Monthly Archives: June 2017

All the Godfather’s Men

Culture, Politics

 

Carl Jung was whispering to me again last night, “Synchronicity.  Look for the coincidences.  They are there if only you look.”  My attention then turned to a discussion on cable news.  The pundits, as they have for several weeks, were comparing the current political situation to Watergate.  Not surprisingly, the debate turned to the speed in which events were unfolding.  At that point, one panelist suggested the timing feels more like late 1972, months after the break-in at Democratic headquarters, than August 8, 1974 when Richard Nixon eventually departed the White House.

Of course, 1972.  What else happened in 1972?  A terrorist attack at the Berlin Olympic games.  Nixon travels to China.  Britain takes direct control over Northern Ireland.  The first SALT agreement.  I failed to see any obvious connection.  Fortunately, however, Jung’s apparition had company.  The ghost of Oscar Wilde reminded me, “Art imitates life more than life imitates art.”

And there it was.  March 24, 1972.  The release date of Francis Ford Coppola’s academy award winning motion picture The Godfather.  It was the scene in Vito Corleone’s (Marlon Brando) garden, days before the elder Don’s death, when he shares his regret that favored son Michael (Al Pacino) has succeeded him as head of the family.

I knew that Santino (James Caan) was going to have to go through all this.  And Fredo (John Cazale)…well…Fredo was…well.  But I never…I never wanted this for you.  I worked my whole life, I don’t apologize, to take care of my family.  And I refused to be a fool dancing on the string, held by all those big shots.  I don’t apologize that’s my life but I thought that…that when it was your time that…that you wold be the one to hold the strings.  Senator Corleone.  Governor Corleone, or something…

Although Michael comforts his father by replying, “Another pezzonovante,” he already knows there are too many skeletons in the Corleone closet which might be disclosed in the heat of a political campaign.  [NOTE:  “Pezzonovante” is literally translated as “.95 caliber,” but is also Sicilan slang for “big shot.”]  Michael’s future is set.  His primary imperative is to protect the family and its businesses.

Which brings us to the legacy of Frederick Christ Trump, the godfather of his own family business.  Like Vito Corleone, the elder Trump was under constant legal scrutiny including charges of profiteering from federal contracts and violations of the Fair Housing Act.  But like Mario Puzzo’s godfather, he too dreamed at least some of his offspring would bring a level of honor and legitimacy to the Trump name.  And in the case of his oldest daughter  Maryanne Trump Barry, his hope was fulfilled.  Barry received a law degree from Hofstra University and served as both a district judge in New Jersey and on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals until her retirement in 2011.

But there was also a Fredo except his nickname was Freddy.  (Yes Dr. Jung.  I know.  I know.) Frederick Trump, Jr., like Fredo, did not fit the family mold.  He sought refuge outside the family circle, for example, joining a Jewish fraternity at Lehigh University.  Unable to deal with his father’s demand for perfection, Freddy became a pilot for Trans World Airlines until his continuing bout with alcoholism became a safety issue.  Freddy died in 1981 at the age of 43, but not before his father posthumously signaled his disdain for a son he considered weak and irresponsible.

Then came the unveiling of Fred Sr.’s will, which Donald had helped draft. It divided the bulk of the inheritance, at least $20 million, among his children and their descendants, “other than my son Fred C. Trump Jr.” (Source, New York Times, January 2, 2016)

Which brings us to the Santino or “Sonny” on the Trump family tree, none other than “Donny” himself.  Consider the following excerpts from Sonny’s character biography on IMDB.

Sonny is the most impulsive and violent of Vito’s children and, before Michael’s rise to power, the most involved in his father’s criminal operations.

Although Sonny has a wife, Sandra, and four children, he frequently cheats on Sandra with other women. At the time of the film, he has carried on a long-running affair with Lucy Mancini, who served as one of his sister’s bridesmaids.

