which the public would have little interest.
lawyer Marc Kasowitz and including partner
And congressional investigators might even
Michael Bowe and Washington legal veteran
devote most of their attention to the Russian
Jay Sekulow. “I look at this team and think this interference itself, which is the serious issue at
is a joke!” the lawyer said.
the bottom of this whole thing. The political
The reaction is not unusual. As far as
radioactivity of the issue would be ticking
experience in criminal prosecutions is
down, not up.
concerned — the kind of experience that
But not after Comey. At the Sessions
specifically relates to the issues in the Trump-
hearing, Democrats had nothing new on
Russia case — the Mueller team has a huge
collusion. They barely seemed interested.
advantage over the Trump team. In that sense,
Instead, they focused to a great extent on trying
the coming legal fight could be asymmetrical
to get Sessions to reveal what the president did
warfare.
or did not say in private discussions — about
3. Clinton-style attacks on the
Comey.
prosecutor?
On the Democratic side of the hearing
Some Trump supporters, most notably Newt — and much of the Republican side, as well —
Gingrich, have begun to attack Mueller. Still, at the issue was Comey, Comey, Comey. In the
this early date it’s clear that, when it comes to
end, it could be that the president’s impatience
attacking prosecutors, TrumpWorld has much
to get rid of Comey in order to shorten an
to learn from the last president who found
investigation that he believed to be going
himself in deep legal and political trouble, Bill
nowhere resulted in a new investigation that
Clinton.
could last the rest of Trump’s time in office.
Clinton and his supporters made an art
■
out of attacking federal prosecutors. The
Byron York is chief political correspondent
president’s surrogates accused independent
for The Washington Examiner.
Mueller can
determine the
scope of the
investigation.
YOUR VIEWS
Fire tax bond higher than
advertised by city
We now know for sure who’s idea it was to
use 14 cents per thousand dollars of assessed
value in the pro-May fire bond literature: Paul
Chalmers.
He is Umatilla County’s director of
assessment and tax department, and he should
know better. The two bond issues the city of
Pendleton used in their propaganda to pass the
fire station bond were paid off in May 2016.
(So the real tax hike was 62 cents, not 14).
In politics you can get away with just about
anything. I think this was not telling the truth.
And I also asked how many private
sector jobs have been produced by the drone
program at the airport. The city manger and
the airport manager did not know.
I guess we are not supposed to ask these
kind of questions. I think that is what open
meeting are for.
Rex J Morehouse
Pendleton
LETTERS POLICY
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues
and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper
reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and
products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted letters must
be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number.
The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send
letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
or email editor@eastoregonian.com.