washingtonmonthly--2020-01-27--Will the Republicans Allow John Bolton to Testify?

My instinct is not to trust John Bolton .
Yet , I also figure he ’ s probably not eager to perjure himself , even if telling the truth to Congress might help the Democrats and ruin his future influence and prospects on the right .
Of course , we ’ ve been here before with untrustworthy characters like James Comey , Rick Gates and Michael Cohen .
I think we can put Lev Parnas in this category too .
I knew that if Bolton were to testify , there was a good chance that he ’ d spill the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been clear precisely why Bolton left the administration .
We still don ’ t know if he was fired or he resigned , and we ’ re not sure if the decision was based on something very specific or was of a more cumulative nature .
There were reports that it was related to Iran , but the timing makes it seem like it could have been centered around Ukraine .
Either way , by Trump ’ s own account , we know that he did not leave on good terms .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing a book about his time serving as Trump ’ s national security adviser , and that the book would not be flattering to the president .
On the other hand , his refusal to testify before the House impeachment inquiry suggested that he wasn ’ t eager to lend a hand in ousting Trump from office .
Some said this was because no one would buy his book if they already knew the worst of what it contained .
Despite all these unanswered questions , the Democrats have been eager to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial .
This became more realistic when Bolton declared his willingness to participate .
But , with the prospect of him being called narrowing as the Republican senators coalesce around a sham trial strategy , suddenly we can read about what is in Bolton ’ s book in the pages of the New York Times : President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $ 391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , John R. Bolton .
The president ’ s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense : that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump ’ s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies , including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden , who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office .
Mr. Bolton ’ s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates .
This puts the Republicans in a bind .
The American people can consider this evidence even if it isn ’ t admitted at the trial .
They know the senators have seen it , so they will expect the senators to weigh it when they decide whether to acquit or convict .
If it is to be rebutted in some way , it won ’ t be convincing if Bolton ’ s testimony is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton to testify , it will blow up their schedule and open a potential Pandora ’ s box .
It will also infuriate the president .
Republicans could argue that even if everything Bolton is reported to have said in his book is true , it doesn ’ t matter because the alleged behavior doesn ’ t rise to an impeachable offense .
That might become less tenable as a strategy if Bolton actually sits in a witness chair and gives his version of events .
They could argue that Bolton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s covered under some kind of presidential privilege , but they can ’ t be sure that Chief Justice John Roberts would go along with that interpretation of the law , and voting to overrule him would look bad even if it could be accomplished .
These senators are in the unenviable position of trying to protect a guilty person whose crimes are not well-hidden .
As long as they think they have the votes to acquit , this gives them a powerful incentive to just get things over with as fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to light .
Allowing Bolton to testify would probably make an eventual acquittal harder to justify , so denying him as a witness must still look like the best option .
But that seems like a truly stupid strategy to me .
Trump makes a habit of getting away with his crimes while his associates go to jail .
The Republican senators may not wind up in prison , but they could discover that the cost of saving Trump ’ s presidency is the end of their own political careers .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is well enough established at this point that you ’ d think more Republicans would understand it .

My instinct is not to trust John Bolton. Yet, I also figure he’s probably not eager to perjure himself, even if telling the truth to Congress might help the Democrats and ruin his future influence and prospects on the right. Of course, we’ve been here before with untrustworthy characters like James Comey, Rick Gates and Michael Cohen. I think we can put Lev Parnas in this category too. I knew that if Bolton were to testify, there was a good chance that he’d spill the beans on Trump.
It has never been clear precisely why Bolton left the administration. We still don’t know if he was fired or he resigned, and we’re not sure if the decision was based on something very specific or was of a more cumulative nature. There were reports that it was related to Iran, but the timing makes it seem like it could have been centered around Ukraine. Either way, by Trump’s own account, we know that he did not leave on good terms.
It has also been reported that Bolton is publishing a book about his time serving as Trump’s national security adviser, and that the book would not be flattering to the president. On the other hand, his refusal to testify before the House impeachment inquiry suggested that he wasn’t eager to lend a hand in ousting Trump from office. Some said this was because no one would buy his book if they already knew the worst of what it contained.
Despite all these unanswered questions, the Democrats have been eager to secure Bolton’s testimony at the Senate trial. This became more realistic when Bolton declared his willingness to participate. But, with the prospect of him being called narrowing as the Republican senators coalesce around a sham trial strategy, suddenly we can read about what is in Bolton’s book in the pages of the New York Times:
President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton. The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office. Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates.
This puts the Republicans in a bind. The American people can consider this evidence even if it isn’t admitted at the trial. They know the senators have seen it, so they will expect the senators to weigh it when they decide whether to acquit or convict. If it is to be rebutted in some way, it won’t be convincing if Bolton’s testimony is blocked.
Yet, if they allow Bolton to testify, it will blow up their schedule and open a potential Pandora’s box. It will also infuriate the president.
Republicans could argue that even if everything Bolton is reported to have said in his book is true, it doesn’t matter because the alleged behavior doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense. That might become less tenable as a strategy if Bolton actually sits in a witness chair and gives his version of events.
They could argue that Bolton’s testimony isn’t allowed because it’s covered under some kind of presidential privilege, but they can’t be sure that Chief Justice John Roberts would go along with that interpretation of the law, and voting to overrule him would look bad even if it could be accomplished.
These senators are in the unenviable position of trying to protect a guilty person whose crimes are not well-hidden. As long as they think they have the votes to acquit, this gives them a powerful incentive to just get things over with as fast as possible before even more damaging information comes to light.
Allowing Bolton to testify would probably make an eventual acquittal harder to justify, so denying him as a witness must still look like the best option.
But that seems like a truly stupid strategy to me. Trump makes a habit of getting away with his crimes while his associates go to jail. The Republican senators may not wind up in prison, but they could discover that the cost of saving Trump’s presidency is the end of their own political careers. He survives and they die.
This pattern is well enough established at this point that you’d think more Republicans would understand it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-28--Why Christian Nationalists Support a Transactional Tyrant

In explaining the transactional nature of Trump ’ s approach , both as a businessman and president , Andrea Bernstein noted this quote from a debate during the 2016 Republican primary .
There are a couple of other ways to describe that kind of transaction : quid pro quo and corruption .
Both of them are front and center in the current impeachment trial .
But since the beginning of Trump ’ s presidency , it has been clear that his approach to deal-making , whether in foreign policy or domestic affairs , has been transactional .
It should , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s spiritual advisor , Paula White , engages in a kind of transactional relationship with God .
That is precisely why she has been described as adhering to a “ prosperity gospel.
” Her con job is to suggest that , if you give her your money , God will cause you to prosper .
At about the time that Trump was attending the “ March for Life , ” a video of White surfaced that was appalling .
At one point , White prays that “ In the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pregnancies to miscarry right now.
” The reaction was that , as the president was proclaiming his commitment to the pro-life cause , his spiritual advisor had prayed for some pregnancies to miscarry .
Since that clip went viral , White put out a statement saying that her words were taken out of context : She was praying that “ anything that has been conceived by demonic plans , for it to be cancelled and not prevail in your life… ” Be that as it may , that doesn ’ t make this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken Christianity and turned it into something that sounds an awful lot like casting magical spells on her enemies .
It sounds more like something you ’ d see taught at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry than in church .
But perhaps you can see how that kind of transactional approach to spirituality would appeal to someone like Donald Trump .
While some evangelicals consider White to be an extremist , I was reminded of an article Kimberly Knight wrote a few years ago titled , “ God is not your cosmic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ just pray , pray real hard and trust that God will save you from the sin of homosexuality ” or “ No matter who wins in 2015 U.S. Election , Lord Jesus is still in charge and in control of the Universe !
” are not related , what-so-ever , to the theology of God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth .
So much bad/sad theology swirling around that I just had to say a word or three about the notion of God as a transactional tyrant .
See , I have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folk who claim that God gives away touchdowns , Bentleys and control of Congress as rewards for the pious but allows/causes millions of people to suffer from hunger , disease , disasters and diabolical dehumanization .
This is not a God worthy of worship .
This is not the God revealed to us in the Incarnation .
God is not a cosmic vending machine maniacally squirting out holy snicker bars for the Benhams , Robertsons , Huckabees and Perkins of the world and rancid rat turds for the rest .
A pious and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account , provide more touchdowns , win the heart of the hottie you have your eye on , keep your tire from going flat on that dark and rainy night , stop hurricanes or holocausts , prevent homicides or sex trafficking .
The God that Jesus reveals to us is not some mythical old asshat of a man who is “ out there ” or “ up there ” to whom we appeal with sacrine supplications to fulfill our self-serving desires or to smite our enemies .
As a Christian , Knight goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God .
But this piece struck me as a powerful description of a deeper way that Trump has connected with Christian nationalists .
If you relate to God as a transactional tyrant , you are likely to support the same thing in a president .
You also aren ’ t likely to find it troubling when he engages in transactional ( ie , corrupt ) quid pro quos .

