washingtonmonthly--2020-01-15--The Trump Administration Just Quietly Deported 25 Cambodian Immigrants

The U.S. deported approximately 25 Cambodian immigrants on Wednesday—all but one came to the United States legally as refugees and have lived there for decades—according to a Cambodia-based nonprofit dedicated to resettling deportees .
The cohort will be the first Cambodians deported in 2020 , continuing the Trump-era surge in deportations of Vietnam War refugees .
The deportees , all men between the ages of 33 and 60 , arrived in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh on January 15 , according to Bill Herod , the founder of the Khmer Vulnerability Aid Organization ( KVAO ) , which works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All of the individuals expelled have committed some crime that invalidated their permanent residency , Herod told me , making them eligible for deportation .
But many of them have never before stepped foot in Cambodia ; they were either born in Philippines or Thailand refugee camps to parents fleeing Khmer Rouge massacres and the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia that followed .
Nevertheless , the Trump administration has increased the deportation of them , all the while substantially limiting legal immigration and asylum claims .
As I reported last year , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vietnam to take back refugees with criminal convictions who arrived in the United States before July 1995 and had , under an earlier agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam , been explicitly deemed undeportable .
According to I.C.E .
reports , about 38 Vietnamese were deported per year from 2014 through 2016 , the last few years of President Barack Obama ’ s second term .
Under Trump , that annual average has increased to 91 .
And while Cambodian removals began in 2002 under a bilateral agreement signed by both countries—and continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush and Barack Obama—the Trump administration has ratcheted up the rate of deportation .
Under Trump , an average of 68 Cambodian refugees have been removed per year ( not including this January group ) .
Under Bush and Obama , the average was about 26 and 43 per year , respectively .
The U.S. has deported 742 Cambodian refugees since 2002 , according to KVAO ’ s records , excluding the latest cohort .
These refugees , who lived in the U.S. legally and obtained green cards , were convicted on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classification expanded by a 1996 crime bill signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton .
Those offenses , which invalidate one ’ s green card , include not only serious crimes like sexual assault and murder , but also any “ crime of violence ” ( a vague standard that has enabled the overturning of some deportations ) and any crime of theft or burglary for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year .
In some cases , they do not include violent crime .
Immigration law can allow for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theft and personal marijuana possession—into an aggravated felony that would also invalidate one ’ s green card , as was the case with a few Cambodian deportees I met in Phnom Penh last year .
Once deported , they often struggle to assimilate .
Some do not speak Khmer , Cambodia ’ s language , and most find the culture alien .
Cambodians , meanwhile , view them as troublemaking barang—foreigners .
“ Here , ” one deportee told me in Phnom Penh , “ if they see you ’ re a returnee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much.
” Some are even less fortunate .
Sophorn San came to the U.S. as a four-year-old and grew up in Providence , Rhode Island .
In 2010 , at age 19 , he pleaded guilty to possession of a handgun without a permit and was sentenced to six months in prison .
The crime was an aggravated felony , making him eligible for deportation .
But San was represented by a public attorney seemingly unaware of this ; the attorney advised that he take the plea deal .
Three months after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I.C.E .
detained him .
By December 2018 , he was on a plane to Cambodia .
He was 27 , and the youngest member of this December contingent , a fact for which I remember the others teasing him .
In early January 2019 , I met San and a few of these other fresh deportees on the outskirts of Phnom Penh , where we dined on kuy teav , Cambodia ’ s traditional noodle soup .
They ordered in an Americanized Khmer that elicited giggles and raised eyebrows from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San was gone .
He died in a gruesome motorcycle crash—an all-too-common occurrence in Cambodia , where road crashes are the leading cause of death .
Stories like his are not that uncommon : Since 2002 , forty deportees have died , at least six by suicide , according to Herod .
“ The death by deportation label could easily be applied to those who have been diagnosed with severe mental health or physical conditions before deportation , ” he told me , explaining that KVAO is now increasingly receiving high-risk individuals with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychological shock of deportation is more a factor in some of these deaths than the quality of Cambodian health care , ” he added .
Indeed , six Cambodian refugees have died in the last two months .
Meanwhile , since Trump took office , I.C.E .
has raided Cambodian communities in the U.S. approximately every four months , according to Kevin Lo , an attorney at legal aid group Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Asian Law Caucus .
