Tag Archives: impeachment

Some Notes on the “Trial” of Donald Trump

In their opening arguments, the House Democratic managers (read “prosecutors) summarized the testimonial and documentary evidence gathered during the House investigations. Those investigations were, of course, incomplete because the White House prevented many key witnesses from testifying and refused to produce thousands of pages of documents that were subpoenaed from numerous sources. Meanwhile, many Republican senators have stated that they are not interested in the evidence; they will acquit Trump regardless.

Certain questions naturally arise. I will endeavor to answer them.

Does acquittal by the Senate amount to a finding that Trump is innocent of the charges?

Clearly, no. The opening argument by Trump’s defense counsel suggests their central argument is that the House has failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Trump, they say, “did nothing wrong.”

In a situation where many members of the jury (here, the Senate) have stated that they don’t care what the evidence shows and where the majority party, led/owned by the defendant, has/will vote against allowing additional witnesses with first-hand knowledge and against allowing additional documents bearing on guilt to be introduced, it is an easy step for the majority to then vote to acquit on burden-of-proof grounds. But, in doing so, they will not be finding Trump innocent in any meaningful legal sense. At best/worst, they will be saying that you had to fill the evidence cup past half-full and, thanks to our resistance, you failed.

In this way, the Republican majority can bring this phase of Trump’s “trial” to an end, but they cannot find him “innocent.”

What are the implications of Trump withholding testimony/documents?

Republicans defenders are arguing that the House failed in its burden of proof while the defendant, Trump, prevented relevant evidence from being gathered, knowing that legal challenges to his actions would consume most or all of the remaining months until the election, thereby preventing a verdict.

However, when a party possesses evidence about the claimed falsity of a proposition, call it Prop A, but withholds/conceals that evidence, the general principle applied is that an adverse inference against that party is warranted and that Prop A may be fairly found to be true. There is no reason presented in this case to conclude otherwise. The “jury” should therefore find that the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney and the others, and the documents whose production was refused, all point to Trump’s guilt.  This is particularly true when the “jury” itself has the power to compel production of the testimony/documents and declines to do so.

What are the implications of Senator Susan Collins sending a “note” to the presiding judge, Chief Justice Roberts, complaining about comments made by one of the House managers?

This question is really interesting. In a real trial, jurors may not individually communicate with the judge about matters of substance in the trial with some narrow exceptions. For example, a juror might request that the clerk or bailiff present the judge with a question about the trial, but this would be a question openly shared with all parties. Jurors cannot have secret or private conversations with the judge about the trial while it is going on. And it is beyond imagining that a judge, having somehow received a private note from a juror, would act on it without full and open disclosure to the parties and their attorneys.

This episode, which led to the Chief Justice reprimanding both parties “equally” (shades of Charlottesville), raises the question whether other Republican senators have been privately communicating with the presiding officer and, if so, what those communications have said. I wonder why Majority Leader Schumer or the leader of the House Managers, Schiff, has not raised this issue.

Is the impeachment process an attempt to subvert the results of the last election or to prevent the subversion of the next one, as the Republicans claim?

Of all the “defenses” raised by Trump’s counsel, this is perhaps the dumbest. Under the U.S. Constitution, it is self-evident that impeachment may lead to removal of the president from office. Removal necessarily would “undo” the result of the last election. This concept is elementary and obvious. It is no more a “defense” than the argument that the president believes he’s immune from accountability and therefore he is. Removal undoes the last election because it was intended to.

As for possible debarment from running again in 2020 after being removed, the Senate practice has been that this question is separate from initial impeachment and further that it may be decided by a simple majority vote. See https://herit.ag/2TTlQZI The Trump defense counsel argument that the Democrats are trying to affect future conduct by the president is thus unfounded except to the extent that, once removed, his ability to conduct foreign policy or other official acts on behalf of the United States would definitely end.

