Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[jjbrr]

Zel, it was unnecessary to send me a private message and anyway you couldn't be more wrong. One can still be overtly racist even if they never explicitly say "I hate black people." But anyway, since you asked:

 

"I understand all that. But my original question remains: How will the lives of black Americans be improved by tearing down Confederate monuments...or any other monument for that matter? I've read that The Reverend Al Sharpton considers the Jefferson Memorial "an insult to my family". If we take them all down will blacks instantaneously be free to stop murdering each other in Chicago? Will they be free to stop making babies they can't support? Will they be free to have households that include both a mother and a father? Will they be free to graduate from high school or trade school and find a decent job? Or will they just be free to start another hysterical "movement" and raise hell about that? And please note.......I am not condemning just blacks here. There are plenty of whites with the same shortcomings. I don't have much use for them either."

[Winstonm]

:

 

 

 

1) It is not difficult to see which of the two was the American soldier.

2) It is not difficult to see which of the two was a lying POS: “I was not happy with it. I disagreed with it. ... I think I did [try to stop the chant]. I started speaking very quickly.”

[Chas_P]

 

I guess I'm just not cultured enough to rub elbows with a bunch of racist pieces of *****. You need to talk to Chas about that kind of stuff.

 

It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Clan. Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat, segregated federal buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations .

It was the Democrat party in the South that instituted Jim Crow laws.

It was the Democrat party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.

It was the Democrat party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

It was George Wallace and the Democratic party in the South that said, “Segregation forever”.

It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

It was Bull Conner, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on marchers in Birmingham and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act over such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright, Al Gore, Sr., and Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd in the party.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell “a house nigger”.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacey Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantation. It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson who owned slaves and who orchestrated The Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

 

Add your own examples. There are many. That’s how Democrats really think.

[Cyberyeti]

It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Clan. Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat, segregated federal buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations .

It was the Democrat party in the South that instituted Jim Crow laws.

It was the Democrat party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.

It was the Democrat party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

It was George Wallace and the Democratic party in the South that said, “Segregation forever”.

It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

It was Bull Conner, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on marchers in Birmingham and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act over such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright, Al Gore, Sr., and Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd in the party.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell “a house nigger”.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacey Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantation. It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson who owned slaves and who orchestrated The Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

 

Add your own examples. There are many. That’s how Democrats really think.

 

 

It was how much of white America thought 60+ years ago, but the Democrats have moved on, many Republicans haven't

[hrothgar]

It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Clan. Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat, segregated federal buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations .

It was the Democrat party in the South that instituted Jim Crow laws.

It was the Democrat party in the South that instituted “separate but equal”.

It was the Democrat party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

It was George Wallace and the Democratic party in the South that said, “Segregation forever”.

It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

It was Bull Conner, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on marchers in Birmingham and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act over such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright, Al Gore, Sr., and Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd in the party.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell “a house nigger”.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacey Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantation. It’s the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson who owned slaves and who orchestrated The Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

 

Add your own examples. There are many. That’s how Democrats really think.

 

Oh Chas...

 

You stupid stupid *****khead.

 

No one, least of all myself disputes that Democrats and particular Southern Democrats had members who were deeply deeply racist in years past. Indeed, there are such members today.

 

Here's the rub... The racist Southern Democrats of whom you speak bolted from the party when the Democratic Party passed the Civil Rights Act and started to support policies like school desegregation. Claiming that Forrest or Byrd are representative of the modern Democratic party is as ridiculous as the modern day Confederates that comprise the Republican party still trying to claim the mantle of the party of Lincoln.

 

Nearly everyone has managed to figure this out aside from brain addled idiots like yourself. Seriously, this whole transformation happened 50 years ago.

 

What's the point of advancing such a ludicrous, easy to disprove claim? Seriously, do you actually believe that posting such a ludicrous trope is at all convincing?

 

FWIW, there's a new book out called "American Carnage"... Well worth taking a look at. I'd be interested to know what you think.