Officials from the United States Embassy in Phnom Penh and I.C.E .
did not respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially resisted the Trump administration ’ s attempted deportation increase in 2017 .
Then , the White House responded by imposing visa sanctions on some high-ranking government officials and their families .
The American and Cambodian governments eventually reached an agreement to resume deportations in February 2018 , and Cambodia has since accepted its supposed nationals .
Now , roughly 2,000 Cambodians are subject to deportation from the U.S. Rights groups are critical of these removals , because almost all of those targeted for deportation came to the United States as refugees and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who remain there .
These groups also argue that these deportations are the last step in a cycle of American failure : The United States secretly bombarded Cambodia during the Vietnam War in operations that many credit with enabling the genocidal Khmer Rouge ’ s rise to power .
After accepting Cambodians ( and other Southeast Asians ) as refugees , the U.S. failed to provide them with adequate support , priming them for poverty and criminality , the latter of which eventually renders them eligible for deportation .
That might help explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poorest in the United States .
Post-traumatic stress disorder also remains endemic among the population .
But for now , their deportations will continue .
“ I.C.E .
is wiping out a generation of Cambodian refugees who mostly came to the United States as infants , ” said Lo .
“ It is heartbreaking that parents and grandparents who survived genocide to bring their children to safety are now losing them to deportation in their old age .
”

The U.S. deported approximately 25 Cambodian immigrants on Wednesday—all but one came to the United States legally as refugees and have lived there for decades—according to a Cambodia-based nonprofit dedicated to resettling deportees. The cohort will be the first Cambodians deported in 2020, continuing the Trump-era surge in deportations of Vietnam War refugees.
The deportees, all men between the ages of 33 and 60, arrived in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh on January 15, according to Bill Herod, the founder of the Khmer Vulnerability Aid Organization (KVAO), a nonprofit that works to integrate Cambodian deportees into the country. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokesperson, Mary Houtmann, confirmed the Cambodia removal flight.
All of the individuals expelled have committed some crime that invalidated their permanent residency, Herod told me, making them eligible for deportation. But many of them have never before stepped foot in Cambodia; they were either born in Philippines or Thailand refugee camps to parents fleeing Khmer Rouge massacres and the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia that followed. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has increased the deportation of them, all the while substantially limiting legal immigration and asylum claims.
As I reported last year, the Trump White House has also repeatedly pressured Vietnam to take back refugees with criminal convictions who arrived in the United States before July 1995 and had, under an earlier agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam, been explicitly deemed undeportable. According to I.C.E. reports, about 38 Vietnamese were deported per year from 2014 through 2016, the last few years of President Barack Obama’s second term. Under Trump, that annual average has increased to 91.
And while Cambodian removals began in 2002 under a bilateral agreement signed by both countries—and continued largely unabated under both presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama—the Trump administration has ratcheted up the rate of deportation. Under Trump, an average of 68 Cambodian refugees have been removed per year (not including this January group). Under Bush and Obama, the average was about 26 and 43 per year, respectively. The U.S. has deported 742 Cambodian refugees since 2002, according to KVAO’s records, excluding the latest cohort.
These refugees, who lived in the U.S. legally and obtained green cards, were convicted on a charge of an aggravated felony, a classification expanded by a 1996 crime bill signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. Those offenses, which invalidate one’s green card, include not only serious crimes like sexual assault and murder, but also any “crime of violence” (a vague standard that has enabled the overturning of some deportations) and any crime of theft or burglary for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. In some cases, they do not include violent crime.
Immigration law can allow for the compounding of two misdemeanors—such as petty theft and personal marijuana possession—into an aggravated felony that would also invalidate one’s green card, as was the case with a few Cambodian deportees I met in Phnom Penh last year.
Once deported, they often struggle to assimilate. Some do not speak Khmer, Cambodia’s language, and most find the culture alien. Cambodians, meanwhile, view them as troublemaking barang—foreigners. “Here,” one deportee told me in Phnom Penh, “if they see you’re a returnee, they don’t like you that much.”
Some are even less fortunate. Sophorn San came to the U.S. as a four-year-old and grew up in Providence, Rhode Island. In 2010, at age 19, he pleaded guilty to possession of a handgun without a permit and was sentenced to six months in prison. The crime was an aggravated felony, making him eligible for deportation. But San was represented by a public attorney seemingly unaware of this; the attorney advised that he take the plea deal. Three months after San was granted parole in February 2016, I.C.E. detained him. By December 2018, he was on a plane to Cambodia.