Is it correct that the president can claim “absolute immunity” for his close aides or that “executive privilege” prevents any testimony or documentary production whatsoever from being compelled? 

This “defense” is unjustified by any known authority. Whatever else it may mean, the Supreme Court decision in United States v Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) laid to rest the argument that a president may refuse to disclose information dealing with his own abuse of power in office. Lawyers will no doubt argue about the scope of that decision, but to find that it allows a president to withheld absolutely and without limit testimony/documents dealing with his abuse of office would effectively render the impeachment power a nullity. It would turn the ability to impeach a president on the ability to discover key evidence without access to the most relevant information. There is, I believe, no support for any concept of absolute immunity.

As for more specific immunity, in the form of “executive privilege,” there is, of course, a basis in American law for permitting the chief executive from being compelled to disclosure certain types of interactions with advisors on certain subjects. This is analogous to the more well-known attorney-client privilege. But you can take it for true that attorney-client privilege does not protect a client or the attorney from discovery of information related to criminal behavior. Thus, if the attorney and client meet and the client asks the attorney for advice on how best to conceal unlawful currency transactions, the exchange in that meeting will not be protected by privilege and the attorney may be compelled to testify about it and may be compelled to disclose notes made in furtherance of the advice on how to break the law.

So too for executive privilege. Absent an extraordinary compelling argument that the national security of the United States would clearly be imperiled by discovery (e.g., demanding that the National Security Advisor state in a deposition everything he knows about the nuclear codes), executive privilege may not be asserted to conceal evidence that the president abused the powers of his office. Moreover, executive privilege, like attorney-client privilege, must be asserted with respect to specific inquiries. It may not be asserted as a blanket excuse from discovery because, among other things, it then becomes in substance a claim of “absolute immunity.”

****

I end by acknowledging I am not an expert on some of the above analyses, but I invite anyone who thinks I am wrong about any of them to demonstrate that by citation of authority and convincing argument other than Republican talking points. I rest my case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Civil Discourse” As a Device to Suppress the Truth in the U.S. Senate

Well, well, well, what a sad state we have come to. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, sitting as judge in the Senate proceedings on President Trump’s impeachment, ignored blatant personal attacks by White House counsel in their opening salvos against the lead House manager, Rep. Adam Schiff, reminiscent of the hysterical, inappropriate and repeated comments of Reps. Jordan, Nunes, Meadows and other Republicans during the House’s initial consideration of impeachment. White House counsel in fact lied to the Senate about the House investigative process that led to the impeachment. Schiff, when he had the opportunity to call out those lies, spoke diplomatically, saying he would not call counsel liars but would solely note that they were “mistaken” in their descriptions of the House process.

Later, after a ridiculously long day and night (about 13 hours) of alternating argument on motions to subpoena documents and witnesses, all of which were rejected by party-line vote, Rep. Nadler had a turn at the podium. Nadler was there to argue for a subpoena to issue for the testimony of former National Security Adviser John Bolton. In the course of his argument, Nadler asked of the Senate, “Will you choose to be complicit in the president’s coverup? So far, I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses — an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”

As reported by Vox.com,

The president’s counsel has no standing to talk about lying,” Nadler said, pointing out that the counsel lied about Trump not being invited to take part in the impeachment inquiry. He told the Senate he personally had invited Trump — which is true — and that “a few days later, we received a letter from Mr. Cipollone on the White House stationary that said, ‘No, there’s no interest in appearing.’ So on the one hand, they’re lying —”

Nadler cut himself off there, and returned to his effort to rebut the White House’s claims with facts. But he returned to his point when concluding his remarks, saying the president “defies everything. Defies the law to withhold aid from Ukraine. Defies the law in a dozen different directions, all the time. And lies about it, all the time. And sends Mr. Cipollone here to lie about it.”

