theguardian--2020-02-06--The Guardian view on Trump’s acquittal: over to the voters | Editorial

Not all battles are fought in the belief that they will be won .
Some are fought in the belief that conceding in advance would be even worse .
Democrats knew Donald Trump was unlikely to be convicted by a Republican Senate when they launched impeachment proceedings ; that he would erroneously claim , as he has done , “ full exoneration ” ; and that he would use the case to fire up his base .
He may feel he is indestructible , as his lie-packed State of the Union address and Thursday ’ s buoyant , bizarre , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process suggests .
He looks forward to November as the first impeached president to run for re-election .
Yet a refusal to impeach him would itself have damaged the country ’ s constitutional protections ; and a president who knew he would never face impeachment would likely be as emboldened as the one who has faced it down .
The vote to acquit was not a vindication of the president ’ s conduct , any more than the farce of the Senate trial – in which jurors who had sworn to be impartial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justice in action .
It was an indictment of the Republican party .
With the honourable exception of Mitt Romney , already experiencing the inevitable retaliation , pusillanimous Republican senators bowed to power .
Those who voiced reservations before voting for acquittal merely underlined their complicity .
Mr Trump has captured the party that resisted him in 2016 , not only because they believe he can deliver their ideological agenda , “ owning liberals ” and guaranteeing a conservative supreme court , but also from fear .
They know Mr Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a man of infinite vindictiveness who will exact retribution , including by unseating those who cross him .
That threat points to the fact that the issue is not only the political elite , but also the electors who have chosen to embrace or at least endure the president ’ s grotesqueries , whatever the evidence presented to them .
His approval rating , though still poor , has not seen seismic shifts over the process .
If anything , he appears to be near his highest level of approval since entering office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be misleading .
While Democrats may continue to pursue him over Ukraine , seeking testimony in the House from John Bolton and others ( and Republicans may retaliate with questions about Joe and Hunter Biden ) , it seems unlikely to change the game .
There is ample evidence of the US president urging a foreign power to interfere with American democracy – and ample evidence that a shocking number of voters either don ’ t believe it or don ’ t care .
Tuesday ’ s Iowa caucuses should have offered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and compelling narrative .
They backfired spectacularly .
The chaos is still not fully resolved , with fresh allegations of inaccurate results surfacing .
It has presented an image of division , rancour and incompetence : if the party can ’ t manage its own small-scale internal affairs , why entrust it with the affairs of state ?
There is a long way to go until November , and Iowa will probably end up as a footnote .
But more concerning than the tallying of votes is the turnout , which appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 than the surge that propelled Barack Obama to the front of the pack in 2008 and created a sense of dynamism – or , indeed , the national surge that brought renewed hope for Democrats in the midterms two years ago .
Doubtless Mr Trump will lose the popular vote again .
But the electoral system is appallingly skewed , and becoming even more so .
Only a cohesive opposition has any hope of winning .
And while Democrats turn inwards , with some even debating whether to back a nominee other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruthlessly united .
“ I had always thought that our institutions would forever protect us against individual transgressors , ” wrote Marie Yovanovitch , the former ambassador to Ukraine , this week , speaking not only to fellow public servants , but to citizens as a whole .
“ It turns out that our institutions need us as much as we need them.
” The Republican party flunked its test long ago .
The Democratic party risks failing its own .
But ordinary voters must now make their choice too .

Not all battles are fought in the belief that they will be won. Some are fought in the belief that conceding in advance would be even worse. Democrats knew Donald Trump was unlikely to be convicted by a Republican Senate when they launched impeachment proceedings; that he would erroneously claim, as he has done, “full exoneration”; and that he would use the case to fire up his base. He may feel he is indestructible, as his lie-packed State of the Union address and Thursday’s buoyant, bizarre, rambling speech about the “evil” process suggests. He looks forward to November as the first impeached president to run for re-election.
Yet a refusal to impeach him would itself have damaged the country’s constitutional protections; and a president who knew he would never face impeachment would likely be as emboldened as the one who has faced it down. The vote to acquit was not a vindication of the president’s conduct, any more than the farce of the Senate trial – in which jurors who had sworn to be impartial refused to even hear witnesses – amounted to justice in action. It was an indictment of the Republican party.
With the honourable exception of Mitt Romney, already experiencing the inevitable retaliation, pusillanimous Republican senators bowed to power. Those who voiced reservations before voting for acquittal merely underlined their complicity. Mr Trump has captured the party that resisted him in 2016, not only because they believe he can deliver their ideological agenda, “owning liberals” and guaranteeing a conservative supreme court, but also from fear. They know Mr Trump to be both an election winner, and a man of infinite vindictiveness who will exact retribution, including by unseating those who cross him.
That threat points to the fact that the issue is not only the political elite, but also the electors who have chosen to embrace or at least endure the president’s grotesqueries, whatever the evidence presented to them. His approval rating, though still poor, has not seen seismic shifts over the process. If anything, he appears to be near his highest level of approval since entering office, though some suggest the figures may be misleading. While Democrats may continue to pursue him over Ukraine, seeking testimony in the House from John Bolton and others (and Republicans may retaliate with questions about Joe and Hunter Biden), it seems unlikely to change the game. There is ample evidence of the US president urging a foreign power to interfere with American democracy – and ample evidence that a shocking number of voters either don’t believe it or don’t care.
Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses should have offered the Democrats a chance to establish a new and compelling narrative. They backfired spectacularly. The chaos is still not fully resolved, with fresh allegations of inaccurate results surfacing. It has presented an image of division, rancour and incompetence: if the party can’t manage its own small-scale internal affairs, why entrust it with the affairs of state? There is a long way to go until November, and Iowa will probably end up as a footnote. But more concerning than the tallying of votes is the turnout, which appears to be closer to the muted enthusiasm of 2016 than the surge that propelled Barack Obama to the front of the pack in 2008 and created a sense of dynamism – or, indeed, the national surge that brought renewed hope for Democrats in the midterms two years ago.
Doubtless Mr Trump will lose the popular vote again. But the electoral system is appallingly skewed, and becoming even more so. Only a cohesive opposition has any hope of winning. And while Democrats turn inwards, with some even debating whether to back a nominee other than their preferred candidate, Republicans are ruthlessly united.
“I had always thought that our institutions would forever protect us against individual transgressors,” wrote Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, this week, speaking not only to fellow public servants, but to citizens as a whole. “It turns out that our institutions need us as much as we need them.”
The Republican party flunked its test long ago. The Democratic party risks failing its own. But ordinary voters must now make their choice too.


theguardian--2020-02-06--It wasn’t the US Senate that saved Trump – it was the founding fathers | Simon Jenkins

Donald Trump has not , as he claimed this week , been “ fully vindicated and exonerated ” of impeachment by the US Senate .
Vindicated instead are the 63 million voters who backed him in 2016 and who have , in effect , terrorised their senators into keeping him in office .
The issue is not whether Trump was innocent as charged , any more than was Bill Clinton in 1999 .
The Senate dismissed Trump ’ s case without even hearing the evidence .
The acquittal was political , not judicial .
I love America .
I love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raw vitality of its constitution .
That constitution – bequeathed by British and French liberals – was intended to create a melting pot for global migrants as they colonised their way across America .
Hardly changed since the 18th century , it remains archaic , ramshackle and flawed .
But it works .
It keeps the melting pot stirred , and above all it sustains an internally stable nation .
Compare it with Britain ’ s de facto constitution , which is so overcentralised it may soon lose its entire Celtic fringe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has clearly backfired .
Few of my American acquaintances regard him as fit to be president , though that may indicate the limits of my circle .
Trump ’ s popularity has risen : now twice that of Richard Nixon when facing impeachment over Watergate in 1974 .
In six months Trump has taken his party ’ s Gallup approval rating from 43 % to 51 % .
Support for his handling of the economy is higher than for any president in 20 years .
That this is partly due to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of no account .
Trump ’ s success has been famously based on his identity as a folk hero to the underprivileged , the “ dispossessed ” .
Tossed on waves of vanity and paranoia , he has made mendacity an agent of power .
Advisers have come and gone in despair .
The sinews of national cohesion are strained close to breaking .
But for those Americans – not just poor ones – who have long felt isolated from the power centres of Washington and New York , his artless ineptitude is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC interviewed a Southern Baptist woman on his many moral failings , she smiled and said : “ We are all sinners.
” If Trump is a crook , he is their kind of crook .
Much political commentary predicts the doom of western democracy from an assault by reactionary populism .
A torrent of books on this theme attributes the rise of demagoguery to decades of contemptuous neglect by democracy ’ s liberal elites .
In Europe as in America , “ ordinary people ” have risen up , marched on capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
Their demands are not from left or right , labels that have lost all meaning .
Voters simply feel inchoate and unheard .
They want a new authenticity , a new tone of voice from those who order their lives .
The question now is whether western constitutions can handle this upsurge – and how far it is real .
I studied American politics at the feet of their master historian , Arthur Schlesinger .
He was fascinated by the capacity of the constitution constantly to “ take America to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last minute .
He referenced the eras of Nixon and George W Bush .
But he feared a “ disuniting of America ” by embittered ethnic groups , polarising and fragmenting politics .
He wondered if the longstanding balance of power between federal government and states ’ rights could embrace such divisiveness .
Schlesinger died in 2007 , and goodness knows what he would have made of Trump .
Yet I am sure he would have reverted to the constitution .
In 2016 Hillary Clinton actually won 3 million more votes than Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constitutional fluke , based on the anti-urban bias in the electoral college .
It was a bias in the Senate towards smaller states – intended to prevent small states being overwhelmed by bigger ones – that secured Trump ’ s acquittal .
Trump was thus the beneficiary not of a democratic decay , but rather of a 200-year-old constitution designed to do what he has done , give a voice to the “ out-of-town and out-of-power ” .
Trump will be ousted by a perfectly healthy democracy in 2020 or 2024 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bar to the Democratic party finding a plausible candidate to succeed him , and repair whatever damage he is perceived as causing .
His disruptive term of office will be a warning to all hubristic governments .
Otherwise , he will probably be a mere blip in the history of America .
When he goes , I imagine there will be a flurry of books on democracy ’ s glorious rebirth .
One danger remains .
In his Impeachment : A Handbook , the American academic Philip Bobbitt relates how the founding fathers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
They wanted no homegrown George III .
But the federalist Alexander Hamilton realised the danger in putting a judicial sanction in the hands of the Senate , rather than the supreme court .
It risked politicising impeachment .
The risk was , says Bobbitt , that “ if impeachment is weaponised by the losing party ... people will lose confidence in the peaceful transfer of power that accompanies a national election ” .
If impeachment allows partisan politics to negate the people ’ s vote , “ the value of election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This risk was averted this week .
Yet Trump ’ s presidency is mortal .
The ballot beckons .
American democracy is alive and kicking .
Democrats simply have to learn how to do the kicking .