In explaining the transactional nature of Trump’s approach, both as a businessman and president, Andrea Bernstein noted this quote from a debate during the 2016 Republican primary.
“I give to many people,” [Trump] said. “Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.”
There are a couple of other ways to describe that kind of transaction: quid pro quo and corruption. Both of them are front and center in the current impeachment trial. But since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, it has been clear that his approach to deal-making, whether in foreign policy or domestic affairs, has been transactional.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the president’s spiritual advisor, Paula White, engages in a kind of transactional relationship with God. That is precisely why she has been described as adhering to a “prosperity gospel.” Her con job is to suggest that, if you give her your money, God will cause you to prosper.
At about the time that Trump was attending the “March for Life,” a video of White surfaced that was appalling.
At one point, White prays that “In the name of Jesus, we command all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.” The reaction was that, as the president was proclaiming his commitment to the pro-life cause, his spiritual advisor had prayed for some pregnancies to miscarry.
Since that clip went viral, White put out a statement saying that her words were taken out of context: She was praying that “anything that has been conceived by demonic plans, for it to be cancelled and not prevail in your life…”
Be that as it may, that doesn’t make this clip any less disturbing. White has taken Christianity and turned it into something that sounds an awful lot like casting magical spells on her enemies. It sounds more like something you’d see taught at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry than in church. But perhaps you can see how that kind of transactional approach to spirituality would appeal to someone like Donald Trump.
While some evangelicals consider White to be an extremist, I was reminded of an article Kimberly Knight wrote a few years ago titled, “God is not your cosmic vending machine.”
Stomach turning shenanigans like “just pray, pray real hard and trust that God will save you from the sin of homosexuality” or “No matter who wins in 2015 U.S. Election, Lord Jesus is still in charge and in control of the Universe!” are not related, what-so-ever, to the theology of God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. So much bad/sad theology swirling around that I just had to say a word or three about the notion of God as a transactional tyrant. See, I have a very hard time with the theology of folk who claim that God gives away touchdowns, Bentleys and control of Congress as rewards for the pious but allows/causes millions of people to suffer from hunger, disease, disasters and diabolical dehumanization. This is not a God worthy of worship. This is not the God revealed to us in the Incarnation. God is not a cosmic vending machine maniacally squirting out holy snicker bars for the Benhams, Robertsons, Huckabees and Perkins of the world and rancid rat turds for the rest. A pious and prayerful life will not fill your bank account, provide more touchdowns, win the heart of the hottie you have your eye on, keep your tire from going flat on that dark and rainy night, stop hurricanes or holocausts, prevent homicides or sex trafficking. The God that Jesus reveals to us is not some mythical old asshat of a man who is “out there” or “up there” to whom we appeal with sacrine supplications to fulfill our self-serving desires or to smite our enemies.
As a Christian, Knight goes on to describe her own view of God. But this piece struck me as a powerful description of a deeper way that Trump has connected with Christian nationalists. If you relate to God as a transactional tyrant, you are likely to support the same thing in a president. You also aren’t likely to find it troubling when he engages in transactional (ie, corrupt) quid pro quos.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-28--Our Future Will Be Shaped By the Outcome of the Iowa Caucuses

It ’ s possible that the winner of next week ’ s Iowa caucuses will be the first choice of fewer than one in four Democrats .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling average , Bernie Sanders currently leads the pack with 22.6 percent .
Their forecast has Sanders pulling in 27.9 percent , but that ’ s only after he receives some reassigned votes from candidates who don ’ t clear the 15 percent minimum threshold in some caucuses .
They project that four candidates will win delegates in the Hawkeye State .
Biden is polling about even with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg at 17.1 percent and Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent .
Among the rest , only Amy Klobuchar is showing any pulse , but her eight percent rating is far below the minimum threshold , and most of her votes will probably be reallocated .
So , as far as the delegates go , the projection is Sanders 12.8 , Biden 12.5 , Buttigieg 8.5 , and Warren 5.3 .
Statistically , this would amount to a four-way tie .
And , based on the difficulty of polling the Iowa caucuses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s quite possible that the final order could be scrambled or even reversed .
In 2012 , Rick Santorum rocketed to the top in the last days from a position about as weak as what Klobuchar is showing now , so she shouldn ’ t be counted out .
Still , I think it ’ s safe to say that the media will portray a first-place finish quite differently from a fourth-place finish , even if only a few points separate the two candidates and if there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re awarded .
It ’ s easy to see why an endorsement from the Des Moines Register could be immensely valuable to Elizabeth Warren .
It ’ s also very possible that Trump ’ s impeachment lawyers could change history by using their time less to defend the president than to attack Joe Biden .
The second day of the president ’ s opening arguments in the impeachment trial took a sharp turn , when Trump attorneys Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann spent a significant portion of their time on the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for corruption .
Bondi primarily focused on Biden ’ s son , Hunter Biden , and his role on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma while his father was vice president and in charge of Ukraine matters .
Trump ’ s team has presented no evidence that Biden used his role as vice president to benefit his son nor alleged anything improper other than the “ appearance of a conflict.
” But Senate Republicans used the concerted attack on Biden to raise questions about his political viability .
“ Iowa caucuses are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters , those Democratic caucus goers , will they be supporting vice president Biden at this point ?
” asked Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-Iowa ) .
Trump decided to use Ukraine to attack Biden at a time when Biden was clearly polling the best against him in hypothetical one-on-one matchups .
It may be that the impeachment trial is doing what President Zelensky would not : unfairly tar Biden and knock him out of his frontrunner status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure that Iowa Democrats will react the way that the Republicans hope .
They may rally around Biden precisely because he ’ s being attacked , or because it makes it look that Trump fears him the most .
All I know is that tiny differences in voter sentiment can have enormous consequences .
It shouldn ’ t be this way .
The media should really do a better job of explaining how inconsequential it is to win 13 delegates for first place compared to five delegates for fourth .
They should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferred by only a quarter of caucus-goers can really be considered a frontrunner .
And what does it really mean that a few thousand votes separate four candidates in a mostly white rural state ?
The results from Los Angeles County in California will have vastly more statistical significance , and they ’ ll come from a more representative cross-section of the Democratic Party .
Yet , we ’ ll all be on pins and needles waiting to see who the big winner and loser is in Iowa , and everyone will talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were made and why the loser ’ s campaign was doomed from the start .
It ’ s all foolishness .
It ’ s not even guaranteed that the election night delegate winner will be awarded the most delegates .
They might drop out later and see their delegates reassigned .
They may see their delegates poached by a better-organized candidate , as happened in 2012 when Ron Paul wound up with almost all of Iowa ’ s delegates despite coming in third on election night .
Yes , indeed , you would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hype leading up to Iowa , but their caucuses have “ practically no effect ” on who will get the delegates from the Hawkeye state at the Republican National Convention .
In 2012 , Iowa had 28 delegates at the convention , and according to the New York Times , Ron Paul got 22 of them , Romney got five , and Rick Santorum got zero .
One vote is listed as undetermined but probably went for Romney .
Ron Paul achieved this by focusing on the real contest , which actually takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and state party conventions .
This is why it is entirely accurate to call the caucuses a “ beauty contest ” but horribly misleading to suggest that the voters who turn out to provide “ Iowa ’ s Republican Party a sense of the voters ’ thinking ” have any efficacy whatsoever over who will represent them at the convention .
I find it frustrating that the future of the country could be dramatically altered depending on who is perceived to have won a beauty contest in Iowa .
But that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the smallest of factors could have a tremendous impact on how the candidates finish next week .

