The Commentariat -- January 21, 2020
Late Morning/Afternoon Update:
Mrs. McCrabbie: Of course I'm biased, but I thought Adam Schiff did a masterful job of meticulously outlining why it would be out of sync with precedent and irresponsible for the Senate to disallow witnesses & docs. Pat Cipollone made a stupid, content-free, 3-minute speech in favor of McConnell's rules, and Jay Seculow made a longer, but not a lot better, argument about something. Seculow's remarks were riddled with misrepresentations & flat-out lies. But these are Trump's guys. And the best man will lose -- altho the House managers have already had a minor win -- see Mitch's changes, as noted below by NYT reporters. ~~~
~~~ Update: Schiff is now rebutting whatever that was Seculow was talking about, and points out that whatever that was had nothing whatsoever to do with the rules, which were supposed to be the subject of his discourse. He also called out both Trump lawyers for some of the lies they told.
Jordain Carney of the Hill: "House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) criticized Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday over setting the stage for a 'rigged' impeachment trial for president Trump. Schiff, the lead impeachment manager on the House team, zeroed in on a provision in the rules resolution that could force the impeachment trial to go late into the night. The provision gives the impeachment managers 24 hours to present their arguments, but over just two legislative days, with arguments beginning Wednesday and Thursday at 1 p.m."
The New York Times liveblog of impeachment trial developments is here [link fixed]. The Guardian's liveblog is here.
From the NYT liveblog: Michael Shear: “Republicans made last-minute changes in their proposed organizing resolution for the impeachment trial after fierce attacks from Democrats that the proposed rules were unfair and part of an attempted 'cover-up' of President Trump's actions. The initial proposal ... had set aside 24 hours for each side to argue the case -- but said they had to complete the arguments in two days. Democrats said that would most likely force the debate well into the wee hours of the morning.... When the resolution was read, however, the two-day limit was changed to three days." Mrs. McC: According to MSNBC, the changes were "penciled in" to the copies of the rules distributed to senators. ~~~
~~~ Nicholas Fandos: "Senator Mitch McConnell ... made changes to the proposed rules for the trial after Republicans senators, including Susan Collins of Maine, raised concerns...." ~~~
~~~ Fandos: "In a significant change, the rules resolution submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell automatically enters the evidence collected by the House impeachment inquiry into the Senate record of the trial, in the same way that a similar resolution treated evidence during the 1999 impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton. Democrats had railed against a provision in the proposed rules that would not automatically admitted into the official record the House's evidence. They warned that Republicans were attempting to conduct a trial with 'no evidence' at all."
Fandos: "The seven House managers submitted one final written brief at noon on Monday, just an hour before the Senate was set to reconvene as a court of impeachment. The 34-page filing included a point-by-point rebuttal of arguments put forward by President Trump's lawyers in his defense on Monday, and an appeal to senators to convict him based on the House charges."
The most important moment for the Republican Party since the censure of Joe McCarthy and the impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon, in which Republicans became great heroes and patriots. Now, we're looking at 'Midnight Mitch' and the so-called world's greatest deliberative body really embracing a cover-up that is there for all to see. That's what this is about. It's about preventing information from becoming known and seen by the American public. -- Carl Bernstein on CNN, last night ~~~
~~~ Moran of the Huffington Post: "Carl Bernstein sent social media users into overdrive after he slapped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) with a taunting new nickname. The famed Watergate reporter called McConnell 'Midnight Mitch' during a panel discussion on CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360°' on Monday. It centered on McConnell's proposed compressed schedule for ... Donald Trump's imminent Senate impeachment trial over the Ukraine scandal that would see some testimony taking place in the early hours." Thanks to PD Pepe for the lead.
