washingtonmonthly--2020-01-23--The Threat of Trump’s Trade Agenda

The Threat of Trump’s Trade Agenda

Democrats should be pleased with the successful negotiations over the USMCA and the deal ’ s passage in the Senate .
While the trade agreement ’ s scope is clearly quite limited—and more work remains to be done on the environmental impact of continental trade—the pact achieves some much-needed tariff reduction , modernizes some aspects of digital trade , and helps to improve labor standards in Mexico .
Importantly , House Democrats were able to negotiate stronger labor rights for workers on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border , with more effective enforcement provisions for those rights , which helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all positive steps that will help American workers and businesses .
All that said , Democrats can not wash their hands of trade policy now that the USMCA has been completed .
Quite simply , the deal is only a minor piece of the president ’ s overall trade strategy .
His larger trade agenda is undoubtedly malignant .
He has attempted to tear down the global trading system by illegally circumventing the legislative branch—moves that must be challenged strongly by Congressional Democrats .
Otherwise , their win on the USMCA will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy that has created major losses for incomes , jobs , and the rule of law .
Perhaps the most dangerous element of Trump ’ s trade strategy is how it has been implemented through powers not legally granted to the president .
For Trump to pass a new trade agreement or implement tariffs on a foreign country , he must go to Congress and win their stamp of approval , as he has done with the USMCA .
But he knew full well that Congress would never support the other elements of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico , the EU , and Japan , among others .
That ’ s why Trump unilaterally introduced them .
First , he has implemented steel and aluminum tariffs against the aforementioned key US allies and trading partners using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act , which allows the president to bypass Congress in order to place tariffs on imports that are a threat to American national security .
Of course , the notion that these tariffs meet a legitimate national security obligation is ludicrous .
Even so , former Defense Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic steel and aluminum manufacturing are enough to meet the military ’ s needs .
Furthermore , the raw material needed to produce aluminum in the first place—bauxite—is not even manufactured in the U.S. , so if all of our allies somehow decided to embargo the United States , it wouldn ’ t matter if aluminum production was located in the country or not ; they could simply embargo bauxite instead .
More alarmingly , Trump himself constantly justifies these “ national security tariffs ” on other grounds .
In June 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were meant as a response to Canadian tariffs on U.S. dairy exports ; earlier this month , he said that new tariffs on Argentine and Brazilian steel were meant to retaliate against their currency manipulation .
Second , Trump threatened to place tariffs on all Mexican imports in May unless Mexico agreed to an immigration deal with the administration , using tariff authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act .
But the IEEPA doesn ’ t give the president that authority .
It doesn ’ t even mention tariff policy in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives the president the power to impose economic sanctions when there is an “ unusual and extraordinary ” threat to the country .
That rationale has only been used to sanction enemies of the U.S. such as Iran , Iraq , Libya , and Sudan .
In this case , Trump is using certain laws to grant himself extraordinary powers that the law doesn ’ t grant him .
The threat to the rule of law here is significant : Trump has clearly taken for himself the governing powers granted to Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s abuse of power in the Ukraine scandal through an impeachment inquiry , they must also stand up to his brazen disregard for the rule of law on trade .
Challenging this abuse is especially urgent because its consequences are so large : the president ’ s abuse of his authority is inflicting significant economic harm on American workers and businesses .
The most alarming recent trade action by the administration has been its forced closure of the World Trade Organization .
Last February , the US took China to the WTO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided to Chinese producers at the expense of American farmers and won , with the WTO ruling that the Chinese subsidies violated WTO rules .
Then , last month , this dispute resolution system—the Appellate Body—was shut down by the Trump administration when it vetoed the appointment of new judges .
There is no other binding mechanism for countries to appeal protectionist measures taken by another nation .
Therefore , if China were to introduce new subsidies to its grain producers , as it did last year , the U.S. would have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end this dispute resolution system will be a devastating blow to the rules-based system that has largely governed global trade since 1945 .
It will likely lead to the increased use of tariffs and other barriers to trade against the United States .
It will prevent the U.S. from taking foreign countries to court when they harm American exports and workers .
In fact , of the 15 rulings by the WTO ’ s Appellate Body in U.S.-China disputes since 2002 , the body has ruled in favor of the US 11 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times .
Why would the American president want to get rid of it ?
A more protectionist world , with more tariffs imposed by the U.S. and foreign countries alike , will have significant costs to our economy , resulting in the loss of jobs and incomes .
Billed as a way to rebuild U.S. manufacturing , Trump ’ s trade policies have actually led to a major decline in manufacturing activity : In December , American manufacturing was at its weakest level since June 2009 , according to the Institute for Supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drying up of foreign markets has led to an annualized 0.4 % decline in U.S. exports since March 2018 , compared to a 9.2 % increase from March 2017 to March 2018 .
Overall , the president ’ s trade agenda has destroyed more than 300,000 jobs , reduced growth by at least 0.6 % , and caused an income loss of over $ 1,000 to the average American household .
While Democratic support for the USMCA should be applauded , it can only be the first part of a comprehensive strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade agenda .
If Democrats allow the president to continue on this path without opposition , they will only embolden Trump to destroy the global trading system and continue trampling on the Constitutional role of Congress .

Democrats should be pleased with the successful negotiations over the USMCA and the deal’s passage in the Senate. While the trade agreement’s scope is clearly quite limited—and more work remains to be done on the environmental impact of continental trade—the pact achieves some much-needed tariff reduction, modernizes some aspects of digital trade, and helps to improve labor standards in Mexico. Importantly, House Democrats were able to negotiate stronger labor rights for workers on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, with more effective enforcement provisions for those rights, which helped give the deal more teeth. These are all positive steps that will help American workers and businesses.
All that said, Democrats cannot wash their hands of trade policy now that the USMCA has been completed. Quite simply, the deal is only a minor piece of the president’s overall trade strategy. His larger trade agenda is undoubtedly malignant. He has attempted to tear down the global trading system by illegally circumventing the legislative branch—moves that must be challenged strongly by Congressional Democrats. Otherwise, their win on the USMCA will be significantly undermined by a broader trade policy that has created major losses for incomes, jobs, and the rule of law.
Perhaps the most dangerous element of Trump’s trade strategy is how it has been implemented through powers not legally granted to the president. For Trump to pass a new trade agreement or implement tariffs on a foreign country, he must go to Congress and win their stamp of approval, as he has done with the USMCA. But he knew full well that Congress would never support the other elements of his trade agenda —tariffs on Canada, Mexico, the EU, and Japan, among others. That’s why Trump unilaterally introduced them.
First, he has implemented steel and aluminum tariffs against the aforementioned key US allies and trading partners using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows the president to bypass Congress in order to place tariffs on imports that are a threat to American national security. Of course, the notion that these tariffs meet a legitimate national security obligation is ludicrous. Even so, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stated that current levels of domestic steel and aluminum manufacturing are enough to meet the military’s needs. Furthermore, the raw material needed to produce aluminum in the first place—bauxite—is not even manufactured in the U.S., so if all of our allies somehow decided to embargo the United States, it wouldn’t matter if aluminum production was located in the country or not; they could simply embargo bauxite instead. More alarmingly, Trump himself constantly justifies these “national security tariffs” on other grounds. In June 2018, he tweeted that the tariffs on Canada were meant as a response to Canadian tariffs on U.S. dairy exports; earlier this month, he said that new tariffs on Argentine and Brazilian steel were meant to retaliate against their currency manipulation.
Second, Trump threatened to place tariffs on all Mexican imports in May unless Mexico agreed to an immigration deal with the administration, using tariff authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But the IEEPA doesn’t give the president that authority. It doesn’t even mention tariff policy in the first place. Instead, the legislation gives the president the power to impose economic sanctions when there is an “unusual and extraordinary” threat to the country. That rationale has only been used to sanction enemies of the U.S. such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan. In this case, Trump is using certain laws to grant himself extraordinary powers that the law doesn’t grant him. The threat to the rule of law here is significant: Trump has clearly taken for himself the governing powers granted to Congress. Just as Democrats are challenging the president’s abuse of power in the Ukraine scandal through an impeachment inquiry, they must also stand up to his brazen disregard for the rule of law on trade.
Challenging this abuse is especially urgent because its consequences are so large: the president’s abuse of his authority is inflicting significant economic harm on American workers and businesses.
The most alarming recent trade action by the administration has been its forced closure of the World Trade Organization. Last February, the US took China to the WTO over illegal grain subsidies that were being provided to Chinese producers at the expense of American farmers and won, with the WTO ruling that the Chinese subsidies violated WTO rules. Then, last month, this dispute resolution system—the Appellate Body—was shut down by the Trump administration when it vetoed the appointment of new judges. There is no other binding mechanism for countries to appeal protectionist measures taken by another nation. Therefore, if China were to introduce new subsidies to its grain producers, as it did last year, the U.S. would have no recourse.
Trump’s actions to end this dispute resolution system will be a devastating blow to the rules-based system that has largely governed global trade since 1945. It will likely lead to the increased use of tariffs and other barriers to trade against the United States. It will prevent the U.S. from taking foreign countries to court when they harm American exports and workers. In fact, of the 15 rulings by the WTO’s Appellate Body in U.S.-China disputes since 2002, the body has ruled in favor of the US 11 times and in favor of China just 4 times. Why would the American president want to get rid of it?
A more protectionist world, with more tariffs imposed by the U.S. and foreign countries alike, will have significant costs to our economy, resulting in the loss of jobs and incomes. Billed as a way to rebuild U.S. manufacturing, Trump’s trade policies have actually led to a major decline in manufacturing activity: In December, American manufacturing was at its weakest level since June 2009, according to the Institute for Supply Management.
What’s more, the drying up of foreign markets has led to an annualized 0.4% decline in U.S. exports since March 2018, compared to a 9.2% increase from March 2017 to March 2018. Overall, the president’s trade agenda has destroyed more than 300,000 jobs, reduced growth by at least 0.6%, and caused an income loss of over $1,000 to the average American household.
While Democratic support for the USMCA should be applauded, it can only be the first part of a comprehensive strategy to challenge the president’s protectionist trade agenda. If Democrats allow the president to continue on this path without opposition, they will only embolden Trump to destroy the global trading system and continue trampling on the Constitutional role of Congress.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-22--The Senate Trial and the Death of Reason