Donald Trump has not, as he claimed this week, been “fully vindicated and exonerated” of impeachment by the US Senate. Vindicated instead are the 63 million voters who backed him in 2016 and who have, in effect, terrorised their senators into keeping him in office. The issue is not whether Trump was innocent as charged, any more than was Bill Clinton in 1999. The Senate dismissed Trump’s case without even hearing the evidence. The acquittal was political, not judicial.
I love America. I love it above all because I admire the raw vitality of its constitution. That constitution – bequeathed by British and French liberals – was intended to create a melting pot for global migrants as they colonised their way across America. Hardly changed since the 18th century, it remains archaic, ramshackle and flawed. But it works. It keeps the melting pot stirred, and above all it sustains an internally stable nation. Compare it with Britain’s de facto constitution, which is so overcentralised it may soon lose its entire Celtic fringe.
The US Democrats’ attempt to unseat Trump has clearly backfired. Few of my American acquaintances regard him as fit to be president, though that may indicate the limits of my circle. Trump’s popularity has risen: now twice that of Richard Nixon when facing impeachment over Watergate in 1974. In six months Trump has taken his party’s Gallup approval rating from 43% to 51%. Support for his handling of the economy is higher than for any president in 20 years. That this is partly due to $1.9tn (£1.5tn) of debt seems of no account.
Trump’s success has been famously based on his identity as a folk hero to the underprivileged, the “dispossessed”. Tossed on waves of vanity and paranoia, he has made mendacity an agent of power. Advisers have come and gone in despair. The sinews of national cohesion are strained close to breaking. But for those Americans – not just poor ones – who have long felt isolated from the power centres of Washington and New York, his artless ineptitude is mere evidence of authenticity. When the BBC interviewed a Southern Baptist woman on his many moral failings, she smiled and said: “We are all sinners.” If Trump is a crook, he is their kind of crook.
Much political commentary predicts the doom of western democracy from an assault by reactionary populism. A torrent of books on this theme attributes the rise of demagoguery to decades of contemptuous neglect by democracy’s liberal elites. In Europe as in America, “ordinary people” have risen up, marched on capital cities and surged through the corridors of power. Their demands are not from left or right, labels that have lost all meaning. Voters simply feel inchoate and unheard. They want a new authenticity, a new tone of voice from those who order their lives.
His disruptive term of office will be a warning to all hubristic governments. Otherwise, he will probably be a mere blip in the history of America
The question now is whether western constitutions can handle this upsurge – and how far it is real. I studied American politics at the feet of their master historian, Arthur Schlesinger. He was fascinated by the capacity of the constitution constantly to “take America to the brink” yet pull back at the last minute. He referenced the eras of Nixon and George W Bush. But he feared a “disuniting of America” by embittered ethnic groups, polarising and fragmenting politics. He wondered if the longstanding balance of power between federal government and states’ rights could embrace such divisiveness.
Schlesinger died in 2007, and goodness knows what he would have made of Trump. Yet I am sure he would have reverted to the constitution. In 2016 Hillary Clinton actually won 3 million more votes than Trump. The latter’s victory was a constitutional fluke, based on the anti-urban bias in the electoral college. It was a bias in the Senate towards smaller states – intended to prevent small states being overwhelmed by bigger ones – that secured Trump’s acquittal. Trump was thus the beneficiary not of a democratic decay, but rather of a 200-year-old constitution designed to do what he has done, give a voice to the “out-of-town and out-of-power”.
Trump will be ousted by a perfectly healthy democracy in 2020 or 2024. In either case, there is no bar to the Democratic party finding a plausible candidate to succeed him, and repair whatever damage he is perceived as causing. His disruptive term of office will be a warning to all hubristic governments. Otherwise, he will probably be a mere blip in the history of America. When he goes, I imagine there will be a flurry of books on democracy’s glorious rebirth.
One danger remains. In his Impeachment: A Handbook, the American academic Philip Bobbitt relates how the founding fathers saw impeachment as a curb on presidential power. They wanted no homegrown George III. But the federalist Alexander Hamilton realised the danger in putting a judicial sanction in the hands of the Senate, rather than the supreme court. It risked politicising impeachment. The risk was, says Bobbitt, that “if impeachment is weaponised by the losing party ... people will lose confidence in the peaceful transfer of power that accompanies a national election”. If impeachment allows partisan politics to negate the people’s vote, “the value of election as well as impeachment plummets”.
This risk was averted this week. Yet Trump’s presidency is mortal. The ballot beckons. American democracy is alive and kicking. Democrats simply have to learn how to do the kicking.


theguardian--2020-02-06--Life after impeachment: Where do the Democrats go from here? | Cas Mudde

The outcome of the Senate “ trial ” of impeached president Donald Trump was known from the start , but the whole charade was still yet another shock to the US democratic system .
Not the expected “ acquittal ” , but the refusal to hear witnesses , the autocratic argumentation used by his lawyers ( in short , whatever the Great Leader deems in His interest , is in the country ’ s interest ) , the speed of the “ trial ” , and particularly the “ he did it , but we don ’ t care ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have previously argued that the Democrats were damned if they did ( impeach him ) , damned if they didn ’ t .
In the end , they did the right thing , morally and politically , even if impeachment might not have been the best strategic move .
Democrats had to make it clear that Trump ’ s actions constituted abuse of power – and they did .
Unfortunately , a minority of Americans , who hold a majority of power , don ’ t care .
So , where does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats will feel relieved , even if they won ’ t say it out loud , freed from focusing almost exclusively on a no-win issue .
Very soon the senators involved in the Democratic primary will be in New Hampshire , desperately trying to make up for the lost campaign time they were forced to spend in Washington .
But are they truly liberated ?
The impeachment process might be over , but is the impeachment issue over too ?
A study of 150,000 voters found that impeaching Trump was in the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all five Democratic frontrunners .
In fact , it was the top issue for Biden voters and the number two issue for Klobuchar and Sanders voters .
The latter is particularly surprising , given that Sanders has been the most open about his frustration about impeachment , seeing it as a distraction from his campaign .
He will no doubt be keen to return to the “ real issues ” .
Will his supporters ?
Given the priority of the issue for Democratic supporters across the spectrum , moving on might be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the impeachment process means that politics returns to “ normal ” – whatever that means in the Trump era – and space for other issues opens up again .
Moreover , senators can get back to the dinners and state fairs that the bizarre primary process has transformed into the “ real America ” .
( They will have photo ops with “ real Americans ” , at least the ones not too busy being interviewed by the New York Times or NPR . )
But they will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another into their campaign .
Simply moving on not only ignores an issue many Democratic voters deeply care about , but also leaves unanswered an important question : what went wrong ?
And , perhaps more importantly , what does this mean for US democracy and the 2020 elections ?
The fact of the matter is that the impeachment process was yet another defeat in the Democratic struggle against Trump , and another rout for US democracy .
Democrats claimed that their impeachment case “ has been proved ” , yet , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were unable to convince any Republican senators .
Far more devastating , they were not able to convince the majority of the American people .
While the vast majority ( 84 % ) of Democrats supported removal , just under half of all Americans ( 48 % ) agreed Trump should be impeached , including just 43 % of independents .
The Democratic candidates have to find a way to integrate the impeachment issue into a broader narrative that satisfies both Democrats frustrated by Trump ’ s acquittal and independents frustrated with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The whole sordid affair once again proved that Trump controls the Republican party and that almost no politically relevant Republican is willing to stand up to him , not even to protect the democratic system .
But if this is true , then the political struggle is not only against Trump , but against the Republican party in general , and particularly those in Congress .
Which means that the presidential election is only one of the many political battles of November 2020 that Democrats should focus on .
Rather than downplay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
The truth is that many Democrats , including several presidential candidates , supported the impeachment process more or less reluctantly .
They were forced to do so by Trump ’ s blatant abuse of power .
Even though they knew impeachment was a political liability , they put country over party – unlike the Republicans .
The Democrats ’ message ought to be : impeachment was not a bad strategic choice for the party but a calculated risk for the sake of the country .
If they can stick to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won the impeachment process , but the Democrats will win the impeachment issue .
• None Cas Mudde is a Guardian US columnist and the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia .
His latest book is The Far Right Today .