A Win for Trump & Co. Susannah Luthi of Politico: "The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Democrats' plea to consider a high-stakes legal challenge that could kill Obamacare, punting a resolution in the politically fraught case until after the presidential election. The decision deals a blow to Democrats' hopes to elevate the issue in 2020, but it will come as a relief to ... Donald Trump and Republicans, who've been wary of the lawsuit's potential to scramble their election hopes.... Trump, who has appeared sensitive to Democratic attacks on his efforts to wipe out Obamacare, last week falsely claimed on Twitter he 'saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your Healthcare,' despite his support for a lawsuit that would eliminate those protections. Trump also lashed out at Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar last Thursday over polling that shows Americans trust Democrats more on health care."
Rick Noack of the Washington Post: "Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg inveighed against the sowers of 'climate chaos' at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, offering a view of the world that stood in stark contrast to President Trump's. In two speeches at the conference, the 17-year-old Thunberg renewed the call to 'start listening to the science' on climate change. The world, she said, needs to 'treat this crisis with the importance it deserves.'... Trump said he was a "big believer in the environment" but did not single out climate change and lashed out at 'alarmists.' He said the United States will participate in a plan to add 1 trillion trees worldwide -- a plan that climate activists argued would not even begin to scratch the surface."~~~
~~~ Silvia Amaro of CNBC: "The U.S. president addressed politicians and business leaders at WEF on Tuesday morning, where he took credit for America's 'stunning turnaround.' In what was his second speech as U.S. leader at Davos, Trump outlined how his 'America-first' approach had worked and advised other countries to follow suit. However, some of the audience members looking on argued that Trump was actually talking to voters back home."
~~~~~~~~~~
"A National Disgrace." Sham Trial in a Kangaroo Court. Seung Min Kim & Karoun Demirjian of the Washington Post: "In a four-page resolution, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the opening arguments would begin at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, with each side given 24 hours to present their case over a two-day period. The Senate will vote on the resolution Tuesday. The question of witnesses would be decided after senators have 16 hours to question the two parties. This story will be updated." This is a breaking news story at 6 pm ET Monday. Mrs. McC: The parameters for the presentations are downright ridiculous. Here are some of the provisions the reporters outline in an update:
"McConnell's organizing resolution, which he circulated late Monday afternoon, offers each side 24 hours to make their opening arguments starting on Wednesday but compressed into two session days. It is unclear whether Democrats would press to use all their time, which could push testimony past midnight. After the House managers and Trump's lawyers make their case, senators will be allowed 16 hours to question the opposing sides. After that, the sides will debate for a maximum of four hours on whether to consider subpoenaing witnesses or documents at all, followed by a vote on whether to do so. If a majority of senators agree, then there will likely be motions from both sides to call various witnesses, with subsequent votes on issuing subpoenas.
"The resolution also allows Trump's team to move to dismiss the charges at any time -- although it is not explicitly mentioned in the four-page measure -- because doing so is allowed under standard impeachment trial rules. The Senate trial also won't automatically admit evidence from the House process, according to GOP officials, a key difference from the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton more than two decades ago. Though the material will be printed and made available to senators, it won't be automatically admissible unless a majority of senators approve it.
"The resolution infuriated Democratic senators, with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) calling the document a 'national disgrace' and accusing McConnell of shrouding testimony and rushing the trial." ~~~
~~~ Politico's story, by Burgess Everett & Marianne Levine, is here. A reproduction of the resolution, via the Hill, is here.