The reviews are in for the first day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial .
For example : The House managers were organized and prepared .
They came with facts and evidence , while the president ’ s defense team came armed with lies and what appeared to be a case of impaired hearing .
In addition , they made it clear that they are adopting the president ’ s line of defense .
Even most Republican Senators don ’ t buy that line .
While they are willing to admit that the president might have done something wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
But as Martin Longman has already pointed out , none of that matters .
To understand why , take a look at these two reactions to the presentation made by Representative Hakeem Jeffries .
With Fox News and the rest of the right-wing propaganda network providing the filter through which one side of the political divide viewed the presentations , Senate Republicans are free to take on the role of collaborators in covering up the truth .
Charles Pierce nailed it .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other Republican .
Lisa Murkowski and Tom Cotton were the same .
Thom Tillis and Ted Cruz were the same .
Cory Gardner and Jim Inhofe were the same .
Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse were the same as Mike Rounds and Mike Enzi .
And they were all the same as Mitch McConnell .
There were no moderate Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday .
There were no Never Trumpers .
There were only collaborators .
There was no independence in the Senate on Tuesday , only complicity .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch .
In that sense , the House managers and the president ’ s defense team were , indeed , playing two completely different games .
The former were providing facts and evidence , while all the latter had to do was show up and count on their propaganda network to gin up fear and loathing for anyone who dares to challenge the president .
That is why we are witnessing the death of reason on the Republican side .
This is something that too many Democrats fail to acknowledge .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the charge that liberals are “ elitists ” when they provide factual arguments based on expertise .
Suggesting that a reliance on reason is somehow condescending reinforces a Republican talking point , which is used to further their commitment to what Stephen Colbert once called “ truthiness ” and evolved into “ Trumpiness.
” There are those who suggest that the answer to the role that news organizations like Fox play in dumbing things down is for the left to develop its own propaganda network .
But as Kevin Drum points out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past because liberals prefer “ subtler news outlets that temper their point of view with lots of actual facts about things.
” There is also the issue Thomas Jefferson pointed out a long time ago when he said that “ wherever people are well-informed , they can be trusted with their own government ; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice , they may be relied on to set things right.
” In other words , facts and reason are essential elements in a democratic republic .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate on Tuesday that reason will not prevail when it comes to the current crop of Republicans .
That leaves it to Democrats to fight for the importance of facts and evidence on a grander scale and to quit labeling anyone who does so as elitist .
To assume that the American public is incapable of responding to reason is the real form of condescension .

The reviews are in for the first day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial. For example:
https://twitter.com/qjurecic/status/1219724790497456132
The House managers were organized and prepared. They came with facts and evidence, while the president’s defense team came armed with lies and what appeared to be a case of impaired hearing. In addition, they made it clear that they are adopting the president’s line of defense.
Even most Republican Senators don’t buy that line. While they are willing to admit that the president might have done something wrong, they say that it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
But as Martin Longman has already pointed out, none of that matters. To understand why, take a look at these two reactions to the presentation made by Representative Hakeem Jeffries.
https://twitter.com/QuinHillyer/status/1219809453379411968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1219809453379411968&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2020%2F1%2F22%2F1913069%2F-Abbreviated-Pundit-Round-up-A-fair-trial-must-include-witnesses-and-documents
With Fox News and the rest of the right-wing propaganda network providing the filter through which one side of the political divide viewed the presentations, Senate Republicans are free to take on the role of collaborators in covering up the truth. Charles Pierce nailed it.
In this, no Republican was different from any other Republican. Lisa Murkowski and Tom Cotton were the same. Thom Tillis and Ted Cruz were the same. Cory Gardner and Jim Inhofe were the same. Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse were the same as Mike Rounds and Mike Enzi. And they were all the same as Mitch McConnell. There were no moderate Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday. There were no Never Trumpers. There were only collaborators. There was no independence in the Senate on Tuesday, only complicity. And it was a deadening, sad thing to watch.
In that sense, the House managers and the president’s defense team were, indeed, playing two completely different games. The former were providing facts and evidence, while all the latter had to do was show up and count on their propaganda network to gin up fear and loathing for anyone who dares to challenge the president. That is why we are witnessing the death of reason on the Republican side.
This is something that too many Democrats fail to acknowledge. We’ve seen people on the left adopt the charge that liberals are “elitists” when they provide factual arguments based on expertise. Suggesting that a reliance on reason is somehow condescending reinforces a Republican talking point, which is used to further their commitment to what Stephen Colbert once called “truthiness” and evolved into “Trumpiness.”
There are those who suggest that the answer to the role that news organizations like Fox play in dumbing things down is for the left to develop its own propaganda network. But as Kevin Drum points out, that hasn’t worked in the past because liberals prefer “subtler news outlets that temper their point of view with lots of actual facts about things.” There is also the issue Thomas Jefferson pointed out a long time ago when he said that “wherever people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set things right.”
In other words, facts and reason are essential elements in a democratic republic.
It is clear from the events in the Senate on Tuesday that reason will not prevail when it comes to the current crop of Republicans. That leaves it to Democrats to fight for the importance of facts and evidence on a grander scale and to quit labeling anyone who does so as elitist. To assume that the American public is incapable of responding to reason is the real form of condescension.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-22--Why We Wear White

Why We Wear White

If someone had told me four years ago that I would be attending Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , I would have rolled my eyes and laughed .
On Tuesday , I did just that .
As one of the few Americans admitted into the Senate gallery on day one of the trial , I wore white .
While the sobriety of the occasion would seemingly demand dark attire , I felt otherwise .
Women have been wearing white throughout Trump ’ s tenure—a symbolic but powerful act of defiance .
I wore white to represent the women—and men—who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back against a cruel and lawless president .
The scene on the Senate floor , however , was less than inspiring .
The two tables of House Managers and defense counsel had a constant flurry of activity and motion throughout the afternoon .
There were no cell phones , food , or drinks permitted .
The Senators sat as a captive audience as the lawyers took turns at the lectern .
Some of them , like Amy Klobuchar and Susan Collins , took notes ; others , like John Kennedy and Lindsey Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts sat expressionless in his black robe at the front of the room .
And , like clockwork , all of the Senators , whom some hoped would break party lines—Mitt Romney , Lisa Murkowski , Cory Gardner , and Susan Collins—voted alongside their colleagues time and again to prevent witnesses and documents from entering into Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
In other words , they participated in the most transparent cover-up in American history .
Women in politics wearing white has long symbolized the suffragette movement , whose adherents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purity of purpose .
The choice of attire still sends a strong feminist message : Shirley Chisolm wore white when she became the first African-American woman elected to Congress ; Geraldine Ferraro wore white when she delivered her acceptance speech as the first female vice-presidential candidate for a major party ticket ; and Hillary Clinton wore white to accept the Democratic nomination at the July 2016 convention .
In recent years , though , women wearing white has taken on an added significance : It has emerged as a reaction to the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why Hillary also wore white to Trump ’ s inauguration .
It ’ s why Representative Lois Frankel and a large group of Democratic congresswomen wore white to Trump ’ s 2017 address to Congress ; it ’ s why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore white at her congressional swearing-in ceremony ; and it ’ s why Kamala Harris wore white as Chief Justice John Roberts swore her in last week for the Senate Trial .
Since Trump ’ s election , millions of women and men have marched and become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Unprecedented numbers of Democratic women have run for office—and won—at the local , state , and federal levels .
Books have already been written and films have been made documenting the historic pace at which women are placing themselves front and center in politics .
An entire generation of children is now watching their mothers and grandmothers resist a president who regularly shows disregard for women , immigrants , people of color , and so many others .
The outpouring of activism and the leveling of the political playing field for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s election .
Indeed , those efforts directly contributed to the 2018 election of record numbers of women to the U.S. Congress and the flipping of the House .
Those gains , nonetheless , pale in comparison to the harm that Trump has inflicted on our nation .
Most Americans seem to agree : A recent CNN poll found that 51 percent of the country believes Trump should be removed from office .
That said , few Americans believe that the impeachment trial will result in a conviction .
Democrats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best efforts , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is going to get away with conducting a sham trial .
Voters should continue to keep their expectations in check : McConnell ’ s Republican Senate colleagues voted on day one , in lockstep , along party lines , to prevent a real trial .
That show of cohesion , in an otherwise muted Senate gallery , crystallized for all who were watching that this is clearly McConnell ’ s show .
Roberts has a minor role , limited to the constraints McConnell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ French cufflinks , he mostly fiddled with his reading glasses throughout the proceedings .
For someone used to sophisticated legal discourse , the loud soliloquies of Trump lawyers Jay Sekulow , Pat Cipollone , and Patrick Philbin , replete with faux outrage and their repetitive usage of “ stunning ” and “ ridiculous , ” had to have made him cringe on the inside .
On the other hand , House managers Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren employed clear , measured , didactic approaches to explaining the fallacy of a trial without witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to curb his sarcasm , but Lofgren performed like a high school civics teacher educating her students .
Senators who are usually incredibly vocal—Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Kamala Harris , Amy Klobuchar , and Cory Booker—were silent but for their votes supporting Schumer ’ s proposed amendment to the rules .
Former Republican Senator Jeff Flake spent 30 minutes in the front row of the Senate gallery looking down upon his former Republican colleagues , while Democratic actress-turned-activist Alyssa Milano occupied a prominent front-row seat above the fray .
Otherwise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though the outcome seems all but certain , that doesn ’ t mean the impeachment process wasn ’ t worth it .
For those of us who have closely followed this presidency , Trump ’ s impeachment serves as validation of what most of us have known all along .
Trump may have evaded repercussions for his misogynist , racist , criminal , unseemly behavior for the first 73 years of his life , and for the first three-and-a-half years of his presidency , but that doesn ’ t mean that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go unchecked .
This is much larger than just Trump .
Still , Trump ’ s legacy will forever include the word “ impeached.
” He can not sue to get it removed , he can not threaten to have it locked up , and he can not tweet it away .
Whether the Senate votes to remove him or not , the millions of Americans who saw him for what he was four years ago , and every long day since , can finally feel some sense of vindication .
But their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white flag of surrender never was an option .
Instead , we wear white because we refuse to let pernicious forces take over our government .
The Senators who rigged this trial may be ignoring us now , but they will hear us , loud and clear , come November 2020 .