The outcome of the Senate “trial” of impeached president Donald Trump was known from the start, but the whole charade was still yet another shock to the US democratic system. Not the expected “acquittal”, but the refusal to hear witnesses, the autocratic argumentation used by his lawyers (in short, whatever the Great Leader deems in His interest, is in the country’s interest), the speed of the “trial”, and particularly the “he did it, but we don’t care” arguments from Republican members of Congress.
I have previously argued that the Democrats were damned if they did (impeach him), damned if they didn’t. In the end, they did the right thing, morally and politically, even if impeachment might not have been the best strategic move. Democrats had to make it clear that Trump’s actions constituted abuse of power – and they did. Unfortunately, a minority of Americans, who hold a majority of power, don’t care. So, where does this leave the Democrats now?
Many Democrats will feel relieved, even if they won’t say it out loud, freed from focusing almost exclusively on a no-win issue. Very soon the senators involved in the Democratic primary will be in New Hampshire, desperately trying to make up for the lost campaign time they were forced to spend in Washington. But are they truly liberated? The impeachment process might be over, but is the impeachment issue over too?
A study of 150,000 voters found that impeaching Trump was in the top four issues for the likely voters of all five Democratic frontrunners. In fact, it was the top issue for Biden voters and the number two issue for Klobuchar and Sanders voters. The latter is particularly surprising, given that Sanders has been the most open about his frustration about impeachment, seeing it as a distraction from his campaign. He will no doubt be keen to return to the “real issues”. Will his supporters?
Given the priority of the issue for Democratic supporters across the spectrum, moving on might be more complex than Sanders hopes. Sure, the end of the impeachment process means that politics returns to “normal” – whatever that means in the Trump era – and space for other issues opens up again. Moreover, senators can get back to the dinners and state fairs that the bizarre primary process has transformed into the “real America”. (They will have photo ops with “real Americans”, at least the ones not too busy being interviewed by the New York Times or NPR.)
But they will have to integrate the impeachment issue one way or another into their campaign. Simply moving on not only ignores an issue many Democratic voters deeply care about, but also leaves unanswered an important question: what went wrong? And, perhaps more importantly, what does this mean for US democracy and the 2020 elections?
The fact of the matter is that the impeachment process was yet another defeat in the Democratic struggle against Trump, and another rout for US democracy. Democrats claimed that their impeachment case “has been proved”, yet, with the exception of Mitt Romney, they were unable to convince any Republican senators. Far more devastating, they were not able to convince the majority of the American people. While the vast majority (84%) of Democrats supported removal, just under half of all Americans (48%) agreed Trump should be impeached, including just 43% of independents.
The fact of the matter is that the impeachment process was yet another defeat in the Democratic struggle against Trump, and another rout for US democracy
The Democratic candidates have to find a way to integrate the impeachment issue into a broader narrative that satisfies both Democrats frustrated by Trump’s acquittal and independents frustrated with the focus on impeachment over the past months.
The whole sordid affair once again proved that Trump controls the Republican party and that almost no politically relevant Republican is willing to stand up to him, not even to protect the democratic system. But if this is true, then the political struggle is not only against Trump, but against the Republican party in general, and particularly those in Congress. Which means that the presidential election is only one of the many political battles of November 2020 that Democrats should focus on.
Rather than downplay their defeat, Democrats should openly embrace it. The truth is that many Democrats, including several presidential candidates, supported the impeachment process more or less reluctantly. They were forced to do so by Trump’s blatant abuse of power. Even though they knew impeachment was a political liability, they put country over party – unlike the Republicans.
The Democrats’ message ought to be: impeachment was not a bad strategic choice for the party but a calculated risk for the sake of the country. If they can stick to this message, perhaps the Republicans might have won the impeachment process, but the Democrats will win the impeachment issue.


theguardian--2020-02-06--Silicon Valley sells snake oil 'solutions'. The Democratic party fell for them | Siva Vaidhyanathan

As I write this sentence I have no idea which candidates prevailed in the Democratic caucuses held in Iowa on Monday .
That ’ s fine with me .
We don ’ t know the results because the Iowa Democratic party fell into the same mania that has twisted the American economy , culture and political world for almost 40 years : the thoughtless pursuit of immediate gratification through the expensive installation of complex , fragile technological systems .
We call it “ smart ” technology to mask how stupid we have become .
The Iowa party spent thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developer called – in all seriousness – Shadow to develop a mobile phone app to gather and report the vote and delegate tallies from the 1,681 precincts in the state .
The failure of the app has embarrassed the Iowa party and convinced the Nevada Democratic party , which will host similar caucuses on 22 February , to abandon its plans to use the same service .
This might seem at first glance to be a serious blow to the image of the national Democratic party and its candidates ’ efforts to defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that it could be the best thing that could have happened .
The Democrats needed a bracing embarrassment early , so they could learn from it .
Had things worked smoothly in Iowa , the systematic flaws and errors of thought that have dominated Democratic strategy for years might have revealed themselves months later when it really mattered .
So what ’ s good for the Democrats in this series of events ?
The Iowa glitch shows party leaders that their challenges can not be addressed by fancy sales pitches from Silicon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience will also teach us a lesson about patience .
No one needs to know just 48 hours after a long , complex , decentralized deliberative event what the results are .
There are only 41 pledged delegates to the Democratic national convention up for grabs in Iowa .
That ’ s about 1 % of the 3,979 pledged national delegates .
So the “ winner ” of Iowa barely has a lead over her or his competitors .
We should all walk away from Iowa 2020 more patient and circumspect .
Speed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
The Democratic party is operating under the mistaken assumption that Trump ’ s 2016 campaign had some sophisticated technological advantage over Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign .
That could not be more wrong .
In 2016 Clinton had elaborate voter databases and dedicated platforms for organizers and volunteers to deploy in the field to identify and motivate voters .
The very sophistication was the downfall .
Organizers complained that the data was slow and outdated .
The app interface was clunky .
Money could not buy enthusiasm or discipline .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialized software like Clinton and the Democrats , the Trump digital campaign handed the reins to Brad Parscale , a neophyte to national campaigns whose experience was limited to helping some local races and building some websites .
To find new supporters , urge them to donate and motivate them to show up at rallies and knock on doors , Parscale and the Trump team used a dazzlingly obvious technological platform : Facebook .
Trump ’ s digital team had a limited budget and limited technological expertise , but experience with Facebook ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , Facebook helped Trump by embedding staff with the campaign to make sure it could use its services effectively .
But there was nothing sophisticated or expensive about the Trump 2016 digital campaign .
For 2020 , Trump campaign manager Parscale is apparently planning a more intense version of the same , with more money .
If the Democrats take one lesson from Iowa , it should be that simple , dependable technology is better than flimsy , new technology .
That technology includes paper , an ancient technology that still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here is a bigger lesson : it ’ s not about the app .
Just as we fool ourselves by thinking that an app will fix things , we fool ourselves by blaming an app .
All technologies are embedded in webs of human relations .
We say the app failed because the systems failed – humans failed .
Humans built a system too complex to handle simple tasks .
We often fool ourselves into thinking that speed and convenience are paramount values .
So we maximized speed over reliability , data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe the Iowa glitch , one caused because caucuses are poorly designed rituals and retrofitting custom software to them only widens their flaws , will show us a better way forward .
There is no reason to deploy gizmos and magic spells when simple , steady , slow work can win – as always .
Democracy is not for the impatient .
Democracy is too important to be trusted to the “ innovators ” .
• None Siva Vaidhyanathan is Guardian columnist , a professor of media studies at the University of Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy

As I write this sentence I have no idea which candidates prevailed in the Democratic caucuses held in Iowa on Monday. That’s fine with me.
We don’t know the results because the Iowa Democratic party fell into the same mania that has twisted the American economy, culture and political world for almost 40 years: the thoughtless pursuit of immediate gratification through the expensive installation of complex, fragile technological systems.
We call it “smart” technology to mask how stupid we have become.
The Iowa party spent thousands of dollars contracting with an inexperienced mobile application developer called – in all seriousness – Shadow to develop a mobile phone app to gather and report the vote and delegate tallies from the 1,681 precincts in the state.
The failure of the app has embarrassed the Iowa party and convinced the Nevada Democratic party, which will host similar caucuses on 22 February, to abandon its plans to use the same service.
This might seem at first glance to be a serious blow to the image of the national Democratic party and its candidates’ efforts to defeat Donald Trump. But I’d argue that it could be the best thing that could have happened.
The Democrats needed a bracing embarrassment early, so they could learn from it. Had things worked smoothly in Iowa, the systematic flaws and errors of thought that have dominated Democratic strategy for years might have revealed themselves months later when it really mattered.
So what’s good for the Democrats in this series of events? The Iowa glitch shows party leaders that their challenges cannot be addressed by fancy sales pitches from Silicon Valley snake oil salespeople.
No one needs to know just 48 hours after a long, complex, decentralized deliberative event what the results are
Hopefully this experience will also teach us a lesson about patience. No one needs to know just 48 hours after a long, complex, decentralized deliberative event what the results are. There are only 41 pledged delegates to the Democratic national convention up for grabs in Iowa. That’s about 1% of the 3,979 pledged national delegates. So the “winner” of Iowa barely has a lead over her or his competitors.
We should all walk away from Iowa 2020 more patient and circumspect. Speed kills democracy. Slow democracy is healthy democracy.
The Democratic party is operating under the mistaken assumption that Trump’s 2016 campaign had some sophisticated technological advantage over Hillary Clinton’s campaign. That could not be more wrong. In 2016 Clinton had elaborate voter databases and dedicated platforms for organizers and volunteers to deploy in the field to identify and motivate voters.
The very sophistication was the downfall. Organizers complained that the data was slow and outdated. The app interface was clunky. Money could not buy enthusiasm or discipline.
Instead of building elaborate predictive models and licensing specialized software like Clinton and the Democrats, the Trump digital campaign handed the reins to Brad Parscale, a neophyte to national campaigns whose experience was limited to helping some local races and building some websites.
To find new supporters, urge them to donate and motivate them to show up at rallies and knock on doors, Parscale and the Trump team used a dazzlingly obvious technological platform: Facebook.
Trump’s digital team had a limited budget and limited technological expertise, but experience with Facebook ads. So they just did what worked. Yes, Facebook helped Trump by embedding staff with the campaign to make sure it could use its services effectively. But there was nothing sophisticated or expensive about the Trump 2016 digital campaign. For 2020, Trump campaign manager Parscale is apparently planning a more intense version of the same, with more money.
If the Democrats take one lesson from Iowa, it should be that simple, dependable technology is better than flimsy, new technology. That technology includes paper, an ancient technology that still works best for recording and counting votes.
Here is a bigger lesson: it’s not about the app. Just as we fool ourselves by thinking that an app will fix things, we fool ourselves by blaming an app. All technologies are embedded in webs of human relations. We say the app failed because the systems failed – humans failed. Humans built a system too complex to handle simple tasks. We often fool ourselves into thinking that speed and convenience are paramount values. So we maximized speed over reliability, data over truth, attention over depth.
Maybe the Iowa glitch, one caused because caucuses are poorly designed rituals and retrofitting custom software to them only widens their flaws, will show us a better way forward. There is no reason to deploy gizmos and magic spells when simple, steady, slow work can win – as always. Democracy is not for the impatient. Democracy is too important to be trusted to the “innovators”.


theguardian--2020-02-06--Impeachment vote lacked suspense but weight of moment was still felt

One by one , they rose in the hushed Senate chamber and pronounced the words heard for centuries in courtrooms all over the world : guilty , or not guilty .
No , there was not the same suspense over the outcome as in the OJ Simpson murder trial , or when a jury foreman takes a deep breath in countless fictional courtroom dramas .
Even so , after all the acrimony , speculation and partisan games over the past six months , the weight of the moment made itself felt on Wednesday as US senators gravely voted on two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was only the third time in history that a president has been put on trial in such a way .
And like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton before him , Trump was acquitted and allowed to remain in office .
“ Senators , how say you ?
Is the respondent , Donald John Trump , guilty or not guilty ?
” asked Chief Justice John Roberts , wearing spectacles and black legal gown , hands pressing on pages of text from which he read .
“ A roll call vote is required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” First up in alphabetical order was Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee , a protege of former senator Howard Baker , who famously asked during the Watergate hearings : “ What did the president know , and when did he know it ?
” Alexander , however , has proved himself terminally incurious in recent days .
“ Not guilty , ” he said , rising from his desk .
And so the die was cast .
Senator after senator followed with those visceral words .
“ Guilty ” said Democrat Tammy Baldwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican John Barrasso .
“ Guilty , ” said Democrat Michael Bennet .
“ Not guilty , ” said Republican Marsha Blackburn .
“ Guilty , ” said Democrat Richard Blumenthal .
“ Not guilty , ” said Republican Roy Blunt .
“ Guilty , ” said Democrat Cory Booker .
Some of the faces and voices were instantly recognisable .
“ Guilty , ” said Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of Vermont .
“ Guilty , ” said Elizabeth Warren of Massachussetts .
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , who like them had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seemed more eager than most .
She was on her feet well before her named was called .
“ Guilty , ” she answered crisply .
Republicans were almost equally consistent in their “ not guilties ” .
The words were uttered Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida , men whose souls were crushed by Trump in the 2016 Republican primary .
But there was a striking exception .
Mitt Romney of Utah rose to his feet and pronounced the word “ guilty ” , becoming the the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president of his own party .
Earlier , before a near empty chamber , Romney had explained : “ Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one ’ s oath of office that I can imagine.
” Later , Senator Lindsey Graham had blasted back : “ So , acquittal will happen in about two hours , exoneration comes when President Trump gets re-elected because the people of the United States are fed up with this crap.
” Romney was the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona , both seen applauding Trump enthusiastically at Tuesday ’ s State of the Union address , nevertheless stayed loyal to their side of the aisle .
When the sums were done for article 1 , which charges that Trump abused the presidency by soliciting the interference of a foreign power – Ukraine – to benefit himself in the 2020 election , he had prevailed by 52 votes to 48 , well clear of the two-thirds majority required to convict him .
The tally on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 53-47 .
The Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , and minority leader , Chuck Schumer , facing Roberts like lawyers for the defence and prosecution , were less surprised than anyone .
Before the votes , each had delivered speeches that were not so much closing arguments as notes to posterity , a battle in the court of history between two irreconcilable viewpoints .
Alleging a “ a great miscarriage of justice ” by a “ kangaroo court ” that refused witnesses and documents , Schumer said : “ Our nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but there was no truth here .
The Republican majority couldn ’ t let the truth into this trial .
The Republican majority refused to get the evidence because they were afraid of what it might show.
” With Democrats listening intently but Republican seats almost entirely empty , he continued : “ Our nation was founded on the idea of truth , but in order to countenance this president , you have to ignore the truth.
” When Schumer offered a consoling message to the American people , “ Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smile played on McConnell lips .
The majority leader soon offered a very different worldview , accusing Democrats of a rushed and partisan investigation that threatened institutions .
McConnell turned his fire on the House speaker , Nancy Pelosi , the original architect of impeachment , who on Tuesday ripped up her copy of Trump ’ s State of the Union address on national television .
“ The speaker says she will just refuse to accept this acquittal , ” McConnell said .
“ Perhaps she will tear up this verdict like she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address .
“ I would ask my distinguished colleagues across the aisle : is this really where you want to go ?
The president isn ’ t the president ?
An acquittal isn ’ t an acquittal ?
Attack institutions until they get their way ?
Even my colleagues who may not agree with this president must see the insanity of this logic .
It ’ s like saying you ’ re so worried about a bull in a china shop that you want to bulldoze the china shop to chase it out.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were two winners of the impeachment trial .
First , founding father Alexander Hamilton took the prize for most quoted historical figure , including several times on Wednesday alone .
Can a Ouija board be found to divine his verdict ?
Second , there was Roberts , who escaped any significant controversies and received bipartisan thanks – and a commemorative “ golden gavel ” - at the end .
“ You have been generous hosts , ” he said , wrapping up , “ and I look forward to seeing you again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the same circumstances in 2021 or 2022 ?