Peter Baker & Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "President Trump's legal team called on the Senate on Monday to 'swiftly reject' the impeachment charges and acquit him, arguing that Democrats would 'permanently weaken the presidency' if they succeeded in removing him from office over what the team characterized as policy and political differences. In a 110-page brief submitted to the Senate the day before Mr. Trump's trial begins in earnest, the president's lawyers advanced their first sustained legal argument since the House opened its inquiry in the fall, contending that the two charges approved largely along party lines were constitutionally flawed and set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Trump's lawyers dismissed the validity of both articles of impeachment lodged against him -- abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- because they do not state any specific violation of the law, advancing a constrained and widely rejected interpretation of the power to impeach a president. While the lawyers did not contest the basic facts of the case, they maintained that Democrats' accusations in effect seek to punish the president for foreign policy decisions and efforts to preserve executive prerogatives." (Linked yesterday, in an earlier form.) ~~~
~~~ Politico's story is here. Trump's brief, via the White House, is here. ~~~
~~~ Calvin Woodward & Hope Yen of the AP take "a look at some statements by Trump and his legal team as opening arguments approach in the Senate impeachment trial: ... Donald Trump's defense against impeachment charges, as laid out in his legal argument released Monday, has distortions at its core. Trump through his lawyers assails Democrats for trying to upend the results of an election, which is precisely the point of impeachment in the Constitution. The case asserts Trump committed no crime, a benchmark for impeachment that the Constitution's authors avoided adopting in a well-documented debate." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: I suppose we should not be surprised, but it's still stunning that the most important legal brief his attorney have ever presented on his behalf "has distortions at its core" and contains a laundry-list of falsehoods. Then again, it seems as if Trump dictated the brief, and his lawyers merely massaged it: ~~~
~~~ Matt Stieb of New York: "The memo from Trump's lawyers echoes arguments he's made for months, only in slightly more formal language. It doesn't call Trump's phone call last July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky 'perfect,' but it does say the call was 'perfectly appropriate.' The House impeachment inquiry isn't referred to as 'the most unfair witch-hunt in the history of Congress,' but it did violate 'every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years,' according to the memo." ~~~
~~~ Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "As President Trump's impeachment trial opens, his lawyers have increasingly emphasized a striking argument: Even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime. Their argument is widely disputed.... 'This argument is constitutional nonsense,' [Constitutional scholar Frank] Bowman said. 'The almost universal consensus -- in Great Britain, in the colonies, in the American states between 1776 and 1787, at the Constitutional Convention and since -- has been that criminal conduct is not required for impeachment.'... Many legal scholars say senators should not take this argument seriously.... Several early impeachment proceedings -- including against a judge who got drunk while presiding over cases -- did not involve indictable offenses." ~~~
~~~ George Conway in a Washington Post op-ed: "Trump's answer doesn't bother to present a coherent factual response to the impeachment charges. Instead, it relies on bare conclusions, pointless irrelevancies and outright misstatements -- including whether Trump 'raised the important issue of corruption' in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Read the rough transcript: He didn't.... As for the law, the answer claims, in the most cursory fashion, that the 'abuse of power' charge, at least as alleged here, 'fails to state an impeachable offense.'... Even if a statutory crime were required [which it isn't], the House's charge that Trump tried to solicit a personal benefit (Ukraine's announcement of an investigation) in exchange for an official act (releasing the security aid) constitutes bribery, both as understood in the Framers' time and under the federal criminal code today. Above all else, though, what Trump's papers really try to do is to attack the very legitimacy of this impeachment -- and, beyond that, of impeachment generally.... If taken to its logical conclusion, Trump's rhetoric about nullification and subversion of the people's will would mean no president could ever be held to account by impeachment." ~~~
~~~ digby: "Even Trump's lawyers are childish little whiners. If you are curious about the contours of the arguments in the Senate trial you can see from the briefs that have been filed by both sides what they plan to do. The Democrats will present the evidence of Trump's corrupt, self-serving abuse of power and obstruction. The Republicans will shriek about 'unfairness' and claim the whole thing is 'rigged' and a 'charade.'... They are going with the Trump tweet defense: scream 'it's a hoax!', claim it was a perfect phone call and strongarm the GOP Senators behind the scenes. McConnell wants to keep as much of the trial blacked out as he can so that Fox News can interpret the trial in Trump's favor for the cult. And they want to get it over with as quickly as possible." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: In fairness to the lawyers, (a) they're taking dictation from Trump (see above), and (b) they don't have a case. Ergo, they're following the trial lawyers' dictum (attributed to poet Carl Sandburg), "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." Trump's lawyers are, in effect, yelling like hell.