It’s possible that the winner of next week’s Iowa caucuses will be the first choice of fewer than one in four Democrats. According to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, Bernie Sanders currently leads the pack with 22.6 percent. Their forecast has Sanders pulling in 27.9 percent, but that’s only after he receives some reassigned votes from candidates who don’t clear the 15 percent minimum threshold in some caucuses.
They project that four candidates will win delegates in the Hawkeye State. Biden is polling about even with Sanders at 22.3 percent, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 17.1 percent and Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent. Among the rest, only Amy Klobuchar is showing any pulse, but her eight percent rating is far below the minimum threshold, and most of her votes will probably be reallocated.
So, as far as the delegates go, the projection is Sanders 12.8, Biden 12.5, Buttigieg 8.5, and Warren 5.3.
Statistically, this would amount to a four-way tie. And, based on the difficulty of polling the Iowa caucuses and the traditional late volatility in these contests, it’s quite possible that the final order could be scrambled or even reversed. In 2012, Rick Santorum rocketed to the top in the last days from a position about as weak as what Klobuchar is showing now, so she shouldn’t be counted out.
Still, I think it’s safe to say that the media will portray a first-place finish quite differently from a fourth-place finish, even if only a few points separate the two candidates and if there’s no significant difference in how many delegates they’re awarded. It’s easy to see why an endorsement from the Des Moines Register could be immensely valuable to Elizabeth Warren.
It’s also very possible that Trump’s impeachment lawyers could change history by using their time less to defend the president than to attack Joe Biden.
The second day of the president’s opening arguments in the impeachment trial took a sharp turn, when Trump attorneys Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann spent a significant portion of their time on the Senate floor arguing that Biden should be investigated for corruption. Bondi primarily focused on Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his role on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma while his father was vice president and in charge of Ukraine matters. Trump’s team has presented no evidence that Biden used his role as vice president to benefit his son nor alleged anything improper other than the “appearance of a conflict.” But Senate Republicans used the concerted attack on Biden to raise questions about his political viability. “Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening and I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus goers, will they be supporting vice president Biden at this point?” asked Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
Trump decided to use Ukraine to attack Biden at a time when Biden was clearly polling the best against him in hypothetical one-on-one matchups. It may be that the impeachment trial is doing what President Zelensky would not: unfairly tar Biden and knock him out of his frontrunner status.
Of course, I’m not sure that Iowa Democrats will react the way that the Republicans hope. They may rally around Biden precisely because he’s being attacked, or because it makes it look that Trump fears him the most. All I know is that tiny differences in voter sentiment can have enormous consequences.
It shouldn’t be this way. The media should really do a better job of explaining how inconsequential it is to win 13 delegates for first place compared to five delegates for fourth. They should point out that no candidate who is preferred by only a quarter of caucus-goers can really be considered a frontrunner. And what does it really mean that a few thousand votes separate four candidates in a mostly white rural state? The results from Los Angeles County in California will have vastly more statistical significance, and they’ll come from a more representative cross-section of the Democratic Party.
Yet, we’ll all be on pins and needles waiting to see who the big winner and loser is in Iowa, and everyone will talk about all the errors and misjudgments that were made and why the loser’s campaign was doomed from the start. It’s all foolishness.
It’s not even guaranteed that the election night delegate winner will be awarded the most delegates. They might drop out later and see their delegates reassigned. They may see their delegates poached by a better-organized candidate, as happened in 2012 when Ron Paul wound up with almost all of Iowa’s delegates despite coming in third on election night.
Yes, indeed, you would have never known it in all the hype leading up to Iowa, but their caucuses have “practically no effect” on who will get the delegates from the Hawkeye state at the Republican National Convention. In 2012, Iowa had 28 delegates at the convention, and according to the New York Times, Ron Paul got 22 of them, Romney got five, and Rick Santorum got zero. One vote is listed as undetermined but probably went for Romney. Ron Paul achieved this by focusing on the real contest, which actually takes place later in the year at county and state party conventions. This is why it is entirely accurate to call the caucuses a “beauty contest” but horribly misleading to suggest that the voters who turn out to provide “Iowa’s Republican Party a sense of the voters’ thinking” have any efficacy whatsoever over who will represent them at the convention.
I find it frustrating that the future of the country could be dramatically altered depending on who is perceived to have won a beauty contest in Iowa. But that’s the situation we’re in, and the smallest of factors could have a tremendous impact on how the candidates finish next week.
Isn’t this system great?


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-28--Republicans Are Trying to Interfere in the 2020 Democratic Primary

To the extent that the 2020 Democratic primary is coming down to a race between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders , Trump and his enablers have weighed in on who they would rather run against .
For example , we ’ ve seen the president tweet things like this : Trump enabler Hugh Hewitt went so far as to publicly announce that he would be voting for Sanders in the Democratic primary in Virginia : On Monday , Jay Sekulow began the presentations from Trump ’ s defense team in the Senate trial by claiming that “ we do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on evidentiary standards at all.
” But it wasn ’ t long before Pam Bondi dismissed all of that and articulated a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden that has no basis in fact .
Andrew Bates , from the Biden campaign , provided this helpful explainer .
Following Bondi ’ s presentation , Eric Herschmann repeated the lies .
So , in a sense , the president ’ s legal team was able to use the Senate impeachment trial to accomplish what Trump had attempted to extort from Ukraine .
In case it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all about promoting the president ’ s political interests , after the presentations from Trump ’ s defense team , Senator Joni Ernst ( R-Iowa ) gleefully said the quiet parts out loud .
In other words , the smear campaign against Joe Biden is an attempt by Republicans to interfere in the Democratic primary to knock him out of contention .
Democratic voters are free to make of this what they will .
But the one thing they can ’ t do is to allow this kind of disinformation campaign based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about opponents is now the modus operandi of Republicans because they are steeped in having to defend the most corrupt president in this country ’ s history .
Disinformation is all they ’ ve got and they will use it mercilessly—especially against an opponent they fear .

To the extent that the 2020 Democratic primary is coming down to a race between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, Trump and his enablers have weighed in on who they would rather run against. For example, we’ve seen the president tweet things like this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1218195035646242820
Trump enabler Hugh Hewitt went so far as to publicly announce that he would be voting for Sanders in the Democratic primary in Virginia:
On Monday, Jay Sekulow began the presentations from Trump’s defense team in the Senate trial by claiming that “we do not deal with speculation—allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards at all.” But it wasn’t long before Pam Bondi dismissed all of that and articulated a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden that has no basis in fact. Andrew Bates, from the Biden campaign, provided this helpful explainer.
Following Bondi’s presentation, Eric Herschmann repeated the lies. So, in a sense, the president’s legal team was able to use the Senate impeachment trial to accomplish what Trump had attempted to extort from Ukraine.
In case it wasn’t clear that this was all about promoting the president’s political interests, after the presentations from Trump’s defense team, Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) gleefully said the quiet parts out loud.
Here’s the quote:
Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening and I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters. Those Democratic caucus goers — will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point? Not as certain about that.
In other words, the smear campaign against Joe Biden is an attempt by Republicans to interfere in the Democratic primary to knock him out of contention.
Democratic voters are free to make of this what they will. But the one thing they can’t do is to allow this kind of disinformation campaign based on conspiracy theories to be effective. Lying about opponents is now the modus operandi of Republicans because they are steeped in having to defend the most corrupt president in this country’s history. Disinformation is all they’ve got and they will use it mercilessly—especially against an opponent they fear.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-29--What Progressives Can Learn From ’60s Radicals