One by one, they rose in the hushed Senate chamber and pronounced the words heard for centuries in courtrooms all over the world: guilty, or not guilty.
No, there was not the same suspense over the outcome as in the OJ Simpson murder trial, or when a jury foreman takes a deep breath in countless fictional courtroom dramas.
Even so, after all the acrimony, speculation and partisan games over the past six months, the weight of the moment made itself felt on Wednesday as US senators gravely voted on two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.
It was only the third time in history that a president has been put on trial in such a way. And like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton before him, Trump was acquitted and allowed to remain in office.
“Senators, how say you? Is the respondent, Donald John Trump, guilty or not guilty?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts, wearing spectacles and black legal gown, hands pressing on pages of text from which he read. “A roll call vote is required. The clerk will call the roll.”
First up in alphabetical order was Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a protege of former senator Howard Baker, who famously asked during the Watergate hearings: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
Alexander, however, has proved himself terminally incurious in recent days. “Not guilty,” he said, rising from his desk. And so the die was cast.
Senator after senator followed with those visceral words. “Guilty” said Democrat Tammy Baldwin. “Not guilty,” said Republican John Barrasso. “Guilty,” said Democrat Michael Bennet. “Not guilty,” said Republican Marsha Blackburn. “Guilty,” said Democrat Richard Blumenthal. “Not guilty,” said Republican Roy Blunt. “Guilty,” said Democrat Cory Booker.
Some of the faces and voices were instantly recognisable. “Guilty,” said Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “Guilty,” said Elizabeth Warren of Massachussetts. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who like them had sped back from campaigning in New Hampshire, seemed more eager than most. She was on her feet well before her named was called. “Guilty,” she answered crisply.
Elizabeth Warren in the US Capitol for the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA
Republicans were almost equally consistent in their “not guilties”. The words were uttered Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, men whose souls were crushed by Trump in the 2016 Republican primary. But there was a striking exception. Mitt Romney of Utah rose to his feet and pronounced the word “guilty”, becoming the the first senator in history to vote to convict a president of his own party.
Earlier, before a near empty chamber, Romney had explained: “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
Later, Senator Lindsey Graham had blasted back: “So, acquittal will happen in about two hours, exoneration comes when President Trump gets re-elected because the people of the United States are fed up with this crap.”
Romney was the only break from party lines. Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both seen applauding Trump enthusiastically at Tuesday’s State of the Union address, nevertheless stayed loyal to their side of the aisle.
When the sums were done for article 1, which charges that Trump abused the presidency by soliciting the interference of a foreign power – Ukraine – to benefit himself in the 2020 election, he had prevailed by 52 votes to 48, well clear of the two-thirds majority required to convict him. The tally on article 2, obstruction of Congress, was 53-47.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and minority leader, Chuck Schumer, facing Roberts like lawyers for the defence and prosecution, were less surprised than anyone. Before the votes, each had delivered speeches that were not so much closing arguments as notes to posterity, a battle in the court of history between two irreconcilable viewpoints.
Alleging a “a great miscarriage of justice” by a “kangaroo court” that refused witnesses and documents, Schumer said: “Our nation was founded on the idea of truth, but there was no truth here. The Republican majority couldn’t let the truth into this trial. The Republican majority refused to get the evidence because they were afraid of what it might show.”
With Democrats listening intently but Republican seats almost entirely empty, he continued: “Our nation was founded on the idea of truth, but in order to countenance this president, you have to ignore the truth.”
When Schumer offered a consoling message to the American people, “Don’t lose hope”, a wry smile played on McConnell lips. The majority leader soon offered a very different worldview, accusing Democrats of a rushed and partisan investigation that threatened institutions.
Mitch McConnell holds a press conference after the Senate voted to acquit Donald Trump in Washington DC, on 5 February. Photograph: Samuel Corum/Getty Images
McConnell turned his fire on the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the original architect of impeachment, who on Tuesday ripped up her copy of Trump’s State of the Union address on national television.
“The speaker says she will just refuse to accept this acquittal,” McConnell said. “Perhaps she will tear up this verdict like she tore up the State of the Union address.
“I would ask my distinguished colleagues across the aisle: is this really where you want to go? The president isn’t the president? An acquittal isn’t an acquittal? Attack institutions until they get their way? Even my colleagues who may not agree with this president must see the insanity of this logic. It’s like saying you’re so worried about a bull in a china shop that you want to bulldoze the china shop to chase it out.”
Apart from Trump and McConnell, there were two winners of the impeachment trial. First, founding father Alexander Hamilton took the prize for most quoted historical figure, including several times on Wednesday alone. Can a Ouija board be found to divine his verdict?
Second, there was Roberts, who escaped any significant controversies and received bipartisan thanks – and a commemorative “golden gavel” - at the end. “You have been generous hosts,” he said, wrapping up, “and I look forward to seeing you again in happier circumstances.” Or, perhaps, in the same circumstances in 2021 or 2022?


theguardian--2020-02-05--Trump's acquittal offers glimpse of America's imploding empire

Donald Trump ’ s short but indelible political career has been based around the principle of divide-and-fool .
His acquittal in the impeachment trial by the US Senate will further fan the flames of the most profound national split since the Vietnam war , perhaps even the civil war .
First , expect Trump to be cocky and take a victory lap , falsely claiming “ exoneration ” just as he did after special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation left him bruised but unbowed .
A day after Mueller ’ s leaden testimony to Congress , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he made his bullying phone call to the leader of Ukraine .
Now , we must ask , who will he call a day after being cleared by the Senate ?
Admirers of the US president will take heart that a man many imbue with folk-hero status , who gives them long yearned-for “ payback ” against a perceived cultural , economic and social elite , has survived yet again .
They share his view that he was the victim of “ a coup ” and embrace his sense of grievance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guardian at his recent campaign rally in Des Moines , Iowa , put it down to the latest machinations of corrupt politicians in Washington .
On the other side , feelings run equally high .
Democrats and other critics of the president argue , correctly , that in strong-arming Ukraine to investigate a political rival , Trump abused his office for personal political gain and has been allowed to get away with it through a miscarriage of justice .
He is , they have said , a president who would be king , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very fabric of democracy in America – and around the world .
Adam Schiff , the House impeachment manager who led the case against Trump in the Senate , spoke last week of a descent into “ constitutional madness ” as spineless Republican senators huddle behind Richard Nixon ’ s notorious defence of his conduct in the Watergate scandal : “ When the president does it , that means that it is not illegal.
” Schiff told the chamber : “ Watergate is now 40 , 50 years behind us .
Have we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Have we learned nothing at all ?
We are right back to where we were a half-century ago , and we may even be in a worse place because this time that argument may succeed .
“ That is the normalisation of lawlessness.
” Comparisons to Watergate are illustrative .
The House of Representatives voted 410-to-4 to authorise a formal impeachment inquiry against Richard Nixon in 1974 , whereas no House Republicans voted for the Trump impeachment inquiry or for his actual impeachment ( Nixon resigned before the sanction could be applied ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noted recently : “ The key reason why Nixon resigned was that his polls were at 23 % .
And there was a famous walk from the Capitol to the White House , where three Republican congressional leaders walked to the White House and said to Mr Nixon , ‘ You ’ re hurting the political party .
You ’ re hurting the Republicans .
You have to go.
’ “ In fact , when Nixon resigned , he said : “ It ’ s clear that I ’ ve lost my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for anything that he was investigated on.
” Trump ’ s approval rating , by contrast , now stands at 49 % in the latest Gallup poll – the highest since he took office and better than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama at this stage in their re-election years .
Somehow he is becoming stronger rather than weaker .
A Washington Post column noted five key differences between Nixon and Trump : the current president has a stronger economy , a more loyal Senate , does not face the kind of “ smoking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a White House willing to stonewall on his behalf and , perhaps most importantly , Rupert Murdoch ’ s Fox News is on his side .
Fox ’ s chief pro-Trump tribune , Sean Hannity , has been savaging the trial nightly .
The articles of impeachment “ are an affront to our entire constitutional system ” , he raged .
“ No Republican senator – listen , voters out there , you elect these people – should give this one iota of legitimacy.
” Supposedly a 24-hour news network , Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proceedings : it did not broadcast Schiff ’ s closing argument .
Meanwhile , over on the MSNBC network , there is constant analysis of how a dangerous demagogue poses an existential threat to the constitution .
A report by the Pew Research Center found that among Democrats and those sympathetic to the party , 67 % trust CNN , 61 % trust NBC and 60 % trust ABC , whereas 65 % of Republicans and those leaning toward it trust Fox News .
“ It would be hard to overstate its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political news for Republicans , ” Pew said .
And it warned : “ As the US enters a heated 2020 presidential election year … Republicans and Democrats place their trust in two nearly inverse news media environments.
” Indeed , social media exacerbating the trends , this is going to get worse before it gets better .
Polarisation is both symptom and cause , the condition that made Trump ’ s ascent possible , but which he then exploits and entrenches in an endless and increasingly unbreakable cycle .
Chris Murphy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brilliant summary .
“ This trial in so many ways crystallised the completely diametrically opposed threats that Democrats and Republicans see to the country , ” he told the New York Times .
“ We perceive Donald Trump and his corruption to be an existential threat to the country .
They perceive the deep state and the liberal media to be an existential threat to the country .
“ That dichotomy , that contrast , has been growing over the last three years , but this trial really crystallised that difference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamentally different languages when it came to what this trial was about .
They thought it was about the deep state and the media conspiracy .
We thought it was about the president ’ s crimes.
” Each side therefore regards November ’ s election as a struggle between right and wrong with the prospect of defeat a cause for panic .
Trump ’ s acquittal will become the latest tool in his kit for polarising the country and firing up his base , joining race , abortion rights , the climate crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against “ socialism ” and a host of other wedge issues .
That instinct was on full display in Tuesday ’ s State of the Union Address , where the emboldened president goaded his opponents with flourishes worthy of reality TV as Republicans chanted “ Four more years !
” As the House speaker , Nancy Pelosi , theatrically tore up Trump ’ s speech , it was a reminder that Democrats will fight fire with fire and have a base of their own to energise .
Even supposed moderate candidates such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg are significantly to the left of Barack Obama on issues such as climate and immigration .
These are dark days for technocratic centrism and the “ third way ” .
If the presidential election were decided by simple popular vote totals , it would be all over , bar the shouting .
Indeed , Trump would have been beaten soundly by Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
But the quirks of the electoral college mean that many observers have a gut feeling he can pull it off again in key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are some who worry that he will simply refuse to accept the result , returning to old lies he propagated in 2016 about illegal voting .
Will Republicans dare to slap down this modern Caesar and remind him of the rule of law ?
In this hyperpartisan era , it no longer seems a safe bet .
A constitutional crisis over the election result would make even the impeachment trial look like child ’ s play .
Historian Niall Ferguson wrote the book Colossus : The Rise and Fall of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empire , economically and militarily powerful and newly strong rich in oil and gas , is far from fallen .
But to future historians , the impeachment “ trial ” offers a glimpse of what an imploding empire might look like .