In the original Godfather saga, if Sonny had survived, the future of the Corleone family might have paralleled that of Trump’s up until June 16, 2015, the day Donny launched his campaign for president.  No doubt, Sonny would have fancied himself as a self-made man (despite being handed the keys to the family Mercedes) and as irresistible to women.  Here is where the stories diverge.  Sonny would have accepted his destiny, the next head of the family enterprise.  More legitimate career pursuits were not in his future.  That would be left to siblings.

Too bad Frederick Trump, Sr.,  a man whose middle name was “Christ” did not impress upon his son Donald the advice of his namesake.  “Render under Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and to the Family the things that are the Family’s.”  If he had done so, the Trump family, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, would have been free to continue selling clothing made in China and making real estate deals wherever and with whomever they chose.  More importantly, they would not be currently starring in “A Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.”   And neither would the United States of America.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing

Media, Politics, Uncategorized

 

Charles Cooney, the Robert T. Haslam Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, explains the importance of accepting failure as critical to the learning process.

Failure is not fatal, and success is not final. An expert is someone who has made more mistakes than anybody else.  A successful expert is someone who recognizes mistakes and only makes them once. (Source: ImagineIt Project™ Interview)

When it comes to the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, I’m afraid they have yet to learn from the mistakes they made which contributed to the political ascendancy of Donald J. Trump.  Through claims of moral equivalency and misdirection, the Trump propaganda machine has proven to be a formidable opponent when countering efforts to expose Trump’s just plain incompetence or deliberate complicity in extra-Constitutional endeavors. Two recent news stories demonstrate this unfortunate fact of life.

CASE #1: The Grassley Is Always Greener

On last Sunday morning’s edition of CNN State of the Union, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, applauded committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for his letter to the White House Office of Legal Counsel reiterating the committee’s oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice.  She suggested the Grassley letter was evidence of a bi-partisan effort to get to the bottom of any role DOJ, including Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, might have played in obstructing the investigation into the Russian/Trump connection, including the firing of FBI director James Comey

In light of Grassley’s earlier statements in which he characterized Comey’s testimony as vindicating Trump, one has to question what appears to be an about face.  Occam’s razor redux: the simplest explanation is generally closest to the truth.  Which leads me to the following.

  • Senator Grassley is a long-timeTrump supporter.  Radio Iowa reported on August 6, 2016, “While some prominent Republicans refuse to endorse the Republic presidential nominee, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley isn’t one of them.”
  • Grassley denied Democrats’ request to bring Sessions back before the panel to clarify his confirmation hearing testimony in which Sessions inaccurately claimed to have had no contact with Russian officials.
  • The committee membership consists of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats.
  • The committee would likely complete its investigation of potential obstruction of justice and release its report before special counsel Robert Mueller delivers his final report and recommendations.

I hope I am wrong, but my gut tells me Grassley’s sudden interest in scrutinizing Session’s behavior as well as that of other DOJ officials is an attempt to preempt Mueller’s findings.  Which makes efforts over the past 48 hours to now discredit Robert Mueller appear to be just one element of a larger disinformation strategy.  I can hear Sean Spicer (assuming he is still press secretary) now, “The congressional committee with oversight responsibility found nothing wrong.  The special counsel, who we warned was biased, has made a questionable case.”

I have great respect for Senator Feinstein.  I believe to this day she was the most likely candidate to become the first female president.  She demonstrated her ability to deal with crises when she became mayor of San Francisco following the assassinations of George Moscone and Harvey Milk on November 27, 1978.  But this is entirely different.  The Republicans are playing three-dimensional chess while Democrats are still sitting around a checker board.  Senator Feinstein, please make sure you are anticipating the opponent’s next three moves before you make your next one.

Case #2: You’re NOT Fired

The mainstream media continues to get played by the Trump propaganda machine.  Consider the following hypothetical.  If you wanted to discredit media coverage of Comrade Trump and the Russian connection, what would you do?  Simple.  Plant an untrue story.  Watch the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC salivate.  Then, in your best Ronald Reagan voice, declare, “There they go again.”

Was this the case when Trump friend Chris Ruddy, during an interview Monday Night with Jody Woodruff (PBS News Hour) asserted Trump was considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller?  Right on cue, the evening cable new shows and the early editions of the Post and Times, dedicated much of their coverage to this “bombshell.”  By Tuesday morning, the White House press office claimed there was not truth to the story and characterized the report as just one more “nothing burger” by the dishonest media to undermine Trump’s agenda.