As a member of the 1960s radical left , John Judis has written about why that movement failed and issued a warning to today ’ s progressives about not making the same mistakes .
He begins by noting a speech by anti-war activist Tom Hayden in 1969 .
At the time , many on the new left thought a revolution was imminent .
Major cities had been set ablaze by rioters ; gun-toting members of the Black Panther Party had confronted legislators in Sacramento ; hundreds of thousands were marching against the Vietnam War ; and with Richard Nixon in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abating—the protests were turning violent .
Hayden , too , was confident about what lay ahead .
Perched on the edge of the stage in a denim work shirt and blue jeans , he spelled out his vision for a new American revolution .
I still recall him saying—in the language of the period— “ We already have the blacks , the browns , the women and the students , ” and then adding that if we could also get blue-collar workers , we ’ d have the basis for a revolution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stalled was because they failed to achieve Hayden ’ s vision .
There were always new-left radicals who tried to build bridges .
But by the late ’ 60s , when Hayden was urging outreach to what was then an overwhelmingly white working class , many revolutionaries had abandoned any attempt to create a popular American majority… What also doomed the new left was that…the movement began to splinter into identity groups ; indeed , this was the beginning of what has come to be known as “ identity politics.
” Black nationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feminist groups pursued their own demands with some success , but the larger movement lost a sense of cooperation and coherence .
What Judis failed to acknowledge is that in Chicago , the Black Panther Party was working to create the first Rainbow Coalition , the subject of a film that aired Monday night on PBS ( it is available for streaming on their website ) .
The film depicts the efforts of Chicago Black Panther Party members Fred Hampton and Bobby Lee to form a coalition with members of the Young Lords @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rican and the latter were whites who had migrated from Appalachia to Chicago .
These groups came together to do things like feed children and provide free medical care while fighting against police brutality .
As Fred Hampton said in the clip above , “ we ’ re going to fight racism , not with racism , but we ’ re gon na fight it with solidarity.
” The power of that kind of coalition is demonstrated by the reaction it elicited from the white power structure .
Initially , their efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were arrested and jailed .
But then , on December 4 , 1969 , the apartment where Fred Hampton was sleeping was raided by the police and he was assassinated .
Documents stolen from the FBI in 1971 uncovered the efforts to infiltrate these groups and undermine their work through a program known as COINTELPRO .
They also proved that the assassination of Fred Hampton was carried out under the direction of the FBI .
Back in the 1950s , the FBI initiated this counterintelligence program in order to discredit these militant groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ prevent the rise of a black messiah.
” As Michael Harriot explained on Twitter , by 1969 , “ Stokely Carmichael publicly denounced the Panthers , MLK was dead , Malcolm was dead .
And in Chicago , there was this young kid rising named Fred Hampton.
” I ’ ll let Harriot take it from there .
When Hampton joined the Black Panthers , the feds were worried .
It had nothing to do with violence .
It didn ’ t really have anything to do with the Civil Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different .
Like the others , Hampton started out with mainstream black organizations .
By the time he was a teenager , he was organizing his own youth chapter of the NAACP in his small Illinois suburb .
In a SINGLE YEAR , he had 500 members .
If this sounds like hype , consider this : When Hampton attended his FIRST BPP meeting in Nov. ’ 68 : -the FBI had already opened up a file on him A YEAR EARLIER .
-his phone had been tapped for 9 months .
-he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader ” on the FBI ’ s “ agitator index ” for 5 months In six months , he had brokered a nonaggression pact with every gang in Chicago .
He was teaching gang members the law .
He upset the city hospitals when convinced doctors to volunteer and give FREE medical care .
But this isn ’ t why he was dangerous… 6 months before his death , the charismatic Hampton organized the Conference for the United Front Against Fascism .
Calling the conglomerate the “ Rainbow Coalition , ” the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others .
From July 18-21 , 1969 people from across the US attended the conference , including lawyers , politicians and civil rights activists from all walks of life .
They would all agree that ALL the organizations would fight for black freedom FIVE THOUSAND people attended the conference and they all reached the conclusion that black liberation could only be achieved through armed self-defense and community control of police .
But that wasn ’ t why Hampton was dangerous .
There was a group at the conference called the Young Patriots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Puerto Rican Young Lords promised solidarity , as did The Red Guard , a Chinese American group .
But here is why this was a problem : Of the 5000 people who were in attendance , MOST were white .
Fred was creating a national coalition for armed resistance against racism .
It would be the next phase in the Civil Rights Movement Fred Hampton was assassinated eleven months after the Tom Hayden speech that Judis referenced , which raises the question of whether it was actually the splintering of identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did it begin to die that night in the apartment of a 21-year-old who posed such a threat that he had to be eliminated ?
The film that aired on PBS to document this history ends with the dissolution of the Rainbow Coalition after Hampton ’ s death as leaders went underground .
But they also point to the legacy it left in Chicago .
• In 1974 , Jose “ Cha-Cha ” Jimenez , of the Young Lords , ran for Chicago alderman and got over 40 percent of the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat Edward Hanrahan , the state ’ s attorney responsible for the assassination of Fred Hampton .
• The vision of a Rainbow Coalition helped elect Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago in 1983 .
• Jesse Jackson revived the concept of a Rainbow Coalition during his 1984 presidential campaign .
• Bobby Rush , a member of the Black Panther Party in Chicago , was elected to Congress in 1993 .
• Barack Obama was inspired to move to Chicago in 1985 because of the legacy of the Rainbow Coalition and Harold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carmichael and Charles Hamilton published a book titled Black Power : The Politics of Liberation in America .
They articulated a vision about the kind of coalition Hampton went on to develop in Chicago .
It is hoped that eventually there will be a coalition of poor blacks and poor whites…and we see such a coalition as the major internal instrument of change in American society .
It is purely academic today to talk about bringing poor blacks and poor whites together , but the task of creating a poor-white power block dedicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open society—not one based on racism and subordination—must be attempted .
The main responsibility for this task falls upon whites…Only whites can mobilize and organize those communities along the lines necessary and possible for effective alliances with the black communities .
This job can not be left to the existing institutions and agencies , because those structures , for the most part , are reflections of institutionalized racism .
If the job is to be done , there must be new forms created .
Thus , the political modernization process must involve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I agree with Judis that today ’ s left could learn a lot from these ’ 60s radicals—both their successes and failures .
It is clear that that was the goal of Ray Santisteban in making the film , The First Rainbow Coalition .
That ’ s why I would encourage everyone to watch it .

As a member of the 1960s radical left, John Judis has written about why that movement failed and issued a warning to today’s progressives about not making the same mistakes. He begins by noting a speech by anti-war activist Tom Hayden in 1969.
At the time, many on the new left thought a revolution was imminent. Major cities had been set ablaze by rioters; gun-toting members of the Black Panther Party had confronted legislators in Sacramento; hundreds of thousands were marching against the Vietnam War; and with Richard Nixon in office—and the war showing no signs of abating—the protests were turning violent. Hayden, too, was confident about what lay ahead. Perched on the edge of the stage in a denim work shirt and blue jeans, he spelled out his vision for a new American revolution. I still recall him saying—in the language of the period—“We already have the blacks, the browns, the women and the students,” and then adding that if we could also get blue-collar workers, we’d have the basis for a revolution.
Judis suggests that the reason the movement stalled was because they failed to achieve Hayden’s vision.
There were always new-left radicals who tried to build bridges. But by the late ’60s, when Hayden was urging outreach to what was then an overwhelmingly white working class, many revolutionaries had abandoned any attempt to create a popular American majority… What also doomed the new left was that…the movement began to splinter into identity groups; indeed, this was the beginning of what has come to be known as “identity politics.” Black nationalist and later Latino, Native American and feminist groups pursued their own demands with some success, but the larger movement lost a sense of cooperation and coherence.
What Judis failed to acknowledge is that in Chicago, the Black Panther Party was working to create the first Rainbow Coalition, the subject of a film that aired Monday night on PBS (it is available for streaming on their website).
The film depicts the efforts of Chicago Black Panther Party members Fred Hampton and Bobby Lee to form a coalition with members of the Young Lords and Young Patriots. The former were Puerto Rican and the latter were whites who had migrated from Appalachia to Chicago. These groups came together to do things like feed children and provide free medical care while fighting against police brutality. As Fred Hampton said in the clip above, “we’re going to fight racism, not with racism, but we’re gonna fight it with solidarity.”
The power of that kind of coalition is demonstrated by the reaction it elicited from the white power structure. Initially, their efforts were attacked and sabotaged, while participants were arrested and jailed. But then, on December 4, 1969, the apartment where Fred Hampton was sleeping was raided by the police and he was assassinated.
Documents stolen from the FBI in 1971 uncovered the efforts to infiltrate these groups and undermine their work through a program known as COINTELPRO. They also proved that the assassination of Fred Hampton was carried out under the direction of the FBI.
Back in the 1950s, the FBI initiated this counterintelligence program in order to discredit these militant groups. One of its main goals was to “prevent the rise of a black messiah.”
As Michael Harriot explained on Twitter, by 1969, “Stokely Carmichael publicly denounced the Panthers, MLK was dead, Malcolm was dead. And in Chicago, there was this young kid rising named Fred Hampton.” I’ll let Harriot take it from there.
When Hampton joined the Black Panthers, the feds were worried. It had nothing to do with violence. It didn’t really have anything to do with the Civil Rights Movement. They KNEW Fred Hampton was different. Like the others, Hampton started out with mainstream black organizations. By the time he was a teenager, he was organizing his own youth chapter of the NAACP in his small Illinois suburb. In a SINGLE YEAR, he had 500 members. If this sounds like hype, consider this: When Hampton attended his FIRST BPP meeting in Nov. ’68: -the FBI had already opened up a file on him A YEAR EARLIER.
-his phone had been tapped for 9 months.
-he had been designated as a “key leader” on the FBI’s “agitator index” for 5 months Fred was different, yall. In six months, he had brokered a nonaggression pact with every gang in Chicago. He was teaching gang members the law. He upset the city hospitals when convinced doctors to volunteer and give FREE medical care. But this isn’t why he was dangerous… 6 months before his death, the charismatic Hampton organized the Conference for the United Front Against Fascism. Calling the conglomerate the “Rainbow Coalition,” the group included black gangs, Puerto Rican gangs and others. From July 18-21, 1969 people from across the US attended the conference, including lawyers, politicians and civil rights activists from all walks of life. They would all agree that ALL the organizations would fight for black freedom FIVE THOUSAND people attended the conference and they all reached the conclusion that black liberation could only be achieved through armed self-defense and community control of police. But that wasn’t why Hampton was dangerous. There was a group at the conference called the Young Patriots who adopted the Panthers’ 11-point plan. The Puerto Rican Young Lords promised solidarity, as did The Red Guard, a Chinese American group. But here is why this was a problem: Of the 5000 people who were in attendance, MOST were white. Fred was creating a national coalition for armed resistance against racism. It would be the next phase in the Civil Rights Movement
Fred Hampton was assassinated eleven months after the Tom Hayden speech that Judis referenced, which raises the question of whether it was actually the splintering of identity politics that ended the movement. Or, did it begin to die that night in the apartment of a 21-year-old who posed such a threat that he had to be eliminated?
The film that aired on PBS to document this history ends with the dissolution of the Rainbow Coalition after Hampton’s death as leaders went underground. But they also point to the legacy it left in Chicago.
In 1974, Jose “Cha-Cha” Jimenez, of the Young Lords, ran for Chicago alderman and got over 40 percent of the vote,
Rainbow Coalition members organized to defeat Edward Hanrahan, the state’s attorney responsible for the assassination of Fred Hampton.
The vision of a Rainbow Coalition helped elect Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago in 1983.
Jesse Jackson revived the concept of a Rainbow Coalition during his 1984 presidential campaign.
Bobby Rush, a member of the Black Panther Party in Chicago, was elected to Congress in 1993.
Barack Obama was inspired to move to Chicago in 1985 because of the legacy of the Rainbow Coalition and Harold Washington.
Back in 1967, Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton published a book titled Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. They articulated a vision about the kind of coalition Hampton went on to develop in Chicago.
It is hoped that eventually there will be a coalition of poor blacks and poor whites…and we see such a coalition as the major internal instrument of change in American society. It is purely academic today to talk about bringing poor blacks and poor whites together, but the task of creating a poor-white power block dedicated to the goals of a free, open society—not one based on racism and subordination—must be attempted. The main responsibility for this task falls upon whites…Only whites can mobilize and organize those communities along the lines necessary and possible for effective alliances with the black communities. This job cannot be left to the existing institutions and agencies, because those structures, for the most part, are reflections of institutionalized racism. If the job is to be done, there must be new forms created. Thus, the political modernization process must involve the white community as well as the black.
I agree with Judis that today’s left could learn a lot from these ’60s radicals—both their successes and failures. It is clear that that was the goal of Ray Santisteban in making the film, The First Rainbow Coalition. That’s why I would encourage everyone to watch it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-29--Are Identity Politics Hampering the Current Progressive Movement?