…. Nadler was correct in asserting the White House counsel was lying to the Senate. As Vox’s Aaron Rupar [see https://bit.ly/2TPOfzI] noted, the defense team’s opening remarks alone contained at least four easily refuted lies. And as the proceedings went on, those lies — particularly the claim that Trump had been barred from participating in the impeachment inquiry — were repeated.

Nadler’s statements were an attempt to push back against these false claims — and given the fact that they were delivered after more than 10 hours of deliberation, they may have been couched in some frustration.

Given that frustration, and the length of the day, working to avoiding fistfights on the Senate floor is admirable. And it is important that the drama of the trial be contained to discussions of presidential wrongdoing, rather than on fights.

But if there is no way for either side to openly challenge when the other side is not presenting arguments based on the facts, there is little point in having the trial at all. The way it will end seems predetermined, and what Trump did with respect to Ukraine is clear, meaning its value lies in hearing the best — fact-based — cases for why the president does or does not deserve removal.” [https://bit.ly/2Gd1wKy]

Nadler, likely fatigued by the length of the proceedings as dictated by the Republican majority, spoke very bluntly and, for him, passionately.

Now, the president’s lawyer rose to object, taking umbrage to what he argued was an affront to the Senate, demanding an apology. Suddenly humble and solemn, Mr. Cipollone acted out his new persona as a wounded warrior, advocating not for himself, of course, but for the Senate, for the great body itself.

Astoundingly, in my opinion, the Chief Justice now took it upon himself to admonish the parties to remember that they were speaking to the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” He claimed to be chastising both sides equally, but it was not equal. Not even close.

White House counsel not only attacked House managers personally, but they lied to the Senate about the House process, a fact noted by commentators on news programs. I am pretty hard to surprise these days, but I shared the astonishment of legal commenters that White House counsel would lie to the Senate about something so well-known and so obvious. But they did it. No one demanded they apologize. No one wept about the smudge of the Senate’s supposedly stellar reputation as the “world’s greatest deliberative body” when counsel for the president openly misrepresented facts.

I hope that the Chief Justice is going to manage these contentious and unprecedented proceedings in a more even-handed manner going forward. I am not suggesting he intervene to critique the parties’ arguments as they are made. The parties should be given leeway to make their respective cases. But if we’re going to maintain the pretense that everyone in this conflict must leave passion at the door, that should apply to both sides in equal measure. The phony umbrage of White House counsel is of a piece with the president’s continuing efforts to suppress evidence and damage the credibility of the House investigation. The fact that they represent the president does not authorize the judge in the case to place his thumb on the scale of justice. The next time White House counsel attack the integrity of the House managers or grossly misrepresent known facts, the Chief Justice must call them out immediately and put a stop to what is, in every manifestation so far, a one-sided and fundamentally unfair proceeding.

ADDED NOTE: While the impeachment trial is underway, the Senate GOP is tweeting false statements about Rep. Schiff and the House Democratic process that led to Trump’s impeachment. Question: are Republicans to be allowed to beat their chests about “civil discourse” while simultaneously lying to the world in another forum?

Profiles in Cowardice

I have just read the initial Answer of President Donald J. Trump to the array of charges set forth in the House of Representatives Articles of Impeachment. It reads like a school-yard tantrum. It refers to a “brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election,” assertions that are interesting if only for their illogical reasoning. I won’t waste time on “brazen” but will note that impeachment by its very nature reverses the electoral result that places any president in office. Surely, the president’s lawyers understand that. What do they really mean? And, it’s a bit ironic, to put the most polite words to it, that they would argue that the impeachment will interfere with the next election, since that is the very offense by Trump for which the impeachment investigation and articles of impeachment were brought. So this opening claim is really just “you’re one too!”