How many times are the media going to fall for this?  Anyone who has covered the presidency for the past five months should have known better.  First, it was no coincidence the story broke on the eve of testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III in which he performed one of the greatest impressions of all time of Aunt Pittypat from Gone with the Wind.  “Russians in the Mayflower Hotel.  How did they ever get in? Oh, Senator Burr.  My smelling salts!”

As if the timing of Ruddy’s comments were not enough, the easily fooled media should have known this does not fit the Orangeman’s modus operandi.  Trump does not telegraph behavior.  No one suggested James Comey’s head was on the chopping block.  The ax had already fallen before even the victim knew it was coming.

Even if Trump was actively planning to shut down the Mueller investigation, the press unwittingly prevented Trump from hammering another nail into his own coffin.  I refer to this as the “Matt Drudge syndrome” (bear with me).  In 1998, Drudge made the same mistake and probably saved Clinton’s presidency.  On January 13, 1998, Drudge reported Monica Lewinsky had been the target of an FBI sting operation at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City, Virginia.  Drudge’s story put everyone involved in the Clinton sex scandal on notice.

Though we will never know, I am convinced, absent Drudge’s reporting, Monica Lewinsky’s next move would have been to call Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, who had been her regular point of contact and helped her find employment in New York after leaving her White House internship.  We know Lewinsky’s conversation with Linda Tripp at the hotel was being recorded via an FBI wire.  Therefore, it is no stretch to assume Lewinsky’s phone calls were also monitored.  A cry for help to Jordan following Lewinsky’s meeting with Tripp would have been perhaps the most damning tangible evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice.  Thanks to Matt Drudge, that call was never made.

Over the past few weeks, I have encouraged readers to heed the advice of former naval intelligence office Malcolm Nance, “Strategic patience.”  Broadcast and print journalists should listen to Nance as well.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Into the Valley of Dearth…

Media, Politics

 

Image result for kim peekThe first alternative title for today’s post was “On Becoming Kim Peek.”  Peek (1951-2009) was the savant after whom screenwriter Barry Morrow fashioned Dustin Hoffman’s character in the movie Rainman.  I often use clips from a BBC documentary titled The Real Rainman to demonstrate Carl Jung’s principle of synchronicity.  Peek had an amazing talent for finding the connection between seemingly unrelated facts or events.

When I woke up this morning, I had a Kim Peek moment or should I say moments because I started making numerous connections associated with yesterday’s testimony by former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.  So get ready.  This is going to be all over the place.  I only hope it makes more sense than Senator John McCain’s questioning of Mr. Comey.

Which brings me to the second alternative title for today’s post, “The Charge of the Lite Brigade,” an obvious play on the narrative poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson published on December 9, 1854.  In the Tennyson version, “light brigade” refers to cavalry consisting of lightly armed and lightly armored troops on horseback.  Today’s version substitute’s the work “lite,” an adjective denoting a product which tends to be less profound or advanced.  Thus the “lite brigade” is the perfect moniker for most members of the 115th Congress.

But Jung implores us not to stop at that first coincidence; to look for a deeper connection.  And lo and behold, Tennyson’s poem was documenting the Battle of Balaclava during the (drum roll) CRIMEAN WAR.  Two new connections: Russia/Crimea and “Balaclava” a seemingly made-up, nonsense word.  Thus, the third alternative title, “The Battle of Covfefe.”  But the real reason I chose “The Charge of the Light Brigade” as the metaphor for a post mortem on the Comey hearing are the following lines in verse #5.

Cannon to the right of them.
Cannon to the left of them.

Observing most members of the Senate intelligence panel and how other Senators spun Comey’s responses, I realized there was a different threat posed by this”lite brigade.”

Idiots to the right of us.
Idiots to the left us.