The reason John Judis explored why the radical left of the 1960s failed is because he wanted to issue a warning to the progressive movement that is forming today .
Here is how he defines that movement .
Judis goes on to specifically align those efforts with the presidential candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
He notes that Sanders is advocating for a “ political revolution ” and Warren is running on a platform of “ big , structural change.
” While he points out that today ’ s radical left is positioned to fare better than their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making some of the same mistakes that he identified as the reason the movement failed in the 1960s .
But before he articulates those , Judis catalogues the conditions that led young people to be more amenable to radical ideas .
In doing so , he points to things such as instability in the workforce , the cost of housing , and the decline of unions .
Those were coupled with the disasters of the Iraq War and the Great Depression , followed by the threat of climate change and Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , even though Judis listed Black Lives Matter ( but not organizations like United We Dream ) as part of the new progressive movement , his list doesn ’ t include anything about the racism of police shootings or nativist immigration policies .
That becomes even more critical when his warning to today ’ s progressives echos what he identified as the failure of their predecessors : identity politics .
[ T ] oday ’ s left has become fond of a political strategy that discounts the importance altogether of winning over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy assumes Democrats can gain majorities simply by winning over people of color ( a term that groups people of wildly varying backgrounds , incomes and worldviews ) , single women and the young…the left is again dividing into identity groups , each of which feels justified in elevating its concerns above others… While activists focused on identity politics have , like their predecessors from the ’ 60s , made perfectly reasonable demands—for instance , an end to police brutality , or equal wages for men and women—they have also made extreme demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political majority .
Some have backed reparations for slavery—an idea rejected by broad majorities of the electorate , most of whom are descended from immigrants who came to America after the Civil War .
Other groups have demanded “ open borders , ” defying a majority of Americans who think the country should be able to decide who to admit as citizens and who will be able to enjoy the rights and benefits of being an American .
In the context of talking about the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders , the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importance of winning over the white working class is simply not factual .
Sanders has made that the cornerstone of his entire political career , including his current run for president .
Back in 2014 , Simon Van Zuylen-Wood interviewed Sanders for an article in the National Journal .
Here is how Sanders described his efforts to spark a political revolution .
“ Let me ask you , ” he says , his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch , “ what is the largest voting bloc in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Is it African-Americans ?
No .
Hispanics ?
No .
What ?
” Answer : “ White working-class people.
” Bring them back into the liberal fold , he figures , and you ’ ve got your revolution… “ How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote ?
” Sanders asks me .
The answer , he believes , is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics .
The Left , in turn , can win them back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by downplaying the culture wars—what Ralph Nader once called “ gonadal ” issues—and instead focusing on economic populism .
Here is Sanders expressing that same view at a campaign stop in Georgia last year .
As you can see from that tweet , the criticism of Sanders is often that he attempts to appeal to white working-class voters at the expense of acknowledging racism as a factor .
Judis goes on to suggest that the current left is failing because they have made “ extreme demands ” when it comes to dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility that white working-class voters might find that a Democratic socialist advocating for “ political revolution ” is equally extreme .
In a subtle way , Judis seems to be acknowledging the fact that racism is a factor when it comes to appealing to white working-class voters by calling for moderation on racial issues while embracing extremism on those related to economics .
There is a case to be made that most Americans—including white working-class voters—are not prepared to support extremism on either front .
The real test when it comes to building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing together a coalition of voters .
As Stacey Abrams suggested , that doesn ’ t mean eschewing identity politics , it means letting voters know that “ we see all of you.
” If that message is articulated clearly and some white working-class voters continue to object , it is very likely that racism is involved and they are never going to join a progressive coalition .

The reason John Judis explored why the radical left of the 1960s failed is because he wanted to issue a warning to the progressive movement that is forming today. Here is how he defines that movement.
For nearly a decade now, arguably dating to the Occupy movement of 2011, a new generation of left-wing activism has been stirring. A host of organizations (Indivisible, the Sunrise Movement, 350.org, People’s Action, the Working Families Party, Black Lives Matter, the Justice Democrats, a revived Democratic Socialists of America) and new publications (Jacobin, the Intercept, Current Affairs) are doing what groups like SDS did in the ’60s: elevating left-wing causes and promising dramatic societal change.
Judis goes on to specifically align those efforts with the presidential candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He notes that Sanders is advocating for a “political revolution” and Warren is running on a platform of “big, structural change.”
While he points out that today’s radical left is positioned to fare better than their predecessors, Judis warns that they are making some of the same mistakes that he identified as the reason the movement failed in the 1960s. But before he articulates those, Judis catalogues the conditions that led young people to be more amenable to radical ideas. In doing so, he points to things such as instability in the workforce, the cost of housing, and the decline of unions. Those were coupled with the disasters of the Iraq War and the Great Depression, followed by the threat of climate change and Donald Trump’s presidency.
What stands out is that, even though Judis listed Black Lives Matter (but not organizations like United We Dream) as part of the new progressive movement, his list doesn’t include anything about the racism of police shootings or nativist immigration policies. That becomes even more critical when his warning to today’s progressives echos what he identified as the failure of their predecessors: identity politics.
[T]oday’s left has become fond of a political strategy that discounts the importance altogether of winning over the white working class. Such a strategy assumes Democrats can gain majorities simply by winning over people of color (a term that groups people of wildly varying backgrounds, incomes and worldviews), single women and the young…the left is again dividing into identity groups, each of which feels justified in elevating its concerns above others… While activists focused on identity politics have, like their predecessors from the ’60s, made perfectly reasonable demands—for instance, an end to police brutality, or equal wages for men and women—they have also made extreme demands that display an indifference to building a political majority. Some have backed reparations for slavery—an idea rejected by broad majorities of the electorate, most of whom are descended from immigrants who came to America after the Civil War. Other groups have demanded “open borders,” defying a majority of Americans who think the country should be able to decide who to admit as citizens and who will be able to enjoy the rights and benefits of being an American.
In the context of talking about the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the idea that today’s left has discounted the importance of winning over the white working class is simply not factual. Sanders has made that the cornerstone of his entire political career, including his current run for president. Back in 2014, Simon Van Zuylen-Wood interviewed Sanders for an article in the National Journal. Here is how Sanders described his efforts to spark a political revolution.
“Let me ask you,” he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, “what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What?” Answer: “White working-class people.” Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and you’ve got your revolution… “How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote?” Sanders asks me. The answer, he believes, is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics. The Left, in turn, can win them back, along with other white working-class voters, by downplaying the culture wars—what Ralph Nader once called “gonadal” issues—and instead focusing on economic populism.
Here is Sanders expressing that same view at a campaign stop in Georgia last year.
https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/status/1202602091761422337
As you can see from that tweet, the criticism of Sanders is often that he attempts to appeal to white working-class voters at the expense of acknowledging racism as a factor.
Judis goes on to suggest that the current left is failing because they have made “extreme demands” when it comes to dealing with racism. But he ignores the possibility that white working-class voters might find that a Democratic socialist advocating for “political revolution” is equally extreme. In a subtle way, Judis seems to be acknowledging the fact that racism is a factor when it comes to appealing to white working-class voters by calling for moderation on racial issues while embracing extremism on those related to economics.
There is a case to be made that most Americans—including white working-class voters—are not prepared to support extremism on either front. The real test when it comes to building a progressive majority is the challenge of bringing together a coalition of voters. As Stacey Abrams suggested, that doesn’t mean eschewing identity politics, it means letting voters know that “we see all of you.”
If that message is articulated clearly and some white working-class voters continue to object, it is very likely that racism is involved and they are never going to join a progressive coalition.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-29--Trump’s Geofencing Could Be a Potent Political Issue