If someone had told me four years ago that I would be attending Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, I would have rolled my eyes and laughed. On Tuesday, I did just that.
As one of the few Americans admitted into the Senate gallery on day one of the trial, I wore white. While the sobriety of the occasion would seemingly demand dark attire, I felt otherwise. Women have been wearing white throughout Trump’s tenure—a symbolic but powerful act of defiance. I wore white to represent the women—and men—who have spent the last three-and-a-half years pushing back against a cruel and lawless president.
The scene on the Senate floor, however, was less than inspiring. The two tables of House Managers and defense counsel had a constant flurry of activity and motion throughout the afternoon. There were no cell phones, food, or drinks permitted. The Senators sat as a captive audience as the lawyers took turns at the lectern. Some of them, like Amy Klobuchar and Susan Collins, took notes; others, like John Kennedy and Lindsey Graham, slumped in their chairs. Chief Justice John Roberts sat expressionless in his black robe at the front of the room. And, like clockwork, all of the Senators, whom some hoped would break party lines—Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, and Susan Collins—voted alongside their colleagues time and again to prevent witnesses and documents from entering into Trump’s impeachment trial. In other words, they participated in the most transparent cover-up in American history.
Women in politics wearing white has long symbolized the suffragette movement, whose adherents chose the ethereal color to reflect their purity of purpose. The choice of attire still sends a strong feminist message: Shirley Chisolm wore white when she became the first African-American woman elected to Congress; Geraldine Ferraro wore white when she delivered her acceptance speech as the first female vice-presidential candidate for a major party ticket; and Hillary Clinton wore white to accept the Democratic nomination at the July 2016 convention.
In recent years, though, women wearing white has taken on an added significance: It has emerged as a reaction to the Trump administration’s retrograde policies on women. That’s why Hillary also wore white to Trump’s inauguration. It’s why Representative Lois Frankel and a large group of Democratic congresswomen wore white to Trump’s 2017 address to Congress; it’s why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore white at her congressional swearing-in ceremony; and it’s why Kamala Harris wore white as Chief Justice John Roberts swore her in last week for the Senate Trial.
Since Trump’s election, millions of women and men have marched and become activists for the first time in their lives. Unprecedented numbers of Democratic women have run for office—and won—at the local, state, and federal levels. Books have already been written and films have been made documenting the historic pace at which women are placing themselves front and center in politics. An entire generation of children is now watching their mothers and grandmothers resist a president who regularly shows disregard for women, immigrants, people of color, and so many others.
The outpouring of activism and the leveling of the political playing field for women are unintended positive consequences resulting from Trump’s election. Indeed, those efforts directly contributed to the 2018 election of record numbers of women to the U.S. Congress and the flipping of the House.
Those gains, nonetheless, pale in comparison to the harm that Trump has inflicted on our nation. Most Americans seem to agree: A recent CNN poll found that 51 percent of the country believes Trump should be removed from office. That said, few Americans believe that the impeachment trial will result in a conviction. Democrats and their electorate recognize that, despite their best efforts, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is going to get away with conducting a sham trial.
Voters should continue to keep their expectations in check: McConnell’s Republican Senate colleagues voted on day one, in lockstep, along party lines, to prevent a real trial. That show of cohesion, in an otherwise muted Senate gallery, crystallized for all who were watching that this is clearly McConnell’s show.
Roberts has a minor role, limited to the constraints McConnell’s rules have put on him. Donning French cufflinks, he mostly fiddled with his reading glasses throughout the proceedings. For someone used to sophisticated legal discourse, the loud soliloquies of Trump lawyers Jay Sekulow, Pat Cipollone, and Patrick Philbin, replete with faux outrage and their repetitive usage of “stunning” and “ridiculous,” had to have made him cringe on the inside.
On the other hand, House managers Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren employed clear, measured, didactic approaches to explaining the fallacy of a trial without witnesses or documents. Schiff struggled at times to curb his sarcasm, but Lofgren performed like a high school civics teacher educating her students.
Senators who are usually incredibly vocal—Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker—were silent but for their votes supporting Schumer’s proposed amendment to the rules. Former Republican Senator Jeff Flake spent 30 minutes in the front row of the Senate gallery looking down upon his former Republican colleagues, while Democratic actress-turned-activist Alyssa Milano occupied a prominent front-row seat above the fray.
Otherwise, all the actors took their places. Even though the outcome seems all but certain, that doesn’t mean the impeachment process wasn’t worth it. For those of us who have closely followed this presidency, Trump’s impeachment serves as validation of what most of us have known all along. Trump may have evaded repercussions for his misogynist, racist, criminal, unseemly behavior for the first 73 years of his life, and for the first three-and-a-half years of his presidency, but that doesn’t mean that his criminal behavior and abuses of power should go unchecked. This is much larger than just Trump.
Still, Trump’s legacy will forever include the word “impeached.” He cannot sue to get it removed, he cannot threaten to have it locked up, and he cannot tweet it away. Whether the Senate votes to remove him or not, the millions of Americans who saw him for what he was four years ago, and every long day since, can finally feel some sense of vindication. But their work is far from over.
The white flag of surrender never was an option. Instead, we wear white because we refuse to let pernicious forces take over our government. The Senators who rigged this trial may be ignoring us now, but they will hear us, loud and clear, come November 2020.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-22--McConnell Loses Every Round and Still Wins on the Scorecard

I ’ m a bit groggy after staying up half the night watching the historical butt-whupping the Democratic House Managers put on Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump throughout the first full day of the impeachment trial .
But , in the end , it was a fixed fight , and the Republicans won on every scorecard .
From the looks of things , this is the theme that will be repeated every day for as long as this impeachment lasts .
In a way , it ’ s something the Democrats are getting used to .
From the hanging chads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College loss in 2016 , the Republicans make a living winning despite losing .
They ’ ve become dependent on cheating and rigging the rules of the game , and they ’ re experts at it at this point .
It ’ s been so long since they ’ ve gotten the better of an argument , and so long since it has mattered , that the GOP is perfectly content to live in a post-fact universe .
Still , it is occasionally embarrassing for them to be trounced in intellectual combat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquittal , in the end , the battle will be over the consequences , and in that respect , there is good reason for the Democrats to hope that they will get the last laugh .
They were certainly laughing quite a bit on Tuesday as it became apparent that the president ’ s defenders came completely unprepared .
Evidently , they did not know they ’ d be watching the Democrats make their case for 11 straight hours as they debated pre-trial amendments on the rules .
Meanwhile , the House Managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of videotapes .
If this were a normal trial , the jury would not have been present for any of it , but the 100 senators were glued to their chairs and barred by law from speaking .
Around midnight , Mitch McConnell called for a brief recess and was seen roaming the halls of the Senate in a bedraggled and exhausted state .
If he had cornermen , they would have thrown in the towel .
All his plans had backfired in spectacular fashion and I ’ m sure his phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House .
Yet , McConnell had the jury in his pocket and so it was foreordained that he could lose every round and still be awarded the victory .
Trump is counting on the same thing .