[kenberg]

Phrasing this my way: It's true that Cain killed Abel. Bringing this up to defend a current murderer is not apt to convince anyone. There will always be someone else one can point to and say "But look what he did". At some point, such a defense not only does not work, the desperation of it becomes apparent. When something really cannot be defended, it is best to stop defending it.

[cherdano]

But it's still illuminating that Chas_P thinks it is a defense. It's all about us vs them, never about what's the right thing to do.

[Chas_P]

I'm going to leave it with you boys for awhile. I think I'll head up into the mountains and enjoy the cooler air for awhile, then maybe over to Bermuda in the early Fall for awhile to enjoy the beauty of the ocean and the friendliness of the Bermudian people. But you guys, please do keep up your good work. With your superior intellect, dogged determination, and leadership from mental giants Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and "The Squad" I am confident you will have "the motherf***er" out of the White House no later than January 14, 2025.

 

Fare thee well.

[cherdano]

Who'd take the over for three weeks?

[Winstonm]

It is hurricane season so there is hope.

[y66]

via Jake Sperling via Matt Yglesias:

 

[barmar]

This is a really interesting post. First you say

 

Then you say

 

So are you saying that you've now become one of the "rich white guys" and therefore apologizing for your success? I'm not looking for a fight. I just want to understand your reasoning.

I don't consider myself rich, just middle class. I make around $130K/year, but have no family to support and I live in a 1-bedroom condo.

 

But since I have investments, I guess I benefited from Trump's fiscal policies. I'm able to separate my personal benefits from what I think is best for society. I regularly vote in favor of property tax increases in my town when they come up, because I believe in the public works projects that they fund (we just had a vote this month to fund rebuilding our high school).

 

I would much prefer that we do something about climate change and worker safety even if it means my investments don't do as well. Money isn't everything.

 

I suppose I have the luxury of not caring about money since I have no heirs and expect to die with a sizeable estate, and I can't take it with me. I took a pay cut to start working for BBO 8 years ago, and I give 20% of my wages to charity.

 

I have great admiration for the billionaires who signed the Giving Pledge. Trump and his cohorts aren't among them, of course.

[barmar]

When Trump was campaigning, he promised to make life better for average people. He was going to bring jobs back to America, he was going to revoke Obamacare and replace it with something far better. He was going to reduce their taxes, too.

 

He didn't do any of that. Most factory repatriations that have taken place since he took office were already planned long before he was elected. His tax reform mainly benefited the wealthy, not the middle class -- there's very little trickling down. Even though his party had control of both houses of Congress, he couldn't get the ACA revoked -- his proposed replacement (which was just a 1-page summary, not really a "plan") was clearly not acceptable.

 

You regularly post lists of Trump's accomplishments, but few of them benefit all the lower and middle class people who cheer for him at his rallies. The only way he's making life better for these people is by propping up "white privilege". They feel better about themselves because he shares their views about how people of color are ruining the country.

[y66]

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

 

Don’t expect new revelations. The former special counsel merely needs to illustrate the malfeasance he’s already uncovered.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post makes a good point about Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress today: There’s a real danger that media coverage will simply focus on whether anything new is revealed, beyond what the former special counsel has already made public about his investigation. That would be a serious mistake.

 

We’ve seen this tendency before – the “LOL nothing matters” cynicism of some in the media about President Donald Trump. The idea seems to be that because Trump always survives bad news, there’s little point in aggressively covering additional bad news, as would happen with any other politician. The very worst example has been Trump’s long record of alleged sexual misbehavior; after all, it was just a few weeks ago that the president was accused of rape, and the media largely shrugged it off. But really, it’s one thing after another with Trump, and the press has never quite figured out how to explain it all.

 

As for today’s hearings, I agree with Sargent: Mueller’s testimony is important because he’ll be explaining exactly what his investigation found, and that’s newsworthy in itself. The president has been saying that the probe exonerated him; we’ll find out now whether that’s correct, or whether – as most people who’ve read Mueller’s report have concluded – it was actually devastating for Trump. It’s up to committee Democrats to make that story compelling enough that the media will portray it accurately.