He was 27, and the youngest member of this December contingent, a fact for which I remember the others teasing him. In early January 2019, I met San and a few of these other fresh deportees on the outskirts of Phnom Penh, where we dined on kuy teav, Cambodia’s traditional noodle soup. They ordered in an Americanized Khmer that elicited giggles and raised eyebrows from the young waitresses. Two months later, San was gone. He died in a gruesome motorcycle crash—an all-too-common occurrence in Cambodia, where road crashes are the leading cause of death.
Stories like his are not that uncommon: Since 2002, forty deportees have died, at least six by suicide, according to Herod. “The death by deportation label could easily be applied to those who have been diagnosed with severe mental health or physical conditions before deportation,” he told me, explaining that KVAO is now increasingly receiving high-risk individuals with debilitating diseases and disabilities. “The psychological shock of deportation is more a factor in some of these deaths than the quality of Cambodian health care,” he added. Indeed, six Cambodian refugees have died in the last two months.
Meanwhile, since Trump took office, I.C.E. has raided Cambodian communities in the U.S. approximately every four months, according to Kevin Lo, an attorney at legal aid group Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Asian Law Caucus. Officials from the United States Embassy in Phnom Penh did not respond to requests for comment.
The Cambodian government initially resisted the Trump administration’s attempted deportation increase in 2017. Then, the White House responded by imposing visa sanctions on some high-ranking government officials and their families. The American and Cambodian governments eventually reached an agreement to resume deportations in February 2018, and Cambodia has since accepted its supposed nationals. Now, roughly 2,000 Cambodians are subject to deportation from the U.S.
Rights groups are critical of these removals, because almost all of those targeted for deportation came to the United States as refugees and will now be separated from their families who remain there. These groups also argue that these deportations are the last step in a cycle of American failure: The United States secretly bombarded Cambodia during the Vietnam War in operations that many credit with enabling the genocidal Khmer Rouge’s rise to power. After accepting Cambodians (and other Southeast Asians) as refugees, the U.S. failed to provide them with adequate support, priming them for poverty and criminality, the latter of which eventually renders them eligible for deportation.
That might help explain why the Cambodian community is one of the poorest in the United States. Post-traumatic stress disorder also remains endemic among the population. But for now, their deportations will continue.
“I.C.E. is wiping out a generation of Cambodian refugees who mostly came to the United States as infants,” said Lo. “It is heartbreaking that parents and grandparents who survived genocide to bring their children to safety are now losing them to deportation in their old age.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-16--Trump’s Trade War With China Ends in a Truce, Not a Historic Deal

As we learned during the House impeachment hearings , EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland told David Holmes that “ the president doesn ’ t give a sh*t about Ukraine ” and only cares about the “ big stuff.
” When asked to clarify , Sondland said that he meant “ big stuff that benefits the President.
” In other words , what drives this president are his own self-interests .
At this moment , Trump ’ s self-interests are defined by two things : ( 1 ) avoiding removal from office by the Senate , and ( 2 ) winning re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hinders his second goal is the fact that many of his supporters have been suffering financially from his trade war with China .
While he had once tweeted that trade wars are good and easy to win , he was failing miserably on that front .
Many of us have noticed the pattern of what Trump does in those circumstances .
The process was summarized perfectly by Brendan Nyhan .
• Create crisis over distorted version of the status quo .
After igniting a trade war with China , the president moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by signing a Phase One trade agreement .
But as Martha White writes , it “ is notable not for what it includes , but for what it omits.
” Here is a summary of what is , and is not , included .
The agreement focuses heavily on a commitment by China for purchases of $ 200 billion worth of U.S. farm products and other exports… “ It doesn ’ t so far include anything that is related to the entire issues surrounding Huawei , 5G , export controls , or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacob Kirkegaard , a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics .
“ More importantly , there is nothing here concerning Chinese subsidies and I think that , in many ways , is the big omission , ” he said .
“ If you ’ re worried about China as a long-term tech competitor , then clearly the logic of that argument rests with the fact that the Chinese are quote-unquote rigging the system through state-owned subsidies.
