Nunes' memo and the firestorm

A firestorm erupted in our government on Monday.   It had been immediately preceded by revelation that, back last June, President Trump had ordered the White House Attorney, Don McGahn to have Robert Mueller fired.   And, along with that, was revealed that when Trump had interviewed veteran FBI officer Andrew McCabe for the position of Acting FBI Director, Trump had asked him who he voted for in 2016.

Then on Monday, the events occurred as described below in this article by a group of Washington Post reporters:

+     +     +     +     +

"Early this month, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein trekked to Capitol Hill in a last-ditch effort to avoid giving Republican lawmakers access to intelligence they considered so sensitive that it could not leave their control.

"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had been agitating for information — which included investigative documents, interviews with top FBI officials and texts between FBI employees — for months as part of his investigation into the Justice Department's handling of the Russia investigation. Now, he was threatening to hold Justice officials in contempt. The two law enforcement leaders hoped House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) might be more sympathetic to their concerns.

"Rosenstein did most of the talking as the two men pressed their case in a closed-door meeting, urging the speaker to let the Justice Department withhold at least some documents, according to people familiar with the exchange. Ryan, however, was unmoved. Nunes's committee, he argued, routinely deals in sensitive, raw intelligence, and this case was no different, the people said.

"The episode would prove a revealing skirmish between the Hill and the Justice Department in an increasingly acrimonious war over the Russia investigation. Current and former law enforcement officials say the feuding — which they say seems driven in some measure by a GOP effort to discredit the Russian investigation — threatens to expose sensitive sources and methods that could be exploited by foreign adversaries, and curtail intelligence-sharing with some of our closest allies, including Britain.

"Nunes ultimately used the information he obtained to create a four-page memo critical of the Justice Department and FBI. And to the dismay of Democrats and various intelligence and law enforcement officials, he and his Republican colleagues are taking steps to release it.

"On Monday, Nunes's committee voted on party lines to authorize its release, which gives the White House up to five days to intervene before it becomes public.  What exactly the memo says — and how significant it is in showing any alleged wrongdoing at the Justice Department and FBI — is a matter of intense debate. . .

[The Republican case is that the FISA surveillance warrant was obtained from the FISA court based on the Steele dossier, much of which has been corroborated but it is not a finished report.   However, the FBI has said some time back that the Steele dossier was not the basis for the FISA application;  it merely confirmed some intelligence the FBI already had obtained in other ways.   My hunch is that the FBI does not want to reveal the true source of their surveillance data that justified the FISA warrant -- because, in effect, they would be giving it to a Trump surrogate, and it may still be a source in an ongoing investigation of Trump and his team.  But the Republicans think they have proof that the FBI was biased toward Clinton because at some point, a PAC supporting her had paid for some of the work done to compile the Steele dossier. - RR]

"The FISA court was apparently not told of the dossier's Democratic Party funding, according to a person familiar with the memo.

"That assertion could provide conservatives ammunition to criticize the Russia investigation and lay the groundwork to possibly discredit whatever conclusions those working on it reach. . . .

"Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) [a member of the committee]  suggested the memo would be explosive: 'We get this memo out there, and people will see, the fix was in.'  Another Republican who has seen it said it might not be the smoking gun conservatives have described. Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said that . . . he largely attributed that uproar to cable news coverage of it. . . .

[Another report has it that Russian bots are amping up the digital demand to "release the memo," adding to the political firestorm this is becoming - RR]

Adding to the push to release the memo are members of the House Freedom Caucus, who met with the president and convinced him that it would help him by discrediting the FBI and the Mueller investigation.   So now Trump is said to be pushing to have it released.

The perfidy and political motivation of Nunes and his Republican members are added to by these facts:
   (1)   The Justice Department wrote a strongly worded letter to the Committee saying that it would be "extremely reckless" to release this memo containing classified information and urging them not to do so.
   (2)   When that did not dissuade Nunes, the FBI and DoJ both asked to be able to come meet with and brief the committee on why they are so concerned with the release.    The committee refused even to do that.
   (3)   The Democrats on the committee have written their own counter-memo, explaining what is factually incorrect, misleading and lacking context that puts it all in a different light.   They requested to at least have their memo released at the same time.    The committee voted, along party lines, not to allow the Democrats to release their memo, until perhaps some time later.
   (4)   Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee has said publicly that the release of the Nunes' memo could "compromise sources and methods" of the intelligence community and damage U.S. relations with its intelligence partners around the world.