 

There’s one other thing I worry about here. It’s a post-Watergate habit – in the press and in the wider political world – of treating presidential misbehavior as either worthy of impeachment or not. It leads to an irrational situation where stories that uncover considerable malfeasance aren’t treated as a big deal unless they’re likely to end in the president’s ouster. I think that happened with Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, and it’s happening on multiple levels with Trump – whether it’s Russia, emoluments, abuses of power, or obstruction of justice. That is, the paradigmatic story of a Washington scandal is one that ends with the president getting into the helicopter and leaving the White House, and without that ending the political world doesn’t know quite how to tell the story. That’s an advantage for presidents that we shouldn’t be giving them – and one that Trump, deliberately or not, is exploiting.

 

So I do think it’s the media’s responsibility to move beyond that. But right now, for House Democrats, it’s time to tell the story of Trump’s misconduct in a way that people can understand.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

Congressional Democrats haven’t done an especially good job of investigating President Trump’s misdeeds over the past few months. They have held no hearings of significance since Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, appeared in February, and they’ve had a confusing public message that probably hasn’t persuaded anyone who didn’t already think that Trump was unfit for office.

 

Today, the Democrats get a new chance to clarify their message, when Robert Mueller appears before the House. Here’s what members of Congress should try to accomplish during the hearing:

 

Keep it simple. “The televised hearing will be the first chance most Americans have to hear what’s really in the report, right from the man who wrote it,” Garrett Graff, the author of a book about Mueller’s leadership of the F.B.I., writes in Wired.

 

For that reason — and because Mueller has said he would not talk about issues beyond his report — members of Congress should use the hearing as a tutorial for the American people on all of the alarming information in the report. “Even if Mr. Mueller refuses to say anything beyond the contents of his report — as is expected — his televised testimony can serve as a valuable explainer and a much-needed corrective,” The Times’s editorial board points out.

 

Rebut the president’s spin. Trump has described Mueller’s report as concluding that there was “No collusion, no obstruction.” Members of the House should ask Mueller if that’s true. “In an era when our leaders have lied about it in the hope that Americans won’t read it, we need simple connect-the-dots questions clearly posed that will correct the record,” Neal Katyal, the law professor who helped draft the special counsel regulations, writes in The Times.

 

Rebut the lieutenants’ spin. William Barr, Trump’s attorney general, distorted the findings of Mueller’s investigation — so much so that Mueller wrote Barr a letter disputing his characterization. In the Daily Beast, Barbara McQuade, a former United States attorney, suggests the House members ask Mueller, “What did you have in mind when you wrote the letter to Barr?”

 

Clarify Mueller’s tortured language. The report contains a strange double negative: “If we had had confidence … that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” it says. “However, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

Stuart Gerson, a former Justice Department official under George Bush, thinks Congress should push Mueller to make his meaning clearer. “Did he and his staff conclude that if the person under investigation were someone other than the president, an indictment would have been in order?” Gerson asks in The Atlantic. Mueller may not answer, but people should hear the question.

 

Highlight the questions Mueller declined to pursue. Jed Shugerman, a law professor writing in Politico, believes Mueller erred by not charging members of the Trump campaign with coordinating with Russia. Asking about that decision will help show how out of bounds the campaign’s behavior was. “It was a historic error to overlook such crimes, effectively inviting the same suggestions and winks-and-nods in 2020,” Shugerman writes.

 

Harry Litman writes in The Washington Post that Mueller erred by not seeking interviews with key witnesses, including Donald Trump Jr. and the president: “Mueller, while no doubt methodical, energetic and wholly impartial, looks also to have been an overly restrained prosecutor who stayed his hand when he could have and should have pressed forward,” Litman writes.

 

Shut down conspiracy theories. Republican lawmakers and right-wing media have focused on the infamous Steele dossier’s salacious allegations, arguing — contrary to the evidence — that those allegations were the improper basis for Mueller’s investigation. Members of Congress should ask Mueller directly what role the dossier played.