The opening gambit continues with references to the “will of the people,” a matter that Republicans maintain was definitively settled by the 2016 election. Yet, the evidence is clear that, whether or not Trump coordinated on it, the outcome was heavily influenced by a massive Russian disinformation campaign. And there is the small matter of Hillary Clinton having received nearly three million more votes than Trump. While the technical outcome, to borrow a turn of phrase from Alan Dershowitz, of the Electoral College gave the election to Trump, it is more than a stretch to argue that this result reflected the “will of the people.” At best it was the will of the people as distorted by the EC that grants outsized influence to states with smaller populations based on a scheme adopted in 1787 that was a compromise to gain the support of the slave states of the south.

Trump’s lawyers assert that absent a claim of a “crime,” there can be no constitutionally sound impeachment. That argument is simply wrong. Interestingly, Alan Dershowitz who was recently added to Trump’s defense team argued the exact opposite when addressing the question in the Clinton impeachment. https://cnn.it/37gUsJ1 While lawyers are certainly entitled to change their minds in the face of new information, Dershowitz claims that what he said in 1998 is the same as what he says now. That claim is simply preposterous although it is entirely consistent with the continuing positioning of the Republican Party that the truth is whatever they last said it was.

After a lengthy series of changing theories of defense of the president, the defense has at long last come down to the reality that the only “viable” defense is that even if Trump acted as claimed in the articles of impeachment, it doesn’t matter because the president can do whatever he wants. The defense flatly claims that the president did “absolutely nothing wrong.”

We have reached this state because while it permissible to argue defenses in the alternative, in the end the evidence, were it admitted into the Senate record, would establish beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of proof in criminal cases) that Trump did exactly what was charged in the articles. And the argument that the president of the United States is immune from Congressional oversight, including impeachment, is simply wrong. It flies in the face of the language and historical context of the Constitution’s balance-of-powers scheme.

I am not going to bore you or myself with an excessively detailed dissection of the Trump defense memo. But I will note the remarkable argument that the proof that Trump did nothing wrong is established only by … Trump’s own after-the-fact claims that he did nothing wrong. In effect, the defense is that the president is not guilty because he said so.

The memo also argues that there is no problem here because ultimately the aid to Ukraine was released without Ukraine announcing the investigations Trump wanted. That, I suggest, is an implicit admission that Trump in fact did demand announcements of investigations as a condition for releasing the aid, but eventually caved because his attempt to blackmail Ukraine failed. This is the “no harm, no foul” argument, but it assumes away the central question. The “harm” occurred when the demands were made. Harm does not depend on success of the scheme. The scheme itself was harmful to American foreign policy and security interests and was contrary to American law.

I have also listened all day to the first day of the impeachment proceedings. Several observations are in order. First, the presentations led by Rep. Adam Schiff with participation by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Val Demings and Rep. Jason Crow were uniformly brilliant in virtually even way. By contrast, counsel for the president, Jay Sekulow, Pat Cipollone and Patrick Philbin were angry and hostile, attacking Schiff personally and lying to the Senate about the process that had occurred in the House investigation. Schiff, smartly, declined to call them liars and instead said they were simply “mistaken” in their descriptions. I have to say I was surprised at the brazen manner in which these lawyers misrepresented well-known facts in an effort to preserve Trump/Republican talking points.

The Senate process if, of course, blatantly stacked against the Democrats, with the result that all the early motions to have the Senate subpoena documents and witnesses that had been blocked by Trump were defeated by straight party-line votes of 53-47. Nevertheless, the Democrats are making their motions one at a time, with attendant periods of two hours (divided equally between the sides) for argument. I stopped watching when the dinner recess was called at about 7:30. I expect the proceedings to continue deep into the night.

The Democrats, it seems certain, are going to fail to break the Senate Republicans’ unity and thus the outcome of the sham trial appears foreordained. But the evidence, or at least clear outlines of the evidence, are making their way into the record through argument. This process seems certain to further damage Trump’s “credibility,” especially given that most polls indicate a substantial majority of the public prefers that witnesses be called and documents be produced. Neither appears likely to happen.

Tomorrow, as the saying redundantly goes, is another day.

 

Money, Money, Money ….