” … Although the White House agreed to cancel a 15 percent tariff on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been scheduled to go into effect last month , and tariffs were lowered on $ 120 billion worth of Chinese goods from 15 percent to 7.5 percent , the deal still leaves 25 percent tariffs on $ 250 billion of Chinese imports .
As Jen Kirby explained , this is more of a truce than a trade agreement .
“ I wouldn ’ t call this a trade agreement , ” Marc Busch , a professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University , told me .
“ It ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , coupled with some barter.
” … “ Phase one , and done ” is a phrase that ’ s going around , said Brad Setser , a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and former US Treasury official .
“ It ’ s hard to see how you get to a phase two , ” he told me… Trump ’ s trade deal , then , is more of a trade truce between the world ’ s two biggest economies , which is good for the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .
But this is not quite the “ historic ” deal the president is claiming—though he ’ s going to sell it that way , no matter what .
So there you have it : a trade war truce , which Trump claims is a “ historic ” deal .
This president put American farmers through hell over the last couple of years and then sold them out for a cheap truce , all so that he could have an accomplishment to brag about on the campaign trail .

As we learned during the House impeachment hearings, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland told David Holmes that “the president doesn’t give a sh*t about Ukraine” and only cares about the “big stuff.” When asked to clarify, Sondland said that he meant “big stuff that benefits the President.” In other words, what drives this president are his own self-interests.
At this moment, Trump’s self-interests are defined by two things: (1) avoiding removal from office by the Senate, and (2) winning re-election in 2020. One of the things that hinders his second goal is the fact that many of his supporters have been suffering financially from his trade war with China. While he had once tweeted that trade wars are good and easy to win, he was failing miserably on that front.
Many of us have noticed the pattern of what Trump does in those circumstances. The process was summarized perfectly by Brendan Nyhan.
Present distorted version of the status quo. Create crisis over distorted version of the status quo. Restore status quo (often at substantial cost). Take credit for status quo.
After igniting a trade war with China, the president moved to steps three and four on Wednesday by signing a Phase One trade agreement. But as Martha White writes, it “is notable not for what it includes, but for what it omits.” Here is a summary of what is, and is not, included.
The agreement focuses heavily on a commitment by China for purchases of $200 billion worth of U.S. farm products and other exports… “It doesn’t so far include anything that is related to the entire issues surrounding Huawei, 5G, export controls, or a host of new technologies,” said Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “More importantly, there is nothing here concerning Chinese subsidies and I think that, in many ways, is the big omission,” he said. “If you’re worried about China as a long-term tech competitor, then clearly the logic of that argument rests with the fact that the Chinese are quote-unquote rigging the system through state-owned subsidies.”… Although the White House agreed to cancel a 15 percent tariff on a wide-ranging tranche of consumer goods that had been scheduled to go into effect last month, and tariffs were lowered on $120 billion worth of Chinese goods from 15 percent to 7.5 percent, the deal still leaves 25 percent tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese imports.
As Jen Kirby explained, this is more of a truce than a trade agreement.
“I wouldn’t call this a trade agreement,” Marc Busch, a professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University, told me. “It’s more a cessation of hostilities, phase one, coupled with some barter.”… “Phase one, and done” is a phrase that’s going around, said Brad Setser, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and former US Treasury official. “It’s hard to see how you get to a phase two,” he told me… Trump’s trade deal, then, is more of a trade truce between the world’s two biggest economies, which is good for the US, China, and the rest of the world. But this is not quite the “historic” deal the president is claiming—though he’s going to sell it that way, no matter what.
So there you have it: a trade war truce, which Trump claims is a “historic” deal.
This president put American farmers through hell over the last couple of years and then sold them out for a cheap truce, all so that he could have an accomplishment to brag about on the campaign trail.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-17--It Is Beginning to Look Like the U.S. Has a Corruption Problem, Not Ukraine

According to Lev Parnas , Trump was never interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine .
The sole purpose of the extortion effort managed by Rudy Giuliani was to force President Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens .
When Parnas was tasked with the job of informing an aide to Zelensky of Trump ’ s demand , the threat wasn ’ t simply to withhold a meeting at the White House and military aid .
The entire relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine was on the line , including all aid and the attendance of Vice President Pence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how he explained it to Maddow .
When Parnas communicated that threat , Zelensky ’ s aide did the equivalent of hanging up on him .
That was a bold move from the incoming Ukrainian administration .