[jjbrr]

Oh Chas...You stupid stupid *****khead.No one, least of all myself disputes that Democrats and particular Southern Democrats had members who were deeply deeply racist in years past. Indeed, there are such members today. Here's the rub... The racist Southern Democrats of whom you speak bolted from the party when the Democratic Party passed the Civil Rights Act and started to support policies like school desegregation. Claiming that Forrest or Byrd are representative of the modern Democratic party is as ridiculous as the modern day Confederates that comprise the Republican party still trying to claim the mantle of the party of Lincoln.Nearly everyone has managed to figure this out aside from brain addled idiots like yourself. Seriously, this whole transformation happened 50 years ago.What's the point of advancing such a ludicrous, easy to disprove claim? Seriously, do you actually believe that posting such a ludicrous trope is at all convincing?FWIW, there's a new book out called "American Carnage"... Well worth taking a look at. I'd be interested to know what you think.

 

 

But it's still illuminating that Chas_P thinks it is a defense. It's all about us vs them, never about what's the right thing to do.

 

This is a perfect example of a conservative using "logic" and "reason" to own the libtards. It's exactly the product Fox News and Facebook are hoping to achieve.

[y66]

From John Cassidy at The New Yorker:

 

For the past two and a half years of Donald Trump’s Presidency, I have consoled myself with the argument that, despite all the chaos and narcissism and racial incitement and norm-shattering, the American system of government is holding itself together. When Trump attempted to introduce a ban on Muslims entering the country and sought to add a citizenship question to the census, the courts restrained him. When he railed at nato and loyal allies like Germany’s Angela Merkel, other members of his Administration issued quiet reassurances that it was just bluster. When the American people had the chance to issue a verdict on Trump’s first two years in office, they turned the House of Representatives over to the opposition party.

 

All of this was reassuring. But, while watching what happened on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, when Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, testified before two House committees, I struggled to contain a rising sense of dread about where the country is heading. With Republicans united behind the President, Democrats uncertain about how to proceed, and Mueller reluctant to the last to come straight out and say that the President committed impeachable offenses, it looks like Trump’s blitzkrieg tactics of demonizing anyone who challenges him, terrorizing potential dissidents on his own side, and relentlessly spouting propaganda over social media may have worked. If so, he will have recorded a historic victory over the bedrock American principles of congressional oversight and equality before the law.

 

The morning session was largely devoted to Volume 2 of Mueller’s report, in which he relates ten instances of Trump seeking to interfere with the Russia investigation. Sitting before them, the G.O.P. members of the House Judiciary Committee had a seventy-four-year-old registered Republican and decorated hero of the Vietnam War, who subsequently spent decades as a public prosecutor, was appointed to the position of F.B.I. director by George W. Bush, in 2001, and served twelve years in that post. Yet some of the Republican members of the Committee treated their distinguished witness with thinly disguised contempt.

 

Louie Gohmert, of Texas, who has made a career of scaremongering, gay-bashing, and Islamophobia, began his questioning by entering into the congressional record a screed he authored titled “Robert Mueller: Unmasked.” Matt Gaetz, of Florida, sneered at the former special counsel as he sought, unsuccessfully, to get him to comment on the conspiracy theory that the allegations against Trump in Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier were part of a Russian government disinformation campaign. Ohio’s Jim Jordan threw his arms in the air and mocked Mueller for his refusal to answer questions about Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Maltese professor who allegedly told George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign aide, that the Russians had damaging material on Hillary Clinton. John Ratcliffe, another Texan, asked why Mueller bothered to write his report at all, given the Justice Department guidelines that say a sitting President can’t be indicted on criminal charges. Wisconsin’s Jim Sensenbrenner went further, questioning whether Mueller should have even carried out the investigation, which he described as “fishing.”

 

Yet none of these Republicans questioned any of the factual accounts of Trump’s behavior contained in Mueller’s report, which included attempting to fire Mueller, and, when that effort failed, trying to get the Attorney General to limit the special counsel’s remit. Rather than trying to refute Mueller’s findings, the Republicans sought to switch attention to the origins of the Russia investigation, which is, of course, precisely what Trump has been doing for the past two years.