Three examples immediately come to mind.  First is Republican James Risch of Idaho.  In defense of the liar-in-chief, Risch focused on Comey’s recollection that Donald Trump had used the word “hope” as opposed to “order” when suggesting Comey should drop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.  Now if Trump had been having dinner with his wife (what are the odds of that?) and said, “Melania, I hope Comey understands Mike Flynn is a good guy and gives him some slack on this Russia thing,” I could buy that.  But in the context of previous discussions when Trump had demanded Comey’s loyalty, hoping to make something go away is no mere suggestion.  That’s like saying, “Rocco needs to swim with the fishes,” is a suggestion that Rocco be given an all-expense paid vacation at the Oahu Hyatt where he can enjoy their dolphin experience. (Yes, I know, dolphins are mammals, not fish.)

Second is Republican Marco Rubio of Florida.  His conversion to the better side of the force, as documented in yesterday’s post, was short-lived.  One can only imagine Rubio received a call on Wednesday night informing him, “If you ever want to be the leader of the dysfunctional Republican party, you better stop making sense as you did on Wednesday.” So, as hard as it is to admit, Trump was right.  Marco is little, but not in physical stature.  Instead he exhibits little consistency, little values and little courage.

Last, but not least, I turn to the idiots on the left.  This morning, CNN New Day host Alisyn Camerota asked Democrat Virginia Senator and 2016 vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine what he thought of Comey’s justification for the July 2016 press conference at which he announced the outcome of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.  Comey had explained that the meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch (his boss) on the tarmac in Arizona compromised the perception that the e-mail investigation was being carried out without political interference.  Kaine’s response? “I thought that was pretty much irrelevant in the hearing yesterday. 2016 is over. This is about 2017.”

If Kaine really believed that and wanted to help the cause, here is what he should have said.

While I might still disagree with what Director Comey said at the July 2016 press conference I can understand the position he found himself in.  And his willingness to share that experience only adds to the veracity of his concern and uneasiness about his interaction with the president.  Whether right or wrong, it is clear Jim Comey, when confronted with what he perceives as a moral dilemma, acts in what he believes is in the best interest of the FBI and the nation.  You don’t have to agree with him all the time.  But he’s consistent.

I know Democrats have criticized the media for suggesting there is a moral equivalency between the behavior of both parties.  But when Tim Kaine evades a reasonable question as he did this morning, he opens the door for those kinds of comparisons.  If Democrats want to argue Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders are defending the indefensible from the White House press room podium, fine.  But if Democrats want to establish there is no moral equivalency, they need to acknowledge indefensible actions in their own camp.  Otherwise, American voters will continue to ask why they should trade one party’s “malarkey” for the other’s.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Joseph Nye Welsh Medal for Patriotism

Politics

Related image

I could not help but think the ghost of Joseph Nye Welsh (1890-1960) was in attendance at yesterday’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing.  Welsh, as some of you may remember, was chief counsel for the United State Army when he confronted Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy during a hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.  On June 9, 1954, Welsh challenged McCarthy to produce the names of the supposed 130 individuals the Senator claimed were communists who had infiltrated the armed services.  In the course of the debate, Welsh exposed McCarthy as a demented fraud with the now famous rebuke, “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

In anticipation of the Comey testimony, political pundits and members of the resistance have wondered who would be the individual who would stand up for the nation and expose Donald Trump for who he really is and always has been.  Would it be someone like Tennessee Senator Howard Baker who cut to the chase during the Watergate hearing by asking, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” Or Barry Goldwater, satisfied enough was enough, went to the White House and informed Nixon he had no choice but to vacate the presidency?

Move Over Bernie

Enter the OTHER independent serving in the U.S. Senate, Angus King of Maine.  I must disclose my possible bias as I have a past relationship with the Senator.  When he was Governor of Maine, he accepted an invitation I brokered, as the lead contact for the Ewing Kauffman Foundation, to host a radio broadcast about entrepreneurship in Maine.  Following that event, Governor King asked the foundation to help him design a policy agenda to “make Maine one of the most entrepreneurial states in America.”