+     +     +     +     +

That's where we are.   Devin Nunes, chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence was a member of the Trump Transition Team, and he is obviously doing the Trump administration's cover work.    Soon after the investigation began, he had to recuse himself from the committee's Russia influence investigation because of the midnight stunt he pulled with the White House -- where he snuck over at midnight to pick up some documents, only to parade over to the White House the next day to publicly "deliver" these documents he had acquired that purportedly showed some nefarious misconduct by the DoJ during the Obama administration that resulted in surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser.

Now, this is just a continuation of all that -- but at a later and much more dangerous stage.   We have a war between Republican members of the House and their own Justice Department and FBI, headed by appointees of Trump.    It's not just Republicans and Democrats fighting.   Republicans are fighting Republicans -- but especially they are fighting the rule of law -- and putting their party ahead of their country.

Ralph

PS:  Just saw a report that leaves me more confused about this Nunes' memo.  HuffPost political writers quote Paul Ryan as saying that the Nunes memo is completely unrelated to the Mueller investigation and that he hopes the one is not used to undermine the other.    Ryan further said:   (1)  that he wants the memo released because of the questions about violating an American's civil liberties;  (2) because this was separate from the Mueller investigation;  (3) because there may have been 'malfeasance' at the FBI;   and (4) because it's important to the public to be able to trust the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Now is that all clear?   Maybe . . . but then, what is it about?

Trump is winning

"Trump Is Winning:    Trump is making us a little more like him, and politics a little more like the tribal clash he says it is."   That's the headline for a compelling essay by Ezra Klein on Vox.com.

+     +     +     +     +

Ezra Klein writes that there are two Trump presidencies.  "One of them is the official presidency of Donald Trump, leader of the Republican Party, driver of the legislative agenda, head of the executive branch.   A year in, that presidency looks surprisingly normal."   After some elaboration on that, including the lack of much accomplishment, Klein writes:

"But there is another Trump presidency -- that of Donald J. Trump, reality television star and international brand.  This is the presidency that I suspect matters more to Trump himself . . .  for which the measures of achievement aren't bills passed or jobs created but headlines grabbed and mindshare held.

"This is the presidency that, for all its collateral damage, is succeeding beyond Trump's wildest dreams.   This is the presidency that few have figured out how to resist."

Klein then explains "the law by which Trump lives his life.   Attention creates value, at least for him.   Before Trump, every politician hewed to the same basic rule:   You want as much positive coverage, and as little negative coverage, as possible.   Trump upended that.

"His rule, his realization, is that you want as much coverage as possible, full stop.  If it's positive coverage, great.   If it's negative coverage, so be it.   That point is that it's coverage -- that you're the story, that you're squeezing out your competitors, that you're on people's minds."

Klein shows how the media plays into this.  "It's easier to get bad press than good press."   Remember the old line that they don't cover the planes that land safely.

"Trump dominates news cycle after news cycle by crashing planes into Twitter.  He is everywhere, seemingly all the time.  He says things no national politician in history would have dared say, things that the press covers because they are outrageous . . .   Trump is demanding and receiving our attention, crowding out everything else, accepting that it's better to be hated than to be ignored."

In response to the occasional proposal that the media should just ignore him, Klein counters:   "But Trump controls the nuclear arsenal.  His tweets are considered official statements by the president of the United States. . . .  These are words that start wars, that drive deportations, that set policy, . . . that represent our country. . . .  As much as Trump might treat his presidency like a reality show, it remains a presidency, and lives are in the balance.

"Yet in owning our attention . . . and in doing so by generating constant negative attention, cultural conflict, and emotional alarm, Trump makes us a little more like him, and politics a little more like the tribal clash he says it is. . . .

"Trump drives his opponents to respond in kind, to adopt just a little more of his tone and language and pitch. . . .  America ends up having fights Trump wants us to have. . . .