 

The wanton disrespect that these elected Republicans showed Mueller was perhaps the most alarming testament yet to Trump’s total conquest of the Party. In today’s G.O.P., as in Stalin’s Russia, evidently, decades of loyal public service count for nothing when the leader and his henchmen decide someone represents a threat and the apparatchiks have been ordered to take that person down. All that matters is carrying out the order and staying in the leader’s good graces. That isn’t congressional oversight. It is scorched-earth politics of a kind that is entirely antithetical to the notion of checks and balances enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

 

It was left to the Democratic members of the committee to remind the millions watching about the Bronze Star that Mueller received for rescuing a wounded fellow-marine while under enemy fire, and the fact that the U.S. Senate confirmed him and reconfirmed him unanimously to the F.B.I. job. Mueller was too modest to mention any of this. Sadly, and for whatever reason, he also seemed reluctant to return the Republicans’ fire in like fashion. Particularly in the morning hearing, he appeared hesitant. Many times, he asked for a question to be repeated. About the only occasion in which he displayed some genuine passion was in defending his colleagues on the Russia investigation, whom the Republicans—again, taking their lead from Trump—were trying to portray as Democratic political operatives.

 

Sticking to his promise not to stray beyond the contents of his report, Mueller frustrated the Democrats’ hope that he would bring the lengthy document to life. In confirming the damning accounts of Trump’s actions, which Democrats read out, he answered, simply, “Yes,” “True,” or “That’s correct.” When Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, asked him to read out a section of the report, he declined.

 

Despite Mueller’s reticence, the Democrats succeeded in countering the White House’s messaging, and showed that the report provides ample legal justification for opening an impeachment inquiry. In his opening statement, Mueller undermined months of White House obfuscation, saying, “We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term.” And, during his initial exchange with Nadler, the former special counsel completed the demolition job by stating unequivocally that his report hadn’t exonerated Trump on the obstruction question.

 

There was more. Toward the end of the morning session, Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat serving Brooklyn and Queens, seemed to get Mueller to confirm that Trump’s effort, in the summer of 2017, to have Don McGahn, then the White House counsel, fire him satisfied the three requirements for a criminal indictment: an act that is obstructive, a link to an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. Also, Lieu twice got Mueller to say that the reason he didn’t press charges was the Justice Department’s guideline that rules out such a course of action. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Mueller subsequently clarified this statement, which went further than anything he had said in his earlier answers, or in his report. “That is not the correct way to say it,” he said at the start of his afternoon appearance before the House Intelligence Committee. “As we say in the report, and I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination on whether the President committed a crime.”

 

Even after this clarification, however, the overriding impression that Mueller left was that the President knowingly attempted to obstruct his investigation, and that such attempts can be criminal even if they don’t succeed. In the afternoon session, he also left hanging the question of whether Trump made false statements to the investigators, affirming “generally” that the President’s written answers to his questions weren’t always truthful.

 

The tragedy is that this might not matter. Even as Mueller was still testifying, some media commentary was intimating that his appearance wouldn’t change anything. “Those who wanted to begin impeachment proceedings needed bombshells from the former special counsel,” Politico’s Playbook newsletter said. “Mueller gave them nothing besides affirmation about what was in his report, and a series of sidesteps when he did not want to answer questions.” Later in the afternoon, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake wrote, “If Democrats hoped this would be a seminal moment, they will apparently leave sorely disappointed—in large part because their star witness was no star.”

 

It is now up to the House Democrats. Leaving a meeting of her caucus on Wednesday afternoon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, “The American people now realize more fully the crimes that have been committed against our Constitution.” But, in a subsequent press conference, she indicated that a move toward impeachment wasn’t imminent. “We still have outstanding matters in the courts,” she said.

The American people now realize more fully that crimes against the Constitution have been committed? I don't think so.

[kenberg]

From John Cassidy at The New Yorker:

 

 

The American people now realize more fully that crimes against the Constitution have been committed? I don't think so.

 

A very good article, as are many of the articles that you post!

 

But the problem lies where it has lain from the beginning: Does the American electorate want Trump as president? If the answer to that is yes, then, one way or another, we will have Trump or some variation of Trump. No one will be surprised to hear that I would see that as a disaster.