For whatever reason , Zelensky never complied with Trump ’ s demand for either an investigation into the Bidens or Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election—the two so-called “ favors ” that Trump requested during the now-infamous phone call .
The Ukrainian government has , however , recently announced two investigations .
Ukrainian authorities announced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch before she was dismissed from her post by the Trump administration… The Interior Ministry statement said Ukrainian police “ are not interfering in the internal political affairs of the United States.
” “ However , the published messages contain facts of possible violations of Ukrainian law and of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations , which protect the rights of diplomats on the territory of another state , ” the statement continued .
In a separate probe , Ukraine investigators said they were looking into a suspected Russian hack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is at the center of the impeachment inquiries .
A week ago , Bloomberg reported that the U.S. government was investigating whether Russia was involved in a disinformation campaign targeted at Joe Biden .
We don ’ t know whether that was spurred by the hacking of Burisma computers , but the two things might be related .
Nevertheless , we ’ ve heard nothing directly from Attorney General William Barr about such a probe .
We also haven ’ t heard anything from either Barr or Pompeo—both of whom have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme—about the allegations that a U.S. ambassador was being stalked .
Instead , we learned on Thursday that Ukrainian authorities are looking into the matter .
The tables have turned in some ironic ways and , at least when it comes to these matters , it is beginning to look like the United States is the country with a corruption problem , not Ukraine .

According to Lev Parnas, Trump was never interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine. The sole purpose of the extortion effort managed by Rudy Giuliani was to force President Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens.
When Parnas was tasked with the job of informing an aide to Zelensky of Trump’s demand, the threat wasn’t simply to withhold a meeting at the White House and military aid. The entire relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine was on the line, including all aid and the attendance of Vice President Pence at Zelensky’s inauguration. Here is how he explained it to Maddow.
When Parnas communicated that threat, Zelensky’s aide did the equivalent of hanging up on him. That was a bold move from the incoming Ukrainian administration.
For whatever reason, Zelensky never complied with Trump’s demand for either an investigation into the Bidens or Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election—the two so-called “favors” that Trump requested during the now-infamous phone call. The Ukrainian government has, however, recently announced two investigations.
Ukrainian authorities announced a probe Thursday into possible surveillance of U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch before she was dismissed from her post by the Trump administration… The Interior Ministry statement said Ukrainian police “are not interfering in the internal political affairs of the United States.” “However, the published messages contain facts of possible violations of Ukrainian law and of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, which protect the rights of diplomats on the territory of another state,” the statement continued. In a separate probe, Ukraine investigators said they were looking into a suspected Russian hack into computers at Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which is at the center of the impeachment inquiries.
A week ago, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. government was investigating whether Russia was involved in a disinformation campaign targeted at Joe Biden. We don’t know whether that was spurred by the hacking of Burisma computers, but the two things might be related. Nevertheless, we’ve heard nothing directly from Attorney General William Barr about such a probe.
We also haven’t heard anything from either Barr or Pompeo—both of whom have been implicated in Giuliani’s extortion scheme—about the allegations that a U.S. ambassador was being stalked. Instead, we learned on Thursday that Ukrainian authorities are looking into the matter.
The tables have turned in some ironic ways and, at least when it comes to these matters, it is beginning to look like the United States is the country with a corruption problem, not Ukraine.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-17--Who, Exactly, Makes Up the Democratic Base?

By now , it ’ s become something of a cliché : political pundits stressing the importance of Democrats exciting and turning out their base to defeat Donald Trump .
Then , there is the coinciding debate over the importance of appealing to the party ’ s so-called base versus trying to win over independents and reluctant Trump voters .
The argument in favor of the former is pretty straightforward .
There ’ s a large segment of left-leaning Democratic voters .
The candidate who inspires and appeals to the greatest number of them will have the best chance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the problem : There ’ s no clear consensus of who the party ’ s base actually is .
Commentator Jess McIntosch recently described the base quite narrowly .
“ We all know ” the Democratic base is “ African-American voters and voters of color , ” she said .
But activists Page Gardner and pollster Stanley Greenberg think of the base more broadly , as a coalition “ of people of color , unmarried women and young people.
” Thomas Edsall , on the other hand , has argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ very liberal ” and “ somewhat liberal , ” to “ moderate to conservative ” Americans—all of which are racially and ethnically diverse .