Bob Bauer in Lawfare: In his book on impeachment, Alan Dershowitz maintains that "'It is difficult to argue reasonably from the text [of the Constitution] that ... a person can be impeached for anything less than a crime.'..." Moreover, he argues, the impeachable crime must be similar in nature to treason or bribery. Under the Dershowitz view, a president who murdered her spouse would not have committed an impeachable offense. We would have in that instance a crime, and a very serious one, but just not the right type for purposes of impeachment or removal from office.... To use an example supplied by Cass Sunstein in his book on impeachment, the president operating within this exclusion could safely, without constitutional consequence, declare that he would not enforce civil rights laws, or decide to take a year's vacation in Rome."
Isweartagod, Stephen Colbert is just as informative as most news shows:
Joyce Vance in a Washington Post op-ed: "Last week, some Republican senators proposed ... a Republican witness for every one the Democrats are permitted.... The problem is, no such concept of 'witness reciprocity' exists in the U.S. justice system.... In our system, evidence must be relevant to the charges or issues at hand before it can be introduced in a trial.... The rule of relevance ensures that cases are decided based on evidence, not distraction or tricks.... Hunter Biden's ... story is unrelated to whether Trump committed the acts for which he was impeached. Even if Biden behaved corruptly in Ukraine, proof of that would not absolve Trump of charges that he abused his presidential power ... [or] whether the president withheld witnesses and evidence from Congress, obstructing its investigation.... While the John Boltons of this administration can offer relevant, firsthand information regarding Ukraine and the president's conduct and must testify if the proceedings are to have any integrity, the Hunter Bidens of the world cannot." ~~~
~~~ BUT. Plan B. Robert Costa & Rachel Bade of the Washington Post: "President Trump's legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions.... One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton's testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public.... But ... first, Republicans involved in the discussions said, would come a fierce battle in the courts." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: This effort suggests Trump's lawyers and allies know Bolton has the goods on Trump. If Bolton really wants to get his message out, but Mitch and the gang won't let him, he could release an "excerpt" from his forthcoming book titled, "This Is What I Would Have Testified in the Impeachment Trial." He would not be under oath; he would not be subject to cross-examination, but the word would be out, and GOP Senators would have to live with refusing to allow a through-and-through confederate Republican to provide highly-relevant information in an impeachment trial of the POTUS*. Given that, there is no way the sensible portion of the public would conclude that the Senate trial had "exonerated" Trump.
Consolation Prize: Trump "Personal Warrior" Badge. Anita Kumar & Matthew Choi of Politico: "After excluding House Republicans from his defense team..., Donald Trump announced Monday night that eight of them would serve as his personal warriors. Republican Reps. Doug Collins (Ga.), Mike Johnson (La.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Debbie Lesko (Ariz.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), John Ratcliffe (Texas), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Lee Zeldin (N.Y.) will 'serve as part of his team working to combat this hyper-partisan and baseless impeachment,' according to a White House news release Monday. The White House didn't specify in its statement what exactly the members would be doing, but one GOP source says they are expected to play a more behind-the-scenes role, with a focus on messaging and strategy."
The Idiot Abroad. Shannon Pettypiece of NBC News: "Trump landed Tuesday morning in Davos, and will speak before a group of executives, financiers and foreign dignitaries at the World Economic Forum just hours before the Senate is set to begin the first full day of his impeachment trial. He is also expected to hold a series of meetings with world leaders over the next two days, where he can respond to the impeachment developments in real time from across the Atlantic Ocean."
Evan Semones of Politico: "Joe Biden's campaign issued a memo to media outlets on Monday warning them against spreading 'false accusations' driven by ... Donald Trump and Republicans against the former vice president. The memo ... says there is 'no evidence' for disproven claims pushed by the president that Biden sidelined a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that his son, Hunter, held a high-paid position with. Trump pushed ... 'a malicious and conclusively debunked conspiracy theory' about Biden, deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield and senior campaign adviser Tony Blinken wrote."