You hopefully recognize the lines from the movie version of the musical Cabaret in which Liza Minelli and Joel Grey sing

Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go ’round

A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound
A buck or a pound
A buck or a pound
Is all that makes the world go around
That clinking clanking sound
Can make the world go ’round

And so on, humorously, but with underlying cynicism about what motivates people to act, or not act. The full lyrics can be found here. https://genius.com/John-kander-money-song-lyrics  and a YouTube video of the movie masterpiece, here: https://bit.ly/2rVMplk

We’ve been seeing a lot of recent press reports fawning over the large contributions haul that Donald Trump has accrued, with the suggestion, but, as usual, with no real proof, that his money-raising success is attributable to public backlash against his impeachment by the House of Representatives. Indeed, these claims are made despite multiple polls showing the majority of Americans think it’s time for Trump’s removal for high crimes and misdemeanors. A lot of the publicity about the money seems intended to demoralize Democrats.

But all this gushing over Trump’s financial haul (even assuming, improbably, he/they are not lying about the sums he’s getting, a partial truth still being a lie), the full picture is quite different.

Let’s consider what is actually happening on the Democratic side of the fundraising ledger. Politico reports, “Democrats are riding a massive surge of presidential campaign cash into 2020.” https://politi.co/39GUuvq

The current Democratic presidential contenders and the Democratic National Committee combined raised over $480 million in the last year — more than President Donald Trump’s reelection machine brought in during that time. [emphasis added]

This occurred despite the huge advantage that an incumbent president normally has, the division of Democratic efforts among an unusually large number of hopefuls and the traditional Republican advantage among the big-money donors, whose support Republicans are completely happy to accept even when it comes with major expectations of favors later to be granted. Money, Money Money ….

To be sure, there are issues for Democrats in the fundraising area, but also offsetting considerations, as noted by Politico,

Though the [Democratic] party is about to spend much of the money raised on a tough primary while Trump builds up resources to take on the eventual nominee, the millions of contributions to Democrats in $10 or $20 increments signal massive enthusiasm from the party grassroots heading into the election year.

Some of that enthusiasm may derive from the growing awareness that Trump is also stealing a lot of money from the taxpayers to cover the cost of his incessant golf trips to his properties and the cost of his political “rallies” at which he spends his time attacking his “enemies” (the press, Democrats, the Constitution, teenagers like  Greta Thunberg and the survivors of the school shootings, and on and on).

Is there anything on the horizon that should dim the enthusiasm that Democrats currently show? Maybe. It has been speculated almost since Trump took office that, if he felt his power position genuinely threatened, he would stop at nothing to save himself, including starting a war somewhere. It may be that the recent decision to kill the top Iranian military commander with a drone strike was just that moment everyone has dreaded. Only time will tell how this plays out politically. Some young people will no doubt be satisfied to sacrifice their careers and perhaps their lives to live out Trump’s fantasies about global power and “America First,” but many others, and their parents and other family members, will likely blanch at the prospect of forced military service to support a war that Trump promised would not happen on his watch.

Trump can’t go more than a few hours without tweeting about the impeachment that he claims is unwarranted. He protests way too much for an innocent man, especially one who knows he has the Republican Party in his back pocket, no matter what he does. Tweeting and starting a war won’t save him. If anything, these actions should inspire Democrats to contribute more.

The main hope is that once the in-fighting is over, the Democratic Party will unite around whoever is the nominee and the real donations will flow in. Trump will spend without limit, even if he has to drain his businesses (more bankruptcies won’t concern him at all) to do it. And, of course, he probably hasn’t begun to think of creative ways to make taxpayers cover more of his campaign costs.