Donald Trump ’ s digital advantage may be freaking out Democratic strategists , but what should worry everyone is the technology itself .
What makes Trump ’ s operation so formidable is not so much his investment in digital or any particular architecture that he ’ s built .
It ’ s more that he ’ s able to take advantage of monitoring people through their cell phones .
To be clear , the Democrats can and will do the exact same thing .
The problem isn ’ t the candidate , but the capability .
Thomas Edsall discusses this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times .
It begins with geofencing , a practice that involves tracking every cell phone that enters a predefined area , like a church or MAGA rally .
Armed with these phone numbers , identities can be sussed out from other commercial databases , and then people can be sorted by how frequently they vote , their party registration ( if any ) , and all manner of personal information : If you attend an evangelical or a Catholic Church , a women ’ s rights march or a political rally of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , the odds are that your cellphone ID number , home address , partisan affiliation and the identifying information of the people around you will be provided by geofencing marketers to campaigns , lobbyists and other interest groups… …The data generally provides information about individual users ’ day-to-day activities and preferences : Where they shop ; What they do for fun ; What other apps they use , for how long , and what they do in those apps ; Where they live ; Where they work ; With whom they associate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holds political rallies simply because he enjoys the adulation , but that ’ s not the real purpose .
His campaign manager Brad Pascale recently boasted about the information he harvests from MAGA rallies : Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans .
Remarkably , 4,413 attendees didn ’ t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were previously not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of identified supporters at President Trump ’ s rally in Toledo , Ohio , were Democrats , and another 21 percent were independents .
An astounding 15 percent of identified voters who saw the president speak in Battle Creek , Michigan , has not voted in any of the last four elections .
In Hershey , Pennsylvania , just over 20 percent of identified voters at the rally were Democrats , and 18 percent were nonwhite .
It ’ s astonishing that the Trump campaign can so easily get this level of insight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Democratic candidates can do the same thing , and they really ought to be doing it if they want to compete on an even playing field .
You might think that you can just anonymously attend a church service or political rally , but that ’ s no longer true if you bring your cell phone .
There are some steps you can take to make it more difficult to track your online activities or what apps you use , but they ’ re probably insufficient to fully safeguard your privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve been , and they ’ ll be able to target you with political advertising designed just for you .
Trump has been aggressively using this capability throughout his whole first term , which may help explain , in part , why he ’ s able to maintain such a high floor in his approval numbers .
More importantly , he now has a big advantage over whoever winds up running against him in the general election .
The American people never meaningfully consented to this invasion of their privacy and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of being tracked or manipulated through targeted advertising .
Perhaps in the future , this could become a potent political issue , with voters rewarding candidates who promise to regulate this industry so that folks can go to church without the government watching .

Donald Trump’s digital advantage may be freaking out Democratic strategists, but what should worry everyone is the technology itself. What makes Trump’s operation so formidable is not so much his investment in digital or any particular architecture that he’s built. It’s more that he’s able to take advantage of monitoring people through their cell phones.
To be clear, the Democrats can and will do the exact same thing. The problem isn’t the candidate, but the capability.
Thomas Edsall discusses this in a piece for the New York Times. It begins with geofencing, a practice that involves tracking every cell phone that enters a predefined area, like a church or MAGA rally. Armed with these phone numbers, identities can be sussed out from other commercial databases, and then people can be sorted by how frequently they vote, their party registration (if any), and all manner of personal information:
If you attend an evangelical or a Catholic Church, a women’s rights march or a political rally of any kind, especially in a seriously contested state, the odds are that your cellphone ID number, home address, partisan affiliation and the identifying information of the people around you will be provided by geofencing marketers to campaigns, lobbyists and other interest groups… …The data generally provides information about individual users’ day-to-day activities and preferences: Where they shop; What they do for fun; What other apps they use, for how long, and what they do in those apps; Where they live; Where they work; With whom they associate.
You might think that Donald Trump holds political rallies simply because he enjoys the adulation, but that’s not the real purpose. His campaign manager Brad Pascale recently boasted about the information he harvests from MAGA rallies:
Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans. Remarkably, 4,413 attendees didn’t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were previously not engaged in politics… … Nearly 22 percent of identified supporters at President Trump’s rally in Toledo, Ohio, were Democrats, and another 21 percent were independents. An astounding 15 percent of identified voters who saw the president speak in Battle Creek, Michigan, has not voted in any of the last four elections. In Hershey, Pennsylvania, just over 20 percent of identified voters at the rally were Democrats, and 18 percent were nonwhite.
It’s astonishing that the Trump campaign can so easily get this level of insight about the people who attend their rallies. But Democratic candidates can do the same thing, and they really ought to be doing it if they want to compete on an even playing field.
You might think that you can just anonymously attend a church service or political rally, but that’s no longer true if you bring your cell phone. There are some steps you can take to make it more difficult to track your online activities or what apps you use, but they’re probably insufficient to fully safeguard your privacy. The campaigns will know where you’ve been, and they’ll be able to target you with political advertising designed just for you.
Trump has been aggressively using this capability throughout his whole first term, which may help explain, in part, why he’s able to maintain such a high floor in his approval numbers. More importantly, he now has a big advantage over whoever winds up running against him in the general election.
The American people never meaningfully consented to this invasion of their privacy and I don’t think they like the idea of being tracked or manipulated through targeted advertising. Perhaps in the future, this could become a potent political issue, with voters rewarding candidates who promise to regulate this industry so that folks can go to church without the government watching.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-30--Why Did Bolton Tell Engel to Look Into the Removal of Yovanovitch?