I’m a bit groggy after staying up half the night watching the historical butt-whupping the Democratic House Managers put on Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump throughout the first full day of the impeachment trial. But, in the end, it was a fixed fight, and the Republicans won on every scorecard. From the looks of things, this is the theme that will be repeated every day for as long as this impeachment lasts.
In a way, it’s something the Democrats are getting used to. From the hanging chads in Florida in 2000 to the Electoral College loss in 2016, the Republicans make a living winning despite losing. They’ve become dependent on cheating and rigging the rules of the game, and they’re experts at it at this point.
It’s been so long since they’ve gotten the better of an argument, and so long since it has mattered, that the GOP is perfectly content to live in a post-fact universe. Still, it is occasionally embarrassing for them to be trounced in intellectual combat.
If there is to be a quick acquittal, in the end, the battle will be over the consequences, and in that respect, there is good reason for the Democrats to hope that they will get the last laugh. They were certainly laughing quite a bit on Tuesday as it became apparent that the president’s defenders came completely unprepared.
Evidently, they did not know they’d be watching the Democrats make their case for 11 straight hours as they debated pre-trial amendments on the rules. Meanwhile, the House Managers came armed with concise arguments backed by lots of videotapes. If this were a normal trial, the jury would not have been present for any of it, but the 100 senators were glued to their chairs and barred by law from speaking.
Around midnight, Mitch McConnell called for a brief recess and was seen roaming the halls of the Senate in a bedraggled and exhausted state. If he had cornermen, they would have thrown in the towel. All his plans had backfired in spectacular fashion and I’m sure his phone was filled with panicked messages from the White House.
Yet, McConnell had the jury in his pocket and so it was foreordained that he could lose every round and still be awarded the victory. Trump is counting on the same thing.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-23--In the Democratic Primary, Delegate Counts Start to Matter on Super Tuesday

The big news in the Democratic primary this week came from a CNN poll showing Sanders leading Biden nationally by three points ( 27-24 ) .
That has led to a chorus of headlines about a Sanders surge .
But as is always the case , a bit of caution is in order when looking at the results of one poll .
Since that one was released , both YouGov and Monmouth have shown Biden maintaining a significant lead over Sanders .
We are also at the point in the primary when , rather than national polls , all eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially Iowa .
With relatively few delegates in play , Ella Nilsen referred to these as the momentum primary .
They are all about “ election night headlines and who over performed expectations .
” In that sense , it is almost impossible to predict who will gain or lose momentum during the month of February .
But keep in mind that three days after the South Carolina primary , the momentum primary will shift to an actual delegate count on Super Tuesday .
On that day , 12 states will hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being California and Texas .
In addition to momentum , the four early states could affect these primaries based on who drops out of the race and where their supporters go .
With all of that in mind , it ’ s worth taking a look at where things stand in the Super Tuesday states .
According to the poll aggregates at FiveThirtyEight , California is basically a tie between Biden and Sanders—with the former having a very slight edge .
But in Texas , Biden leads by almost seven points .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , Virginia , Tennessee , Alabama , Oklahoma , and Arkansas .
The race is close in both Minnesota and Colorado , with Biden holding a small lead .
The only state where Sanders leads is in Utah .
Massachusetts also holds its primary on Super Tuesday and , unsurprisingly , Warren maintains a small lead over Biden in her home state .
It would be fair to assume that , regardless of how she does in the four early states , Warren will want to stay in the race through Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to win in her home state .
The other candidate with significant support is Buttigieg .
He is obviously raising enough money to compete through Super Tuesday .
But if he were to drop out before then , Morning Consult shows that , when it comes to a second choice , his support would be split between Warren and Biden .
If , at some point , Warren does drop out of the race , conventional wisdom assumes that her support would shift to Sanders , which could alter the race significantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent name Sanders as their second choice .
That is mitigated a bit , however , by the fact that 20 percent of Warren ’ s supporters name Biden as their second choice .
The bottom line is that , by the time votes are counted on March 3rd , at least 41 percent of delegates will have been awarded in the Democratic primary .
So hang on to your hats , because in a little over a month we ’ ll have a pretty good idea about how this race is playing @ @

The big news in the Democratic primary this week came from a CNN poll showing Sanders leading Biden nationally by three points (27-24). That has led to a chorus of headlines about a Sanders surge. But as is always the case, a bit of caution is in order when looking at the results of one poll. Since that one was released, both YouGov and Monmouth have shown Biden maintaining a significant lead over Sanders.
We are also at the point in the primary when, rather than national polls, all eyes are focused on the four early states, especially Iowa. With relatively few delegates in play, Ella Nilsen referred to these as the momentum primary. They are all about “election night headlines and who over performed expectations. ” In that sense, it is almost impossible to predict who will gain or lose momentum during the month of February.
But keep in mind that three days after the South Carolina primary, the momentum primary will shift to an actual delegate count on Super Tuesday. On that day, 12 states will hold their primaries, with the big enchiladas being California and Texas. In addition to momentum, the four early states could affect these primaries based on who drops out of the race and where their supporters go.
With all of that in mind, it’s worth taking a look at where things stand in the Super Tuesday states. According to the poll aggregates at FiveThirtyEight, California is basically a tie between Biden and Sanders—with the former having a very slight edge. But in Texas, Biden leads by almost seven points. Biden also maintains a significant lead in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The race is close in both Minnesota and Colorado, with Biden holding a small lead. The only state where Sanders leads is in Utah. Massachusetts also holds its primary on Super Tuesday and, unsurprisingly, Warren maintains a small lead over Biden in her home state.
It would be fair to assume that, regardless of how she does in the four early states, Warren will want to stay in the race through Super Tuesday in order to give herself a chance to win in her home state. The other candidate with significant support is Buttigieg. He is obviously raising enough money to compete through Super Tuesday. But if he were to drop out before then, Morning Consult shows that, when it comes to a second choice, his support would be split between Warren and Biden.
If, at some point, Warren does drop out of the race, conventional wisdom assumes that her support would shift to Sanders, which could alter the race significantly. According to Morning Consult, 37 percent name Sanders as their second choice. That is mitigated a bit, however, by the fact that 20 percent of Warren’s supporters name Biden as their second choice.
The bottom line is that, by the time votes are counted on March 3rd, at least 41 percent of delegates will have been awarded in the Democratic primary. So hang on to your hats, because in a little over a month we’ll have a pretty good idea about how this race is playing out.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-24--Project Blitz Is Producing Model Legislation For Christian Nationalists

You may have heard about legislation passed recently in Tennessee and other states which allows adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples or families with whom they have religious objections .
The fact that bills like that are being considered and passed by red states is no coincidence .
They are the product of an organized effort being led by Project Blitz .
The first thing to know about Project Blitz is that it was founded in 2015 by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation , the National Legal Foundation , and Wallbuilders .
The latter is an organization founded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discredited historian who rejects the separation of church and state , claiming that the United States was founded as a Christian nation .
This project seems to have maintained a low profile until Fred Clarkson , who has been studying the Christian right for decades , came across their 116-page manual of model legislation in early 2018 .
As Clarkson explains , Project Blitz is to Christian nationalists what the American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC ) was to big business .
Many of the bills on [ the Christian right ] agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key legislative committees or whole state legislative chambers , and some have already been signed into law .
But what reporters , activists , and most legislators don ’ t realize is that many of these bills draw from an unusual package of 20 model bills included in a report assembled by a coalition of Christian Right groups for an initiative they call “ Project Blitz.
” The bills are seemingly unrelated and range widely in content—from requiring public schools to display the national motto , “ In God We Trust ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ people ; to religious exemptions regarding women ’ s reproductive health .
The model bills , the legislative strategy and the talking points reflect the theocratic vision that ’ s animated a meaningful portion of the Christian Right for some time .
In the context of Project Blitz ’ s 116-page playbook , however , they also reveal a sophisticated level of coordination and strategizing that echoes the American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC ) , which infamously networks probusiness state legislators , drafts sample legislation , and shares legislative ideas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans United for Separation of Church and State , state legislatures considered 74 bills that echoed model legislation from the Project Blitz handbook in 2018 .
The strategy for this effort is built on dividing model legislation into three categories , depending on how much opposition each bill is expected to receive .
The first category , intended to appear the most innocuous , included bills to promote “ In God We Trust ” license plates ( now offered in at least 20 states ) and the display of the “ In God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Some version of the display legislation has passed in at least 10 states . )
The next batch of bills centered on emphasizing “ Christian heritage ” and “ the importance of the Bible in history ” to promote the notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation .
The third category , which organizers noted might be “ the most hotly contested , ” sought to empower licensed professionals to deny health care and other services based on religious beliefs and to enable adoption agencies to reject adoptive families on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states have laws that allow discrimination by child welfare agencies , most of which have been passed since Project Blitz launched in 2015 . )
That is a veritable “ slippery slope ” approach to undermining the separation of church and state .
Most people wouldn ’ t find it terribly objectionable to display the national motto in public schools—even though it wasn ’ t adopted until 1956 in response to the “ red scare ” of “ godless communism.
” But doing so opens the door to promoting religion in public institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second category .
Of course , the ultimate aim of these efforts is to arrive at legislation in the third category .
Knowing that the courts will reject arguments based on “ biblical principles , ” Project Blitz advises a strategy that is even more offensive .
Given that any so-called “ data ” they present is bogus , we need to name that kind of thing for what it is : unadulterated homophobia .
As we saw with ALEC , the best disinfectant against an initiative like this is to shine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , there still 12 states with GOP trifectas—where the Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship .
That is where this initiative is likely to be the most effective .

