Belated impeachment roundup

The House impeached Trump for a second time. This time the trial was held after he already left office. However it was still reasonable to impeach him because the impeachable action took place so late in his term, and it was a highly provocation act that deserved an impeachment declaration and trial. 

The trial occurred in early February. This article lays out very simply why the trial was needed: 

The opening words of the House prosecutors’ brief underscore the gravity of the offense: "This trial arises from President Donald J. Trump’s incitement of insurrection against the Republic he swore to protect..."

This was a more somber proceeding than the last one. It as simple, straightforward, and it let the shock of the events fill the space. Representative Jamie Raskin led the impeachment managers and set the tone. I'm having some trouble describing it, perhaps because I was a witness too, and what I saw and how I felt when witnessing it are so much more powerful than mere words. The people in the House and Senate experienced that invasion and insurrection, and they don't need people to explain what it was, the gravity of it, the fears, the enormity. 

A major point is that actions leading to the riot didn't start on Jan. 6, but were brewing and encouraged well before then. So you can't just look at what happened that day, but also what led to the actions on the that day, and all that Trump did before then to foster it. 

The defense was a mishmash of justification and umbrage at the proceeding. They even spliced together snippets of Democratic leaders exhorting supporters to fight as though to say 'everybody did it.' Most politicians may use the word 'fight' but they also give signs of what they mean by that, and Trump did too. We got to see the outcome. 

Neither the prosecution nor the defense ran on too long, so the trial lasted only four days. 

The acquittal verdict wasn't in any doubt. However, 7 GOP senators voted to convict, which is a testament to the horror of what happened for those who have a remnant of their souls left. 

Mitch McConnell blasted Trump for his actions, but a few weeks later was telling the country that he'd support Trump in 2024 if he was the GOP nominee. So easily are principles shredded. 

Image: nytimes.com

Extras. All the evidence presented. 

Greatest show on earth: Impeachment Circus

Finally, the impeachment has started. No big surprises so far, which means that I've been well informed, the news media has been on top on information, and the politicos have generally stuck to the positions they had already signaled.

'If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts...'

I listened in a bits and pieces of the House managers case, which was laid out over 3 days. They hit the evidence very hard. Lots of video, lots of evidence discussed. I didn't hear any histrionics, which also makes sense because histrionics and hyperbole would damage a case based on fact.

They do have a strong case. The testimony and other evidence all points to Trump putting a hold on aid to Ukraine while trying to extract a favor--the announcement of an investigation into the Biden family's role in Ukraine corruption. This looks like extortion, coercion, election chicanery, strong-arm tactics--otherwise known as abuse of power.

And now, the defense...

I haven't seen any good explanation refuting this interpretation of the evidence. The laughable arguments against the charge of abuse of power have been that it's hearsay (not once the phone call was released), that the president has the right to make these choices, that blocking the president's choices is treason or usurpation, that it's not extortion or coercion because the Ukrainian president denies feeling pressured, and that the money was released, so no harm and no foul, everything is OK.

The best defense was attempted by Mick Mulvaney, who said there were three conditions for releasing the aid: progress on corruption, Ukraine persuading other countries to provide aid, and cooperation with the Justice Department investigation of 2016 election interference. 

If any of the that had indeed been the reason aid was withheld, then the abuse of power charge would have been severely weakened. However, the 'three conditions' seem to have been a whitewash. There isn't evidence that they were ever the conditions. Oh dear. Someone should have been on the ball with the cover story back during the summer. But no one was, perhaps because Trump is not only corrupt but he is also inept, as are his toadies.

'If you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table'

So what will Trump's team offer as a defense? So far it seems like a mishmash. The largest point seems to be that the charges are false and are a fabrication by angry officials who want to oust the president. This isn't so much an argument about specific pieces of evidence as a denunciation of everything to do with the impeachment.

However, not being able to refute the evidence is a problem. One can claim that the charges are totally bogus, but usually you'd get into the particulars. "No, Your Honor, I couldn't have robbed the bank because I was at work that entire morning as twenty co-workers will testify."

So Trump supporters are trying to say the charges are bogus without being able to refute any of the details. They can make the point that many Dems have been trying to stymie Trump since he was elected. That is true. But it doesn't quash all those particulars related to Ukraine--the aid, the phone calls, the directions to work with Giuliani, etc.

Unfortunately, virtually no one from the GOP camp has been honest about this situation with the evidence. Justin Amash was, but that was months ago, and Amash was a renegade who was easily dismissed. No one of stature in the GOP has stood up and pointed out the evidence and said that it's a pretty huge, heaping pile of evidence that doesn't seem to be crumbling.

So the Republicans have ended up looking like yes men. Yet, when Schiff pointed this out, and referred to a newstory that the GOP senators were threatened (head on a pike if they didn't toe the line), those GOP senators were outraged!!! Sorry, folks, but that's what it looks like. You guys are too cowed to look at the evidence and call it as it plainly looks.

The lonely honest defense

Only National Review has made a reasonable argument: that Trump's actions were wrong, but the electorate can and will have the final say in just a few months, so let them do that. No one else seems to be interested in doing so. I guess the Republicans as a whole will stick with ignoring the evidence and mouthing talking points. They have to hope that most people are such partisans that no one will notice. There's an excellent chance of that. So, really, do the arguments even matter?

Should I have sympathy for the GOP senators? They have to listen to the evidence and then pretend it doesn't add up to anything. They're reenacting a version of the Emperor's New Clothes, which is a painful situation. However, if they are just going to be mice, maybe they don't deserve the respect generally given to senators.