Democrats better get sharp with their messaging. Trump has provided a literal gold mine of material to use against him. I understand that his so-called “base” will likely not be moved by any evidence of wrong-doing or incompetence on Trump’s part, but there are plenty of movable voters who should not be written off just because they voted for Trump in 2016. Much has happened since the last election and almost none of it is favorable to Trump. The question is whether the Democratic Party and its leadership will be as smart and tough as the Trump machine that knows no bounds of decency or honesty. That is not to argue that Democrats should emulate Trump and the Republican Party’s conduct but that it should be very focused on using that conduct against Trump’s re-election campaign. Rope-a-dope and all the rest. Just do it.

And meanwhile, prepare to keep the money, money money … coming in. It’s time also to narrow the field and get to the end game – a nominee that can not only defeat Trump but also be a leader worthy of the United States of America, a leader who can recognize the faults in our history but with the vision to create a better country for the future. We need a leader who can understand how to be strong and peaceable at the same time, who can respect differences but unite the country behind a benevolent vision that sustains everyone, not just the people already at the top.

 

F**king Liberals

As previously reported, it was a cold and wet night in New York City for Impeachment Eve. That did not stop the thousands upon thousands of loyal Americans from joining a rally and march from Times Square (46th & Broadway) to Union Square (14th Street & Park Avenue). The large crowd was enthusiastic and angry. The repeated chants of “Ho, Ho, Donald Trump has got to GO!” and “Impeach Trump – REMOVE!” were rendered with gusto. There were some amusing signs but most were direct in their recognition that the occupant of the White House is a criminal and traitor to American values. Considering the weather, the turnout for this event was extraordinary. New York’s Finest were turned out in force to block streets where necessary to let the march pass unimpeded.

Meanwhile, back in the White House, the president of the United States was likely going berserk. Having already produced a tyrannical and hysterical rant letter of six pages to the Speaker of the House, packed as usual with dissembling and lies, what is left? He could break up some furniture that, after all, doesn’t belong to him so why would he care? Better yet, he could do some tweeting. I haven’t checked but I’m betting that’s what he did. And continues to do today.

Anyway, the march in New York City was remarkable. As far as I’m aware, there was no pushback from Trump “supporters” except one relatively young man with a large backpack who pushed past us on the sidewalk muttering aloud, “f**king liberals!” Otherwise, the crowd was of one mind. We were impressed to see the diversity of ages, including elderly folks walking with canes and many young adults who recognize the danger that Trumpism represents to their future.

I have set out below a small sample of photos from the event, mostly rendered in “night vision.” We were not alone, of course, as the internet is alive with photos from around the country as groups large and small went outside to show their contempt for this president and his enablers.

We all understand that the Republicans in the Senate are not going to convict Trump. Their position is that they don’t care what crimes he may have committed. He is their man and they are going to stick with him to the end. They apparently live under the illusion that they will be in control of the federal government forever and therefore there will be no day of reckoning. That is, of course, the ultimate question: will the majority of Americans accept the destruction of their democracy or will they rise up and assure that truth, justice and the American way prevail in 2020? If Impeachment Eve is any guide, the answer is YES.

Impeachment Eve

NOTE: Feel free to share this post with anyone you wish.

Tomorrow evening (Tuesday), rallies will be held around the country in anticipation of the House vote on the Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump. The weather forecast for New York City (wet and cold) notwithstanding, we will be participating in the Times Square event. At last count 589 events were scheduled around the country. If you’re reading this, you can almost certainly find an event close enough to attend.

When asked what kind of government the new Constitution would produce, Ben Franklin famously said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” That is the essence of the question before us now.