Matthew Choi of Politico: "A majority of Americans want the Senate to convict and remove ... Donald Trump from office, according to a new poll conducted by CNN. Fifty-one percent of respondents to the poll want the Senate to convict Trump on the impeachment charges brought by the House, which would lead to his immediate expulsion from office. Meanwhile, 45 percent of respondents said they don't want to see the president removed. The poll was conducted from Jan. 16-19 and released Monday, on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, which gets underway Tuesday...."
Impeachment Is Not Enough. Henry Giroux in Salon: "What is often ignored in the mainstream media is that Trump's impeachment battle is part of the wider historical and global struggle taking place over democracy and can be seen, as Larry Diamond points out, in Trump's attack on 'the independence of the courts, the business community, the media, civil society, universities and sensitive state institutions like the civil service, the intelligence agencies and the police.' Trump's crimes far exceed what is stated in the impeachment documents and include not only endless lies, threats and flirtation with extralegal violence but also his attack on the press as the 'enemy of the people.'" Thanks to NJC for the link. (Also linked yesterday.)
Colin Kalmbacher of Law & Crime: "In a three-page letter released late Monday afternoon, [Lev] Parnas's legal team demanded that Attorney General Bill Barr recuse himself from the Southern District of New York's (SDNY) prosecution of their client." The article includes a link to the "innuendo-dripping" letter and outlines some of its most noteworthy claims.
Presidential Race
Meg Kinnard of the AP: "Democratic presidential candidates hit pause on their recent feuds Monday as they walked shoulder to shoulder through the streets of South Carolina's capital city to honor the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and rally around their push to defeat ... Donald Trump in November. The truce was illustrated when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren shook hands at Zion Baptist Church, then linked arms as they marched with the other candidates later in the morning. It was a gesture that didn't materialize last week on a debate stage where the leading progressive candidates sparred over whether Sanders once privately said a woman couldn't be president. Warren declined to shake Sanders' outstretched hand after the debate."
Hey, Big Spender. Maya King of Politico: "Michael Bloomberg's big-spending, shock-and-awe TV ad campaign has made politicking more expensive for everyone from his 2020 rivals to Senate, House and state legislative candidates around the country. Eight weeks into his presidential campaign, Bloomberg has already spent more money on advertising -- $248 million -- than most candidates could spend in years. That amount has squeezed TV ad inventory in nearly every state, lowering supply and causing stations to raise ad prices at a time of high demand, as candidates around the country gear up for their primaries. On average in markets around the country, prices for political TV ads have risen by 20 percent since Bloomberg began his campaign. Meanwhile, some local politicians have already found difficulty trying to reach their own constituencies."
You can read full transcripts of the NYT editorial board's interviews with Democratic candidates here.
Beyond the Beltway
Mrs. McC: According to the WashPo these jamokes from the "Ohio Patriots" attended the Richmond rally. If I were wandering down the street and came upon them, I would not continue window-shopping.
~~~Virginia. Alan Suderman & Sarah Rankin of the AP: "Tens of thousands of gun-rights activists from around the country rallied peacefully at the Virginia Capitol on Monday to protest plans by the state's Democratic leadership to pass gun-control legislation -- a move that has become a key flash point in the national debate over gun violence. The size of the crowd and the expected participation of white supremacists and fringe militia groups raised fears that the state could see a repeat of the violence that exploded in 2017 in Charlottesville. But the rally concluded uneventfully around noon, and the mood was largely festive, with rally-goers chanting 'USA!' and waving signs denouncing Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam. Many protesters chose not to enter the designated rally zone, where Northam had imposed a temporary weapons ban, and instead packed surrounding streets, many dressed in tactical gear and camouflage and carrying military-style rifles as they cheered on the speakers."