Image: cartoonistgroup.com

Extras. Direct quotes from a large cross-section of senators. Now that the defense presentation is done, here is a summary along with notes as largely shooting huge holes in it. Lots of embarrassed reactions from senators here. Humor here, as senators claim to be blindsided. More humor, as lawyers like Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz reverse their earlier positions. Pay no attention to all that Giuliani talk--a version of there's nothing to see, so don't even look? The same with Bolton--no need for him to testify. On the other hand, Biden really is an issue.

Update 12/31/20. News that Giuliani lobbied for a Ukrainian connection to the same Zelensky adviser who was receiving directions on how to placate Trump. There had been a question on who was paying for Giuliani's travel during the question portion of the impeachment trial. Now we have a clue.

Update Februaryish. This whole Ukraine scandal has been a parade of lies and lame excuses from the Trump administration and their GOP/conservative supporters. Somehow these public servants want to know more about the whistleblower than the actions he blew the whistle on. Hell, there's hardly any interest in that. A few GOP senators are agreeing that Trump did something wrong. How the GOP smears: Stories about the whistleblower.

I'm against impeachment... partly

The biggest point I want to make is that what Trump did was wrong and was an abuse of power, and not a minor one either. He deserves to be investigated and his actions revealed and reviled. But should he be impeached? Should he be removed from office?

If previous presidents were asking for personal favors before releasing aid, then they were also abusing their office and should be unmasked. The policy of the US is not for personal gain or personal political advantage. It's supposed to be for the benefit of the country, not for benefit of a corrupt leader.

However I think the House should have continued to hold hearings, followed up on subpoenas, and released as much evidence as possible. Though Trump abused his power, I don't think he should be removed from office for one infraction. If it was a pattern, definitely he would deserve to be removed, but not for one incident, even though it does fit the definition of high crime and misdemeanor and does meet the constitutional requirement for impeachment.

I'd like to see the bar on impeachment be higher still. Either a single very grievous act or a pattern of abuse of power. Trump is a vile person and very unpresidential, but he can't be impeached for those characteristics.

Unfortunately, the GOP moved the goalposts on what is impeachable with their stupid partisan action against Bill Clinton. The Dems have been happy to go along with that change when it hurts a Republican, so now we have a lower standard (along with a lot of lower standards now).

Some Democrats were looking for any excuse to impeach Trump, and have been since he was elected. But that is the minority of Democrats. The majority of Democrats in Congress were realistic that there had to be legitimate grounds. The pressure therefore became irresistible as soon as there were grounds, which happened with the Ukraine scandal. So conservative critics are partially correct when they say that Dems have wanted to impeach Trump forever. But they ignore that Trump gave legitimate grounds for impeachment. The claim that impeaching is groundless and illegitimate is bogus.

What I support about impeachment

I support holding the president accountable, gathering evidence, hearing extensive witness testimony, and basically taking the situation seriously. I'd like a real inquiry without a foregone conclusion, but one where the evidence was respected above everything else.

Impeachment is a very serious undertaking, and the Dems are taking it seriously. I can't say the same for the Republicans, but that's a topic for a different post.

Image: wormsworld.us

Impeachment follies - the slow beginning

I expect bigger impeachment fireworks in the future, but the recent developments deserve note. The House voted largely on party lines to impeach Trump for extorting Ukraine and contempt of Congress for mostly stonewalling their investigation.

I support the investigation, and I support the impeachment (see revised opinion here). I personally wouldn't vote to remove him from office for these infractions unless there was a repeat of the kind of behavior as happened to Ukraine. Make no mistake, though. This was a serious infraction, and deserves a full investigation and a huge load of criticism. It's much worse than Bill Clinton lying during a deposition about his sexual activities.

Even though the House voted to impeach, Nancy Pelosi isn't moving ahead to the Senate trial because it looks like Mitch McConnell intends to run a joke of a trial there. It's not clear that the House advocates (officially called 'managers') will be allowed to call witnesses to testify at the Senate. It would be like a trial with no rights allowed for the prosecutor to make a case. So basically a sham, and not in accordance with the historical practice.

Pelosi is not wrong to hold up the impeachment and shine a light on this attempt to suborn the process. In the meantime, the GOP is running its propaganda machine and trying as hard as possible to avoid the process. They don't seem to care what precedents they break, but McConnell was like that when it came time to replace a dead Supreme Court justice with a live one. Precedents only matter when they help you, not when they might prevent you from maximizing your party's power.

Letter from Trump to Pelosi

The letter was authored by Trump and some advisers who provided phrases that sounded more intelligent than 'you stink.' It's not at all a legal opinion, but a kitchen sink overflowing with lame talking points and complaints. Trump is obviously not planning to fight the impeachment as a legal question, but more like a political campaign--where you praise yourself and blast your opponent and the niceties of accuracy are shoved aside. It's also clear that Mitch McConnell isn't going to enforce decorum or a fair process.

The letter was grist for a critique on logic--one of my favorite topics. I could go on much longer than the critique does, but it's still a rare, and therefore valuable instance of actually examining some arguments that are made.

Backlash against a Christian ethical viewpoint

The editor of a moderately popular Christian newsletter bit the bullet and argued that Trump is unfit for office and should be removed. Cue an amazing amount of outrage, as though the editor hadn't pointed out the obvious. In fact, the editorial didn't criticize Trump until its fifth paragraph--that's how much of a preamble they felt they needed before biting that bullet and saying clearly that Trump abused his power and therefore is unfit.

Most of the counterarguments don't dispute the facts, but make the expedient argument that Christianity will suffer without all the support Trump has given. Trump-- a bad man, maybe, but OUR bad man.

I'm under the impression that Christian ethics are supposed to be more ethical than that. Christianity Today was trying to make the argument that character matters. Most of Trump's Christian supporters have to deny that or delude themselves and adopt an ends-justify-the-means mindset. Not what Jesus preached.