 

The solution? I acknowledge that I might be naive, but I see the solution to be that the Democrats give serious thought to both what positions they espouse and which candidates they put forth.

 

Solving the problem through impeachment has always seemed, to me, to be simultaneously unrealistic and too easy. Unrealistic because it isn't going to happen, and it would not really solve the long term fundamental problem if it did happen. Too easy? Well, too easy to fantasize about, thus distracting the leadership from giving the necessary thought to what really needs to be done.

 

Fundamentally, if the country really wants someone like Trump as president, we are beyond salvation. So we need to go forward with the faith that we are better than that. If that faith is naive, then nothing can be done.

[Winstonm]

A very good article, as are many of the articles that you post!

 

But the problem lies where it has lain from the beginning: Does the American electorate want Trump as president? If the answer to that is yes, then, one way or another, we will have Trump or some variation of Trump. No one will be surprised to hear that I would see that as a disaster.

 

The solution? I acknowledge that I might be naive, but I see the solution to be that the Democrats give serious thought to both what positions they espouse and which candidates they put forth.

 

Solving the problem through impeachment has always seemed, to me, to be simultaneously unrealistic and too easy. Unrealistic because it isn't going to happen, and it would not really solve the long term fundamental problem if it did happen. Too easy? Well, too easy to fantasize about, thus distracting the leadership from giving the necessary thought to what really needs to be done.

 

Fundamentally, if the country really wants someone like Trump as president, we are beyond salvation. So we need to go forward with the faith that we are better than that. If that faith is naive, then nothing can be done.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for your position. I read recently that a key element in a strongmen's takeover is to replace optimism with cynicism - that a hopeful and optimistic electorate offers a much stronger resistance to totalitarianism.

 

At the same time, I would like to see an impeachment inquiry begun, not because it would lead to impeachment but it would use the House's constitutional oversight powers and strength to overcome the stonewalling of this administration. The courts have little input into impeachment proceedings.

[kenberg]

I have a lot of sympathy for your position. I read recently that a key element in a strongmen's takeover is to replace optimism with cynicism - that a hopeful and optimistic electorate offers a much stronger resistance to totalitarianism.

 

At the same time, I would like to see an impeachment inquiry begun, not because it would lead to impeachment but it would use the House's constitutional oversight powers and strength to overcome the stonewalling of this administration. The courts have little input into impeachment proceedings.

 

I want to be clear here because I think it is critical. I think impeachment is a mirage in a desert. Worse, I think it absorbs attention and energy that could be used elsewhere.

 

Here is my fear: Trump wins re-election, the Dems will explain that this is because the electorate is filled with stupid people and bigots, because the founders put in that electoral college thing, because the Russians used robotic trolls etc etc. Any explanation other than they did not put up a strong candidate with a clear message that the ordinary person can look at and say "Hey, that looks good and I trust him/her to bring it about".

 

 

 

Having faith here is not based on some rosy idea that it is really a nice thing to have faith. As I said, if that faith is misplaced, then we are doomed. If you are in a fire and can jump out of the window to a net below, you have faith in the net and the people holding it because, well, what else? If you survive, maybe later you can look at how the fire started. A year from now, Trump will be in office and Trump will be the R candidate for re-election. No i have not done any time travel, but do you really think otherwise?

[Winstonm]

I want to be clear here because I think it is critical. I think impeachment is a mirage in a desert. Worse, I think it absorbs attention and energy that could be used elsewhere.

 

Here is my fear: Trump wins re-election, the Dems will explain that this is because the electorate is filled with stupid people and bigots, because the founders put in that electoral college thing, because the Russians used robotic trolls etc etc. Any explanation other than they did not put up a strong candidate with a clear message that the ordinary person can look at and say "Hey, that looks good and I trust him/her to bring it about".

 

 

 

Having faith here is not based on some rosy idea that it is really a nice thing to have faith. As I said, if that faith is misplaced, then we are doomed. If you are in a fire and can jump out of the window to a net below, you have faith in the net and the people holding it because, well, what else? If you survive, maybe later you can look at how the fire started. A year from now, Trump will be in office and Trump will be the R candidate for re-election. No i have not done any time travel, but do you really think otherwise?