Share Article
Reader Comments (13)
I love how the AP just HAD to rehash the Warren/Sanders flap in a story about unity for MLK Day...and had to use incendiary terms such as "feuds." In our paper, the usual suspects write letters continually about the "liberal media" and the "liberal press" or "left-leaning bias" and I do NOT see it. This is a repug stronghold except for the "urban" area and until a nonrepug wins an major spot against a repug, that will not change. Here and there are Dems on school boards etc. but the legislature is majority repug and our House rep is a major lickspittle to the presidunce*; one of our senators is another lickspittle, with our one Dem senator too soft spoken.
My personal take on this "trial" is that it will be a farce, orchestrated by the guy being tried and his henchmitch-- talk about a lickspittle!! Nothing will really happen, and this will go down in the history books as a major Dem fail. It's Alice in Wonderland. Trial first, evidence thinly presented in the middle of the night, MAYBE, and all will then have tea.
I'm wondering how Mitch McConnell can appear to be impervious to all the criticisms hurled his way. We know he is a devious little prick but you would think some of these critics, especially esteemed law professors, would push him just a tad. So today we have Carl Bernstein throwing out "Moscow Mitch" for "Midnight Mitch" and the twitter feed went for it with aplomb. Here's what Bernstein said:
"The most important moment for the Republican Party since the censure of Joe McCarthy and the impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon, in which Republicans became great heroes and patriots. Now, we’re looking at ‘Midnight Mitch’ and the so-called world’s greatest deliberative body really embracing a cover-up that is there for all to see. That’s what this is about. It’s about preventing information from becoming known and seen by the American public."
The circus begins.
The pernicious effect of Donald Trump across the face of the nation, the way his personal brand of oleaginous narcissism, paranoia, delusional thinking, and rotten-to-the-core ontology has infected and befouled the vital organs of democracy, is on display all day every day.
Take for example the recent disgraceful attempt by toadies at the National Archive to Trumpify recent American history of the government and how its people react to events injurious to the nation's health.
The word archive comes from a Greek word meaning government, or official records and documents produced thereby. The attempt to eradicate any possible black mark against Der Führer, and the concomitant erasure of the sole purpose of the Women's March, is direct evidence of how deep and widespread is the moral corruption spread from Trump's polluted and perverse sense of his inviolable person.
This morning I watched a brief clip of the Orange Menace basking in the sickening, sallow glow of self-adoration at a farmer's convention over the weekend. There, Trump read what simply have to be more trumped up statistics. "83% of you love me!" he cackled. "But I wanna know who are the other 17%? Where are they?! Who are they? They better be careful."
And it's not a joke.
At this point, anyone daring to not love Der Führer had better watch out.
This, in a democracy. This in a nation whose founding documents enshrine the right to tell the powerful, the criminal, the obstructive, the corrupt, the eminently impeachable, to fuck off. No more. Trump and his boot-licking, running-dog lackeys in the Congress (lookin' at you, you fucking turtle) have outlawed disagreements with the almighty Donald.
This morning I heard (again) how he has done nothing to ensure the safety of the vote, that most elegant and simple expression of self-government. He will not because a fair election does not suit him, nor any Republican. He will not because he expects foreign interference to come to his aid again in stealing another election, and if by some miracle he loses, he will shout "foreign interference" and declare the vote invalid.
Democracy is already in the process of being declared invalid. If there is a Republican controlled voting commission in the country not looking to stifle the votes of their opponents, not looking to strip voting rolls of Democrats, not attempting to ensure their continued success despite the stiffening demographic headwinds, I haven't heard of it.
When fearful flunkies in the National Archive, the official source of the country's historical verity, go waaaaay out of their way to scour the record of any damaging or adverse reflections on the thin-skinned traitor in the White House, we are far out to sea.
And Trump and McConnell and Graham have all outlawed charts and navigational equipment, anything that could bring us safely back to port.