Donald Trump’s short but indelible political career has been based around the principle of divide-and-fool. His acquittal in the impeachment trial by the US Senate will further fan the flames of the most profound national split since the Vietnam war, perhaps even the civil war.
First, expect Trump to be cocky and take a victory lap, falsely claiming “exoneration” just as he did after special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation left him bruised but unbowed. A day after Mueller’s leaden testimony to Congress, the president felt able to act with such impunity that he made his bullying phone call to the leader of Ukraine.
Now, we must ask, who will he call a day after being cleared by the Senate?
Admirers of the US president will take heart that a man many imbue with folk-hero status, who gives them long yearned-for “payback” against a perceived cultural, economic and social elite, has survived yet again. They share his view that he was the victim of “a coup” and embrace his sense of grievance and resentment. Trump supporters interviewed by the Guardian at his recent campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, put it down to the latest machinations of corrupt politicians in Washington.
On the other side, feelings run equally high. Democrats and other critics of the president argue, correctly, that in strong-arming Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Trump abused his office for personal political gain and has been allowed to get away with it through a miscarriage of justice. He is, they have said, a president who would be king, undermining rule of law and threatening the very fabric of democracy in America – and around the world.
Senate acquits Trump on two articles of impeachment – video
Adam Schiff, the House impeachment manager who led the case against Trump in the Senate, spoke last week of a descent into “constitutional madness” as spineless Republican senators huddle behind Richard Nixon’s notorious defence of his conduct in the Watergate scandal: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Schiff told the chamber: “Watergate is now 40, 50 years behind us. Have we learned nothing in the last half-century? Have we learned nothing at all? We are right back to where we were a half-century ago, and we may even be in a worse place because this time that argument may succeed.
“That is the normalisation of lawlessness.”
Comparisons to Watergate are illustrative. The House of Representatives voted 410-to-4 to authorise a formal impeachment inquiry against Richard Nixon in 1974, whereas no House Republicans voted for the Trump impeachment inquiry or for his actual impeachment (Nixon resigned before the sanction could be applied).
John Zogby, a political pollster, noted recently: “The key reason why Nixon resigned was that his polls were at 23%. And there was a famous walk from the Capitol to the White House, where three Republican congressional leaders walked to the White House and said to Mr Nixon, ‘You’re hurting the political party. You’re hurting the Republicans. You have to go.’
“In fact, when Nixon resigned, he said: “It’s clear that I’ve lost my political base. He did not apologise for anything that he was investigated on.”
Trump’s approval rating, by contrast, now stands at 49% in the latest Gallup poll – the highest since he took office and better than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama at this stage in their re-election years. Somehow he is becoming stronger rather than weaker.
A Washington Post column noted five key differences between Nixon and Trump: the current president has a stronger economy, a more loyal Senate, does not face the kind of “smoking gun” tapes that Nixon did, a White House willing to stonewall on his behalf and, perhaps most importantly, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is on his side.
Fox’s chief pro-Trump tribune, Sean Hannity, has been savaging the trial nightly. The articles of impeachment “are an affront to our entire constitutional system”, he raged. “No Republican senator – listen, voters out there, you elect these people – should give this one iota of legitimacy.”
Supposedly a 24-hour news network, Fox News has not even shown important chunks of the proceedings: it did not broadcast Schiff’s closing argument. Meanwhile, over on the MSNBC network, there is constant analysis of how a dangerous demagogue poses an existential threat to the constitution.
A report by the Pew Research Center found that among Democrats and those sympathetic to the party, 67% trust CNN, 61% trust NBC and 60% trust ABC, whereas 65% of Republicans and those leaning toward it trust Fox News. “It would be hard to overstate its connection as a trusted go-to source of political news for Republicans,” Pew said.
And it warned: “As the US enters a heated 2020 presidential election year … Republicans and Democrats place their trust in two nearly inverse news media environments.”
Indeed, social media exacerbating the trends, this is going to get worse before it gets better. Polarisation is both symptom and cause, the condition that made Trump’s ascent possible, but which he then exploits and entrenches in an endless and increasingly unbreakable cycle.
Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, offered a brilliant summary. “This trial in so many ways crystallised the completely diametrically opposed threats that Democrats and Republicans see to the country,” he told the New York Times. “We perceive Donald Trump and his corruption to be an existential threat to the country. They perceive the deep state and the liberal media to be an existential threat to the country.
“That dichotomy, that contrast, has been growing over the last three years, but this trial really crystallised that difference. We were just speaking different languages, fundamentally different languages when it came to what this trial was about. They thought it was about the deep state and the media conspiracy. We thought it was about the president’s crimes.”
Each side therefore regards November’s election as a struggle between right and wrong with the prospect of defeat a cause for panic. Trump’s acquittal will become the latest tool in his kit for polarising the country and firing up his base, joining race, abortion rights, the climate crisis, supreme court justices, dark warnings against “socialism” and a host of other wedge issues. That instinct was on full display in Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, where the emboldened president goaded his opponents with flourishes worthy of reality TV as Republicans chanted “Four more years!”
As the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, theatrically tore up Trump’s speech, it was a reminder that Democrats will fight fire with fire and have a base of their own to energise. Even supposed moderate candidates such as former vice-president Joe Biden and former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg are significantly to the left of Barack Obama on issues such as climate and immigration. These are dark days for technocratic centrism and the “third way”.
If the presidential election were decided by simple popular vote totals, it would be all over, bar the shouting. Indeed, Trump would have been beaten soundly by Hillary Clinton in 2016. But the quirks of the electoral college mean that many observers have a gut feeling he can pull it off again in key midwestern states.
If he does not, there are some who worry that he will simply refuse to accept the result, returning to old lies he propagated in 2016 about illegal voting. Will Republicans dare to slap down this modern Caesar and remind him of the rule of law?
In this hyperpartisan era, it no longer seems a safe bet. A constitutional crisis over the election result would make even the impeachment trial look like child’s play.
Historian Niall Ferguson wrote the book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire in 2004. The American empire, economically and militarily powerful and newly strong rich in oil and gas, is far from fallen. But to future historians, the impeachment “trial” offers a glimpse of what an imploding empire might look like.


theguardian--2020-02-06--'Dirty cops, leakers and liars': Trump on impeachment acquittal – video

Donald Trump spoke in the White House to supporters and Republicans in what he called ' a celebration ' on @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment in the Senate .
The senators found Trump not guilty of the first @ @ @ @ @ of power , by a 52-48 tally , and not guilty of the second article @ @ @ @ @ Congress , by a 53-47 tally .
Trump said the Democrats that impeached him were @ @ @ @ @ Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi were 'horrible ' people • After Trump 's acquittal : @ @ @ @ @ trickle in • Trump to respond to impeachment acquittal after attacking Democrats at prayer breakfast @ @

Donald Trump spoke in the White House to supporters and Republicans in what he called 'a celebration' on Thursday, after being acquitted of impeachment in the Senate.
The senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment, abuse of power, by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally.
Trump said the Democrats that impeached him were 'vicious and mean' saying Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi were 'horrible' people


theguardian--2020-02-06--Donald Trump alludes to Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi in speech after acquittal – video

The US president referenced support for his impeachment from both Mitt Romney and the House speaker , Nancy Pelosi , @ @ @ @ @ .
He added : 'When they impeach you for nothing , then you are supposed @ @ @ @ @ is not easy '

The US president referenced support for his impeachment from both Mitt Romney and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, at the national prayer breakfast. He added: 'When they impeach you for nothing, then you are supposed to like them. It is not easy'


theguardian--2020-02-07--Iowa caucus result: Buttigieg and Sanders both claim victory – US politics live news