The follow-up to the editorial moderated quite a bit. There was some aspects about the Trump administration to be celebrated, but also much that was unethical, like his race-baiting, cruelty to immigrants, and greed. The follow-up doesn't mention that Trump is unfit by his actions and his character, but seems to focus more on Trump being bad PR for American evangelicals. Ummm, is this expedience creeping in? I had much more respect when Christianity Today was willing to give witness to the specific acts were wrong, and that Trump was "morally unable to lead." Maybe it's hard to be as blunt when your fellow Christians have leveled a barrage of stones at your head.

Image: pinterest.com

Update 1/9/20. There have been a series of developments all concerning how the impeachment trial in the Senate will be run. McConnell indicated that he wasn't going to do a standard trial with witnesses being called and testifying about the charges. There were suggestions that McConnell wouldn't allow any witnesses called, and maybe have speeches by senators followed by a pre-ordained acquittal or dismissal of charges. Pelosi and those in the House want much more of a show than that, so Pelosi still hasn't handed the impeachment charges to the Senate.

Pelosi may have to fold eventually. She doesn't seem to have the power or the public support to force the Senate GOP to call witnesses. The country seems complacent about it, and it's hard to blame them. It is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be acquitted. So what is the point now? It seems to be to show how partisan the Senate GOP is. No surprise there. They've been hyper-partisan for over two decades, and it's only gotten worse. So a sham impeachment trial - NO SURPRISE THERE!!!! Remember, these are the folks who wouldn't replace a dead Supreme Court justice with a live one, so they'll certainly have a sham impeachment trial.

The defense of the president has varied:

1. He didn't do any real harm because the money was released.
2. It's not a crime on the lawbooks, folks! 
3. Biden definitely needs to be investigated.
4. No quid pro quo! (maybe that's a variant of not a crime, folks!).
5. The Dems never quit with the complaints and plans to impeach Trump. 
6. The economy is great, so leave the prez alone!
7. It's just bunch of State Department whiners who are angry that Trump bypassed them.
8. No, there wasn't any personal advantage to Trump. None at all.

I imagine all of these defenses, and maybe a few others, will be floated at the trial. McConnell is hinting that it will happen soon even if he has to break a couple more precedents. Well, I shouldn't be surprised by that. 

Extras. The Defense Department tried to figure out what to do as the funds were on hold and it wasn't clear why. Disgraced Rod Blagojevich claims (from prison) that the current Dems are such scum that they'd even impeach Lincoln. What is sickening kiss-up, but then he is in prison.

Update 1/15/20. The House released new information. Not surprisingly, it centers on human hand grenade Giuliani. Yes, he seems even scummier, but not by much.

Update 1/19/20. More new information. Giuliani associate Parnas was also working closely with an aide to Nunes (that incredibly honest fellow). The impeachment articles were passed to the Senate on 1/16/20. The trial will start on 1/21/20. Trump added four more attorneys to his team including Ken Starr (probably still an attack dog) and Alan Dershowitz who has just become legal and publicity whore of epic proportions. Dershowitz won't vote for him, but will go on TV for him and spin incredible legal fairytales. I'll have to watch for the fireworks. Here is a surprisingly sober and not at all boring analysis of Trump's strategy. Basically he'll energize his base, and it's working.

Analysis by the Wall Street Journal, by way of Politico: "The stark tribalism [in the GOP] has led those who want long-term futures in the party to get in line behind the president and those who have had enough to retire quietly without risking a noisy and disruptive exit. Twenty-six House Republicans have announced they are leaving the House since the 2018 midterm elections, when the party’s moderate wing took major casualties as Democrats won the majority. Not one of those retirees, including several moderates, voted against the party line on impeachment."

Update 1/20/20. Another article about Parnas trying to set up meetings and influence. This guy is quite the headache for Trump and Giuliani because their deniability is nil. He definitely seems to have been working with Giuliani in Ukraine. 

The Republicans Strike Back... they hope.

Republicans are fighting against the Ukraine scandal and subsequent impeachment inquiry with all they have. They continue to push the theory that the FBI, CIA, and other departments were/are full of corrupt Dem-sympathetic officials who have illegally targeted Trump. The Horowitz Inspector General (IG) report was supposed to blow it out of the water. That didn't happen. Now the investigation by US attorney John Durham is supposed to unmask this deep state conspiracy. 

I doubt it will happen. As we saw with the Mueller investigation and IG report, almost all of the big pieces leaked well before the reports were published. So Durham will probably not have anything beyound the known bits on Comey, Strzok and Page, McCabe, Bruce Ohr in the State Department, and how the FBI used the Steele dossier. I doubt there will be any smoking gun showing that the Trump campaign was set up by the FBI or CIA, with a phony approach by Mifsud that they orchestrated. I predict that will turn out to be true as reported, that Mifsud offered info on Hillary Clinton, and the campaign was interested. That Papadopoulos drunkenly mentioned it to an Australian diplomat, who eventually reported it through channels to the FBI. 

Their grand hopes of indictments and perp walks of these heinous Dem-leaning traitors isn't going to happen. But we shall all see.

Image: youtube.com

Extra. This column points out how the GOPers are using slander as a counterattack. Lt. Col. Vindman who was injured in Iraq--has a grudge against Trump and is lying. Also, he's a never-Trumper, meaning he isn't loyal. Not loyal  to Trump--to me, it sounds like Trump thinks he's running a banana republic.

Update 2/28/2020. I never specified why I think there won't be perp walks of conspirators among the FBI/CIA/etc. There are two reasons: 1) There wasn't a conspiracy. 2) The inestigators, as much as they hope to find evidence of a conspiracy, will not manufacture evidence, i.e. lie and fabricate a case. No fake evidence and no real evidence, so no perp walks. Sorry, folks. No, not sorry. 