I need to share with you more about the Angus King I had the pleasure to know and admire during the course of that four month long engagement.  At our first meeting in the State Capitol, I asked the Governor, “Why now?”  King was in the last year of his second term.  He would be leaving office the following January.  His response.  “I know, even if we had started eight years ago, we would not have seen the full impact of this effort during my time in office.  I want to be remembered as the person who started the process.”

If the approach he put in motion was successful, he recognized his successors would likely get more credit than he would.  He reaffirmed this perception when the team handed him our final draft of the policy report.  The cover included the following, “Presented to Governor Angus King, November 2002.”  Governor King asked me to change the cover to read, “Presented to Governor-Elect John Baldacci.”  His justification.  He never intended it to be his plan.  It was the Maine plan and he wanted to give the report to the incoming governor “simply as a head start” to accept or reject as Baldacci saw fit.  NOTE:  I was invited back by Governor Baldacci to speak at the event when he endorsed the report.

Finally, for all you skeptics who laugh when a politician says he or she is leaving “to spend more time with family,” sometimes they mean what they say.  Upon leaving office in 2003, the ex-Governor, his wife and two children (Ben & Molly) spent five and a half months touring America in a 40-foot RV.  King chronicles the experience in his book Governor’s Travels: How I Left Politics, Learned to Back Up a Bus, and Found America.

Therefore, no one who has spent minimal time with now Senator King was shocked at his performance during Wednesday’s Intelligence Committee hearing.  If you are looking for a public servant who tells it like it is, based on a profound love of country and respect for the U.S. Constitution, look no farther than Angus King.  The only surprise was the emotion he exhibited when confronting National Intelligence Director Daniel Coates and NSA Director Mike Rogers.  He is perhaps the most soft-spoken politician I have ever met.

King’s departure from his usually calm demeanor began during the following exchange about the witnesses’ unwillingness to give a yes or no answer to the question, “Did the president ask you to intervene with James Comey?”

KING: Is there an invocation of executive privilege?  If there is, let us know about it.  If there isn’t, then let’s answer the question.

ROGERS:  Not that I’m aware of.

KING:  Then why are you not answering the questions.

ROGERS:  I feel that it is inappropriate.

KING: What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral.

ROGERS: I stand by my previous statement.

But when Director Rogers said, “I don’t mean it in a contentious way,” King, “known as one of the Senate’s more genial members (TheHill.com),” testily replied, “Well, I do mean it in a contentious way.  I don’t understand why you’re not answering our questions.”

So keep an eye on Senator King today when he questions James Comey.  As was the case yesterday, the questions asked by King and his colleagues may be more illuminating than anything Comey says in public.

THE “SILENCE IS DEAFENING” HONORABLE MENTION

The runner-up in the competition for the Welsh medal was, I’m not kidding, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.  Little Marco, as Comrade Trump called him throughout the 2016 primaries, stepped up to the plate, bigly.  While Coates and Rogers felt it was appropriate to testify neither had been “directed” by Trump to intervene with then FBI Director Comey, Rubio did not let them off the hook.

Accepting that the commander-in-chief had not ORDERED them to help dissuade Comey from pursuing the investigation of Michael Flynn, Rubio used published reports of Trump’s ASKING them to do so as a way of exploring whether they were being recruited to abet in a possible obstruction of justice.  And he did so in what can only be described as cleverly suggesting he was trying to support Trump’s position.

If what is being said to the media is untrue, then it is unfair to the president of the United States. And if it is, that is something the American people deserve to know, and it is something we as an oversight committee need to know.

In two sentences, Rubio exposed the witnesses’ selective willingness to share what they discussed in the oval office and the likelihood Trump sought their help in quashing the investigation.  To the first point, they had readily testified that Trump had not DIRECTED them to contact Comey.  So in that case, they felt it was “appropriate” to share information.  When queried whether they had been ASKED to intervene, both clammed up.  You cannot have it both ways.

Second, neither hesitated to deny they were directed.  If they had not been asked to intervene, they could have just as easily given a similar response.  The fact they chose to hide behind a questionable “cloak of appropriateness” speaks volumes.