During the impeachment hearings in the House , Republicans claimed that the firing of Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was within the president ’ s prerogative .
In addition , when confronted with evidence that his demands for investigations weren ’ t part of official U.S. foreign policy , they asserted that it is the president , not his staff , who determine this country ’ s foreign policy .
Those same arguments have been repeated by the president ’ s defense team during the Senate trial .
On Wednesday , news broke about a telephone call in late September between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Foreign Affairs Committee Chief Elliot Engel .
According to Engel , during a private phone conversation in late September , shortly after Bolton was fired , Bolton told him— “ unprompted ” —that the House Foreign Affairs Committee should look into the ouster of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch .
“ He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv , ” Engel said in his statement .
Given the fact that it is true that U.S. ambassadors serve at the pleasure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on the ouster of Yovanovitch ?
There is strong evidence to suggest that the firing of the ambassador was a quid pro quo in response to demands made by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko .
But it is also true that Trump and Giuliani had good reasons for wanting to get rid of her .
She was tireless in her efforts to work with Ukrainians to fight corruption in their country .
That was to her credit when it came to carrying out official U.S. policy in that country .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempt to extort Zelensky into digging up dirt on his political opponent , the president ’ s personal interests superseded official policy .
Yovanovitch became an obstacle at that point and had to be removed and replaced .
Gordon Sondland and the three amigos were charged to work with Giuliani to carry out the president ’ s agenda .
Here ’ s what I wrote about that during the House hearings .
I was struck by the testimony of several people during the impeachment hearings about how Gordon Sondland presented the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ambassador to the European Union , the president had put him in charge of diplomatic efforts with Ukraine .
On Wednesday , Sondland stated that he had stepped into that role because , with the ouster of Yovanovitch , there was no ambassador to Ukraine .
So Sondland took over—which left the three amigos ( Sondland , Volker , and Perry ) in charge… [ During her testimony , Fiona ] Hill explained that Sondland was involved in a “ domestic political errand , and we were involved in national security foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverged.
” When Ambassador Taylor talked about a “ regular ” and “ irregular ” channel at work , that is what he was referring to .
Trump and his allies knew that they had to get Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way to open up a lane for the domestic political errand , which involved aiming Ukranian corruption at Joe Biden and the 2020 election .
When Bolton told Engel that something improper had occurred around Yovanovich ’ s removal , this might be what he was referring to .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about these events .
While the president ’ s defenders are right to suggest that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president and that the commander-in-chief sets foreign policy , those standards don ’ t apply when Trump ’ s aim was to abuse his power in support of his own political interests .

During the impeachment hearings in the House, Republicans claimed that the firing of Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was within the president’s prerogative. In addition, when confronted with evidence that his demands for investigations weren’t part of official U.S. foreign policy, they asserted that it is the president, not his staff, who determine this country’s foreign policy. Those same arguments have been repeated by the president’s defense team during the Senate trial.
On Wednesday, news broke about a telephone call in late September between former National Security Advisor John Bolton and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Elliot Engel.
According to Engel, during a private phone conversation in late September, shortly after Bolton was fired, Bolton told him—“unprompted”—that the House Foreign Affairs Committee should look into the ouster of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. “He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv,” Engel said in his statement.
Given the fact that it is true that U.S. ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, why would Bolton zero in on the ouster of Yovanovitch?
There is strong evidence to suggest that the firing of the ambassador was a quid pro quo in response to demands made by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko. But it is also true that Trump and Giuliani had good reasons for wanting to get rid of her. She was tireless in her efforts to work with Ukrainians to fight corruption in their country. That was to her credit when it came to carrying out official U.S. policy in that country.
But when Trump’s policy in Ukraine became an attempt to extort Zelensky into digging up dirt on his political opponent, the president’s personal interests superseded official policy. Yovanovitch became an obstacle at that point and had to be removed. Gordon Sondland, as one of the three amigos, was then charged to work with Giuliani to carry out the president’s agenda. Here’s what I wrote about that during the House hearings.
I was struck by the testimony of several people during the impeachment hearings about how Gordon Sondland presented the idea that, even though he was the Ambassador to the European Union, the president had put him in charge of diplomatic efforts with Ukraine. On Wednesday, Sondland stated that he had stepped into that role because, with the ouster of Yovanovitch, there was no ambassador to Ukraine. So Sondland took over—which left the three amigos (Sondland, Volker, and Perry) in charge… [During her testimony, Fiona] Hill explained that Sondland was involved in a “domestic political errand, and we were involved in national security foreign policy, and those two things had just diverged.” When Ambassador Taylor talked about a “regular” and “irregular” channel at work, that is what he was referring to. Trump and his allies knew that they had to get Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way to open up a lane for the domestic political errand, which involved aiming Ukranian corruption at Joe Biden and the 2020 election.
When Bolton told Engel that something improper had occurred around Yovanovich’s removal, this might be what he was referring to. It is also possible that he has additional information about these events.
While the president’s defenders are right to suggest that ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president and that the commander-in-chief sets foreign policy, those standards don’t apply when Trump’s aim was to abuse his power in support of his own political interests.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-30--Why Democracies Are in Decline

Why Democracies Are in Decline

There are governments and systems claiming they are democratically legitimate .
Some of the worst offenders use democratic tools to say that they are free and open societies .
Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin , for example , uses elections , suggesting that mere voting makes his presidency valid and legitimate .
Here ’ s the rub : In Putin ’ s Russia , he disqualifies , sidelines , arrests , or destroys any credible opposition to his one-man rule .
The result ?
Those who go to the polls have the right to choose , but only from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is that democracy ?
Freedom of speech is another democratic feature .
But not all speech is created equal .
A joke told in the Soviet Union when I lived there in 1991 was often repeated by Ronald Reagan : An American visiting Moscow crows about U.S. freedoms and tells a Soviet friend , “ I can demonstrate in Washington , go into the White House , see President Reagan and tell him he ’ s a lousy , no good president.
” The Soviet tells him he has the exact same freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks the dumbfounded American .
“ Yes , ” says the Muscovite .
“ I can demonstrate at Lenin ’ s tomb , walk into the Kremlin , find General Secretary Gorbachev ’ s office , irately pound on his desk , and tell him what a lousy , no good president Ronald Reagan is.
” Democracy in name is not necessarily democracy in deed .
That ’ s why so many authoritarian and totalitarian states fondly flaunt “ democracy ” in their titles .
North Korea , for example , is officially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea .
Go figure .
There is no truth in that advertising .
Voting is only part of the equation defining democracy .
The other part requires an informed citizenry where everyone has the franchise .
Democracy relies on its participants knowing what they are voting for or against .
There are all kinds of tricks to keep people from figuring out what they are really pulling a lever to achieve .
Those include referendums that implore you to vote “ No ” for something while actually wording things to allow the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quash .
Brexit is a good example of confusing the electorate .
European “ Leave ” and “ Remain ” stories became misleadingly muddled by the time the referendum was help .
Did Brits vote for greater sovereignty if they voted against the European Union ?
Would Scotland or Ireland agree that an independent Great Britain assured a stronger union at home ?
These are unanswered questions , but they exemplify how a plebiscite can be gamed and voters confounded .
Information is the key to giving individuals power and insight into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all .
For this reason , we are often at sea in this new digitally driven , internet-dominated , social-media-sloshing information environment , where a tsunami of data is coming at hyperspeed .
Given the data deluge , our ability to judge and value that information is severely diminished .
How can we know if someone is telling the truth , an advocate is supporting our interests , or a candidate represents our views ?
For every site or post that reinforces our opinions and beliefs , there is an equal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferred narrative and understanding .
And most seem real and credible .
Yikes !
In a world where democracy is a test—and in an era where we have less and less time to study—a citizen ’ s abilities and responsibilities are challenged .
In fact , they may be at a breaking point .
This suits demagogues and dictators just fine .
They are not friends of democracy .
They just like to claim that they are .
So they do whatever they can to add to the cacophony , contribute to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being heard and credible alternative narratives from being told .
Suppressing information is the favored tactic of these scoundrels .
That ’ s why strongman Nicolás Maduro has forced AT & T ’ s DirecTV to yank CNN and BBC from being broadcast in Venezuela .
It ’ s why Russia and China are experimenting with plans to cut off their countries from the internet .
And it ’ s why in the United States , with Facebook allowing fake news sites and prevaricating political speech to be propagated , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and equivocating candidates .
Democracy is a test , and we are less equipped than ever to pass it .