Ukraine saga continues

I don't know how many threads I'll have on this Ukraine saga. I feel vindicated for focusing on the prosecutors and ambassadors, but perhaps I deserve credit only for reading the transcript of the phone call and the whistleblower's letter.

The House Democrats started private, closed-door testimony from some of those involved or with knowledge of the situation. The Republicans have been yelling foul on whatever grounds they can think of. They claimed the testimony was wrong because there was no formal vote, so the Dems held a formal vote, which passed. The Republicans said the closed-door testimony was wrong, and even tried to stage a sit-in. Starting today, the Dems have are releasing transcripts of the testimony taken so far. It's fairly damning. Trump claims that the Dems are going to change the words, but he looks like a fool on that account.

So far, a fair number of people, mostly connected to the State Department, have talked about Giuliani running his own Ukraine policy that was focused on getting dirt on the Biden family. Some of the people testifying have been:

• William Taylor
• Lt. Col. Vindman (who contacted the NSC legal branch twice)
• Marie Yovanovitch (the targeted US ambassador)

This list will probably grown. I keep hearing that what Giuliani has done and what Trump has let him do are without precedent for modern times in the State Department. I certainly don't remember dealings like this, though there were occasionally rumors of secret underhanded dealings like Bush Sr. doing something-something. What we have here is much more than rumor. 

Republicans are fighting back with all they have. They continue to push the theory that the FBI, CIA, and other departments were/are full of corrupt Dem-sympathetic officials who have illegally targeted Trump. But that's the subject of my next post.

Vindman going to testify. Traitor or patriot?

Image: nationalreview.com

Update 11/5/19. The House released transcripts of two ambassadors (Volker and Sondland). Sondland had a mysterious change in his memory, and now says that he told the Ukrainians that they'd have to announce the investigations for aid to be freed. Sondland still provided a bit of a figleaf for Trump, saying it was his 'presumption' that the aid was tied because he heard it hadn't been released. Sondland confirmed that Giuliani was the key person on Ukraine, and Trump didn't want to deal with it, but directed the ambassadors to Giuliani.

Also this quote from a federal prosecutor:

Now they've got this whole other crazy defense about there's no corrupt intent, but these guys haven't done their legal researching and corrupt intent under the law means improper purpose. And when you're using the levers of government and monies appropriated by Congress to further your own re-election effort and use it to try and bribe and extort a foreign government, I mean, what more improper purpose can you get?  - 

Update 11/7/19. Two more articles about the released transcripts. Both give an inside view of what the testimony was like. Taylor--resolutely sticking to the facts, supported by his meticulous notes. Sondland--buffeted, not knowing what to say, having trouble remembering.

Update 11/16/19. A taut, thriller-like retelling of the whistleblower's actions and many others. John Bolton has the most memorable lines: calling Giuliani a human hand-grenade and instructing an aide to tell <someone> that he isn't part of the drug deal being cooked up. 

May links

Religious right takeover. After about 40 years of trying, the religious right is taking over and abolishing the right to a safe, legal abortion. Conservatives used to pay lip service to pro-life groups, and those groups got fed up and marshalled their strength, electing someone malleable like Trump and his openly pious VP, Mike Pence. Snippet: More rights for workers to opt out of tasks due to conscience and religious belief. Will patients not receive care because of it?

Abortion actions in states. Many states are changing their abortion laws. Some are pushing to overturn Roe v Wade, and others are updating to allow late term abortion for therapeutic reasons. Related: an argument that men cause all pregnancies. Fun to read, but does it hold together? And an article and interesting comment thread about stealthing, which is secretly removing a condom during sex.

Mueller as witness. A profile of what to expect, as though we couldn't predict it from what we know already. Sober, honest, rule-based, tough, consistent. <---- Well, that item is now defunct. Mueller has said that his report is his testimony, and he has nothing to add. And finally a cogent conservative view on why Mueller was wrong to hint so broadly that Trump obstructed justice. I've read so much junk from conservatives, it's a relief to find something intelligent.

The spies don't like it. Trump has appointed Bill Barr, the Attorney General, to decide what documents to declassify related to unfair investigations into the Trump campaign. I don't trust Barr to be impartial or the intellligence servicess to be candid, but the truth almost always comes out.

Shutting down free press in Europe. Scary. Not by killing journalists, but by buying up the media outlets.

Maneuvering over impeachment. Impeachment will help Trump, so he's now trying to goad the Dems into it. I'll have to check what GOP mouthpieces are saying. Maybe their 'coup' rhetoric will be replaced with claims that the Dems are impeaching Trump, even when they aren't. It's obviously theater and moot because the Senate won't convict. In related news, Trump had a temper tantrum, blew up a negotiations session that was supposed to work toward an infrastructure bill, and then ranted in the Rose Garden. But it was all planned, with the podium and signs already set up.

My obsession with fake claims of voting fraud. Another entry in this category. Texas tries to remove non-citizens and screws up. Let me guess--are minorities the main target again?

Conservative fake news industry. For outright lies, conservative media wins hands down. Someone faked a video of Pelosi slurring her words, and the rubes ate it up. In related news, the Washington Examiner had a headline about Buzzfeed having to correct a tweet. It was a small correction, hardly worth a newstory or headline. I wonder when the Examiner will correct its own false stories, like the one I write about here.

Developing nations. An overview of nations with different levels of development and different obstacles. A good encapsulation, with helpful examples.

Is India headed to another civil war? Trouble is simmering, and might explode.

Important link on server forensics. Damn those stupid talking points. The DNC didn't need to turn over servers to the FBI according to an actual computer expert. And another article about the forensics of the computer hacking investigation, though ultimately the info comes from the same source.