"As this analysis from Echelon Insights shows, Trump dominated the national conversation on almost every day of 2017, and that was true no matter whether you looked at liberals or conservatives or political elites or everyone.  The mindshare he occupies, the energy he consumes, is vast. . ."

Klein continues:   "I say none of this from atop a soapbox.  I am as guilty of it as anyone . . . .  I find it hard to tear myself away from his daily outrages, even when I know they're less important than other things I could cover.   I find it hard not to respond to him in kind, not to let his language, his energy, his approach, infect mine.

"But there is a cost to this. . . . [and here Klein discusses at length the political costs in zero-sum tribal warfare;  the social and psychological costs in keeping our public discourse at such a fever pitch for four years;  and the opportunity costs -- all the other conversations we could be having about building a better future for our country.]

Then Klein concludes:  "This is, I think, Trump's true purpose in public life:  to have everyone talking about him, looking at him, reacting to him.   He cares more about his coverage than his impact;  he is much more committed to what's said about him on Fox and Friends than what's written about him in history books.   Trump's Reality Show White House has been an unstoppable force, dominating our attention, coarsening our politics, making us angrier and more afraid and more distant from each other.   In this, he's succeeding -- winning, even."

+     +     +     +     +

Klein's comments about finding it difficult to resist being drawn to respond to Trump is exactly my dilemma is writing ShrinkRap.   From time to time, I make an effort to NOT write about Trump for a few days.   But it's hard to sustain.

With him, I'm constantly feeling outrage fatigue -- I'm just tired of having a president to be embarrassed by, appalled at, and in such opposition to.   One small consolation:   Ezra Klein and Vox.com are pretty good company to be in misery with.   And the Trump presidency will end, sooner or later, one way or another.   Just think:   it could be sooner and more judicial than electoral.

Ralph

"Trump digs his own legal grave"

Some excerpts from an article by Jennifer Rubin, conservative columnist for the Washington Post, where this article appeared.

++++++++++

"President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation . . . but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive. . . .  The report is noteworthy on many counts.

"First, Trump’s failed attempt to fire Mueller was apparently known to many individuals, indicating both a lack of discipline on Trump’s part (what else did he say to these people?) and possible waiver of any privilege. If McGahn can be compelled to discuss such interactions with Trump with the special counsel, he may be able to testify as to the president’s motive both in firing FBI Director James B. Comey and attempting to fire Mueller. . . .

"Second, 'Attempted obstruction is obstruction even when the perpetrator backs down after failing to get his consigliere to do the deed for him,” constitutional lawyer Larry Tribe emails me.  'In addition, it’s part of a persistent pattern of obstruction. And it’s also strong evidence of consciousness of guilt.' . . . 

"If one is constructing a case evidencing a deliberate, ongoing plan to disrupt and stop the Russia investigation so as to protect Trump and his family, this is certainly one nugget of damaging information. . . . Like the loyalty demand; telling Comey to let [the probe of Michael] Flynn go; or firing Comey, it evinces corrupt intent. What is Trump trying to hide? . . . 

"Third, the president does back down when confronted. On one hand, McGahn should be commended for standing up to Trump and should set an example for others who may be pressured to carry out illegal or problematic actions. . . .

"Fourth, the attempt to fire Mueller suggests Trump’s childlike belief that the investigation would not proceed, or would not proceed as effectively, without Mueller.  To the contrary, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein would have appointed a replacement, and the same FBI investigators would have continued their digging. The files would all be preserved. Trump personalizes everything, apparently ignorant of the institutional procedures built into the system to ensure that no one person’s removal can keep the wheels of justice from turning. That inability to recognize organization rules and norms may be his downfall.

"Fifth, this underscores how irresponsible Republicans have been in failing to shore up protections for the special counsel. Next time, McGahn may not be there or be able to head off an order to fire Mueller when Trump loses his cool. Republicans — for the president’s own protection — need to bring up legislation allowing notice of a decision to fire Mueller and/or some procedural recourse if Trump does pull the trigger.

"'While credit goes to Don McGahn, this is a blaring alarm: if there was ever any doubt in any Republican leader’s mind that Trump is willing to subvert the rule of law, that is now gone,' says Ian Bassin, who heads the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy.  'The question now for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and their caucuses is whether they truly believe we are a nation of laws and not of men and what they’re willing to do to assure that.'