Not only do these descriptions of the Democratic base vary wildly , but so , too , do theories of how to “ excite ” or “ energize ” the base .
Progressives like Robert Reich and Michael Moore have argued that candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are most likely to increase voter turnout because of their transformative plans .
As Saikat Chakrabarti , Alexandra Ocasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has explained , “ You do the biggest , most badass thing you possibly can—and that ’ s going to excite people , and then they ’ re going to go vote.
” Others disagree and believe the Democratic base will turn out in droves regardless of who the nominee is as long as Trump is on the ballot .
Of course , every group of reliable Democratic voters is important .
But if Democrats want to consistently win elections in 2020 and beyond , they need to think differently about who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unites them .
The foundation of the Democratic Party is not built on what we look like , but rather , on a set of ideas that reflect our shared values .
As President Obama has said , we don ’ t need to embrace a false choice between appealing to minority voters or white working-class voters .
A candidate who prioritizes and effectively speaks to the issues that most voters truly care about can do both .
McIntosch is right that black and brown voters are the most reliable Democratic voters—although Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Democrats , too .
In 2016 , 91 percent of black voters supported Hillary Clinton , along with 66 percent of Hispanic voters A staggering 98 percent of black women backed her as well .
By contrast , only 39 percent of white voters supported Clinton .
So the math makes clear : the more voters of color who vote , the better chance Democrats have of winning .
That said , it would be wrong to determine the party ’ s base by relying solely on the tendencies of one voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters were approximately 60 percent white , 20 percent black , and 14 percent Hispanic.
, and 45 percent of all voters were whites without a college degree .
By the time a coalition big enough to win in a general election is assembled—unmarried women , black voters , Hispanic voters , millennials—the concept of “ the base ” is no longer effectively measured by demographic makeup .
It ’ s also not ideologically monolithic .
The Democratic party is neither overwhelmingly liberal or moderate : Self-identified liberals make up 46 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , and conservatives 14 percent .
Therefore , a candidate who appeals more to liberals at the exclusion of everyone else is not necessarily more likely to turn out the base than a more moderate candidate—let alone attract independents .
But a candidate can turn out—and win over—more voters if he or she emphasizes the right priorities and values , and if they share the same concerns and anxieties as the broader electorate .
Gallup polling from 2018 found that the top issues for Democrats are health care ; how women are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun policy ; climate change ; immigration ; and the economy .
A staggering 78 percent said the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans have health insurance .
At the same time , Democrats are divided on their policy prescription : 44 percent support a single-payer system while 34 percent prefer a mix of public and private insurance .
The vast majority of Democrats also want to increase federal spending on education ; surprisingly , 63 percent do not think race should be a factor in college admissions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising taxes on large corporations and the wealthiest Americans , supporting gun-safety measures , and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking other steps to combat climate change .
So , who actually makes up the Democratic party ’ s base ?
They are the voters united by those shared beliefs—regardless of what they look like or how old they are .
Don ’ t get me wrong .
It is valuable to understand which groups , on average , are more likely to vote for Democrats .
That information is crucial to successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay immense dividends in the long run .
But the key to truly understanding how to win elections is to focus less on superficial differences and more on commonly held values .
If the Democratic Party wants to turn out their voters in 2020 , they should choose a nominee who speaks effectively to the priorities and anxieties of the majority of Americans .
On average , voters want someone who can help lower prescription drug costs , enact sensible gun control , invest in infrastructure , and strengthen women ’ s rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peddling divisive policies that can turn off more voters than they turn out .
Any candidate who can remain in step with most Democratic voters while not adopting more extreme policy positions will likely win over many independents and Republican-leaning voters as well .
A majority of Republicans also support increasing federal spending on education , rebuilding highways and bridges , and imposing universal background checks on gun sales .
What ’ s more , approximately one-third of Republicans support raising taxes on corporations or believe abortion should be legal in most or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step with most Americans in pushing for a tax break for corporations and the wealthiest Americans , standing in the way of gun control , and separating immigrant children from their families .
Simply put , there is a golden opportunity for Democrats to exploit those weaknesses .
But to take advantage , party leaders need to stop defining its base through the prism of age , race , or gender .
It ’ s by focusing on the issues that most Americans care about that the party will succeed in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out their base and reach enough swing voters to make Trump a one-term president .