While news reports indicate that the House Democrats have the votes to adopt the impeachment articles, it is important to show strength of conviction now and actively support the impeachment effort. If it’s cold where you live, add some layers, buy pocket warmers, do whatever it takes to join the thousands, nay, the tens of thousands who will be demonstrating in support of the House action to impeach Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

If you harbor doubts about whether the impeachment is warranted, I urge you to search for the editorials of the New York Times or the many other major papers that have come out in favor of impeachment. Here is a sample of the some of those papers:

Los Angeles Times

Boston Globe

New York Daily News

Chicago Sun-Times

USAToday

Washington Post

Philadelphia Enquirer

San Francisco Chronicle

Orlando Sentinel

Salt Lake Tribune

Tampa Bay Times

The Republican arguments against impeachment have changed so many times it is impossible to comprehend in cogently logical terms the principles or concepts on which their defense is based. In the end, it comes down to “So what? Who cares?” They simply refuse to acknowledge what the White House-manufactured “transcript” says Trump demanded. They argue that he was really only interested in curing corruption in Ukraine even though corruption was not mentioned in the call with Ukraine President Zelensky.

I will not go into the details of all that at length. If you aren’t persuaded by now that Donald Trump is a corrupt violator of the U.S. Constitution, including his oath of office, and American law, nothing I can say here will persuade you.

But I will say this, that I believe is true beyond a doubt: the fate of the democracy we know as the United States of America, imperfect though it may be, is in grave danger. It is no exaggeration to compare the Republican subservience to Donald Trump and the resulting disinformation campaigns to the events that subverted Germany in the 1930s. Many serious thinkers, historians and legal experts, have warned of these dangers.

I understand that the Republican-dominated Senate is not going to convict Trump. The Senate Majority Leader has already publicly stated that the Senate Republicans will coordinate with the accused and do whatever the president wants. Senator Lindsey Graham, who formerly condemned Trump as a “nut job,” has stated that he is not even going to read the evidence before voting against impeachment. It is nonetheless vital that the evidence of Trump’s perfidy be presented for action.

Suffice to say, then, that the burden is upon us as individuals to be a little uncomfortable and to take action to challenge the narrative on which the Republican Party has chosen to stand. If we fail to do enough, we may regret it forever.

 

 

Hero of the Week

No, it’s not any of the Democratic politicians who brought articles of impeachment against the criminal traitor Donald Trump (because they omitted the 10 cases of blatant obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report – more about that in another post).

No, my Hero of the Week is Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo who ripped into Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn for their corrupt alliance with the National Rifle Association that the Sheriff said was ultimately responsible for the death of the officer he was there to bury [https://bit.ly/2RAg7XA]:

I don’t want to see their little smug faces about how much they care about law enforcement when I’m burying a sergeant because they don’t want to piss off the NRA.

Referring to the three senators, Sheriff Acevedo also said:

Make up your minds. Whose side are you on? Gun manufacturers, the gun lobby — or the children that are getting gunned down in this country every single day?

The Violence Against Women Act is stalled in the Senate in part because

the NRA doesn’t like the fact that we want to take firearms out of the hands of boyfriends that abuse their girlfriends …. You’re either here for women and children and our daughters and our sisters and our aunts, or you’re here for the NRA.

This is a law enforcement officer who speaks his mind. He is angry because he witnesses the real-life consequences of the Republicans’ refusal to advance legislation that might affect the position of the NRA that any restriction on access to guns is unacceptable. Cornyn is cited in the referenced article as, typically, blaming the bill’s failure to advance on the Democrats who won’t “negotiate” because they are focused on the small matter of a criminal traitor sitting in the White House with the support of, naturally, the Texas senatorial delegation and, of course, #MoscowMitch. I saw a TV clip yesterday of Cruz claiming that it was true that Ukraine interfered in the U.S. election in 2016, another example of gaslighting the nation with false narratives promoted by Russia for which zero evidence has been found to exist. Cruz cited a public statement made by an official in Ukraine to support his case, but it is blatantly obvious to any thinking person that expressing an opinion about something is not “interference” in an electoral process. Cruz is just another Trump toady.

In any case, kudos to Sheriff Acevedo for speaking the truth under the difficult circumstance of burying a fellow officer who died in the line of duty answering a domestic disturbance call involving an abusive boyfriend. The blood on NRA’s hands continues to mount. One day they will drown in it and good riddance.