"Unfortunately, from indulging the antics of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) to refusing to set up a select committee, GOP congressional leaders seem to have already answered the question."

++++++++++

This credible report of Trump ordering McGahn to have Mueller fired last June was deeply sourced (four for the original New York Times report, by four more in subsequent reports by the Washington Post, CNN and others).   So we can take it as truth, despite Trump's denial.   It is one more piece of a mosaic that is showing undeniable obstruction of justice by the president.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) told ABC's Martha Radditz on Sunday that, if Trump fires Mueller it will be the end of the Trump presidency.   And, he added, "everybody in the White House knows it."    I wish I could believe with Graham's certainty of how Congress would react.    

Let's say now that Trump is convinced and won't fire Mueller.  The question is, once Mueller's work is complete and reported to them, whether the Republicans in Congress will do anything about it.   Actually, unless there are such damning charges of other "crimes and misdemeanors" (like money laundering), it might be better to wait on impeachment until January 2019 when, hopefully, Democrats will be in the majority.

It would be better to have that further delay rather than have articles of impeachment introduced and voted down.   Let's wait and see whether the case is strong enough to compel Republicans to act.   No doubt, however, impeachable offenses -- that we know about -- already exist that are sufficient, if only the Congress has the will to act.

Ralph

Trump immigration plan -- not so good

When I wrote yesterday's post, the part about the proposed Trump immigration plan, I thought the brief summary I included just sounded too rosy.   I mean, it sounded like it would be worth giving him money for the wall just to get the other parts.

It was too rosy.   Somehow the down side wasn't really spelled out enough.   So here's what else is involved.

By eliminating the diversity lottery, and the family-sponsored immigration -- and somewhere in the shift to merit-based selection -- the number of immigrants permitted drops to about half.

It  puts sharp restrictions and limits on the so-called "chain migration," meaning the advantage that family members of legal immigrants have.  That is, it has been that a person who is admitted legally then is sometimes able to help close relatives (parents, siblings, grandparents) also immigrate.   It's a big no-no for his base, and Trump's plan puts strong limits on it.

So the Trump plan essentially is rather callous about breaking up families.  Or it puts people in the position of choosing between America and their family.

Another thing I don't get about this merit-based plan (which emphasizes high level of education and technical expertise) is this:    a large number of immigrants work in farm labor and hotel service and landscaping jobs, all of which we need.  None of those require much education.    Do they mean to curtail immigrants who will take those jobs in a merit-based system?

As I wrote yesterday, shifting from a "their needs" immigration system to an "our needs" system -- from a humanitarian motive to a greedy America-first motive -- is abandoning one of our core American values.

Ralph

PS:   Just ran across an opinion piece by Juan Escalante on HuffPost.   Here's a sample:

"As the White House's senior advisor for policy, Stephen Miller seems to have one goal:  to take a wreaking ball to the Statue of Liberty and shove the remains into the Upper New York Bay. . . . 

[In an earlier press conference, when asked about our commitment to 'the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free,' Miller hardly concealed his sneer as he pointed out that that Emma Lazarus poem on a plaque was attached to the Statue of Liberty years later;  it's not part of the original concept.]

"Which brings us to this moment, when the White House is preparing to erode America's reputation as a nation of immigrants and replace it with toxic immigration policy, which it has disguised as a way to save young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children known as 'Dreamers.' . . . 

"On Monday, you will hear White House officials present their outline as nothing short of a heroic attempt to reform our nation's broken immigration system.   Do not be fooled.   What the White House is selling the American people is nothing but a nativist wish list that would reduce the number of immigrants, especially people of color born in countries that Trump considers 'shitholes.'"

News briefs of the week

1.  The New York Times broke the story Tuesday night that last June president Trump instructed the White House counsel Don McGahn to order the Justice Department to fire Robert Mueller.  McGahn refused, saying that, if the president insisted on his doing this, he would resign first.   He explained how harmful it would be to the president himself, given the circumstances.   Trump did not pursue it further . . . yet.