Still available by mail, no matter what state

Image: thecut.com

Interesting factoids

My blog is now mostly links. But that doesn't mean I'm not thinking. I feel like I'm thinking as much as before. So I can't really explain why my writing has changed to these collections of short, link-based reflections.

Here are a bunch of lighter link that are still interesting.

Energy promise fulfilled? In Australia, a huge battery system is providing backup for when renewables faulty and storage for when the energy output is abundant. This is such an important step in making renewables primary in large-scale energy production.

Kick him when he's down. We can laugh and/or sneer at formerly famous alt-right jerk Milo Y__(whatever). Here's an article on his unpublished books and the editor's comments.

Hackable votes. This one is heavier: an article about how Georgia has very poor security for its electronic voting machines. It contains first-hand reports of problems and officials trying to cover them up.

Good news/bad news. A funny conundrum. Media has done very well under the Trump campaign and presidency. Viewership is up, profits are up. It could be very nasty (in financial terms) if Trump doesn't win in 2020.

Trump's mental condition. Hahahaha. Nearly everyone has an opinion, but this is the opinion of a trained neurologist.  I've had some training in neurology, so I notice many of the behaviors the neurologist mentions. I would add this: look for changes, particularly diminishing ability. As far as I can tell, Trump hasn't deteriorated, but we should be alert for the signs. This is a reasonable place for a bookmark to a lawyerly explanation for why impeachment hearings are warranted. I don't agree, but the case is well argued.

A journalist on our side. Maybe Trump, Bannon, or whoever thought Michael Wolff could be trusted to write positive fluff pieces, and they found out otherwise when he wrote Fire and Fury. This is the kind of piece that might have given them false hope. It's a sympathetic view of Roger Ailes. It also sounds like he flattered people's egos, basically conning the con men that staff the White House. I don't trust him to be fair and scrupulously accurate. However, he claims to have tapes of some interviews. Added fun!

Image: newsday.com

More links - even more interesting

Unmasking unmasking. Republicans are trying to shift the attention on Russian election interference to the unmasking of names in intelligence documents. It turns out that the House Intelligence Committee asked for some unmasking itself. Perhaps unmasking names isn't as bad as they're pretending it is.

Clinton Emails. I had an argument with another Bloomberg commenter on whether we should assume Hillary's server was hacked, even in the absence of leaks of her emails. The commenter provided a link to a video clip of a former intelligence officials saying that he'd have no respect for foreign intelligence agencies if they hadn't hacked her emails. (Sorry, I can't find the link. It was a respectable news channel.) I don't think this is compelling enough evidence to say the realistic people must assume her emails were hacked. Fox News (not a respectable organization) claimed that it received info about known hacks. But I guess they backed down on that. This New York Times article discusses some reasons to strongly suspect it happened.

But a final bit of speculation: it was a very close election. If foreign intelligence agencies has hacked her server and had emails, and didn't want to see Clinton as president, isn't it likely that they would have leaked the emails before the election? Consider whether some not-so-Clinton-friendly countries like Russia, Israel, or Saudi Arabia had those emails. Would they not have tried to tip the election? If indeed she'd been hacked, I'm rather surprised that information hasn't clearly surfaced.

Trump is trying to hire... but will people serve? That's a good question tackled by this must-read article. There's a telling anecdote of an interview for a high position.

Unwarranted suspicion. The investigation of contacts between Trump advisers and Russians was started because of malice on the part of John Brennan, the former CIA director. The investigation was totally fake. Don't you believe me????? (I often don't believe the Washington Times.)

Trump war room. With Trump's return from his first foreign visits, he may be setting up a war room to fight back against the mounting Russia news blizzard. How they might fight back: Deny Russian contacts happened. Then claim what did happen is perfectly fine. Or get the supposedly recused chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to jump back in and run interference again. Or coordinate/non-coordinate with a group to run commercials attacking former FBI directory Comey.

Unfortunately, I doubt that they'll decide to be transparent on all Russia contacts. Cover-up and obfuscation seem to be the go-to strategies of politicians -- see Hillary and her email server. Also, a very readable speculation on Trump's mood and how it permeates everything.

Impeachment. A conservative gets that impeachment would be a fiasco. For the record, I don't see impeachment happening, due to the prez being a Republican and Republican control of the House. Duh! How the hell would it happen?

Don't cry for Robert E. Lee. The Atlantic has an illuminating article on the myth of Lee versus the reality. He wasn't exactly the reluctant defender of slavery. A good read as statues are being removed.

Paris climate accords. Trump, true to his rhetoric, pulled the US out of the non-binding accords. The effect is to make the US look greedy and rather irresponsible, and everyone else look more like grown-ups. Go, team, go!

Signs of more instability in the Mideast? Several major Mideast countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, cut diplomatic ties with Qatar. What's going on? Even more infighting in that region, it appears. There are Muslims fighting the West, Sunnis and Shia fighting, Kurds being suppressed, and maybe now Sunnis fighting other Sunnis. What a mess. Here's a reflection: perhaps Obama was partly successfully in controlling the chaos. But he's gone now, and Trump's policies will give rein to more chaos. Update 6/12/17. An article explaining the Qatar situation. Another good article. More updates 7/16/17. Report that the United Arab Emirates probably hacked Qatar and placed false information to start this action. Trump doesn't understand this and isn't listening to the smarter cabinet secretaries. Secret alliance documents. Interesting, but the news story is somewhat muddy. Analysis that the Saudis are overplaying their hand.

Former libertarian turns supporter of welfare state. I guess he stopped fighting the wave and started communing and learning how the wave thinks. The wave wants the welfare state that is embodied by Social Security and Medicare. However, most GOP lawmakers haven't read between the lines, or won't be saying out loud that entitlements have won, even in the GOP. Because of this, legislative paralysis wins.