There are governments and systems claiming they are democratically legitimate. Some of the worst offenders use democratic tools to say that they are free and open societies.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin, for example, uses elections, suggesting that mere voting makes his presidency valid and legitimate. Here’s the rub: In Putin’s Russia, he disqualifies, sidelines, arrests, or destroys any credible opposition to his one-man rule. The result? Those who go to the polls have the right to choose, but only from a winnowed-down list of survivors and sycophants. Is that democracy?
Freedom of speech is another democratic feature. But not all speech is created equal. A joke told in the Soviet Union when I lived there in 1991 was often repeated by Ronald Reagan:
An American visiting Moscow crows about U.S. freedoms and tells a Soviet friend, “I can demonstrate in Washington, go into the White House, see President Reagan and tell him he’s a lousy, no good president.”
The Soviet tells him he has the exact same freedom of expression. “Really?” asks the dumbfounded American.
“Yes,” says the Muscovite. “I can demonstrate at Lenin’s tomb, walk into the Kremlin, find General Secretary Gorbachev’s office, irately pound on his desk, and tell him what a lousy, no good president Ronald Reagan is.”
Democracy in name is not necessarily democracy in deed. That’s why so many authoritarian and totalitarian states fondly flaunt “democracy” in their titles. North Korea, for example, is officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Go figure. There is no truth in that advertising.
Voting is only part of the equation defining democracy. The other part requires an informed citizenry where everyone has the franchise.
Democracy relies on its participants knowing what they are voting for or against. There are all kinds of tricks to keep people from figuring out what they are really pulling a lever to achieve. Those include referendums that implore you to vote “No” for something while actually wording things to allow the very thing you believe you are voting to quash.
Brexit is a good example of confusing the electorate. European “Leave” and “Remain” stories became misleadingly muddled by the time the referendum was help. Did Brits vote for greater sovereignty if they voted against the European Union? Would Scotland or Ireland agree that an independent Great Britain assured a stronger union at home? These are unanswered questions, but they exemplify how a plebiscite can be gamed and voters confounded.
Information is the key to giving individuals power and insight into the democratic process. Knowledge is power, after all. For this reason, we are often at sea in this new digitally driven, internet-dominated, social-media-sloshing information environment, where a tsunami of data is coming at hyperspeed. Given the data deluge, our ability to judge and value that information is severely diminished. How can we know if someone is telling the truth, an advocate is supporting our interests, or a candidate represents our views? For every site or post that reinforces our opinions and beliefs, there is an equal or greater number of datapoints to counter our preferred narrative and understanding. And most seem real and credible. Yikes!
In a world where democracy is a test—and in an era where we have less and less time to study—a citizen’s abilities and responsibilities are challenged. In fact, they may be at a breaking point.
This suits demagogues and dictators just fine. They are not friends of democracy. They just like to claim that they are. So they do whatever they can to add to the cacophony, contribute to the misinformation or prevent rational and reasonable voices from being heard and credible alternative narratives from being told.
Suppressing information is the favored tactic of these scoundrels. That’s why strongman Nicolás Maduro has forced AT&T’s DirecTV to yank CNN and BBC from being broadcast in Venezuela. It’s why Russia and China are experimenting with plans to cut off their countries from the internet. And it’s why in the United States, with Facebook allowing fake news sites and prevaricating political speech to be propagated, we have an information environment of competing false claims and equivocating candidates.
Democracy is a test, and we are less equipped than ever to pass it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-30--Can John Roberts Break Ties in the Impeachment Trial?

When it comes to impeachment , the Constitution is frustratingly vague about what warrants conviction , but looking at Article I , Section III , it ’ s also unclear about whether or not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is allowed to vote in the case of ties .
Pay particular attention to the parts I have bolded .
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate , but shall have no Vote , unless they be equally divided .
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers , and also a President pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President , or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States .
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments .
When sitting for that Purpose , they shall be on Oath or Affirmation .
When the President of the United States is tried , the Chief Justice shall preside : And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present .
Here is what is unambiguous .
Since each state was granted two senators , it was assured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an even number of members .
This necessitated a mechanism for breaking a tie , and that power was assigned to the vice-president who is referred to as “ the president ” of the Senate .
When the Senate is hearing an impeachment case for the president of the United States ( but not impeachments of other officers ) , the Chief Justice is to “ preside.
” Presumably , this is primarily because the vice-president would stand to become president if there is a conviction and so would have a conflict of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonus that the Chief Justice isn ’ t an elected official and presumably can be impartial , lessening the chance that a presidential trial will be seen as a strictly partisan exercise .
Here is where things get complicated .
The section does not specifically say that the Chief Justice can break ties , and ties may not have been contemplated at all since the requirement for conviction is a two-thirds majority .
The possibility of procedural ties during the trial could have escaped the Framers ’ imagination .
Yet , common sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve the same purpose when he “ presides ” over the Senate as the vice-president does when he serves as its “ president.
” This is why I don ’ t really understand Senator Chris Murphy ’ s position here : Sen. Murphy describes the Constitution accurately , but I don ’ t think he ’ s logically thought this through .
Just based on the etymology , it ’ s clear that the person who “ presides ” over a meeting is the “ president ” of that body , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on nothing more than an editorial decision not to be repetitive back in 1787 .
When the Chief Justice “ presides ” over the Senate , he is serving as “ the president ” or “ presider.
” It should be assumed that the language intended to confer all the same powers to the Chief Justice as were normally enjoyed by the vice-president .
This obviously should have been made explicit , but since there are no ties in a two-thirds vote , this probably did not seem necessary .
This question could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the votes on whether or not to call witnesses and end the trial .
If three Republicans and all Democrats vote for witnesses , the chamber will be deadlocked at 50-50 .
The presumption is that a motion fails in a tie-vote .
So , unless Roberts voted with the Democrats , no witnesses would be called .
There ’ s another reason to question Sen. Murphy ’ s opinion , and that ’ s based on precedent .
In the one prior case we have to examine , not only did the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate upheld his right to do so .
Now , the Senate could vote differently this time around .
But that would come as a high cost in how the vote is perceived .
Some wavering senators might be willing to vote against witnesses but not to vote to override John Roberts .
I have no idea what Roberts thinks about his role or what fairness demands in this trial , so I can ’ t predict what he might do .
But I do think he has a logical right to cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are enough Republican votes in favor of witnesses that Roberts won ’ t have to decide , but if he doesn ’ t cast a tie-breaking vote I ’ ll see that as shirking his duty .

When it comes to impeachment, the Constitution is frustratingly vague about what warrants conviction, but looking at Article I, Section III, it’s also unclear about whether or not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is allowed to vote in the case of ties. Pay particular attention to the parts I have bolded.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Here is what is unambiguous. Since each state was granted two senators, it was assured that a full Senate would always have an even number of members. This necessitated a mechanism for breaking a tie, and that power was assigned to the vice-president who is referred to as “the president” of the Senate. When the Senate is hearing an impeachment case for the president of the United States (but not impeachments of other officers), the Chief Justice is to “preside.” Presumably, this is primarily because the vice-president would stand to become president if there is a conviction and so would have a conflict of interest. There’s the added bonus that the Chief Justice isn’t an elected official and presumably can be impartial, lessening the chance that a presidential trial will be seen as a strictly partisan exercise.
Here is where things get complicated. The section does not specifically say that the Chief Justice can break ties, and ties may not have been contemplated at all since the requirement for conviction is a two-thirds majority. The possibility of procedural ties during the trial could have escaped the Framers’ imagination.
Yet, common sense would suggest that the Chief Justice is to serve the same purpose when he “presides” over the Senate as the vice-president does when he serves as its “president.” This is why I don’t really understand Senator Chris Murphy’s position here:
“I don’t want [Chief Justice John] Roberts voting. That to me is pretty clear that the Constitution specifically gives the power to the vice president to break ties, it’s silent on that matter in an impeachment trial. Which leads me to the opinion that he’s not supposed to vote,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Sen. Murphy describes the Constitution accurately, but I don’t think he’s logically thought this through. Just based on the etymology, it’s clear that the person who “presides” over a meeting is the “president” of that body, and any confusion here is most likely based on nothing more than an editorial decision not to be repetitive back in 1787. When the Chief Justice “presides” over the Senate, he is serving as “the president” or “presider.” It should be assumed that the language intended to confer all the same powers to the Chief Justice as were normally enjoyed by the vice-president. This obviously should have been made explicit, but since there are no ties in a two-thirds vote, this probably did not seem necessary.
This question could come to the fore on Friday in the votes on whether or not to call witnesses and end the trial. If three Republicans and all Democrats vote for witnesses, the chamber will be deadlocked at 50-50. The presumption is that a motion fails in a tie-vote. So, unless Roberts voted with the Democrats, no witnesses would be called.
There’s another reason to question Sen. Murphy’s opinion, and that’s based on precedent.
…during the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Salmon Chase did break ties, to great controversy. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to think the Johnson precedent is telling. Chase voted twice during the Johnson impeachment trial when the Senate deadlocked on the issue of whether to retire to debate questions that had arisen during the proceedings. When Sens. Charles Sumner (R-Mass.) and Charles Drake (R-Mo.) raised objections to Chase’s actions, the Senate sustained the chief justice’s ability to vote. Chase declined to break a third tie.
In the one prior case we have to examine, not only did the Chief Justice break ties, but the Senate upheld his right to do so.
Now, the Senate could vote differently this time around. But that would come as a high cost in how the vote is perceived. Some wavering senators might be willing to vote against witnesses but not to vote to override John Roberts.
I have no idea what Roberts thinks about his role or what fairness demands in this trial, so I can’t predict what he might do. But I do think he has a logical right to cast tie-breaking votes. My hope is that there are enough Republican votes in favor of witnesses that Roberts won’t have to decide, but if he doesn’t cast a tie-breaking vote I’ll see that as shirking his duty.