In an earlier and apparently unrelated release, it has also been reported that some time back, when interviewing FBI professional Andrew McCabe to be Acting FBI Director, the president asked McCabe whom he had voted for in 2016.  McCabe's very correct answer was that, according to his obligations to remain politically neutral in his job, he had not voted in the presidential contest.

Come to think of it, has anyone else noticed the growing resemblance of Trump to 1930-40's Italian dictator Benito Mussolini?    Trump's about got that jaw-thrust, chin-tilt scowl down perfect.
Take note in this photo from LGBTQNation:

Firing an FBI Director who is investigating you, asking his potential replacement if he voted for you, and then telling the government lawyer to fire the special prosecutor investigating you?    These are clearly attempts to obstruct justice, a crime.    Is Trump just naive or ignorant , , ,   or a dictator-in-the-making.   


2.  After having campaigned against, among others, the "global elites" who epitomize the attendees of the annual Davos World Economic Forum, President Trump decided this year not only to attend that gathering but to address the group as well.  Another step in his attempt to mintain a nationalist-populist image with his voting base, while governing from the stance of a capitalist, tax-cutting elitist.

The speech was what the New York Times called "mixed facts, falsehoods, and claims that could use context.

He informed the assembled leaders of commerce, government, culture and journalism that "America is open for business again" under his leadership -- and of course he bragged about what he has already achieved (some quite easily debunked as either his having no control over or else, as in job growth, part of a pattern and at a rate that was well under way during the last year of the Obama presidency.

One of the notable aspects of the Trump speech was the booes and hisses that came from some of the audience when he began talking about "fake news" and criticizing the media.   These were not protesters but rather regular members of the invited crowd.

He did make one statement that seemed agreeable, although I question how well he himself has lived up to it:   "We support free trade, but it must be fair and it must be reciprocal."   In his view, this does not include room for requiring that trading partners must meet minimum environmental and work-conditions standards.

3.  The dramatic sentencing hearing has been completed for former USA Olympics sports doctor Larry Nassar, who was also a sports doctor at Michigan State University.  More than 150 girls and women gymnasts accused him of having abused them sexually, and most of them spoke in court aboutr their experience.  The sentence from this trial, added to prior sentences of other trials keeps Nassar in jail now for well over 100 years.

There are other severe consequences.   The entire board of USA Gymnastics, which oversees the US Olympic gymnastics program, was forced to resign if they had not already voluntarily left the board.   The president and athletic director at Michigan State resigned.   Congress and the U.S. Department of Education are opening investigations into sex abuse in sports.

4.  Trump is on his way home from Davos, Switzerland;  and the next thing on his agenda apparently, is surprising everyone with his own immigration plan -- after saying he wanted Congress to come up with something they could agree on, and then after seeming not to understand the policy issues enough to even discuss a plan.

So I think we can assume that this is the work of senior adviser Stephen Miller, a hard-liner on immigration.   As I currently understand it, here are the elements that will be in Trump's plan:
   a.  A path to citizenship for over 1 million 'dreamers' who were brought here as children by their parents;  this would include the 800,000 DACA recipients.
   b.  $25 billion to build the Wall and increase border security
   c.  Elimination of the diversity lottery immigration program.
   d.  Shifting, generally, to a merit-based immigration system, where immigration status is selectively awarded to those with education or technical skills that are needed in our country.  In other words, it shifts immigration from a "their needs" (humanitarian) basis to an "our needs" (America first) basis.   Some countries have this kind of system.   But, given our history of welcoming "the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free," it turns the Emma Lazarus poem affixed to the Statue of Liberty on its head.   It also alters one of the basic values of America.


5.  The GOP has been trotting out first one faux scandal after the other, hoping to find one that would tarnish the FBI, distract from the Mueller investigation, and put the spotlight on Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, the Obama administration . . . almost anything would do.

The problem is that nothing does stick.  The latest, loudly touted by Rep. David Nunes and other conservative Republicans in Congress, is the so-called texts between two FBI members who said unkind things about Donald Trump back during and immediately after the election.   The latest one mentioned a "secret society," which has now mushroomed into a conspiracy theory fever-dream of ridiculousness.