And as I stated at the top, Trump's rotten criminality and anti-democratic ardor are on display all day every day. Except today. And tomorrow. As long as the Senate show trial lasts, the tiniest blemish on the Trump visage will be scrubbed clean by McConnell and his lickspittle congressional pimple poppers.
Jeanne,
Seems we both have come up with the appropriate descriptor for Mitch and his gang of treasonous monkeys.
Apparently, King Dunce was braying his own wonderfulness at Davos this morning. Yet another time when the civilized, intelligent world looks at us in amazement. How could this happen in so short a time? Part or maybe the whole problem seems to be that legislators look upon their elections as lifelong, just like IQ45. They are willing to lose themselves in their fear of losing an election. If this were not true, I don't think they would have all checked their brains at the door. And we could ignore the hayseeds at the rallies if we felt the legislators had our backs. It's a cult. Cult45.
PD,
Mitch McConnell, like far too many confederates in the Congress is pretty much assured a victory. His state is blood-red Trump country, with isolated islands of blue sanity. The fact that the worst governor in the nation almost won another election says it all.
But he was defeated. And Republicans do not want democracy to deprive them of their power. And so, even before the new Democratic governor was sworn in, state R's, stung by a rare defeat, drafted a new law (which should sail through the Republican controlled legislature) that will make voting--for those likely to vote Democratic--even harder.
Plus, just in case Herr Mitch suffers any bad publicity from the current umpleasantness in Washington which gives anyone a second thought about voting for him again in the wake of his gangland show trial designed to absolve Der Führer of any and all wrongdoing, they want to make sure this new bill (which will require not just a photo ID in order to vote, but an ID with an expiration date) is in effect for the 2020 election. Moss does not grow on the backs of those who fear real democracy.
"Kentucky already requires voter ID at the polls, but the new policy would take this a step further to require a photo and an expiration date. Minorities, who are less likely to possess an acceptable form of ID, and students, are particularly likely to be affected. The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville, two of the biggest schools in the state, do not currently have expiration dates on their student IDs. This is a tactic that has been used in several other states, often to curb the vote of young and transient populations more likely to vote for Democrats."
It's a standard Republican response to electoral defeat: change the rules to ensure that you don't ever lose again.
So traitors like Mitch McConnell can continue on their way, happy in the belief that democracy will never bring them to heel.
I see Krugman was either brave, foolish or partisan enough to step into the Warren-Sanders mess, but what caught my eye was not so much what he said but the tenor of many the commenters echoing that of the 2016 Sanders supporters who refused to vote for Hillary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/biden-sanders-social-security.html?
My wife and I liked Obama a lot. We liked his reasonableness, his sanity and his politics. To this day we even retain that soviet-style portrait print of him on our wall to remind us of better times. My wife read "Becoming" and loved it. But when we thought he screwed up we did not hesitate to think and say so, and I don't believe our admiration for him ever verged on cult hood.
No so, from all indications, of many Sanders supporters--and despite Procopius's protestations the other day, this continues to worry me.
We have the Pretender's cult of true believers on one side, forty percent of the nation. They are what they are, and we can't do anything about it.
Because the Democratic Party is a looser coalition of many more interests and opinions than is the opposing party, Democrats cannot afford to have its elements split into stubborn, unthinking cults that adopt the my way or the highway approach to politics.
And the nation surely cannot afford a repeat of 2016.
I don't know if that Obama poster will be enough to get me through another four years.
This sent to me this morning by a friend:
"The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth.~ Alan Dershowitz
"During the O.J. Simpson trial, Dershowitz publicly stated that the defense strategy would be to baffle the jury with BS. Judge Lance Ito let them get away with it. For that, Ito and the entire defense team, should have been dismissed and disbarred...
Now we get to see that defense strategy all over again. Will Chief Justice Roberts let him get away with it?"