How to get caught leaking. Interesting background on the first leaker arrested in the very leaky start of the Trump administration. Possibly memorable trivia, but maybe throw-away trivia.

Rhetoric games. A National Review columnist notices one of the most common rhetorical tricks: 'Hey, what about this [outrage/blunder/hypocrisy]?'

The Swamp

Image: tulane,edu

The Tea Party gears up to strike out, yet again

The Tea Party really, REALLY wants to crucify Obama, but they'll settle for impeachment. Boehner is trying to buy them off with a pansy-waist lawsuit, but some of them aren't taking it. Erick Erickson is howling for Congress to man up on impeachment. So is Sarah Palin.

• Not so fast, according to John Boehner and Bob Goodlatte, chair of the committee which would have to handle impeachment. 
• Not so fast, Erick Erickson changes his tune. 

Oddly, one day after Palin's rallying cry for impeachment, Erickson decided that impeachment won't work. He's sticking with his assessment that a lawsuit is a stunt, so that leaves the power of the purse--the shutdown and default strategy that didn't work last time.

Palin called for impeachment on July 8, and by July 9, she had that sinking ship pretty much to herself. On July 13, William Kristol declared that "No responsible Republican has called  for impeachment." I could say Palin had been hung out to dry, except that she's a gutless, witless, second-string toady who doesn't even realize how lame and stupid she is. She hangs herself out to dry just by opening her mouth and letting stale conservative talking points crawl out. Then, she doubles-down on her own stupidity, as in this insipid column on all the non-specific wrongs Obama has committed.

Today there's a poll showing that 35% of the country want Obama impeached. I'm betting on a far different number within six months, if there's any poll at all. The impeachment mania has peaked, and now it's going downhill. Should someone like Ted Cruz push for impeachment, they will get slapped in the face with a dead fish. They won't get ushered into the driver's seat, as happened last year.

I wonder how long before the majority of Tea Partyers realize this. How long before Palin realizes? What will they do when they do realize it? That might be interesting to observe. Usually, however, bad ideas end with a whimper, not a bang. That's probably what will happen here.

To be completely honest, I didn't realize how dead impeachment was when I started this post. But I figured it out, and much faster than Palin will.

Boehner's nuts ... or Palin's marbles?

Image: oops, lost the reference

Extras. Impeachment was so last February. A humorous summary of Palin's complaint.

Update 7/16/14. More Republicans say impeachment is unworkable. I guess Sarah missed the memo.

Update 1/2/16. Not much on the impeachment front in all of 2015. Some deluded people in a red state. A comical twist with the delusion here. Waves of mixed messages here.

Debt Ceiling 201

This is the follow-up on the short post about why reaching the debt ceiling wasn't the rosy picture painted by some Tea Party wishful thinkers. I said that there was 1) no legal framework for prioritizing government payments (and thereby avoiding default on debt service) and 2) no practical mechanism to do it at this time.

No Legal Framework

The US government hasn't intentionally defaulted since FDR's presidency. Even then, that was a planned default, which is not what the Tea Partyers want. They want prioritized payments of US obligations to avoid default and do the least harm to the country.

No such prioritization has been established, so this is new territory. There aren't laws laying out how to do this. In the absence of such laws, who will decide what the priority should be? That's a huge constitutional question. Does the president unilaterally decide since he's the executive? Does the Congress decide? Can Congress impeach the president for making unilateral decisions? Can Congress impeach the president for refusing to prioritize payments? Will the Tea Partyers who want the prioritization of payments guarantee that they won't call for Obama's impeachment over the decisions he makes in this regard? I sure haven't heard anyone making such a promise.

Will Congress quickly pass the legal framework required? HAHAHAHAHA.

No Practical Mechanism

All the accounting programs, sign-offs, clearances, etc. that it takes for the government to send money to the correct people are probably much more complex than anyone's monthly disbursements. How readily can that all be changed to send out prioritized payments? Not readily, I'd bet. There would need to be an entire design/implementation cycle with the requisite planning, programming, testing, bug-fixing, and retesting.

Political Motivation (1)

Now that the practical considerations are out of the way, let's consider the motivations of the parties regarding prioritized payments. For Tea Partyers, the motivation is to prevent default, incur no new debt, and pay the most important government expenses. However, there isn't strong agreement on what the most important government expenses are. That's one reason not to leave the decision-making unilaterally to the president, just in case he's a scum-sucking, pinko, socialist bastard.

So those who support prioritized payments will probably also want a big say in determining the priorities. But again, there is no legal framework at this time for that. Congress would need to follow the usual law-making procedures--but the chance that the House, Senate, and president will pass one prioritization plan is so close to zero, it is effectively zero. So there will be no prioritization in established law.

I've never heard any proponent of prioritization discuss this wrinkle in their plan. I'm guessing that they gloss over that impediment, and imagine that their priorities are so obvious that they'll be followed. Then, reaching the debt ceiling is equivalent to immediately going to a balanced budget. By refusing to raise the debt ceiling, they achieve one of their biggest policy goals. And they didn't even have to pass a balanced budget law or amendment. Hooray! No wonder they gloss over so many details.

So if priorities could be established, Tea Partyers have another way to achieve a major goal--just don't ever increase the debt ceiling. That's a lot of added leverage for them in any budget negotiation.

Political Motivation (2)

What is the political motivation of the Democrats, including the president? They aren't for an immediate balancing of the budget. They aren't for establishing spending priorities at a much lower budget target point. They don't want the Tea Party to have greater leverage in budget talks. Their motivation is to make the debt ceiling as painful as possible, so that the GOP will always back down.

In this, they have history on their side because the debt ceiling has always been increased. Neither Congress nor the president has ever stepped over that line, because it would be too catastrophic a move to make. The US government would go into default, which would destabilize the world economy and probably cause a worldwide depression.