Relax, folks.  It now seems that the original reference in that email exchange between two FBI intimates in a private exchange was a joke.  It was the day after Trump was elected, and they were just venting their dismay and frustration.  One mentioned something like -- we'll just have to join the Secret Society -- or something like that.    It was a JOKE, folks.   Please come down from the ledge.

Ralph

"Please don't call them 'DACA kids'"

Vox.com journalist Dara Lind sent out this plea, and I'm passing it on.   Good information to have.  I didn't know.

@DLind
"I know it's not that important in the scheme of things but PLEASE DON'T call them 'DACA kids.'   The avg age of DACA recipients is 26.  A quarter of them have kids of their own.   This is important for understanding the impact of them not knowing how long they'll have work permits."

====

That's really an important distinction.   "Kids" seemed to fit, because we know they were brought here as small children.   But, in most cases, that was many years ago.   Many of them are serving on active duty in our military.  Some are in graduate school.   Others have careers, which could suddenly be ended if they are deported.

And, most important:   Many of them have taken on responsibilities -- for families, in business, as volunteers in helping organizations -- in short, just what we want in good citizens.   Why deport those who have already proved themselves?

====  

It may be nothing more than one of those door-of-the-plane throw-away comments, but on the eve of his departure for the Davos gathering (without Melania) Trump told reporters that he would be open to a path to citizenship for the DACA recipients in exchange for $26 billion for the border wall.   That breaks down to $32,500 per person in new, vetted, proven good citizens.   They will pay far more tax than that within a few years.   Seems like a good investment for the country and, incidentally, to be done with this divisive issue and humanitarian crisis.

Former RNC Chair blasts evangelicals who are Trump enablers

Back during the campaign when first confronted with the ethical dilemma of Christian conservatives supporting the obviously un-Christian Donald Trump, their explanation seemed rather quaint -- a sort of out-of-this-world, esoteric bit of religious arcana that I didn't pretend to comprehend.   Something like the more familiar phrase:   "The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways," implying that we don't have to understand everything that God does;  sometimes he uses bad people to accomplish long-range good.    

O-o-o-K-a-a-y.

But now, Michael Steele, the former chair of the Republican National Committee and a political analyst for MSNBC -- someone I have come to respect even when I don't agree with his conclusions -- has had his say.   And it is a doozy.

He started by saying that he has "just about had it" with evangelical Christian leaders who support Donald Trump no matter what.   [This came after the revelations about his lawyer paying a porn star $130,000 just before the November election to keep quiet about an affair they had 12 years ago.]

In response to that latest revelation about Trump, Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Christian Family Research Council awarded Trump "a mulligan" (golf term for a "do-over" when you mess up your shot).   Steele wasn't buying it.

Speaking on MSNBC's "Hardball" news and opinion show, Steele said:  "I have a very simple admonition at this point.   Just shut the hell up and don't ever preach to me about anything ever again.  I don't want to hear it.

[Steele continued]:  "After telling me how to live my life, who to love, what to believe, what not to believe, what to do and what not to do and now you sit back and the prostitutes don't matter?   The grabbing the you-know-what doesn't matter?    [Trump's] outright behavior and lies don't matter?   Just shut up."

=====

Michael Steele is not an excitable hothead.   He's a smart, reasonable, analytical type of person.   There may be a little of personal animus in this -- but he is reflecting what I and many others are feeling at this point.   Don't you people have any principles left?    You are revealing that your motivating impulses have nothing to do with "Christian values" of love and sacrifice and caring for others, especially the needy and sick.   Republicans have abandoned all those principles in favor of tax cuts for the rich.  And you Christian leaders are going along . . . for what?   

Please explain.   And please be honest about your motives.

Ralph

PS:   Those who may be new to reading this blog need to know that I do not ascribe to any notion that so-called "Christian values" are the exclusive possession of those who believe all the doctrines and theology of the Christian faith.    In short, I do not believe you have to be a "Christian" to be a good person as measured by how you treat other people.    By that measure, I know some Muslims, some Jews, Buddhists, and some atheists whom I consider to better exemplify those values than some of the professional Christians that I also know.  And please also understand that I am not saying that being a Christian rules out your also being good in this sense.