By now, it’s become something of a cliché: political pundits stressing the importance of Democrats exciting and turning out their base to defeat Donald Trump. Then, there is the coinciding debate over the importance of appealing to the party’s so-called base versus trying to win over independents and reluctant Trump voters. The argument in favor of the former is pretty straightforward. There’s a large segment of left-leaning Democratic voters. The candidate who inspires and appeals to the greatest number of them will have the best chance of winning. Sounds reasonable, but here’s the problem: There’s no clear consensus of who the party’s base actually is.
Commentator Jess McIntosch recently described the base quite narrowly. “We all know” the Democratic base is “African-American voters and voters of color,” she said. But activists Page Gardner and pollster Stanley Greenberg think of the base more broadly, as a coalition “of people of color, unmarried women and young people.” Thomas Edsall, on the other hand, has argued that Democrats are effectively three different parties—ranging from “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal,” to “moderate to conservative” Americans—all of which are racially and ethnically diverse.
Not only do these descriptions of the Democratic base vary wildly, but so, too, do theories of how to “excite” or “energize” the base. Progressives like Robert Reich and Michael Moore have argued that candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are most likely to increase voter turnout because of their transformative plans. As Saikat Chakrabarti, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s former chief of staff has explained, “You do the biggest, most badass thing you possibly can—and that’s going to excite people, and then they’re going to go vote.” Others disagree and believe the Democratic base will turn out in droves regardless of who the nominee is as long as Trump is on the ballot.
Of course, every group of reliable Democratic voters is important. But if Democrats want to consistently win elections in 2020 and beyond, they need to think differently about who, exactly, the base is and what unites them. The foundation of the Democratic Party is not built on what we look like, but rather, on a set of ideas that reflect our shared values. As President Obama has said, we don’t need to embrace a false choice between appealing to minority voters or white working-class voters. A candidate who prioritizes and effectively speaks to the issues that most voters truly care about can do both.
McIntosch is right that black and brown voters are the most reliable Democratic voters—although Jewish voters are pretty consistent in their support of Democrats, too. In 2016, 91 percent of black voters supported Hillary Clinton, along with 66 percent of Hispanic voters A staggering 98 percent of black women backed her as well. By contrast, only 39 percent of white voters supported Clinton. So the math makes clear: the more voters of color who vote, the better chance Democrats have of winning.
That said, it would be wrong to determine the party’s base by relying solely on the tendencies of one voting bloc. Even in 2016, Democratic voters were approximately 60 percent white, 20 percent black, and 14 percent Hispanic., and 45 percent of all voters were whites without a college degree. By the time a coalition big enough to win in a general election is assembled—unmarried women, black voters, Hispanic voters, millennials—the concept of “the base” is no longer effectively measured by demographic makeup.
It’s also not ideologically monolithic. The Democratic party is neither overwhelmingly liberal or moderate: Self-identified liberals make up 46 percent of the party, whereas moderates comprise 39 percent, and conservatives 14 percent. Therefore, a candidate who appeals more to liberals at the exclusion of everyone else is not necessarily more likely to turn out the base than a more moderate candidate—let alone attract independents.
But a candidate can turn out—and win over—more voters if he or she emphasizes the right priorities and values, and if they share the same concerns and anxieties as the broader electorate.
Gallup polling from 2018 found that the top issues for Democrats are health care; how women are treated in society; income inequality; gun policy; climate change; immigration; and the economy. A staggering 78 percent said the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans have health insurance. At the same time, Democrats are divided on their policy prescription: 44 percent support a single-payer system while 34 percent prefer a mix of public and private insurance. The vast majority of Democrats also want to increase federal spending on education; surprisingly, 63 percent do not think race should be a factor in college admissions.
Other very popular positions among Democrats include raising taxes on large corporations and the wealthiest Americans, supporting gun-safety measures, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking other steps to combat climate change.
So, who actually makes up the Democratic party’s base? They are the voters united by those shared beliefs—regardless of what they look like or how old they are.
Don’t get me wrong. It is valuable to understand which groups, on average, are more likely to vote for Democrats. That information is crucial to successful and targeted turnout operations, which can pay immense dividends in the long run. But the key to truly understanding how to win elections is to focus less on superficial differences and more on commonly held values.
If the Democratic Party wants to turn out their voters in 2020, they should choose a nominee who speaks effectively to the priorities and anxieties of the majority of Americans. On average, voters want someone who can help lower prescription drug costs, enact sensible gun control, invest in infrastructure, and strengthen women’s rights. They shouldn’t pick someone peddling divisive policies that can turn off more voters than they turn out.