The Democrats have no reason to make the debt ceiling less scary. That hands leverage to those who want severe budget cuts, which are not the Dems. So there's no way that the Dems will pass any legislation that prioritizes payments in the event of reaching the debt ceiling.

Wonderland Scenario

Maybe the next time the GOP controls the House, Senate, and presidency, they can pass the legislation and build the accounting mechanisms to implement prioritized payments. That will be somewhere on their list of must-have legislation including the repeal of Obamacare, rolling back regulation, closing the EPA, block-granting Medicaid or just getting rid of it, outlawing abortion, and ushering in the permanent GOP majority.

Maybe, like Rip Van Winkle, I'll go to sleep for two decades, and then wake up to a US where all this has happened. Somehow, I doubt it, but we'll see. Nighty-night!

Come on, it's simple.

Image: archiscene.net

Sad news: No impeachment

Here are two sides to this story, which barely deserves the title of 'news.' Per our liberal-inflected MSM, it's a case of 'those weird, stupid Tea Partiers.' To the conservative media, it's a case of a congressman trying to politely let a constituent down easy.

The unfortunate congressman is Blake Farenthold (R-TX). According the various MSM  sources (I read it in this post), the rep was explaining that impeachment would pass in the House and go down to defeat in the Senate, so it didn't make sense to do it.

Hotair has a somewhat different take:

Farenthold’s not floating impeachment, he’s just trying to make a Birther go away. This is his way of appeasing her.

That sounds more plausible than the MSM take. Nonetheless, conservatives are having to walk back expectations of the outer right, expectations such as imminent impeachment or the shutting down of Obamacare, which just aren't going to happen.

It's good that some GOP reps are trying to cool down the crazy, but there's a hell of a lot of it out there. I doubt this effort will be enough. The outer right has been fed fairly extreme rhetoric for four years now. The sentiments that have been built up aren't going to change in just 2-3 months. I expect sparks to fly this fall.

Image: usnews.com

Update 8/22/13. It isn't news, but another Republican congressman had to disappoint a constituent demanding that Obama be impeached. This congressman says that it would be a "dream come true" if he could do it, but dang, there's no evidence. Too bad he doesn't ask where are these false expectations came from.

The Usurpers

The cry "Take back our country" is one I heard frequently from tea partiers. The sense is that some elected officials are illegitimate usurpers of their office. The implied meaning in 'take back our country' is usually electoral, but violence, as in a 'second amendment solution,' lurks in the background.

The idea that elected officiasl are not legitimate holders of their elected office can come from concerns about the fairness of the election or about the officials themselves. It's often mixed up in the believers' heads. Obama was elected by fraud, he's not a natural-born American, or (more likely) no one with his political philosophy should ever be elected, in these people's minds.

 Graphic: xark.typedpad.com

So Obama is treated like a usurper. But Clinton was also treated like a usurper, and there's no doubt that he was a natural-born American. I think the concerns about fraud and Obama's citizenship are just smokescreens for the real reason people don't want him as president--that they don't want someone with his politics in the White House. Therefore, any Democratic president is going to get this treatment--the constant complaints, the attacks on his legitimacy, the insults like "traitor," and the calls for impeachment.

Clinton got it too, and it was surprising in its virulence at the time. Hillary called it a "vast rightwing conspiracy," but it actually became normal operating procedure for Clinton's GOP opponents. The machinery hasn't ever stopped. Now Obama is the target, along with his senior staff, particularly Eric Holder for some reason.

Bear in mind that there can easily be an unending series of complaints about any official since none of us is perfect or all-powerful or able to accomplish every single thing within our purview. I think the Obama administration has been relatively clean, which is why Operation Fast and Furious is still such an item of anger for the right. It's the biggest club with which to beat the administration, and it isn't that big (in my opinion), especially since it began under President Bush in 2006.

I wonder about this sense that any Democratic president is a usurper. It can feel that the president doesn't have much support if you live in a deep-red state or receive your political information in a partisan echo chamber. Many people, on the right, left, or middle, think that they are actually in the majority, or would be if only:

• The media wasn't so biased.
• The media would get the truth out.
• Voting fraud was eliminated.
• Stupid voters weren't allowed to vote.
• Freeloaders weren't allowed to vote.
• Immigration laws were enforced. 

The belief that your ideas are superior and would win an electoral majority if only [something] is common enough. I just don't know why it persists in the face of election results. Why is there the sense that you are part of the "silent majority" (Nixon) or the real Americans (Palin), and those others are not?

The echo chamber of media and the people around you can certainly reinforce that idea, and Fox News and other right-wing outlets do plenty of conscious reinforcement. But I think there's more. There's a kind of resentment at work. It's resentment of elites, particularly in non-conservative media and in academia, who have used their power to stifle. Many people fell stifled, belittled, and embattled. It's no wonder they want to take the country back. That's how anyone feels when they're shouted down, or just perceives that kind of treatment. So they turn their resentment on these elites and their allies, the Democrats.

I don't have a quick solution to this. But I want to remind people that civil discourse and true listening are lacking, and we see the outcome in this situation and probably thousands of others.

Not a bullseye for this topic, but a great graphic 

from rustbeltradical.wordpress.com/tag/paul-street

Extras:
Type "most Americans want" into Google to see what phrases come up in auto-complete.

Please excuse typos in this post. Blogger lost it and I had to retype it from the preview page in the Firefox history. Freak accident, but only electrons were harmed.

Reflections on partisanship

Partisanship is more the norm, but bipartisanship also has a robust history. I was asking myself the question: is it really worse now than it was in the past? Yes, I think so. In the past 3 years, Congress has negotiated virtually no bills. A few measures have been so popular that they passed easily, most recently a jobs bill for veterans, but that it isn't the hard work of negotiating a compromise. All the compromises in the past year have occurred as time ticked down to a shutdown or a hard expiration date.