It ’ s been a rollercoaster week in US politics , starting with the voting debacle in Iowa on Monday and carrying on through Donald Trump ’ s divisive State of the Union speech and his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial .
But who are the losers and winners from a dramatic few days for Republicans and Democrats ?
A swaggering and aggressive US president called his speech at the White House on Thursday a “ celebration ” – and well he might .
He was coming to the end of a week in which he had spent 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on primetime TV in his State of the Union speech and had been acquitted in his impeachment trial – with only one Republican breaking ranks to vote against him .
A Gallup poll put the president ’ s approval rating at 49 % , the highest level for that survey since 2017 , and on top of that the Democratic primary race got off to a disastrously shambolic start in Iowa .
Holding up a newspaper front page that said “ Trump acquitted ” , the president told his White House crowd : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe we ’ ll frame it .
It ’ s the only good headline I ’ ve ever had in the Washington Post.
” His speech sounded like a preview of the one he plans to make on 4 November after winning the election .
If anyone managed to wring any momentum out of the mess in Iowa , it was the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , who more or less declared victory before the results were in and went on to grab as much of the spotlight as possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost 100 % of the vote in , Buttigieg is only 0.09 % ahead of socialist rival Bernie Sanders in the delegate count , and Sanders is ahead of the young pretender in the popular vote .
But the veteran Vermont senator will now have to wait until New Hampshire next week to grab his share of the glory .
The billionaire former mayor of New York ’ s decision to sit out the early states and instead blanket California with advertising seems partially vindicated .
With the usual momentum conferred on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing from Bloomberg in the array of states voting on Super Tuesday ( 3 March ) is bound to launch a thousand think-pieces asking whether Bloomberg can elbow aside Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg and unite the centre .
Feel queasy about a rich man buying the race ?
Bloomberg has an answer .
“ Someone said , ‘ Are you spending too much money ?
’ and I said , ‘ I ’ m spending money to get rid of Donald Trump.
’ And the guy said , ‘ Spend more.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went into the week as the frontrunner in the Democratic race and still leads most national polls and match-ups with Trump .
But coming fourth in Iowa – a result he called a gut-punch – has seriously dented his pitch that he is the most electable candidate .
If he underperforms again in New Hampshire on Tuesday , Biden could find supporters and donors abandoning him for Buttigieg or Bloomberg .
The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives took a lot of persuading to agree to impeach Trump , only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence in the Ukraine case became overwhelming .
She initiated the process knowing it was almost certain Trump would be acquitted , but hoping to put his impeachment on the record for posterity , gum up his legislative agenda , and damage him ahead of this November ’ s election .
She has succeeded on the first two points , but the latter is very much up for debate .
And on top of that , Pelosi – usually so poised in her dealings with Trump – risked losing the moral high ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his State of the Union speech on live TV , leading secretary of state Mike Pompeo to liken her to Lisa Simpson .
( Critics said he hadn ’ t understood the episode . )
Iowa was already facing criticism that as a small , 90 % white , largely rural state it had a disproportionate impact on the Democratic race even before Monday ’ s debacle , in which apps failed and telephone lines were overwhelmed , meaning that even by Friday Democrats were unable to say who had won the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results the party eventually released , vote tallies did not add up , and figures contained inconsistencies and errors , according to the New York Times , leading the national party chair to demand a review “ to assure public confidence in the results ” .
Conspiracy theories raged that the party was deliberately sabotaging Sanders ’ chances – and the Trump campaign gleefully fanned the flames .
If the Iowa state party had deliberately set out to undermine its own place in the primary hierarchy it couldn ’ t have done better @ @ @

8 Feb 2020 01.23 GMT Evening Summary An updated evening summary of today’s key political news as we close this blog for tonight. But as one blog closes, another opens: You can follow the Democratic presidential debate live blog for continued live updates. Two key witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial were fired by the White House: Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and European Union ambassaor Gordon Sondland . Vindman’s lawyer issued a statement saying that he was escorted out of the White House. He “was asked to leave for telling the truth,” his lawyer said. Vindman’s twin brother, a lawyer for the National Security Council, was also fired.
and European Union ambassaor . Vindman’s lawyer issued a statement saying that he was escorted out of the White House. He “was asked to leave for telling the truth,” his lawyer said. Vindman’s twin brother, a lawyer for the National Security Council, was also fired. Pundits dubbed the firings a “ Friday Night Massacre, ” in reference to the Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973.
” in reference to the Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973. Democrats condemned the firings; Republican lawmakers said “good riddance.”
Meanwhile, Bill Taylor , another witness in the impeachment trial, went on CNN to defend Marie Yovanovitch , former ambassador to Ukraine, who was subject to a smear campaign that led to her own firing. “It of course bothers me any time I see someone like Masha Yovanovitch or Alex Vindman unfairly attacked,” Taylor said.
, another witness in the impeachment trial, went on CNN to defend , former ambassador to Ukraine, who was subject to a smear campaign that led to her own firing. “It of course bothers me any time I see someone like Masha Yovanovitch or Alex Vindman unfairly attacked,” Taylor said. Trump spoke at an event in North Carolina this afternoon where he mocked Democrats for messing up the Iowa caucus and said that he would continue to hold rallies even if he wins the 2020 election.
spoke at an event in North Carolina this afternoon where he mocked Democrats for messing up the Iowa caucus and said that he would continue to hold rallies even if he wins the 2020 election. As Democratic presidential candidates prepared for another televised debate, the feud between Iowa front-runners Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg started to gear up today. Sanders slammed Buttigeg for having “the most exclusive billionaire donors of any Democrat.” #PetesBillionaires was trending on Twitter this afternoon.
8 Feb 2020 00.31 GMT Do you remember what it was like when all major breaking news did not happen simultaneously? It would be pretty cool to have a Friday Night Massacre playing out during a debate to end this week of all weeks. — Amanda Becker (@AmandaBecker) February 8, 2020
8 Feb 2020 00.21 GMT Welcome to Trump's Friday Night Massacre On a Saturday evening in October 1973, in the midst of the scandal that would lead to his resignation, President Richard Nixon demanded that his attorney general fire the special counsel assigned to investigate Watergate. Nixon’s attorney general and deputy attorney general refused, and resigned. Then solicitor general Robert Bork became the acting attorney general, and he did what Nixon wanted: he fired special counsel Archibald Cox, who had refused to go along with the White House’s plan to turn over only summarized material from the White House Watergate tapes to Cox’s investigation. The forced resignation and firing became known as Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre.” Political pundits are already calling this Friday evening in Washington Trump’s “Friday Night Massacre,” with two of the witnesses who testified in the impeachment inquiry against Trump already fired by 7 p.m. in the evening. Other commentators, like Rachel Maddow, are arguing that it’s not quite an accurate comparison. Thanks to @senatorcollins, @senatemajldr, and friends for this Friday Night Massacre. https://t.co/R5O7xR3EMS — Ezra Levin (@ezralevin) February 7, 2020 The Friday Night Massacre continues.
First Vindman. Now Sondland. Who's next? https://t.co/9q4ZonG1lV — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 7, 2020 It's only a Friday Night Massacre if people actually resign on principle rather than carry out these kinds of orders.
No sign of that thus far tonight.
But it's early yet. — Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) February 8, 2020
7 Feb 2020 23.57 GMT Report: White House Fires Another Impeachment Witness, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland The White House has moved to fire another person who testified in the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump: Gordon Sondland, who also testified about the president’s efforts to pressure top Ukranian officials to investigate his political rivals, the New York Times reports. “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement just hours after the White House fired a top National Security expert on Ukraine, Lt Col Alexander Vindman, who had also testified, the Times reported. Sondland expressed gratitude in the statement to Mr. Trump “for having given me the opportunity to serve.” In November, Sondland delivered what had been characterized as “bombshell” public testimony against Trump, saying, “Was there a ‘quid pro quo [with Ukraine]?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” Breaking: Gordon Sondland says he has been recalled as ambassador to EU, hours after the Vindman brothers were escorted by security from the White House. https://t.co/fwaafSS2gs — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) February 7, 2020
7 Feb 2020 23.47 GMT Just a reminder: there are 269 days until the 2020 presidential election! Tonight, the Democratic presidential primary continues with a televised debate. My colleague Joan Greave has more details on our debate night live blog.
7 Feb 2020 23.34 GMT In a week marked by impunity and vengeance in Washington, my colleague Ed Pilkington has a story on a black radical who has finally won his freedom. The release of the final incarcerated member of the Move 9 comes more than three decades after Philadelphia police dropped an incendiary bomb on a row house where black activists lived, resulting in the deaths of eleven people, including five children, and a fire that razed dozens of homes in a predominantly black neighborhood. One of the great open wounds of the black liberation struggle of the 1970s has finally been healed with the release of the last member of the Move 9, the group of radicals rounded up in a Philadelphia police siege in 1978 and held behind bars for more than four decades. Chuck Sims Africa, 59, walked free from the Fayette state correctional institution in La Belle, Pennsylvania, on Friday morning. The youngest of the incarcerated group, he has been in custody since shortly after he turned 18. His freedom marked his reunion with his family for the first time in almost 42 years. BREAKING: History has been made. The Move 9, Philadelphia black radicals imprisoned 42 years ago in the black liberation struggle, are now ALL FREE https://t.co/v8BdtVyXK8 — Ed Pilkington (@Edpilkington) February 7, 2020


theguardian--2020-02-07--‘It was all bullshit’: Donald Trump delivers mocking, vitriolic speech after acquittal

Donald Trump delivered a triumphalist , mocking , vitriolic and vulgar speech in the White House on Thursday afternoon in celebration of the acquittal at his impeachment trial the night before in the US Senate .
In ebullient mood , the US president held up the front page of the Washington Post with the headline “ Trump acquitted ” and said : “ I went through hell , unfairly , I did nothing wrong.
” Then he asked for the newspaper to be framed .
Speaking in the East Room , filled with senior administration figures , Trump family members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly broke into applause , Trump said : “ This isn ’ t a news conference , it ’ s not a speech – it ’ s a celebration.
” He began by blaming “ dirty cops ” in the US intelligence community for investigations into , first , his dealings with Russia during the 2016 election and then last year a pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals , which became the prompt for the impeachment investigation .
“ It was corrupt , it was dirty cops and this should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a disgrace … it was bad people .
If this had happened to President Obama a lot of people would have been in jail for many years , ” he said .
Trump was acquitted in his Senate trial , which was the denouement of a four-month investigation , on both of the articles of impeachment he faced – charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , for threatening the Ukrainian government by withholding military aid until it agreed to investigate Trump ’ s domestic political rivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional investigators .
The acquittal vote along party lines shortly after 4pm local time in Washington on Wednesday ended the threat that Trump would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process .
Senators voted to find Trump not guilty , despite some Republicans declaring that Trump ’ s conduct in relation to Ukraine had been seriously inappropriate , and Democrats accusing the president of using foreign connections to cheat in the 2020 election .
Trump became the third president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him .
Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump and became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial .
“ I support a great deal of what the president has done , ” Romney said on the Senate floor .
“ But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public trust .
Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one ’ s oath of office that I can imagine.
” Nevertheless , Trump has taken his acquittal as a victory for his administration , his party and above all himself .
The speech on Thursday quickly turned into a screed against all of the investigations into his administration , starting with special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian election interference .
“ We first went through Russia , Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It was all bullshit.
” For comparison , when Bill Clinton addressed the public after his Senate acquittal in 1999 , having been impeached for lying to Congress about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky , he began by expressing how “ profoundly sorry ” he was for actions .
By contrast , Trump lit into his chief accusers – the Democratic House speaker , Nancy Pelosi , and the chief prosecutor of the case against the president at trial , the California congressman Adam Schiff .
“ The corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into script writing , unfortunately he went into politics , ” said Trump , to laughter from the partisan audience .
Then he added : “ Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person.
” He railed once again against what he called the “ fake ” dossier of intelligence gathered by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele and presented to the FBI in 2017 , which alleged secret contacts between the Trump 2016 election campaign and Moscow – and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on Trump .
“ Hillary Clinton and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this fake dossier , ” he said on Thursday .
The president also returned to the subject of the former FBI director James Comey , who was fired by Trump nearly three years ago .
“ Had I not fired James Comey , who was a disaster by the way , it ’ s possible I wouldn ’ t even be standing here right now , ” Trump said .
Trump referred to Comey as a “ sleazebag ” and attacked “ the top scum ” at the FBI , referring to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigations into his conduct .
And Trump offered a play-by-play account of the 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice , near Washington , that severely injured Republican congressman Steve Scalise , with the president using hand motions to imitate gunfire .
“ Everyone ran into the dugout , ” he said , then , referring to law enforcement who took down the gunman : “ These two people came charging forward , boom , boom , boom.
” Trump said Scalise had probably “ set a record for blood loss ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ better-looking now ” .
Towards the end he said : “ The Democrats say they want to heal this country .
They want to destroy this country .
”

David Smith and Joan E Greve in Washington and Tom McCarthy in New York

Donald Trump delivered a triumphalist, mocking, vitriolic and vulgar speech in the White House on Thursday afternoon in celebration of the acquittal at his impeachment trial the night before in the US Senate.
In ebullient mood, the US president held up the front page of the Washington Post with the headline “Trump acquitted” and said: “I went through hell, unfairly, I did nothing wrong.” Then he asked for the newspaper to be framed.
Speaking in the East Room, filled with senior administration figures, Trump family members and Republican members of Congress, who repeatedly broke into applause, Trump said: “This isn’t a news conference, it’s not a speech – it’s a celebration.”
He began by blaming “dirty cops” in the US intelligence community for investigations into, first, his dealings with Russia during the 2016 election and then last year a pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals, which became the prompt for the impeachment investigation.
“It was corrupt, it was dirty cops and this should never happen to another president, ever. It’s a disgrace … it was bad people. If this had happened to President Obama a lot of people would have been in jail for many years,” he said.
Trump was acquitted in his Senate trial, which was the denouement of a four-month investigation, on both of the articles of impeachment he faced – charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, for threatening the Ukrainian government by withholding military aid until it agreed to investigate Trump’s domestic political rivals, then blocking witnesses and evidence from congressional investigators.
The acquittal vote along party lines shortly after 4pm local time in Washington on Wednesday ended the threat that Trump would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.
Senators voted to find Trump not guilty, despite some Republicans declaring that Trump’s conduct in relation to Ukraine had been seriously inappropriate, and Democrats accusing the president of using foreign connections to cheat in the 2020 election.
Trump became the third president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.
Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump and became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial.
01:55 'The president is guilty': Romney votes to convict Trump – video
“I support a great deal of what the president has done,” Romney said on the Senate floor. “But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside.
“The president is guilty of a flagrant abuse of public trust. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
Nevertheless, Trump has taken his acquittal as a victory for his administration, his party and above all himself.
The speech on Thursday quickly turned into a screed against all of the investigations into his administration, starting with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.
“We first went through Russia, Russia, Russia,” Trump said. “It was all bullshit.”
For comparison, when Bill Clinton addressed the public after his Senate acquittal in 1999, having been impeached for lying to Congress about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, he began by expressing how “profoundly sorry” he was for actions.
By contrast, Trump lit into his chief accusers – the Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the chief prosecutor of the case against the president at trial, the California congressman Adam Schiff.
“The corrupt Adam Schiff. He should have gone into script writing, unfortunately he went into politics,” said Trump, to laughter from the partisan audience.
Then he added: “Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person.”
He railed once again against what he called the “fake” dossier of intelligence gathered by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele and presented to the FBI in 2017, which alleged secret contacts between the Trump 2016 election campaign and Moscow – and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on Trump.
“Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid millions to get this fake dossier,” he said on Thursday.
The president also returned to the subject of the former FBI director James Comey, who was fired by Trump nearly three years ago.
“Had I not fired James Comey, who was a disaster by the way, it’s possible I wouldn’t even be standing here right now,” Trump said.
Trump referred to Comey as a “sleazebag” and attacked “the top scum” at the FBI, referring to the bureau’s top leadership, for the investigations into his conduct.
And Trump offered a play-by-play account of the 2017 shooting at a congressional baseball practice, near Washington, that severely injured Republican congressman Steve Scalise, with the president using hand motions to imitate gunfire.
“Everyone ran into the dugout,” he said, then, referring to law enforcement who took down the gunman: “These two people came charging forward, boom, boom, boom.”
Trump said Scalise had probably “set a record for blood loss” and complimented the congressman that he was “better-looking now”.
Towards the end he said: “The Democrats say they want to heal this country. They want to destroy this country.”


theguardian--2020-02-07--Bloomberg campaign plagiarized passages of its policy plans, report finds

Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign lifted portions of its policy plans from news outlets , not-for-profit organizations and policy groups , in some cases plagiarizing passages verbatim , according to the Intercept .
At least eight plans or fact sheets put out by the Bloomberg campaign copied material from news outlets including CNN , Time , and CBS , and organizations including the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the American Medical Association , without attribution .
In a statement , the campaign said the policies were sent out via an email newsletter service that “ doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ We have since added citations and links to these documents.
” Bloomberg , the former mayor of New York and billionaire businessman , is connected to some of the organizations from which his campaign pulled information .
He co-founded Everytown for Gun Safety , a gun control advocacy group , and Building America ’ s Future Educational Fund , a not-for-profit focused on infrastructure investment .
In some cases , the Intercept pointed out his campaign appears to have cobbled together passages from several sources .
His plan for green infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recode , Curbed New York and Governing magazine , as well as Building America ’ s Future and other sources .
After the Intercept approached the campaign , the entire fact sheet on “ Smarter Faster Safer Greener : A Plan To Bring America ’ s Infrastructure Into the 21st Century ” was taken down .
This week , the Democratic National Committee changed debate qualification rules , removing a barrier that had barred Bloomberg ’ s self-financed campaign from participating .
He is poised to appear onstage during the debate in Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time face off directly against his 2020 competitors .
Bloomberg did not seek to compete in Iowa or New Hampshire , the first primary contests of the election .
Still , he has surged to fourth place in the realclearpolitics.com national polling average .
He has earned the endorsements of several mayors across the country and several House Democrats .

Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign lifted portions of its policy literature from news outlets, not-for-profit organizations and policy groups, in some cases copying passages verbatim without attribution, according to the Intercept.
At least eight plans or fact sheets put out by the Bloomberg campaign copied material from news outlets including CNN, Time, and CBS, and organizations including the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the American Medical Association.
In a statement to the Guardian, the Bloomberg campaign described the literature that contained plagiarized passages as “several lines among hundreds of pages of background documents that provide context for reporters, not policy plans themselves”.
“Internal drafts of these fact sheets included footnotes, which should have, but didn’t, appear on the web versions or what was emailed to reporters,” according to the campaign, which has since updated the materials to include citations.
One of the more egregious examples IMO: two complete grafs lifted from this @cnn op-ed by @MichaelSLinden. Bloomberg campaign has since cut this from their plan: https://t.co/DNHuwuPgDK pic.twitter.com/x62H1WMYsk — Akela Lacy (@akela_lacy) February 6, 2020
Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and billionaire businessman, is connected to some of the organizations from which his campaign pulled information. He co-founded Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, and Building America’s Future Educational Fund, a not-for-profit focused on infrastructure investment.
In some cases, the Intercept pointed out his campaign appears to have cobbled together passages from several sources. His plan for green infrastructure, for example, pulled verbatim from Recode, Curbed New York and Governing magazine, as well as Building America’s Future and other sources.
After the Intercept approached the campaign, the entire fact sheet on “Smarter Faster Safer Greener: A Plan To Bring America’s Infrastructure Into the 21st Century” was taken down, and later reposted with citations.
This week, the Democratic National Committee changed debate qualification rules, removing a barrier that had barred Bloomberg’s self-financed campaign from participating in the Nevada debate on 19 February.
Bloomberg did not seek to compete in Iowa or New Hampshire, the first primary contests of the election. Still, he has surged to fourth place in the realclearpolitics.com national polling average. He has earned the endorsements of several mayors across the country and several House Democrats.