Perhaps Rubio is just trying to position himself with the already nervous Republican establishment, assuming the party wants an alternate standard bearer in 2020.  However, a long time ago I learned you never criticize someone for doing the RIGHT thing, even if it’s for the WRONG reasons.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

 

I Wonder, Woman…

Culture, Politics

Gal Godot, the actor who portrays Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman in the pre-summer blockbuster of the same name, describes her character as “having many strengths and powers, but at the end of the day she’s a woman with a lot of emotional intelligence.” (Source: Entertainment Weekly, March 7, 2016)  If she wanted to hide her true identity, Diana Prince seemed the worst choice ever, until yesterday.  When it comes to suspicious pseudonyms, Diana Prince has nothing over Reality Winner.  Except of course, Reality Winner is the actual name of the person arrested yesterday for leaking classified information.

Before I go any further, I want readers to know I believe individuals who take the following security oath should be prosecuted for violations thereof.

NSA Security Oath

Upon being cleared to protect the sensitive information of the National Security Agency, I subscribe to this oath freely, without mental reservation, and with the full intent to exercise meticulous care in abiding by its items.

  • I solemnly swear that I will not reveal to any person any information pertaining to the classified activities of the National Security Agency, except as necessary toward the proper performance of my duties or as specifically authorized by a duly responsible superior known to me to be authorized to receive this information.
  • I further solemnly swear that I will report without delay to my security representative the details and circumstances of any case which comes within my knowledge of an unauthorized person obtaining or attempting to obtain information concerning the classified operations of the National Security Agency.
  • I fully appreciate and understand that the security of the information and activities of the National Security Agency is of vital importance to the welfare and defense of the United States.
  • I affirm that I am familiar with the provisions of Sections 793, 794 and 798, Title 18, United States Code.
  • I do hereby affirm any understanding that the obligations of this oath will continue even after severance of my connections with the National Security Agency and that they remain fully binding on me during peacetime as well as during wartime.

My point in sharing this information is to acknowledge both my understanding why the Department of Justice was justified in charging Winner with a crime and also why I am willing to hold judgment whether she is criminal or a patriot.  Thus the title of this blog, “I Wonder, Woman?…” As should be the case at the beginning of any story or investigation, I have more questions than answers, including:

  • I wonder, woman, if the timing of your release of this information was intentional, a heads-up to the Senate Intelligence Committee before it hears public testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers on Wednesday.
  • I wonder, woman, whether the alleged hacking into the IT system of a voter software development company days before the 2016 election would have come up during the hearing absent the leaked report.
  • I wonder, woman, if you were concerned Special Counsel Robert Mueller might not be aware of this additional method by which the Russians were attempting to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
  • I wonder, woman, whether the information in the leaked documents was a greater threat to national security than the commander-in-chief sharing the location of a national intelligence asset with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the United States.
  • I wonder, woman, if the “trail of crumbs” you left behind which facilitated your identification as source of the leak was deliberate?
  • I wonder, woman, if from the start, you intended to give yourself up?  After all, you called your mother a day before being arrested and asked her to find an alternate home for your pets.
  • I wonder. woman, if your decision to “face the music” was a message, that unlike others such as Edward Snowden and Jullian Assange who sought refuge from prosecution, you are willing to make a case that sometimes patriotic acts sometime outweigh personal safety and comfort.
  • Yet, I also have to wonder, woman, why, like Snowden, you gave your story to a second-tier on-line publication as opposed to bringing it to the attention of officials up the chain of command or to a potentially sympathetic member of the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the matters contained in the leaked documents.

Which brings us back to the fictional Wonder Woman.  There is a trend in films based on Marvel and DC comics to make the protagonists more ambiguous in terms of being forces for good or evil.  And the same could be said of Reality Winner.  Her arrest is just the first scene.  And it’s hard to know how the story ends.  It may even require a sequel.  But of one thing I am sure.  Ms. Winner, by choosing to have her day in court rather than becoming the next toast of Moscow or sequestered in a diplomatic sanctuary, emulates her cinema counterpart as a woman “having many strengths and powers, but at the end of the day she’s a woman with a lot of emotional intelligence.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP