Tag Archives: Trump

Whistling by the Graveyard

Leave a reply

On August 25, 2018, the New York Times published a “News Analysis” of Donald Trump’s treatment of the American legal system:  Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to Erode Trust in the Law, by Michael D. Shear and Katie Benner. https://nyti.ms/2oINv1V

The piece opens with this:

In his attempt at self-defense amid the swirl of legal cases and investigations involving himself, his aides and his associates, Mr. Trump is directly undermining the people and processes that are the foundation of the nation’s administration of justice.

The result is a president at war with the law.

Further, and presciently,

The president’s public judgments about the country’s top law enforcement agencies revolve largely around how their actions affect him personally – a vision that would recast the traditionally independent justice system as a guardian of the president and an attack dog against his adversaries.

The comment ends with this:

“No matter when this all ends, Trump will have caused long-lasting damage to the ability of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. to execute on its mission…. He is sacrificing our public safety and national security on the altar of his own ego.” [quoting Christopher Hunter, a former FBI agent and prosecutor]

Certainly, the authors could not have precisely foreseen how Trump’s approach to governance would lead to the present circumstances, but their overall impression of the direction of Trump’s presidency was stunningly accurate.

Now, perhaps emboldened by what he convinced himself was “exoneration” by Mueller and thus a free hand going forward, Trump has been caught out trying to use a foreign power to influence the 2020 election. And, the evidence is clear, Trump and his loyal team of lawyers, who were also allowed to skate by Mueller, have clumsily tried to cover up the president’s crimes by secreting the records in a computer system designed to contain only coded high-security information. Indications are that this is not the first time they have done this. As we have come to expect, Trump responded to all this by threatening his “enemies,” attacking the press and deflecting by inventing others’ offenses that he purports to expose.

All of that was simply too much for the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who called for an impeachment inquiry and had the votes to do it. Trump responded by declaring that Pelosi was no longer the Speaker of the House. This from a man who publicly swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Also, as we have come to expect, Republican enablers in and outside the White House rushed to Trump’s defense with all manner of false and hysterical claims. While the wagons were being circled, more news emerged, including that Secretary of State Pompeo was listening on the Trump-Zelensky call even though he indicated otherwise in television interviews. Trump is demanding to “face my accuser” and has said that the White House is trying to determine the whistleblower’s identity even though the governing law provides for protection of that individual’s identity. Trump supporters have offered a large cash award for anyone who will conclusively identify the whistleblower. Trump has not repudiated them for this action, arguably putting the whistleblower’s life in danger.

And so it goes. Meanwhile, the Editorial Board of the New York Times and the editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have both called for Trump to resign. Likely, other major newspapers will join the list. What goes around ….

The Times if, of course, still trying for “journalistic balance,” by giving print space to defenders of Trump to make their case. The same Sunday that the Times printed “The Allegations Are Grave. An Election Is at Risk. The Founders Were Clear,” a half-page op-ed appeared, entitled “Impeachment Is an Act of Desperation,” by Christopher Buskirk, publisher and editor of the very conservative website American Greatness. Buskirk’s argument is the reason for the title of this post.

Buskirk posits that by proceeding with an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s conduct, the Democrats are playing into the Republicans’ hands and assuring Trump of victory in 2020. Why? Because (1) “we’ve all been down this road before” and nothing Trump has done or said so far has affected his support that “has bounced around in more or less the same range since he took office,” (2) what about Hunter Biden in Ukraine? (3) impeachment “success requires broad public support,” and (4) Democrats can only beat Trump by focusing on the issues.

The corollary to the first point is that “there will be no resignation, there will be no conviction in the Senate.” That is probably true, but it misses the point that Trump’s conduct is so egregious across a broad range of areas and issues that a well-presented impeachment case in the House will serve the Democratic agenda in 2020 as well or better than any candidate on her/his own. It also ignores the Democratic sweep of House seats, and return to a majority there, in 2018. Finally, to claim that Trump’s popularity has not been affected by his prior egregious acts in office ignores the reality that his “popularity” is very low. These are not the likely elements of a winning position.

Buskirk’s second point is the classic Republican trope transplanted from Barack Obama (the usual target of Trump ego-angst) to Joe and Hunter Biden. But, no matter what the Bidens may have done in Ukraine, and so far there is no evidence of wrongdoing, a point made repeatedly by past and present Ukrainian officials with reason to know, it would not justify Trump’s attempt to arm-twist a foreign government into investigating a domestic political opponent. Except for self-defense against physical threats, American law does not support a defense that “someone else broke the law so I can too.” This is essentially the “Hillary’s emails” defense and it’s worthless. As Yogi Berra famously said, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Buskirk’s third point – impeachment success requires broad public support – is, I believe, simply wrong. Impeachment requires only a smartly executed process of compiling and presenting for public viewing the evidence of corruption in the multiple scenarios in which Trump has acted as if he were above the law. But even if Buskirk’s claim is right, we are in early days and it’s premature to conclude that the public won’t get on board as the evidence of Trump’s venality and illegality is presented. Again, this assumes the presentation is properly done. I have argued repeatedly that this must not turn into another political show with politicians sitting on the House committees trying to act like practicing prosecutors. Develop a list of “points to be proved” and leave the questioning to experts that know how to do it.

Finally, the fourth point that defeating Trump requires beating him on the “issues,” is an attempt to divert attention from what is at the root of the current mess. Trump has willfully violated a serious federal law designed to protect American elections from foreign interference and then tried to cover it up. Moving the records to a secret computer for coded security information is functionally equivalent to Richard Nixon’s deletion of 18.5 minutes of tapes involving a crucial meeting between the President and his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, the revelation of which ultimately destroyed Nixon’s support in the Senate and forced his resignation prior to being impeached and removed. Trump’s crimes are extremely serious and they follow a thoroughly documented showing of at least 10 prior instances of criminal obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report. He was only saved from indictment by Mueller because the Department of Justice, dubiously, has opined that a sitting president may not be indicted.

Buskirk argues that impeachment of Trump now is just “political theater” and “more Washington psychodrama.” He claims the voters are simply uninterested in the crimes Trump may have committed and that they “just want to know what Washington is going to do for them.”

Methinks Buskirk has it backwards. Trump’s most ardent supporters seem only interested in political theater. The proof is evident in the endless tapes of Trump’s rallies that have little or nothing to do with “issues” and everything to do with performance. Trump is a star in that crowd because … he’s a star. He gives voice to their anger and fear and they see no irony in the fact that he is rich and unlike them in almost every way. He does not really share their fear and anger; he puts on the show they came to see and they love him for it even though the hard evidence is that he has done virtually nothing to make their lives better.

And that is the ultimate point. Even if Buskirk’s assessment regarding the “issues” is correct, it fails to reckon with Trump’s massive and ongoing failure to deliver on most of his electoral promises. If indeed it is only “issues” that will motivate the voters, and Trump’s illegal and immoral conduct of the Office of President and multiple violations of his oath of office are not “issues” of interest or force in the election, Trump’s performance still fails. Most of his governance actions are for “show” to impress his political base but it is not a stretch to show how he has failed to deliver.

So, is impeachment a mistake? I don’t think so. Democrats have been handed a weapon by Trump that needs to be used with surgical precision. We have a criminal in the White House, a person who does not respect the office he holds or guiding principles of the government he swore to serve. It should not be hard for the Democrats to show this to the electorate in a compelling way, to motivate their own base to go the polls in 2020 and, if Donald Trump still sits in the White House, to send him packing.

Going Along to Get Along

Leave a reply

Since the news of Donald Trump’s latest criminality is racing ahead faster than I can keep up, I’m just going to engage in a little homespun philosophizing for a moment. The subject is “inevitability.” By that I mean the inevitability that some things that start badly will end badly.

Trump, we now know (Mueller) was elected with the substantial help of Russia. To that extent, at least, he is an illegitimate president. The majority of the American electorate, by a margin of about 3 million votes, wanted someone else to be president. Someone who, while far from ideal and with some troubling history, had shown for many years a high degree of intelligence, commitment to important human values and a willingness to serve her country, if not perfectly, at least with a serious commitment to protect its interests.

The person who was elected was not demonstrably qualified to be president. He was qualified, if at all, to be what he was: a real estate tycoon, staked by cash from his father, who had managed to bankrupt casinos, an airline, and a multitude of other businesses bearing his name. He had a reputation for dishonesty, for refusing to pay his bills, for using the legal system to bully and intimidate others and a reputation as a misogynist who was buddies with the likes of Jeffrey Epstein. His life was so exposed to public view that there was no doubt about his character and values, made all the clearer by the revelations in the Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape. Many Republican stalwarts of the day, such as the US Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, spoke of him in the most derogatory terms imaginable: “a race-baiting xenophobic religious bigot” who is “putting our soldiers and diplomats at risk” and “empowering our enemies.” https://cnn.it/2DjJHdC Another Republican leader of presumed integrity, Mitt Romney, described this person as “so not smart.”

Nevertheless, with help from Russia, Donald Trump rose to the top of the manure pile that was the Republican nominee class. Further aided by the Electoral College, a vestige of another time and country we thought had passed into history, Trump vanquished all the Republican contenders and won the general election. His most ardent supporters didn’t care whether he was qualified. They were against his opponent and liked that he “told it like it is” even though independent fact-checkers found that Trump lied multiple times a day. It took only a few days for his prior critics, Graham and Romney among them, to undergo a complete transformation. Romney went begging for a Cabinet job (rejected) and Graham became one of Trump’s most enthusiastic cheerleaders. When Robert Mueller produced conclusive evidence that Trump had committed at least 10 significant acts of criminal obstruction of justice, Graham said he didn’t care about that “obstruction of justice stuff.” https://bit.ly/2mAPxAt

In office, Trump’s conduct has matched his résumé. His speech is full of bigoted and often incomprehensible hate rhetoric. His policies have been rejected by the courts in a multitude of cases. His cabinet appointees proved to include a large number of grifters in it for the perks and unqualified incompetents with no idea how to manage a large federal department. Many have resigned in disgrace. There have been more indictments and jail terms handed out in Trump’s administration that in any modern presidency except Nixon (who resigned when impeachment was imminent) and he’s only in his third year.

The evidence is now in, and Trump has admitted most of the essential actions involved, showing that Trump tried to get the help of a foreign power to undermine his (currently) main 2020 challenger, Joe Biden. The evidence of Trump’s illegal conduct was apparently recognized by multiple staff and thus the records of the call were moved to a coded computer intended for other purposes on the “direction of White House lawyers” or other “White House officials,” which may be the same thing in this case (to be determined).

This is not, of course, out of the ordinary. The Mueller Report, about which I published a series of too-long analyses in this blog, documented multiple undisputed cases in which White House staff were directed by Trump to engage in acts constituting criminal obstruction of justice. While Mueller was unduly impressed with the failure of some of those staff, including attorneys, to carry out all of Trump’s obstruction directives, I showed there were cases in which they clearly did what Trump demanded. Mueller’s failure to indict those people remains unexplained and inexplicable.

This, then, is the central theme of the Trump administration. An entire collection of Republican elected officials, comprising a majority of the Senate, and a number of White House staff, including attorneys, have actively participated in the crimes and the coverup of those crimes.

Why do they risk everything for this?

It’s hard to fathom. For some, no doubt, it’s just the money. Or it’s just keeping the job. For some, it’s possibly the innate resistance we all have to uncertainty and major changes in our lives. For some, I’m sure, there is a misguided attachment to some ideology that they convinced themselves is being promoted by this president.  In all cases, it’s easier, much easier, to go along to get along than to do the right thing. It’s hard to give the advice no one wants to hear. If, as in Trump’s case, the boss has a short fuse, is easily angered and has made clear that personal loyalty to him is more important than virtually anything else, it’s hard to get yelled at, called out and humiliated in front of colleagues for not being a “team player,” “putting everyone at risk” and being called a rat. It’s very hard to be the odd-man-out when a big challenge is on the table and everyone else is either deferring to someone else or simply agreeing to avoid being called out. Going along to get along is the easy path. Standing on principles is very difficult.

Thus, going along rules the day. With each affirmation, each failure to object, the pressure to stay that course mounts until, in all likelihood, the possibility of taking a stand for principle, for the right thing, doesn’t even arise any more.

These outcomes, which are commonplace in society and entrenched in Trump’s history and his performance as president, are, I think, the inevitable consequence of electing someone who is fundamentally not competent to do what is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world. And that inevitability is all the more assured when the mitigating influences are stilled.

It’s not just the Mitt Romneys and Lindsey Grahams and Mitch McConnells who are responsible, though they certainly bear huge responsibility. It’s also the voters who stayed home; it’s the voters who said “if it’s not Bernie, I won’t vote or I’ll just vote for Trump;” it’s the voters who didn’t think about the question of qualifications at all and just thought it was cool that Trump called his opponents by insulting nicknames and threatened to ban Muslims and immigrants from the United States. It’s the voters who still think a woman’s place is … nowhere. It’s the voters who are racists and religious bigots. It’s the inevitable result of all those actions, inactions and indifference.

There was, I believe, no chance that Donald Trump’s presidency could have been successful by any reasonable standard. It was clear early on that the Republican Party establishment would go along to get along; that the types of people Trump admired and appointed to cabinet and high government posts were often unqualified ideologues, in it for themselves and no one else. It was clear that nothing of substance was going to change. Inevitability was driven by the root problem of Trump’s incompetence, dishonesty, immorality and insecurity, all of which was there to be seen.

We now have arrived at the denouement of this sad, pathetic saga. Trump has admitted to seeking the aid of a foreign power to help him win the 2020 election. He participated in a coverup, adding to the multiple violations of fundamental American law of which he is guilty. He was aided in this by multiple White House staff who were going along to get along.  The time has come for a reckoning.

As I have written elsewhere, the proceedings in the House of Representatives should move forward with deliberateness. The relevant committees should hold multiple hearings to set out the evidence not only about the Ukraine episode and coverup but also the evidence of criminal obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report. The evidence should be presented by experts, and hostile witnesses should be cross-examined by retained expert trial counsel.

Above all, take the time to do this right. The American public needs to understand all of what happened, presented in a way that ordinary people can understand. DO NOT allow another Lewandowski style hearing to occur. If the committees are going to do their jobs, insist that testimony be presented under oath and if questions are refused without claims of 5th Amendment privilege, arrest the witnesses and hold them in contempt of Congress. This is the job the American people expect and deserve from their elected leaders. The time has come for a reckoning.

There is much talk in the press about whether a majority of Americans support impeachment. That, I suggest, is the wrong question. This is not a political popularity contest whose outcome should depend on ever-shifting polls. Impeachment, rarely used because it is so serious, is about holding to account a lawless regime that threatens to undermine the democratic republic that was created by the Constitution. If the case is properly made, the majority of Americans will support the action. The Republicans in the Senate will undoubtedly act as they have always acted, supporting the regime no matter what it does. So be it. Make the case for the voters to see. Do it professionally and soberly in keeping with the gravity of the task.

It will be hard for politicians, especially those running for president, to give up some of the limelight but it is essential that they do so in the interest of bringing an end to the massive and unrelenting corruption that has infested the Trump presidency from its inception. The time has come for a reckoning.

 

Choose Your Antidote – Double Down with ACLU

Leave a reply

You are being poisoned. So are your children and grandchildren if you have them. And the rest of your family and your friends. Slowly, of course, by the withdrawal and/or reversal of many of the most important environmental regulations adopted in the past few decades. It’s going to take a while for the effects to manifest throughout the population but you can be sure they will manifest in due time.

Why is this happening? Because the Trump administration is trading away protection of the air and water you need to prosper in return for … money. Money for himself, his family and the super-rich Republican oligarchy that supports whatever Trump wants. Trump is the handmaiden of the extractive industries, mainly petroleum and coal. Lacking a functional education and identifiable moral framework, Trump claims that non-fossil-fuel-based energy sources, like windmills, cause cancer and that electricity will cease to flow when the wind stops blowing.

Another element of the poisoning is the infestation of the country’s politics with ideas last prominently heard during the post-Civil War Reconstruction and the sorrowful Jim Crow period of American history and the period of the Southern Strategy in the 1950s and 1960s. Usually, the racism and related ideas behind these movements were masked in some kind of rhetoric to smooth over their true nature. Trump sees no need for that and his true-believer supporters routinely reward him for what is deemed to be his “lack of political correctness.” The underlying corruption and conflict with universal American values in Trump’s rhetoric and policies cause no discomfort for his ardent supporters.

The ultimate antidote for the poison that Trump has unleashed is, in the upcoming 2020 election, to vote out of office both Trump and his legion of jack-booted Republican know-nothing supporters in Congress and elsewhere. In the meantime, however, it is important to resist the poisoning of national politics and policy represented by Trump’s relentless determination to undermine the physical and moral health of the country while enriching himself, his family and the sycophantic Republican billionaires that benefit from his policies.

Everyone likely has one or two favorite resistance forces to which they contribute. I do not argue that anyone should stop supporting Planned Parenthood or any of the dozens (hundreds?) of worthy organizations that in their separate ways push back regularly against the evil that Trump represents. We contribute to some of them as well.

What I am urging is that everyone who sees Trump’s administration as I do should add a contribution to the American Civil Liberties Union and do it now. The reason is straightforward. The money goes to support legal actions against the Trump administration’s innumerable violations of law and the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold. The ACLU wins most of its cases and is an irreplaceable force against the unprecedented and destructive legal malfeasance of this administration. Even when it doesn’t “win,” the ACLU is often able to compel changes in policies that mitigate the impact of ill-conceived and unsupportable policies and practices that harm millions of people. The vast reach of ACLU’s legal resistance to the Trump administration is listed at https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu and https://www.aclu.org/action/

Money given to ACLU goes to actionable causes that have results. Trump likely hates the ACLU more than any other resistance organization because their successes in court have so effectively frustrated his plans to run over the legal system to get what he wants.

The ACLU just sent me a renewal notice for my December 2019 membership turnover. I am going to renew it now and double the contribution to help, in a small way, to fight the fights that must be fought right now. Then, in 2020, we’ll vote the bastards out of office.

 

Omertà – The Vow of Silence

2 Replies

Once again, it is reported that putative president Trump has “ordered” certain citizens to either limit or completely refuse to respond to questions from a duly authorized congressional investigating committee looking into, among other things, Trump’s conduct of the office of president and probable instances of illegality as documented in the recent report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (the Mueller Report). This is not the first time, not is it likely to be the last, as Trump desperately employs every tactic possible to prevent a true accounting of his crimes.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, reportedly has said that Trump’s position is a “shocking and dangerous assertion” and that

 “The President would have us believe that he can willfully engage in criminal activity and prevent witnesses from testifying before Congress – even if they did not actually work for him or his administration.”

Yes, that is exactly what Trump is doing. Trump appears to believe he’s still running a reality TV show.

On the face of it, Trump’s demands for omertà, the mob vow of silence regarding talking to law enforcement, are just another example of multiple instances of his criminal obstruction of justice. It appears that his lawyers have advised him that this strategy can be based on the principle of “executive privilege” that was analyzed and interpreted narrowly in the seminal case of United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), in which President Nixon tried to defeat a congressional subpoena for the Watergate tapes. Trump’s position has more kinship with the Mafia version of omertà than to any legally sound claim of executive immunity from congressional oversight.

For one thing, in the current situation, Corey Lewandowski, the target of one subpoena, never worked in the White House. At a minimum, that reality makes the extension of executive privilege to Lewandowski’s actions and knowledge a bridge too far. As for testimony by former White House aides Rob Porter and Rick Dearborn, Trump has asserted “absolute immunity” to their responding to any and all questions about their time in the White House.

This seems on its face to be a losing position. United States v. Nixon pretty well disposed of the idea that executive privilege was “absolute” and that a president could prevent the production of evidence by blanket assertions of privilege. At best Trump may buy some time with this stalling tactic but is almost certain to lose in the courts, assuming, of course, that the House Judiciary Committee does not simply accept this rejection of American constitutional principle.

Trump has not thus far asserted any other basis for preventing the testimony of former aides. He has not, for example, claimed that they signed non-disclosure agreements. Even if they had done so, I suggest any such agreements would be void on their face as against public policy. Trump may not have figured it out yet, but he is neither a king nor a CEO of the United States. As putative president, he is subject to the constraints implied by the separation of powers that was created by the Constitution. He cannot, therefore, expect to shield the public’s business from scrutiny by demanding that public servants who happen to have worked in the White House refuse to testify in response to oversight by congressional committees.

Other than executive privilege or private agreements, no other basis appears possible to permit the president to order private citizens to refuse subpoenas properly issued by congressional committees. What then should happen if, as expected, Lewandowski, Porter and Dearborn elect to tow the Trump line?

I suggest that the next steps should be to hold the three witnesses in contempt of Congress. If, as I believe to be true, their arrest is provided for in the criminal code, they should be arrested. I understand they are in a difficult place, caught between two warring forces in a contest for the preservation of democracy in America. They are, however, making a choice in following Trump’s demands. They could choose to do otherwise and act as good citizens providing the knowledge they have in response to questions from the investigating committees. If, as appears to be the case, they elect omertà, they should face the consequences of their choice.

A contempt of Congress citation should also be issued against the president. Likely he cannot be arrested while holding office, but his improper use of executive privilege to shield his administration and himself personally from congressional oversight should be met with every indicia of formal legal force that the circumstances will support and let the courts sort it out.

We have reached the point of no return regarding Trump’s abuse of his office. The congressional staff memo about which I posted yesterday clearly supports impeachment for the obstructive conduct of this president. No reason appears for treating him with the proverbial kid gloves. He is itching for a fight and the House investigative committees should give it to him. Nothing is to be gained by timidity in the face of Trump’s continued rejection of democratic and legal norms and constraints on his behavior. His legal position is untenable. The time to act aggressively against his administration has arrived.

Impeaching a President

1 Reply

A 1974 Congressional staff memorandum, entitled Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, has resurfaced. The Report was prepared in connection with the potential impeachment of Richard Nixon. Hillary Clinton was a young attorney hired to help with the work, though her name does not appear on the list of contributors on the author page. The analysis element of the Report runs only 26 pages, but contains a compelling and unique assessment, given the circumstances of its creation, of the appropriate criteria for impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives. The Republican enablers of Donald Trump notwithstanding, the Report is consistent with contemporary analyses of the reasons for and essential elements of impeachment, as intended by the framers, as well as the considerations that are not required criteria for impeachment under the Constitution.

The remaining pages of the Report in two appendices summarize the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 regarding impeachment and various American impeachment cases going back to 1797, most of which relate to federal judges. As a reminder, impeachment by the House of Representatives is in the nature of a political indictment; it is a set of accusations. The trial of articles of impeachment is conducted by the Senate. Conviction requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present.

I will spare you the intricate legal details and summarize the key points. If you want to read the memo itself, it can be found at https://bit.ly/2lPNB6p

The Constitution states that impeachment may be brought for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a sequence of words that historically referred to “offenses … against the system of government.” Report at 5. Through several centuries, impeachment was determined to refer to “negligent discharge of duties and improprieties in office,” “abuse of official power or trust,” and “corruption in office.” Report at 6-7. Most significantly, while the commission of crimes in office may be included in an impeachment charge, violations of common law or criminal law are not prerequisites. Impeachment was intended as a broad remedial regime for “executive abuse and usurpation of power.” Report at 8.

The Report makes clear that violations of Constitutional mandates, such as the prohibition of emoluments from foreign powers are proper subjects for impeachment. Report at 13. And, in a discussion with direct implications for a current issue swirling around Donald Trump, the Report notes that Convention delegate George Mason stated that the use of the presidential pardon power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or “to stop inquiry and prevent detection” are proper subjects of impeachment. Report at 13.

Of similar import in relation to Trump’s appointment of grifters to the Cabinet, the Report at 15 makes clear that the President may be impeached if he allows executive officers appointed by him or under his supervision to commit high crimes and misdemeanors or “neglects to superintend their conduct.”

It is worth repeating that impeachment does not require, though it certainly permits, allegations of conduct that would violate the criminal code.

Much more common in the articles are allegations that the officer has violated his duties or his oath or seriously undermined public confidence in his ability to perform his official functions. Recitals that a judge has brought his court or the judicial system into disrepute are commonplace. In the impeachment of President Johnson, nine of the articles allege that he acted “unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office,” and several specifically refer to his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed…. Impeachment is “intended to reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office. [Report at 21]

Finally, in its detailed rejection of the argument that an indictable crime must be alleged in an impeachment, the Report states that,

Unlike a criminal case, the, cause for the removal of a President may be based on his entire course of conduct in office. In particular situations, it may be a course of conduct more than individual acts that has a tendency to subvert constitutional government.

This understanding of impeachment bears directly on the conduct of Donald Trump in ways too numerous to mention in a one blog post. It is clear, however, that the Report provides a solid legal foundation for impeaching Trump if the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have sufficient determination to use the tools available to fight the criminality and abuse of office that has characterized Trump’s conduct of the presidency since his inauguration.

The principal arguments against impeachment appear to be two: (1) political unpopularity — the people won’t approve of trying to remove Trump with the election just about a year away; and (2) the Senate will never convict because the Republican majority will never abandon Trump no matter what the evidence shows.

I doubt that the first reason is true except as to Trump’s loyal base who apparently will support him no matter what he does. But all available evidence points to the reality that the anti-Trump segment of the population outnumbers the Trumpers by a significant margin. There is no apparent reason for the House to concern itself with the Trumper sentiment that will never turn against Trump.

As to the second factor, given Republican intransigence, the smart move is to conduct a very slow impeachment process. Present the extensive evidence slowly in hearings throughout the next year but do not take a vote in the House and thus deny the Senate the chance to “exonerate” Trump following a show trial before the 2020 election.

 

 

Join the We the People March – Sept. 21

Leave a reply

I know, I know. A whole lot of marching going on. This is just the beginning, I suspect, as massive waves of people afraid for the future for themselves, their children and grandchildren take to the streets to send a message to the politicians. On September 21, the We the People March will take off in Washington DC with “solidarity” marches around the country and in some other countries. A solidarity march will kick off from Columbus Circle in New York City at noon on Saturday. I will be there to photograph it, participate in it and write about it.

My wife and I have participated in several marches in both Washington DC and now in New York City. They are not easy on the feet, but they’re good for the head and the heart. If you participate, you are offering your time and energy to support a better future for everyone.

The Trump administration follows the “principle” that the Earth was “put here” to be exploited by humans however they choose and that unrestrained capitalism is the God-given right of people to take what they will from the planet without regard to the consequences for future generations. Those beliefs, along with a mindless refusal to believe in science, are behind the decisions to roll back regulations that protect the national water and air supply. Those beliefs are the foundation for the decision to allow drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, which is described this way on the Department of Interior website:

The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

In Alaska, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 16 national wildlife refuges that are part of this network, totaling 76,774,229 acres.  Alaska refuges are some of the nation’s last true wild places on earth, ranging in size from the 303,094 acres Izembek Refuge at the end of the Alaska Peninsula, to the 19.6 million-acre Arctic Refuge stretching from the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean.

The Trump administration looks at these open spaces and sees only an opportunity to dig for oil and minerals regardless of the impact. They just don’t care about preserving the planet for future generations. The only voices they hear are the ones looking for licenses to exploit the planet and make more money from its increasingly scarce natural resources.

One way to resist these forces of destruction is to take to the streets, send a message to the politicians and raise the awareness of other citizens who are either not paying attention or are “too busy” to be concerned about these things. They will eventually be forced to pay attention but then it may be too late. So, set aside a few hours of your Saturday to help make a statement about the kind of future world you demand for yourself and your heirs.

More information about the We the People March can be found at https://www.wethepeoplemarch2019.org/ Talk a little walk for your future.

Join the U.S. Climate Strike

Leave a reply

I am reproducing here with minor edits a message from MoveOn on behalf of Isra Hirsi, a leader of the US Youth Climate Strike movement. The US Youth Climate Strike group has helped organize national climate strikes this year and has been pushing candidates to demand a climate debate. On Friday, September 20, hundreds of thousands across the U.S.—along with millions across the globe—will hold the national U.S. Climate Strike. 

Everyone has the right to a future in a sustainable world. But today, that future is under threat because of climate change caused by carbon pollution. And right now, communities are being devastated by the current impacts of the climate crisis, with communities of color and low-income communities bearing the biggest burden.

It’s time to take our destiny out of the hands of fossil fuel billionaires and the politicians who enable them. It’s time to take to the streets to demand the future that we deserve. 

Hundreds of Climate Strike actions are taking place across the country on Friday, September 20. Join the fight to address the climate crisis. RSVP here for an event near you.

If you’re in New York City, the Climate Strike in Manhattan details are:

New York City Climate Strike with Greta Thunberg
Start: Friday, September 20, 2019 12:00 PM
Foley Square
1 Federal Plaza
New York City, NY 10013
Host Contact Info: alexandria.villasenor@gmail.com

For other locations, click this link: https://bit.ly/2mbIZYn

My message to followers:

I have been writing about Trump’s repeated degradation of the environment which grows more dangerous with every passing day. It’s time to demonstrate that he and his Republican enablers have gone way too far and to send the message that there will be political consequences if the administration does not reverse course. This is a problem from which no one alive will be able to escape. It is bearing down on us with horrifying speed. Trump and his followers believe the Earth was put here for human exploitation and that exploitation can continue indefinitely without consequence. The overwhelming scientific consensus says otherwise. The very habitability of the planet is at stake. Join the US Youth Climate Strike on September 20 to demand immediate change in U.S. environmental policy.

The Larger Meaning of the Trump-Sharpiegate Fiasco

Leave a reply

By now everyone in the allegedly civilized world is aware of Trump’s Sharpiegate episode. Trump, having falsely claimed that Hurricane Dorian was a threat to Alabama, was determined to “prove” that he was right and that everyone else, including all the relevant experts, saying otherwise were wrong. In classic Trump fashion he engaged in tweet storms and, apparently, ordered his chief of staff to order the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support his claims. And on and on and on, like the typical playground bully in junior high school.

Standing alone, this episode supports the questions being raised about Trump’s mental and emotional stability, although there really is nothing new here. His behavior in this situation is of a piece with numerous other aspects of his performance as president, including refusal to read briefing documents, inability to concentrate on detailed national security information and many other incidents that have been widely reported since Trump became the nominal president.

The real concern here is how these personality traits, that Trump is apparently helpless to control, may manifest in a true emergency situation. One example among many is an apparent military conflict at some overseas location where the facts may be unclear, decision time is short and the stakes are high. If Trump “decides” that he knows more than his senior military advisors and, for example, does not trust our allies to provide reliable intelligence, how might he react? Will his demonstrated propensity to threaten and bully lead him to order irresponsible, highly risky and irreversible military action? If so, the conduct of the senior White House advisors suggests they will simply do what they are told, regardless of the potential consequences to the country and the world. The incompetents and grifters that typify most of Trump’s appointments would rather keep his favor and their White House employment than do what responsible citizens should do when the “boss” is engaged in blatantly unlawful or irrational behavior that threatens existential harm to millions.

This is the stunning point of potential no return at which we have arrived. A man who was “made” by money provided by his father, with a history of graft and corruption, a demonstrated inability and unwillingness to educate himself and who is accustomed to just issuing orders and having them obeyed without hesitation or question is in charge of the nuclear arsenal of the most powerful military force in the world. This is not a child playing with firecrackers. It is a man-child playing with forces capable of triggering nuclear winter.

The solution, if there is one, is to initiate the process that could lead to the earliest possible termination of Trump’s presidency using the impeachment process established by the U.S. Constitution. I recognize the counterargument that if threatened with removal, Trump may declare some kind of fake national emergency, maybe even start a war, or, maybe just declare the Constitution suspended, essentially decreeing for himself the powers of the dictatorship that the Constitution was ratified to prevent.

There are likely other scenarios with similar consequences. It is, I suggest, pointless to speculate about Trump’s behavior. He may do the very same thing if the 2020 vote is held in the normal course and his effort to win a second term is rejected by the voters. There is, in other words, no escape from the implications of Trump’s mania. He is a danger to the country. Ignorant while claiming to be a genius. Delusional about his negotiating skills. Unable to distinguish truth from falsity, illusion from reality. There is no reason to think any of that will change. In fact, it is likely to worsen as the pressure of declining popularity into 2020 becomes more apparent to him.

The time for equivocation is past. It is time to act before it is too late.

 

Trump Wants Your Children & Grandchildren Dead

Leave a reply

If you haven’t read a dystopian novel about the future of the world following a nuclear holocaust, an encounter with a large asteroid or, more realistically, the playing out of anti-science climate change denial, you should. Particularly the ones about environmental collapse. They’re more “fun” than actual science books, easier to absorb and sometimes have happy endings. They often focus on a small band of “survivors” who miraculously are able, through ingenuity and just good luck, to eke out a “living” sometimes in violent conflict with other bands in similar dire circumstances.

Someday soon these dystopian visions of possible futures will begin to show up in the History section of your local bookstore or online purchasing habit. These visions are coming to pass as I write. If you don’t believe this, read The Sixth Extinction, just for starters. It won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 2015. That’s nonfiction. Published before Trump was on the radar. It’s about the science. It’s about the impending disaster that, once it overtakes the planet, may be irreversible.

Trump, of course, is now on the radar, as are the Republican Party enablers who have chosen to support his agenda without regard for the consequences for humanity. Trump himself is, by his own admission, not a reader. Experience teaches us he is not a thinker either. He, of course, regards himself as a distinctly superior being, smarter than all the scientists who are close to unanimous in the belief that climate change is real and is the result, in large part, of human activity. The evidence that that view is overwhelming. Republicans wishing it were otherwise doesn’t change the reality. As Ben Franklin presciently said a long time ago: Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other.

Can so many people – the climate change deniers – be that uninformed or downright stupid? Of course, they can. They are people for whom evidence, especially if the least bit complicated or inconvenient, is not important. As proof, I refer you to the data, easily found online, of the number of people who believe that the earth is regularly visited by extra-terrestrial beings and the people who think the earth is flat, or believe that the moon landing was a faked Hollywood production, and on and on. Read any history book worthy of the name and you’ll see the story of mass belief in false ideas for which there was plenty of contradictory evidence or, often, simply no evidence to support the mass delusion. People believe what they believe.

So, to return to the subject at hand, Donald Trump heads the Executive Branch of the U.S. government and as a result has enormous power. He appoints, and his Republican majority in the Senate routinely confirms, unqualified true believers to head agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. Their intention, manifested regularly, is to undermine the environmental protections that have been woven into the national fabric beginning many decades ago at the behest of, among others, some Republican presidents. But those Republicans of yesteryear were quite different than those now serving Donald Trump.

You may have known people like these back in high school. Not high achievers, they were often in trouble, seemed determinedly uninterested in learning much new and were proudest of their record of disciplinary malfeasance. They were almost exclusively white males and often came from families with resources. Eventually they ended up in business and were successful in the sense that they made some money. Trump likes such people even if, as is almost always the case in his appointments, they don’t actually have a record of achievement in the fields in which they now exercise enormous influence. They inspired low expectations in their learning ability and were successful by adhering closely to chichés about the free market economy, American exceptionalism and its importance to the very essence of American society.

So, Trump continues on his merry way, undermining the Endangered Species Act (see New York Times editorial, Sunday, August 18, 2019), the Clean Power Plan and endless other environmental protections that have helped clear the air, purify the water and generally support the health and welfare of the people. Just like in high school, Trump and his lackeys are not really interested in understanding the implications of what they’re doing. They have a short-term view –to make it easy on business to exploit the planet so some people can make more money and retain their popularity among the UFO-sighting crowd.

One thing about those dystopian books I mentioned earlier – in most cases, money no longer means much. There is usually little or nothing to buy. In those stories, all portents of our future, we’re back to bartering and stealing and killing to survive. So much for short term thinking.

I did not exaggerate when I titled this post that Trump wants to kill your descendants. Look at it this way – if I point a loaded gun at you and squeeze the trigger, resulting in grievous bodily harm to you, the law will say that I “intended” to harm you because of the foreseeable outcome that my actions through a chain of causation (pointing and squeezing the trigger of a loaded gun) would have. Trump’s environmental policies, pursued in the face of overwhelming evidence of egregious harm to the planet that sustains us, are exactly like that loaded gun – pointed at all of us and likely to hit your children and grandchildren in the near future.

Many of us have become passive about these issues because we have been primed to believe in good outcomes. Most of our stories, no matter how gruesome in the telling, end with victory for the good guys. War movies, serial killer novels, you name it. We have been conditioned to believe that somehow the worst outcomes will be avoided, that the good will prevail over evil and all will be well in the end, perhaps after an intervening period of inconvenience but certainly not the end of the world as we know it.

That conditioning is hard to overcome and is a particularly strong force in the thinking and emotional makeup of people for whom one or two issues drive all of their motivation. I refer to evangelicals who are obsessed with abortion and who will support someone like Trump because they believe he is opposed to abortion. They will overlook every other aspect of Trump’s behavior to achieve the one goal they think is most important. How these people will react when the earth’s temperature rises, say 4 or 5 degrees, remains to be seen but history suggests they will die believing they did the right thing.  The same is true for those Americans for whom keeping immigrants out of the United States is the single most important national policy. They may strangle on the poisoned air and water in the years to come, certainly their children will, but, by God, America will have been preserved for white people and thus they will feel vindicated and victorious even as they perish in massive numbers.

The conditioning we all have been subjected to makes it hard to accept that the end of the earth as we know it may be imminent. Not tomorrow, but soon. In the lifetimes of your children and grandchildren who are alive today. Reality is hard to accept when alternative stories of victory over evil in the end are so ubiquitous and so satisfying. But those are just stories. Reality is quite different. Sure, we defeated Germany in World War II but millions died in the concentration camps. To avoid the massive casualties predicted for an invasion of the Japanese homeland, we dropped the first two atomic bombs on civilian populations of two relatively small towns. The plan worked but likely hundreds of thousands suffered and died. So, victory has its price. Always.

Trump’s ignorance and the indifference of his enablers represent the greatest threat to humanity in possibly centuries. The United States is generally recognized as the most powerful and successful economy and society in the world by many standards. Because of that, its impact on the world is magnified. And it has elected leadership that has a singular vision with only one possible outcome.

After much indecision, I have come to the conclusion that the danger to the country and the world from Trump’s continuing as president is simply too great. He should be removed from office as quickly as possible. I understand all the political arguments, that the Republicans control the Senate and will never vote to remove him no matter what the evidence shows, but part of the process of rebuilding the American society requires that all the evidence be marshaled and shown to the public and the world. Even if the effort fails, it will help drive the voting public to overcome its conditioning and take action in the 2020 election to rid the country of this foul curse.

 

Don’t Be Fooled by Republican Talk of Serious Gun Control Legislation

Leave a reply

The New York Times has published an article entitled “Trump Weighs New Stance on Guns as Pressure Mounts After Shootings.” The article suggests that the “divisive politics of gun control appeared to be in flux” because, wait for it, “Trump explored whether to back expanded background checks” and Mitch McConnell said he was “open to considering” expanded background checks. So, “exploring” and “open to considering.” We have been here before. And before. And before.

To be fair to the authors of the NYT article, the next paragraph goes on to admit,” It is not clear that either the president or Mr. McConnell will embrace such legislation, which both of them have opposed in the past and which would have to overcome opposition from the National Rifle Association and other powerful conservative constituencies.”

There is nothing new here. We’ve seen it all before, followed by the equivocating, delays and then … nothing. It’s not a question of “clear” or “not clear.” McConnell has refused to call the Senate back into session in August, saying that doing so would just lead to legislators making political points and nothing substantive would happen. We’re being played. Pure and simple.

I am sitting before a TV watching an NRA member on CNN equivocate when asked a direct question about banning assault rifles, arguing that we need to deal with the “easy” issues and the most popular solutions, like background checks, first. She believes that because the claimed Second Amendment “right” to own guns of one’s choosing is the preeminent concern, we should address “crime control” rather than “gun control.” For her, the Second Amendment comes first and lives of innocent people come second because, in part, she believes background checks and “red light laws” can solve most of the problems by themselves and virtually overnight. And blah, blah, blah. Talking the good talk while making it clear that she can use clichés (enough is enough) as well as the next person, but really doesn’t think this is a big deal.

So, with all the handwringing, all we really have from the leadership of the Executive Branch and the Senate are posturing. The NRA has already declared the prospect of enhanced background checks “dead on arrival.” If history is any guide, and it usually is, the NRA resistance will strike terror in the hearts and minds of Republicans. According to a report from Politico, Sen John Barasso has basically said “forget about it.” Barasso is more concerned about “constitutional rights” than the deaths of hundreds of citizens at the hands of, usually, young white men armed with military grade, automatic-fire rifles.

The authors of the NYT article make much of Republicans beginning to support so-called “red-flag” legislation that “would make it easier to seize firearms from people deemed dangerous.” Imagine what is going to ensue if the federal government passes a law that permits the seizure of weapons from people “deemed dangerous.” How does the process of “deeming” occur? How many lawsuits and appeals will be filed and how many years will pass before even that most obvious of solutions can actually have an effect while free access to military grade weapons continues?

The real deal here is revealed by Trump’s recent Twitter activity saying he had been “speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected.” Read between the lines. When Trump refers to NRA’s “very strong views” that must be “respected,” he is sending the message that, as usual, NRA will prevail and nothing meaningful will be enacted on his watch.

The NYT article reports that Trump is behaving like he always does, chaotically flailing in all directions with no intention to achieve an outcome.

“In private conversations, Mr. Trump has offered different ideas for what action on gun safety might look like. With some advisers, he has said he thinks he can get something done through executive action. With others, he has said he prefers legislation. With still others, he has said he would like a political concession in exchange for doing so. And he has insisted that he would be able to convince his most ardent supporters who favor gun rights that the moment for a change has arrived.”

McConnell, ever the reliable toady for Trump, said that Trump “very much open to this discussion.” History teaches that Trump is open about many things until he’s not. Nothing he says about gun control can be trusted. Nothing. He talks a lot, then usually does nothing, certainly nothing that he believes the NRA and his political base of ultra-conservative white men would oppose. Consider that Trump, quietly for him, reversed President Obama’s executive order allowing Social Security records to be used to identify people with mental health issues that would prevent their owning guns. Is it plausible to believe that Trump, who has the empathic level of a rattlesnake, has changed his view that the so-called right-to-keep-and-bear-arms prevails over everything?

Be aware also that, as the NYT reported,

“Part of the challenge for lawmakers seeking action is that the White House is divided — as is often the case. The hard-liners and Mr. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is close to pro-gun activists, are uneasy about angering the president’s heavily white and rural base by pursuing gun control measures ahead of 2020.”

Based on the reports of unidentified “Republican officials,” the NYT reports that Ivanka Trump has been “aggressively lobbying the president to take action.” You will have to look long and hard to find any evidence that Ivanka’s “lobbying,” hard or otherwise, has materially influenced he father’s agenda on anything. The greater truth is here:

“Regardless, senators of both parties are deeply skeptical that Mr. McConnell will bring any sort of gun control measure to the floor unless the president demands it.”

“There’s no way Republicans are voting for a background check bill unless Trump comes out in favor of it for more than a couple of hours,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, recalling that Mr. Trump also voiced support for strengthened background checks following the massacre in Parkland, Fla. “I’ve been to this rodeo before.”

And this is the final reality:

“On Thursday, more than 200 mayors, including the mayors of Dayton and El Paso, signed a letter demanding that Mr. McConnell bring the Senate back from its August recess to consider the House-passed legislation. “There’s no sense that the gun that the shooter used in Dayton — it was completely legal, he broke no laws to get it here,” said Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton. “And so here we sit, nine dead and 27 injured in Dayton. All we’re asking is for Congress to do its job.”

Don’t count on it.