@Ken: I, too, have a picture of Obama on the side of my fridge saying I was part of his kitchen cabinet (got this after donating to his campaign). I agree with your assessment of Obama and during his time in office, yes, I disagreed with some of his choices but always felt good that he was a decent, caring, intelligent man. Since Trump I have been in despair and if, by chance, (a nice way of describing corrupt actions) we do get four more years of this cretin and his henchmen, I think I might just give up on the idea that this country will prosper in any significant way. At this point it's gasping for breath––will there be enough oxygen to sustain it?
PD and Ken: I am the resident pessimist here; your jobs are to tell me in your sterling prose that I am all wrong and here's why-- and when you cannot, well, I know it is worse than even I, RP, think. I am not sure that even Cheney, the angel of death, can reach the breathtaking loftiness of #Midnight/Moscow Mitch's misdeeds-- I might just abhor him more than IMpotus-- The other day a folk singer/songwriter died on stage-- I was not familiar with him. But when I read the story, my very first reaction was to wish it on ALL these detestable "people." As someone said this morning, they all know that it and he and he are all wrong. And the rabble? They don't know what they don't know.
It's been reported that Schumer tried multiple times to reach out to #MoscowMitch, but the miscreant ignored every call. He wouldn't even feign 'bipartisanship' because he, like Drumpf, and like his entire GOP apparatus, see Democrats not as political foes to fight in the arena of policy and public opinion, but as illegitimate nobodies.
Seems to me that this kangaroo sham trial is going to be a culmination of the illiberal and frankly authoritarian belief system that has taken over the corpse of the Republican Party. I've only paid attention to politics since Dubya dropped bombs on Baghdad in high school, but the election of Obama seems to have kicked the Ethno-Nationalist tendencies into overdrive, dropping all pretense of authority and agency invested in their representational opposition.
I'm expecting this sham trial to be guided above all by this newly engrained disdain for anyone NOT willing to carry water for the GOP. This goes for supposed 'moderates' too, though they at least smile at the camera occasionally before falling behind the Füherer.
OK, Jeanne, I'll try.
It's easy enough to fall into the slough of despond as I often do these days, but you wanted some bright side stuff, and as you are a loyal RC'er your wish is my command.
Many things going on here in our benighted land, but I think one reported but made too little of are the numbers that have a majority of the nation not only supporting the impeachment but also wishing the Pretender removed from office. These numbers have held steady and even trended in the direction you and I like since the beginning of the impeachment process.
What does this tell us?
The majority of the nation does not support the Pretender. It hasn't from the beginning, and in the years since, the qualities that make him personally, morally and Constitutionally repugnant have become even more evident. In 2106 the majority may not have wished him president, but I'd hazard that majority did not want him impeached. They do now. The nation may learn slowly, but it is learning.
The polls that tell us that an even greater majority of people want a "fair trial" are also in play. In that context, while I understand why the R's can't afford anything near a fair trial, I can't see Mitch's arrangements doing his party much long term good. The less the R's are willing to present even a pretense of fairness, which the public has said includes calling witnesses, the more obvious they have nothing to offer but party and Pretender loyalty.
I don't think that will please any but their base base, and judging by how he barely squeaked by in 2106, the Pretender cannot afford to lose any support.
I suspect a sham trial will gain him none at all and will lose him more than a little.
The process may be painful, but there is reason to hope for a good result.
Better now?
And on the other hand....
Has-been Hillary, not helping.
You don't have to say everything you might think.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-documentary/index.html
Sorry, Jeanne, couldn't keep it up.
Thank you, Ken! Appreciate your spirit! As for Hillary, maybe I will not even read her remarks-- I am at work today so trying to just get bits and pieces-- could just let that go. Unfortunately, tho, tomorrow starts my five-day weekend, so there is plenty of time to marinate further. In the interests of sanity, I propose letting Hills simply speed off into the ether. There are enough people to dislike without rethinking 2016 yet again...ooghh.