You may have heard about legislation passed recently in Tennessee and other states which allows adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples or families with whom they have religious objections. The fact that bills like that are being considered and passed by red states is no coincidence. They are the product of an organized effort being led by Project Blitz.
The first thing to know about Project Blitz is that it was launched in 2015 by the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, the National Legal Foundation, and Wallbuilders. The latter is an organization founded by David Barton, the Republican operative and discredited historian who rejects the separation of church and state, claiming that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.
This project seems to have maintained a low profile until Fred Clarkson, who has been studying the Christian right for decades, came across their 116-page manual of model legislation in early 2018. As Clarkson explains, Project Blitz is to Christian nationalists what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was to big business.
Many of the bills on [the Christian right] agenda are making news; some have passed key legislative committees or whole state legislative chambers, and some have already been signed into law. But what reporters, activists, and most legislators don’t realize is that many of these bills draw from an unusual package of 20 model bills included in a report assembled by a coalition of Christian Right groups for an initiative they call “Project Blitz.” The bills are seemingly unrelated and range widely in content—from requiring public schools to display the national motto, “In God We Trust” (IGWT); to legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ people; to religious exemptions regarding women’s reproductive health. The model bills, the legislative strategy and the talking points reflect the theocratic vision that’s animated a meaningful portion of the Christian Right for some time. In the context of Project Blitz’s 116-page playbook, however, they also reveal a sophisticated level of coordination and strategizing that echoes the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which infamously networks probusiness state legislators, drafts sample legislation, and shares legislative ideas and strategies.
According to an analysis by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, state legislatures considered 74 bills that echoed model legislation from the Project Blitz handbook in 2018.
The strategy for this effort is built on dividing model legislation into three categories, depending on how much opposition each bill is expected to receive.
The first category, intended to appear the most innocuous, included bills to promote “In God We Trust” license plates (now offered in at least 20 states) and the display of the “In God We Trust” motto in public schools. (Some version of the display legislation has passed in at least 10 states.) The next batch of bills centered on emphasizing “Christian heritage” and “the importance of the Bible in history” to promote the notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation. The third category, which organizers noted might be “the most hotly contested,” sought to empower licensed professionals to deny health care and other services based on religious beliefs and to enable adoption agencies to reject adoptive families on religious grounds. (At least 10 states have laws that allow discrimination by child welfare agencies, most of which have been passed since Project Blitz launched in 2015.)
That is a veritable “slippery slope” approach to undermining the separation of church and state. Most people wouldn’t find it terribly objectionable to display the national motto in public schools—even though it wasn’t adopted until 1956 in response to the “red scare” of “godless communism.” But doing so opens the door to promoting religion in public institutions and paving the way for legislation in the second category.
Of course, the ultimate aim of these efforts is to arrive at legislation in the third category. Knowing that the courts will reject arguments based on “biblical principles,” Project Blitz advises a strategy that is even more offensive.
To this end, they claim that their model public policy resolutions “rely heavily on the research that demonstrates the deleterious physical and mental health effects of same-sex intercourse and gender identity ‘transformation’.”… In support of this, Project Blitz offers data they suggest shows that LGBTQ people tend to be diseased, dysfunctional or both—and that they pose a threat to children and to society.
Given that any so-called “data” they present is bogus, we need to name that kind of thing for what it is: unadulterated homophobia.
As we saw with ALEC, the best disinfectant against an initiative like this is to shine a spotlight on what is happening. Unfortunately, there still 12 states with GOP trifectas—where the Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship. That is where this initiative is likely to be the most effective.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-24--Schiff Closes With a “Love Letter to Truth and Democracy”

If you haven ’ t already , I encourage you to put aside nine minutes to watch Representative Adam Schiff ’ s closing remarks from Thursday ’ s Senate trial .
Schiff began by stating the obvious : the facts prove that Donald Trump is guilty as charged .
We all know it .
But the question remains as to whether he should be removed from office .
Schiff makes the case that Trump should be removed because he has demonstrated that he will choose his own personal interests over protecting our national interests—which makes him dangerous .
At that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning Michael Cohen gave to Congress last year .
The Republican Senators sitting in that chamber are determined to be loyal to a president who always puts his own interests over those of others .
They should listen to Michael Cohen ’ s warning that , “ the more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I ’ m suffering.
” After pointing out the threat Trump poses , Schiff ended with this .
If right doesn ’ t matter , it doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is… The framers couldn ’ t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don ’ t matter .
You can ’ t trust this president to do what ’ s right for this country .
This is why , if you find him guilty , you must find that he should be removed .
Because right matters .
And truth matters .
Otherwise we are lost .
Those incredibly eloquent words speak to what many of us are experiencing as we watch the crisis in our country unfold .
We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right or truth matter to the Republicans sitting in that chamber , which is why we recognize that it is not simply Donald Trump that poses a threat to our country .
Jennifer Rubin pointed to the strand of hope we hang on to .
We can hold out hope that Schiff ’ s magnificent words will resonate with Americans , if not with a majority of the Senate .
Perhaps Schiff ’ s call to our better angels will provide the emotional lift and inspiration to banish Trump from the Oval Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do or not , Schiff ’ s words will serve as a message in the bottle — a love letter to democracy and truth for future generations .
As the House managers made their case in the Senate trial , even the most hardened cynics that I follow on Twitter have noted the way that Representative Adam Schiff has risen to this occasion .
It is a testament to the fact that great leaders don ’ t emerge based simply on their own individual merits , but are called upon when what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed during a crisis .
Given the intransigence of Senate Republicans , there are no facts or evidence that will change their minds .
Similarly , there are no words that are so eloquent as to dissuade them from their current course .
However , led by Schiff , the House managers have articulated the evidence in a way that leaves no doubt about Trump ’ s guilt .
Schiff ended on Thursday night by composing “ a love letter to democracy and truth ” that will go down in history as proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assault against what is right and true .

If you haven’t already, I encourage you to put aside nine minutes to watch Representative Adam Schiff’s closing remarks from Thursday’s Senate trial.
Schiff began by stating the obvious: the facts prove that Donald Trump is guilty as charged. We all know it. But the question remains as to whether he should be removed from office. Schiff makes the case that Trump should be removed because he has demonstrated that he will choose his own personal interests over protecting our national interests—which makes him dangerous.
At that point, I was reminded of the warning Michael Cohen gave to Congress last year.
The Republican Senators sitting in that chamber are determined to be loyal to a president who always puts his own interests over those of others. They should listen to Michael Cohen’s warning that, “the more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”
After pointing out the threat Trump poses, Schiff ended with this.
If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is… If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. The framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. You can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country. This is why, if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. And truth matters. Otherwise we are lost.
Those incredibly eloquent words speak to what many of us are experiencing as we watch the crisis in our country unfold. We don’t hold out much hope that either right or truth matter to the Republicans sitting in that chamber, which is why we recognize that it is not simply Donald Trump that poses a threat to our country. Jennifer Rubin pointed to the strand of hope we hang on to.
We can hold out hope that Schiff’s magnificent words will resonate with Americans, if not with a majority of the Senate. Perhaps Schiff’s call to our better angels will provide the emotional lift and inspiration to banish Trump from the Oval Office in the November election. Whether they do or not, Schiff’s words will serve as a message in the bottle — a love letter to democracy and truth for future generations.
As the House managers made their case in the Senate trial, even the most hardened cynics that I follow on Twitter have noted the way that Representative Adam Schiff has risen to this occasion. It is a testament to the fact that great leaders don’t emerge based simply on their own individual merits, but are called upon when what they have to offer is exactly what is needed during a crisis.
Given the intransigence of Senate Republicans, there are no facts or evidence that will change their minds. Similarly, there are no words that are so eloquent as to dissuade them from their current course.
However, led by Schiff, the House managers have articulated the evidence in a way that leaves no doubt about Trump’s guilt. Schiff ended on Thursday night by composing “a love letter to democracy and truth” that will go down in history as proof that we refused to become collaborators in the assault against what is right and true.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-24--Is Stupidity a Valid Defense for Trump?

Is Stupidity a Valid Defense for Trump?

The House managers spent a good amount of time during the impeachment trial on Thursday talking about how ridiculous it was for the president of the United States to be pushing the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory on a foreign head of state .
Trump took an impossible and silly story cooked up by the Russians and deputized Rudy Giuliani to convince Ukraine to formally accept it by announcing that they would investigate it .
Perhaps the most farcical part of this is that the theory attempts to blame Ukraine for hacking into the Democratic National Headquarters and then spreading the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign .
At the same time , Russia and Trump argue that Ukraine was trying to help Clinton in 2016 .
These two ideas are mutually exclusive , but that doesn ’ t matter to the Kremlin or the White House .
In the president ’ s defense , Senator Lindsey Graham says , “ All I can tell you is from the president ’ s point of view , he did nothing wrong in his mind , ” and if Trump “ thought he was doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up about it.
” It ’ s an interesting defense , in part because it ’ s not really clear that it ’ s true .
After all , Trump would not be president today if he had not first promoted the Obama birther conspiracy theory and thereby won over a good part of the conservative base that reveled in his audacious and unrepentant racism .
That theory was equally implausible , holding that Barack Obama should not be president because he wasn ’ t born in America , even though that alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s mother was an American citizen , so even if he had been born in Kenya , he still would have been considered a natural-born citizen .
In any case , all the evidence supported the fact that Obama had been born in Honolulu .
In 2011 , Trump claimed that he ’ d paid for investigators to visit Hawaii and that they had found evidence to support his theory .
He was lying .
During the height of Donald Trump ’ s relentless birtherism in 2011 , the reality TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Hawaii to uncover information about President Barack Obama ’ s birthplace and boasted that they couldn ’ t “ believe what they ’ re finding.
” But there ’ s no proof he ever did that .
Rudy Giuliani spent last week galivanting across eastern Europe , meeting with nefarious characters , stepping on his party ’ s talking points , and looking for clues that might help Donald Trump , hurt Joe Biden , and exonerate Russia from its attack on U.S. elections in 2016 .
Over the weekend , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the former mayor ’ s efforts .
Here is what the Wall Street Journal reported about what happened when Giuliani got back from his trip : When he returned to New York last Saturday , the president called him as his plane was still taxiing down the runway , Mr. Giuliani said .
“ ‘ What did you get ?
’ ” he said Mr. Trump asked .
“ More than you can imagine , ” Mr. Giuliani replied .
He is putting his findings into a 20-page report .
And here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Well , I just know he came back from someplace , and he ’ s going to make a report , I think to the attorney general and to Congress .
He says he has a lot of good information .
I have not spoken to him about that information .
“ But Rudy , as you know , has been one of the great crime fighters of the last 50 years .
And he did get back from Europe just recently , and I know – he has not told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to go before Congress and say – and also to the attorney general and the Department of Justice .
I hear he ’ s found plenty.
” The only difference between this incident and the early Hawaii “ investigation ” is that Trump actually did dispatch an investigator in 2019 .
But we ’ re still left wondering if Trump actually believes in the conspiracy theories that he promulgates or he just uses them cynically to confuse others .
There ’ s actually evidence on both sides of that argument .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , like that it would be a good idea to explode a nuclear weapon in a hurricane .
He recently confused the Indian prime minister by telling him its fortunate that India doesn ’ t share a border with China .
The man is a moron and it ’ s plausible that he believes all manner of impossible things .
On the other hand , there ’ s this : President Trump held a Social Media Summit at the White House on Thursday and praised content creators across platforms such as Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they come up with .
“ Some of you are extraordinary .
Can ’ t say everybody , ” Trump said .
“ No , but some of you are extraordinary .
The crap you think of is unbelievable .
Unbelievable.
” In this example , Trump seems to be fully aware that his allies are promoting false stories on social media and even seems to appreciate their ingenuity in coming up with inventive lies .
It seems clear that at least some of the time , Trump is aware that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Still , it takes a certain amount of shamelessness and lack of self-respect to take a story you know is bullshit and bring it up in a call with a foreign leader : The President : I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it .
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine , they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , Giuliani had , by the point of that July 25 call , already been pressuring Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Crowdstrike theory , and he would enlist the help of Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland to press the issue through August and early September .
It hurts the brain to think that Ukraine would eagerly blame themselves for something that Russia did , but that was the demand Trump made of them .
Did Trump know it was untrue ?
Was he asking for something legitimate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues ?
I suppose it is possible .
But , if so , it makes a better case for his removal from office than if he actually knew what he was asking for was based on lies .
After all , if he ’ s that gullible and stupid , it ’ s probably a bigger problem than him just being evil .

The House managers spent a good amount of time during the impeachment trial on Thursday talking about how ridiculous it was for the president of the United States to be pushing the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory on a foreign head of state. Trump took an impossible and silly story cooked up by the Russians and deputized Rudy Giuliani to convince Ukraine to formally accept it by announcing that they would investigate it.
Perhaps the most farcical part of this is that the theory attempts to blame Ukraine for hacking into the Democratic National Headquarters and then spreading the most damaging information to WikiLeaks in order to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. At the same time, Russia and Trump argue that Ukraine was trying to help Clinton in 2016.
These two ideas are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t matter to the Kremlin or the White House.
In the president’s defense, Senator Lindsey Graham says, “All I can tell you is from the president’s point of view, he did nothing wrong in his mind,” and if Trump “thought he was doing something wrong, he would probably shut up about it.”
It’s an interesting defense, in part because it’s not really clear that it’s true.
After all, Trump would not be president today if he had not first promoted the Obama birther conspiracy theory and thereby won over a good part of the conservative base that reveled in his audacious and unrepentant racism. That theory was equally implausible, holding that Barack Obama should not be president because he wasn’t born in America, even though that alone would not have made him ineligible. Obama’s mother was an American citizen, so even if he had been born in Kenya, he still would have been considered a natural-born citizen. In any case, all the evidence supported the fact that Obama had been born in Honolulu.
In 2011, Trump claimed that he’d paid for investigators to visit Hawaii and that they had found evidence to support his theory. He was lying.
During the height of Donald Trump’s relentless birtherism in 2011, the reality TV star claimed he had personally sent investigators to Hawaii to uncover information about President Barack Obama’s birthplace and boasted that they couldn’t “believe what they’re finding.” But there’s no proof he ever did that. Now let’s flash-forward to December 2019. Rudy Giuliani spent last week galivanting across eastern Europe, meeting with nefarious characters, stepping on his party’s talking points, and looking for clues that might help Donald Trump, hurt Joe Biden, and exonerate Russia from its attack on U.S. elections in 2016. Over the weekend, his Oval Office client gave reporters an update on the former mayor’s efforts. Here is what the Wall Street Journal reported about what happened when Giuliani got back from his trip: When he returned to New York last Saturday, the president called him as his plane was still taxiing down the runway, Mr. Giuliani said. “‘What did you get?’” he said Mr. Trump asked. “More than you can imagine,” Mr. Giuliani replied. He is putting his findings into a 20-page report. And here is Donald Trump’s version: “Well, I just know he came back from someplace, and he’s going to make a report, I think to the attorney general and to Congress. He says he has a lot of good information. I have not spoken to him about that information. “But Rudy, as you know, has been one of the great crime fighters of the last 50 years. And he did get back from Europe just recently, and I know – he has not told me what he found, but I think he wants to go before Congress and say – and also to the attorney general and the Department of Justice. I hear he’s found plenty.” The only difference between this incident and the early Hawaii “investigation” is that Trump actually did dispatch an investigator in 2019. But we’re still left wondering if Trump actually believes in the conspiracy theories that he promulgates or he just uses them cynically to confuse others. There’s actually evidence on both sides of that argument. He clearly believes all kinds of loony things, like that it would be a good idea to explode a nuclear weapon in a hurricane. He recently confused the Indian prime minister by telling him its fortunate that India doesn’t share a border with China. The man is a moron and it’s plausible that he believes all manner of impossible things. On the other hand, there’s this: President Trump held a Social Media Summit at the White House on Thursday and praised content creators across platforms such as Twitter and YouTube for the “crap” that they come up with. “Some of you are extraordinary. Can’t say everybody,” Trump said. “No, but some of you are extraordinary. The crap you think of is unbelievable. Unbelievable.” In this example, Trump seems to be fully aware that his allies are promoting false stories on social media and even seems to appreciate their ingenuity in coming up with inventive lies. It seems clear that at least some of the time, Trump is aware that the stuff he is retweeting is “crap.” Still, it takes a certain amount of shamelessness and lack of self-respect to take a story you know is bullshit and bring it up in a call with a foreign leader: The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. Of course, Giuliani had, by the point of that July 25 call, already been pressuring Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Crowdstrike theory, and he would enlist the help of Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland to press the issue through August and early September. It hurts the brain to think that Ukraine would eagerly blame themselves for something that Russia did, but that was the demand Trump made of them. Did Trump know it was untrue? Was he asking for something legitimate in his own mind, as Lindsey Graham argues? I suppose it is possible. But, if so, it makes a better case for his removal from office than if he actually knew what he was asking for was based on lies. After all, if he’s that gullible and stupid, it’s probably a bigger problem than him just being evil.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-24--Meghan Markle for President!

Meghan Markle for President!

This is not a joke .
Markle is over the age of 35 , a resident of the United States for at least 14 years and a natural-born citizen .
That ’ s more than we can say about either foreign-born John McCain or Ted Cruz .
President Obama ’ s birth was also questioned , of course .
His birth certificate was demanded by his successor , someone rumored to have been born on another planet .
Regardless , Markle meets all the requirements to run for president .
She may be looking for a new gig now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs in Sussex .
Republicans need look no further than Markle for a young , fresh , future-oriented politico who is going to appeal to their conservative monarchic fantasies , sense of pomp and need for celebrity candidates .
Markle is a proven disruptor .
Ask Queen Elizabeth II .
Naturally , Markle also happens to be a woman and a person of color .
Nikki Haley , eat your heart out .
Bonus points : Markle is the former “ Suits ” star who can give the “ Apprentice ” reality lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratings .
She ’ s already been critical of the 45th president , calling him “ divisive ” and “ misogynistic.
” Canada seems to be the current chosen destination for the near-abdicating , quasi-royal couple , but they should think this through a bit before snubbing the United States .
After all , Canada is already run by a dynastic prince .
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the scion of former PM Pierre Trudeau .
Trudeau the Younger lacks a mean hockey slapshot that would endear him to a broader cross-section of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rad .
If this all seems far-fetched , then imagine that the guy currently running Great Britain is a Big Apple-born mophead who won on promises to build a bigger moat and upgrade British healthcare .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson not only was born in New York ’ s Upper East Side , he skipped out on his IRS debts .
America and Britain do indeed have a “ special relationship.
” Meghan , if BoJo can hop the pond to run Britain by winning a stunning majority of parliamentary seats , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splash in D.C. You really have a shot .
Your candidacy would also block any ideas Johnson might have about coming back to the United States to run for president himself .
A pre-emptive strike , if you will .
Midwestern credentials are pretty key in any American electoral run — and you ’ ve got them !
Your time at Northwestern University balances out your upbringing in the largest and most elector-rich state of the union — your native California is a good place to pick up convention delegates .
Plus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience in foreign affairs , not only from your time working in a U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires , but in your recent job representing Britain ’ s national interests abroad .
Healthcare ?
You used to be on “ General Hospital , ” for goodness sake !
You may not have been a real nurse , but you did play one on TV .
The current Dealmaker-in-Chief would also have to contend with a competitor who understands that successful offers and payoffs are often hidden in briefcases .
Your time on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on-stage experience in human greed and motivation .
You performed under pressure , with grace in the spotlight , and learned to anticipate interested parties ’ reactions to the artful reveal of the deal .
Hey , we are not living in ordinary times .
Reality is now often what the electorate perceives reality to be .
If a guy calls himself a great feminist , dealmaker , billionaire , and “ the chosen one ” —and there are enough people around him willing to validate that narrative—then that pseudo-reality takes on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an acceptable and defensible truth for a large minority of people .
Royalty is already a fairy tale .
You have unmasked the more unsavory aspects of it without making it impossible to watch “ The Crown ” on Netflix .
Ultimately , you have the one quality that every voter in America , regardless of gender pronoun , says he or she or they want : Authenticity .
Bring your authenticity back to the United States triumphantly .
Use your resources to challenge the Republican incumbent .
You were not born for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Archie .
You have always made your own breaks , followed your own heart , blazed your own path .
Use whatever resources , goodwill and experience you have to run in 2020 .
The worst thing that can happen is that you lose .
But only after you make your point , continue your advocacy for human rights and stand your ground .
Meghan Markle , you have the poise and prominence to make a difference .
A royal flush is a winning hand in poker and politics .

Meghan Markle for president!
This is not a joke.
Markle is over the age of 35, a resident of the United States for at least 14 years and a natural-born citizen. That’s more than we can say about either foreign-born John McCain or Ted Cruz.
President Obama’s birth was also questioned, of course. His birth certificate was demanded by his successor, someone rumored to have been born on another planet.
Regardless, Markle meets all the requirements to run for president. She may be looking for a new gig now that she and her husband quit their day jobs in Sussex.
Republicans need look no further than Markle for a young, fresh, future-oriented politico who is going to appeal to their conservative monarchic fantasies, sense of pomp and need for celebrity candidates. Markle is a proven disruptor. Ask Queen Elizabeth II.
Naturally, Markle also happens to be a woman and a person of color. Nikki Haley, eat your heart out.
Bonus points: Markle is the former “Suits” star who can give the “Apprentice” reality lead a run for his money and his ratings. She’s already been critical of the 45th president, calling him “divisive” and “misogynistic.”
Canada seems to be the current chosen destination for the near-abdicating, quasi-royal couple, but they should think this through a bit before snubbing the United States. After all, Canada is already run by a dynastic prince. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the scion of former PM Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau the Younger lacks a mean hockey slapshot that would endear him to a broader cross-section of Québécoise. But his snowboarding skills are rad.
The point? Skip Canada.
Come back home, Meghan! Run. Make “Megxit” great again.
If this all seems far-fetched, then imagine that the guy currently running Great Britain is a Big Apple-born mophead who won on promises to build a bigger moat and upgrade British healthcare. Prime Minister Boris Johnson not only was born in New York’s Upper East Side, he skipped out on his IRS debts. America and Britain do indeed have a “special relationship.”
Meghan, if BoJo can hop the pond to run Britain by winning a stunning majority of parliamentary seats, you can certainly come home and make a splash in D.C. You really have a shot. Your candidacy would also block any ideas Johnson might have about coming back to the United States to run for president himself. A pre-emptive strike, if you will.
Midwestern credentials are pretty key in any American electoral run — and you’ve got them! Your time at Northwestern University balances out your upbringing in the largest and most elector-rich state of the union — your native California is a good place to pick up convention delegates. Plus, you’ve got real, hands-on experience in foreign affairs, not only from your time working in a U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, but in your recent job representing Britain’s national interests abroad.
Healthcare? You used to be on “General Hospital,” for goodness sake! You may not have been a real nurse, but you did play one on TV.
The current Dealmaker-in-Chief would also have to contend with a competitor who understands that successful offers and payoffs are often hidden in briefcases. Your time on “Deal or No Deal” gave you on-stage experience in human greed and motivation. You performed under pressure, with grace in the spotlight, and learned to anticipate interested parties’ reactions to the artful reveal of the deal.
Hey, we are not living in ordinary times. Reality is now often what the electorate perceives reality to be. If a guy calls himself a great feminist, dealmaker, billionaire, and “the chosen one”—and there are enough people around him willing to validate that narrative—then that pseudo-reality takes on a life of its own. It becomes an acceptable and defensible truth for a large minority of people.
Royalty is already a fairy tale. You have unmasked the more unsavory aspects of it without making it impossible to watch “The Crown” on Netflix. Ultimately, you have the one quality that every voter in America, regardless of gender pronoun, says he or she or they want: Authenticity.
Bring your authenticity back to the United States triumphantly. Use your resources to challenge the Republican incumbent. You were not born for hereditary succession. Neither is your son, Archie.
You have always made your own breaks, followed your own heart, blazed your own path. Use whatever resources, goodwill and experience you have to run in 2020. The worst thing that can happen is that you lose. But only after you make your point, continue your advocacy for human rights and stand your ground.
Meghan Markle, you have the poise and prominence to make a difference. A royal flush is a winning hand in poker and politics.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-25--A Lesson from Richmond’s Gun Rally

A Lesson from Richmond’s Gun Rally

The first time I saw a .50-caliber rifle up close and in action , I was on board theUSS HALSEY , an Aegis Class guided missile destroyer , manned by a crew of more than 300 sailors , armed with Tomahawks and torpedoes .
The weapon was affixed to the side of the ship , and I was standing where I had been instructed : a safe distance behind the operator who was unloading rounds of bullets into an inflated , floating target roughly one hundred yards from the ship .
The exercise was part of a demonstration of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my two young sons , I was on a Tiger Cruise—U.S .
Navy lingo for a recreational day at sea for friends and family of the crew .
At the time , my husband was the ship ’ s commanding officer .
My boys and I were enjoying what was essentially a “ take your family to work day.
” I remembered that daywhen I saw a .50-caliber rifle again this week , even though it was just through a photograph .
This time , it was being cradled by a smiling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Virginia , where thousands of gun-rights activists flooded the streets Monday to protest a package of gun-safety laws moving through the state legislature .
Maybe it ’ s because my husband has been wearing a military uniform for more years than I have known him , and maybe it ’ s because his work is about preparing for and preventing real war , but I usually find the sight of adults glamorizing instruments of war particularly unseemly .
But I found myself weirdly grateful to the guy who brought his fifty-cal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Internet .
I ’ m sure he doesn ’ t realize it , but he demonstrated the exact opposite of the point he was trying to convey .
The image of a civilian wielding a weapon of war on the streets of an American city shows exactly why we need some reasonable restrictions on the purchase and ownership of firearms .
These weapons are mounted on battleships like the HALSEY to deter small boats from approaching and possibly attacking .
They weigh about 35 pounds and measure five feet long .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are long-range , high-intensity , sniper rifles intended for warfare , and they can sink a small boat in a matter of seconds .
They have no place in civilian life .
The guy in Richmond with the “ fifty-cal ” assault rifle , along with many other dress-up warriors in battle fatigues , were at the Virginia State Capitol building to challenge Governor Ralph Northam and the new Democratically-controlled General Assembly proposal to enact a universal background check system and a ban on assault weapons and bump stocks .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and some wore face masks despite a state law prohibiting wearing a mask with the intent to conceal one ’ s identity .
They were there to participate in Lobby Day , an annual protest sponsored by the Virginia Citizens Defense League ( VCDL ) , a gun-rights advocacy group .
Of course , they have every right to protest and to wear whatever they please while protesting , except face masks .
Thankfully , this event concluded without any incidents of violence .
Reports of the protest said that , unlike in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lobby Day , many of the usual counter-protestors sat this one out .
The heavily armed activists succeeded in scaring off their very threatening challengers : mothers who are terrified of gun violence in schools , and the survivors of shootings .
“ Ooh rah , ” as the Marines say .
What a tough bunch—intimidating a bunch of unarmed parents and children certainly requires a full complement of assault rifles of both the handheld and siderail-affixed variety .
Perhaps the saddest part of the gun-rights demonstration was how unnecessary it really was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have us believe that any restrictions on gun sales or ownership will bring us one step closer to the government seizing every gun .
But the fifty-cal is a far cry from a revolver in the drawer of your bedside table .
It ’ s difficult to imagine how it would prove useful in quickly thwarting a home invasion unless one keeps it mounted and loaded on the kitchen counter .
Imagine an America where you pull up to a stop light and the mini-van next to you isn ’ t sporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semi-automatic machine guns with laser scopes and night vision .
My fear is that this is exactly the kind of America the guy with the fifty-cal wants .
That ’ s why he is the perfect posterchild for the very reasonable gun-safety laws making their way through Virginia ’ s legislature .
There is not one Democrat in the Virginia General Assembly , not one member of Moms Demand Action , maybe not even one victim of gun violence who could make the case better .
He is one of the most potent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military assault rifles .
Reasonable , law-abiding gun-rights advocates , who believe in the right to bear arms to protect their homes and families , should support these minimal restrictions .
In fact , the polling shows that many do : A Quinnipiac poll found that 61 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws .
Still , a tiny minority , backed by the powerful lobbying force of the National Rifle Association , have effectively prevented a nationwide restriction on civilian ownership of weapons of war .
That needs to change .
Otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger of seeing a fifty-cal up close and in action even if we ’ re nowhere near a battleship .

The first time I saw a .50-caliber rifle up close and in action, I was on board the USS HALSEY, an Aegis Class guided missile destroyer, manned by a crew of more than 300 sailors, armed with Tomahawks and torpedoes. The weapon was affixed to the side of the ship, and I was standing where I had been instructed: a safe distance behind the operator who was unloading rounds of bullets into an inflated, floating target roughly one hundred yards from the ship. The exercise was part of a demonstration of the ship’s capabilities. Along with my two young sons, I was on a Tiger Cruise—U.S. Navy lingo for a recreational day at sea for friends and family of the crew. At the time, my husband was the ship’s commanding officer. My boys and I were enjoying what was essentially a “take your family to work day.”
I remembered that day when I saw a .50-caliber rifle again this week, even though it was just through a photograph. This time, it was being cradled by a smiling, civilian protestor on the streets of Richmond, Virginia, where thousands of gun-rights activists flooded the streets Monday to protest a package of gun-safety laws moving through the state legislature.
Maybe it’s because my husband has been wearing a military uniform for more years than I have known him, and maybe it’s because his work is about preparing for and preventing real war, but I usually find the sight of adults glamorizing instruments of war particularly unseemly. But I found myself weirdly grateful to the guy who brought his fifty-cal to Richmond and got his picture posted on the Internet. I’m sure he doesn’t realize it, but he demonstrated the exact opposite of the point he was trying to convey. The image of a civilian wielding a weapon of war on the streets of an American city shows exactly why we need some reasonable restrictions on the purchase and ownership of firearms.
These weapons are mounted on battleships like the HALSEY to deter small boats from approaching and possibly attacking. They weigh about 35 pounds and measure five feet long. They are not used for hunting animals. They are long-range, high-intensity, sniper rifles intended for warfare, and they can sink a small boat in a matter of seconds. They have no place in civilian life.
The guy in Richmond with the “fifty-cal” assault rifle, along with many other dress-up warriors in battle fatigues, was at the Virginia State Capitol building to challenge Governor Ralph Northam and the new Democratically-controlled General Assembly’s proposal to enact a universal background check system and a ban on assault weapons and bump stocks. Many of the protestors were draped in ammunition, and some wore face masks despite a state law prohibiting mask-wearing with the intent to conceal one’s identity. They were there to participate in Lobby Day, an annual protest sponsored by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), a gun-rights advocacy group.
Of course, they have every right to protest and to wear whatever they please while protesting, except face masks. Thankfully, the event concluded without any incidents of violence.
Reports of the protest said that, unlike in previous years at the VCDL’s Lobby Day, many of the usual counter-protestors sat this one out. The heavily armed activists succeeded in scaring off their very threatening challengers: mothers who are terrified of gun violence in schools, and the survivors of shootings. “Ooh rah,” as the Marines say. What a tough bunch—intimidating a bunch of unarmed parents and children certainly requires a full complement of assault rifles of both the handheld and siderail-affixed variety.
Perhaps the saddest part of the gun-rights demonstration was how unnecessary it really was. The most extreme advocates among them would have us believe that any restrictions on gun sales or ownership will bring us one step closer to the government seizing every gun. But the fifty-cal is a far cry from a revolver in the drawer of your bedside table. It’s difficult to imagine how it would prove useful in quickly thwarting a home invasion unless one keeps it mounted and loaded on the kitchen counter. Imagine an America where you pull up to a stop light and the mini-van next to you isn’t sporting the latest Swedish luggage rack but two semi-automatic machine guns with laser scopes and night vision.
My fear is that this is exactly the kind of America the guy with the fifty-cal wants. That’s why he is the perfect posterchild for the very reasonable gun-safety laws making their way through Virginia’s legislature. There is not one Democrat in the Virginia General Assembly, not one member of Moms Demand Action, maybe not even one victim of gun violence who could make the case better. He is one of the most potent reminders that average citizen should not have military assault rifles.
Reasonable, law-abiding gun-rights advocates, who believe in the right to bear arms to protect their homes and families, should support these minimal restrictions. In fact, the polling shows that many do: A Quinnipiac poll from May found that 61 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws.
Still, a tiny minority, backed by the powerful lobbying force of the National Rifle Association, has effectively prevented a nationwide restriction on civilian ownership of weapons of war. That needs to change. Otherwise, all of us will continue living in danger of seeing a fifty-cal up close and in action even if we’re nowhere near a battleship.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-27--Republicans Find Themselves Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Since the House passed articles of impeachment against Trump , we ’ ve heard damning evidence against the president from Lev Parnas , including a video from 2018 where Trump told him to “ take out ” Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yavanovitch .
Then we learned that Parnas claims to have more recordings of Trump .
In addition , John Bolton said that he was willing to testify in the Senate trial , and now we learn that he is prepared to affirm that Trump demanded Ukrainian investigations in exchange for the release of military aid .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro quo .
We ’ ve all watched as Republicans like Senator Susan Collins have feigned “ concern ” over Trump ’ s actions , only to see them support him over and over again .
So there is reason to be skeptical of the statement Collins released on Monday in response to the Bolton revelations .
Collins not only suggests that she would vote in favor of calling witnesses like Bolton , but that she is having conversations with other colleagues about the possibility as well .
But this tweet from Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are rumblings in the Republican ranks about calling witnesses .
Just two days ago , Graham said the following : It ’ s clear that something happened that caused Graham to change his tune completely .
He has probably been privy to some of the same conversations Collins referred to since the news about Bolton ’ s book surfaced .
If there is any rationality left among Republican Senators , it ’ s interesting to contemplate the topic of those conversations .
On the one hand , they have to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and acquit the president , they are likely to face a steady stream of incriminating evidence against him as we head into the 2020 elections .
There could be more from Parnas and Bolton , or others could go public with what they know .
That does not bode well , especially for those who are running for re-election in swing states .
On the other hand , allowing Bolton to testify opens up a whole different can of worms .
Not only will it become very difficult to acquit the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Bolton ’ s book implicate several other high-ranking officials in the Trump administration : namely , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Attorney General William Barr , and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney .
Once Republicans go down that road , will their testimony become equally compelling ?
Can Vice President Mike Pence escape scrutiny at that point ?
This is the road Republicans chose when they decided to defend a president who is obviously guilty and whose behavior is indefensible .
They put themselves between a rock and a hard @ @ @ @ @ @

Since the House passed articles of impeachment against Trump, we’ve heard damning evidence against the president from Lev Parnas, including a video from 2018 where Trump told him to “take out” Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yavanovitch. Then we learned that Parnas claims to have more recordings of Trump.
In addition, John Bolton said that he was willing to testify in the Senate trial, and now we learn that he is prepared to affirm that Trump demanded Ukrainian investigations in exchange for the release of military aid. In other words, Bolton has direct knowledge of a quid pro quo.
We’ve all watched as Republicans like Senator Susan Collins have feigned “concern” over Trump’s actions, only to see them support him over and over again. So there is reason to be skeptical of the statement Collins released on Monday in response to the Bolton revelations.
Collins not only suggests that she would vote in favor of calling witnesses like Bolton, but that she is having conversations with other colleagues about the possibility as well.
But this tweet from Senator Lindsey Graham affirms the very real possibility that there are rumblings in the Republican ranks about calling witnesses.
Just two days ago, Graham said the following:
I am more intent on ending this thing now with my vote…I just think it’s best for the country to vote on the record established [in the House] because if you go down the witness road you run into executive privilege…and I really don’t want to turn the trial into a circus.
It’s clear that something happened that caused Graham to change his tune completely. He has probably been privy to some of the same conversations Collins referred to since the news about Bolton’s book surfaced.
If there is any rationality left among Republican Senators, it’s interesting to contemplate the topic of those conversations. On the one hand, they have to know that if they vote against allowing witnesses and acquit the president, they are likely to face a steady stream of incriminating evidence against him as we head into the 2020 elections. There could be more from Parnas and Bolton, or others could go public with what they know. That does not bode well, especially for those who are running for re-election in swing states.
On the other hand, allowing Bolton to testify opens up a whole different can of worms. Not only will it become very difficult to acquit the president, the excerpts we’ve heard about from Bolton’s book implicate several other high-ranking officials in the Trump administration: namely, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Attorney General William Barr, and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Once Republicans go down that road, will their testimony become equally compelling? Can Vice President Mike Pence escape scrutiny at that point?
This is the road Republicans chose when they decided to defend a president who is obviously guilty and whose behavior is indefensible. They put themselves between a rock and a hard place with no escape route.