 

Here is my concern. We are quickly reaching a point where the Congress is irrelevant. Gridlock has made it all but impossible to pass any legislation other than by partisan force. This has led to the presidency using executive orders to essentially rule the government.

 

This is not how this republic is supposed to work. It is imperative that the Congress fight back to restore its powers as an equal branch of government, because right now AG Barr does not hold that view and neither does Trump. With the SCOTUS under conservative control, the Senate, the Department of Justice, the State Department, and the White House, it is imperative to restore a balance of power.

 

This did not happen overnight and it is not due to Trump - he is only a symptom of a problem built to over many decades; howver, he, along with Barr, bring an urgency to begin to undo the damage. The House must be able to investigate wrongdoing accusation against the president - and with the DOJ and the WH both stonewalling, it is mandatory to start in impeachment inquiry as the courts view that as a legitimate action of the House and the courts tend then to expedite those cases and rule for the Congress.

 

Without that power, it is a bunch of Democrats against the Trump bunch, and the Democrats have no win in that situation.

[cherdano]

The point of impeachment isn't to remove Trump from office. The point of impeachment is to uphold the principle that presidential candidates shouldn't tacitly encourage law-breaking foreign interference in US elections to their benefit, that presidents shouldn't break or circumvent the emoluments clause to let foreign governments funnel money into their hotels and resorts while negotiating deals with the US government, that presidential candidates shouldn't conspire to suppress crucial news stories via payments that are breaking the letter and the spirit of campaign finance laws, and that US presidents shouldn't obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses and trying to curtail investigations of his aides and organisations that have broken the law. That, generally speaking, US presidents are not above the law.

 

Today, Mitch McConnell blocked two bills improving elections security arguing that making elections more secure would give Democrats a "partisan benefit". Yup, he has become this shameless. Still, it is worth making him, and every other Republican senator, cast a vote "Yes, I do support the president breaking the law". Let them go on the record of supporting obstruction of justice, and maybe some voters will decide to vote out senators who support obstruction of justice.

[cherdano]

I should add that in my impression, the Democratic reluctance to even start impeachment hearings has emboldened Trump's government further. Sometimes, administrations decide to fight Congress in court. The Treasury's refusal to provide Trump's tax return is brazenly and openly breaking a simple and clear law. Why should voters punish them for that if Democrats don't even go on the record to say that this is breaking the law?

[kenberg]

I should add that in my impression, the Democratic reluctance to even start impeachment hearings has emboldened Trump's government further. Sometimes, administrations decide to fight Congress in court. The Treasury's refusal to provide Trump's tax return is brazenly and openly breaking a simple and clear law. Why should voters punish them for that if Democrats don't even go on the record to say that this is breaking the law?

 

It's a good bet that we won't agree here, but this can illustrate my point. Imo there might be fifteen voters in the US whose 2020 vote will be mildly influenced by whether the Dems do or do not pursue this issue. I will even grant that there might be twenty-five such voters. It is my very strong view that if the Dems wish to win in 2020 rather than have a satisfying explanation as to why they lost, then they need look elsewhere for issues. I suppose this could be considered cynicism, I see it as realism.

 

What is my evidence? Well, I don't have any. I still regard this as correct.

[Winstonm]

It's a good bet that we won't agree here, but this can illustrate my point. Imo there might be fifteen voters in the US whose 2020 vote will be mildly influenced by whether the Dems do or do not pursue this issue. I will even grant that there might be twenty-five such voters. It is my very strong view that if the Dems wish to win in 2020 rather than have a satisfying explanation as to why they lost, then they need look elsewhere for issues. I suppose this could be considered cynicism, I see it as realism.

 

What is my evidence? Well, I don't have any. I still regard this as correct.

 

I think you are very much wrong, here. What Nancy Pelosi is doing is sucking the air from the longs of the resistance and leaving a huge swath of young voters apathetic if nothing will change.