A welfare reform bill or education bill worked on by both Bush and Kennedy would be unthinkable today. There had been camaraderie among senators in past years, but not now.

Not So Small Beginnings

I tried to think back to when this nearly constant animosity started, and I think it was during Reagan presidency. There won't be any proof of this, but I think there was a near constant barrage of disagreement and belittling critique of the man, his intelligence, and his policies. It wasn't surprising, because Reagan was an existential threat to the liberal-leaning status quo. He wanted to roll back a scary number of the gains liberal had made: welfare, abortion, tax-free student loans, decreased military spending, women's liberation.

One of the most blatant of the liberals' attacks was on Robert Bork, Reagan's nominee to the Supreme Court. Republican neither forgave or forgot, and Supreme Court nominations have been generally been contentious ever since. (To be clear, I agreed with the fight against Bork. He was a frighteningly persuasive reactionary, and I don't use those terms lightly.)

 "I'll see you and raise you five."

This form of partisanship, with constant attacks, became even more pronounced during the Clinton administration. The tools--congregational hearings, constant news leaks, rumors, special prosecutors (blessedly defunct now)--had all been used before by Democrats out to embarrass a Republican administration. Perhaps the Republicans added a few new tricks, such as finding PACs or think-tanks that would  financially sponsor accusers on press junkets (though it's possible that wasn't a new twist).

The Republicans really upped the ante with their impeachment proceeding against Bill Clinton. Even a strong electoral repudiation of the Republicans didn't deter the House Republican leadership, who commenced impeachment proceeding after losing a significant number of seats in the 1998 off-year election. Since then, the partisanship has barely had even a Christmas truce, except perhaps Gore's altruistic concession of the disputed 2000 presidential election. Each president has been accused so often of being "the most polarizing figure ever" that it could be a title equivalent with 'Mr. President.' I'm so tired and cynical about all this partisanship that I don't want to chronicle any more of it in this post. Suffice to say that it continues unabated.

I don't have a hopeful note to end on. No pithy quip. I still pray for an end to this partisanship, but without any spirit of hopefulness. Sorry to be such a downer.

 ... just another day at the beach

Extras
Google counts:

• "Impeach Carter"   - 5140 results, none contemporaneous.
• "Impeach Reagan" - 10,700 results
• "Impeach Clinton"  - 62,900 results
• "Impeach Bush"       - 2.2 million results
• "Impeach Obama"  - 1.0 million results

Supreme partisan Jon Kyl

The Usurpers

The cry "We're going to take back our country" is one I heard frequently from tea partiers. The sense is that some (usually specified) elected officials are illegitimate usurpers of that office. The implied meaning in  'take back the country' is usually electoral, but violence, or a second amendment solution, lurks in the background

The idea that elected officials are not illegitimate holders of their elected office can come from concerns about the fairness of the election or about the officials themselves. It's often mixed up in the believers' heads. Obama was elected by fraud, he's also not a natural-born American, and no one with his political philosophy should ever be elected.

Graphic:xark.typepad.com

So Obama is treated like a usurper. But Clinton was also treated like a usurper, and there's no doubt that he was a natural-born American. I think the concerns about fraud and Obama's citizenship are just smokescreens for the real reason people don't want him as president--that they don't want someone with his politics in the White House. Therefore, any Democratic president is going to get this treatment--the constant complaints, the attacks on his legitimacy, the insults like "traitor," and the calls to impeach.

Clinton got it too, and it was surprising in its virulence at the time. Hillary called it a "vast rightwing conspiracy," but it actually became normal operating procedure for Clinton's GOP opponents, and the machinery hasn't ever stopped. Now Obama is the target, along with his senior staff, particularly Eric Holder for some reason.

Bear in mind that here can easily be an unending series of complaints about any official since none of us is perfect or all-powerful or able to accomplish everything within our purview. I think the Obama administration has been relatively clean, which is why Operation Fast and Furious is still such an item of anger. It's the biggest club with which to beat the Obama administration, and it isn't that big (in my subjective opinion), especially since it began under President Bush in 2006.

I wonder about this sense that any Democratic president is a usurper. It can feel that the president doesn't have much support if you live in a deep-red state or receive your political information in a partisan echo chamber. Many people, on the right, left, and middle, thin that they are actually in the majority if only:

• The media wasn't so biased.
• The media would get the truth out there.
• Voting fraud was eliminated.
• Stupid voters weren't allowed to vote.
• Freeloaders weren't allowed to vote.
• Immigration laws were enforced.

The belief that your ideas are superior and would win a electorate majority if only [something] is common enough. I just don't know why it persists in the face of election results. Why is there the sense that you are part of the "silent majority" (Nixon) or the real Americans (Palin), and those others are not?

The echo chamber of media and the politics of the people around you with can certainly reinforce that idea, and Fox News and other right-wing outlets do plenty of conscious reinforcement. But I think there's more. There's a kind of resentment at work. It's resentment of elites, particularly in non-conservative media and in academia, who have used their power to stifle. Many people feel stifled, belittled, and embattled. It's no wonder they want to take their country back. That's how anyone feels when they're shouted down, or just perceive that kind of treatment. So they turn their resentment on these elites and their allies, the Democrats.

I don't have a quick solution to this. But I want to remind people that civil discourse and true listening are lacking, and we see the outcome of this situation and probably thousands of others.

  Not a bull's eye for the topic, but a great graphic for 

"take our country back" from rustbeltradical.wordpress.com/tag/paul-street/

Extras:
Type "most Americans want" into Google to see what phrases come up in auto-complete.