Any candidate who can remain in step with most Democratic voters while not adopting more extreme policy positions will likely win over many independents and Republican-leaning voters as well. A majority of Republicans also support increasing federal spending on education, rebuilding highways and bridges, and imposing universal background checks on gun sales.
What’s more, approximately one-third of Republicans support raising taxes on corporations or believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Trump was out of step with most Americans in pushing for a tax break for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, standing in the way of gun control, and separating immigrant children from their families. Simply put, there is a golden opportunity for Democrats to exploit those weaknesses.
But to take advantage, party leaders need to stop defining its base through the prism of age, race, or gender. It’s by focusing on the issues that most Americans care about that the party will succeed in 2020. If Democrats do that, they can turn out their base and reach enough swing voters to make Trump a one-term president.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-16--The GAO Says the White House Broke the Law By Withholding Ukrainian Aid

According to its website , the U.S. Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) is an “ independent , nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.
” It was formed by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 , and its function is to serve as the federal government ’ s audit institution for all spending and appropriations .
It ’ s supposed to help the government be more efficient but it also has the authority to sue the executive branch if it believes it isn ’ t following the law in disbursing money approved by Congress .
Since 1974 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act .
Technically , the Act provides a mechanism for the executive branch to ask Congress to reconsider spending decisions , but there ’ s a process to that that was not followed in withholding aid from Ukraine in 2019 .
At least , that ’ s the formal conclusion that the GAO reached in a report they released on Thursday .
This decision has a strange legal standing .
Since no one can be criminally charged with violating the Impoundment Control Act , the normal procedure is to threaten to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this has been sufficient : In cases of a violation , the most the GAO can do is sue the administration to release money , which has happened only once—in the 1970s .
The lawsuit was later dismissed when the funds were released .
Several administrations have been slapped by the GAO , including that of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush .
In general , those administrations released funds after being cited , making lawsuits unnecessary .
Most recently , in December 2018 , the GAO said the Department of Homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Coast Guard to support national security efforts .
The funds were eventually released .
GAO also found in 2014 that the Obama administration broke the law in exchanging five Taliban commanders for a captured U.S. soldier without giving Congress 30 days notice .
In other words , this is a law people can violate with impunity , although their decisions can and will be overturned by the judicial branch .
That doesn ’ t offer much relief to anyone injured by a delay in spending .
It doesn ’ t provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced by Ukraine where the damage is already done and can ’ t be remediated .
Nonetheless , the GAO has deemed the withholding of this aid as a criminal act .
It ’ s up to the Senate to determine if its a high crime or a low crime , but a crime has been established .
It ’ s important to understand that the GAO is a nonpartisan institution and if it has any bias , its in defending the rights of the legislative branch against those of the executive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ branch , so a decision not to take this crime seriously would be an act of self-harm .
Predictably , the White House says it disagrees with GAO ’ s finding , but this won ’ t be adjudicated in court because the funds were eventually released and no other relief is provided under the law .
Nonetheless , it was illegal to withhold the Ukrainian aid as part of an extortion scheme to pressure the government in Kyiv into doing political favors for Donald Trump .

According to its website, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an “independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.” It was formed by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, and its function is to serve as the federal government’s audit institution for all spending and appropriations. It’s supposed to help the government be more efficient but it also has the authority to sue the executive branch if it believes it isn’t following the law in disbursing money approved by Congress.
Since 1974, it has been bolstered by the Impoundment Control Act. Technically, the Act provides a mechanism for the executive branch to ask Congress to reconsider spending decisions, but there’s a process to that that was not followed in withholding aid from Ukraine in 2019. At least, that’s the formal conclusion that the GAO reached in a report they released on Thursday.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the decision states. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act.”
This decision has a strange legal standing. Since no one can be criminally charged with violating the Impoundment Control Act, the normal procedure is to threaten to go to court. In all but one case, this has been sufficient:
In cases of a violation, the most the GAO can do is sue the administration to release money, which has happened only once—in the 1970s. The lawsuit was later dismissed when the funds were released. Several administrations have been slapped by the GAO, including that of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In general, those administrations released funds after being cited, making lawsuits unnecessary. Most recently, in December 2018, the GAO said the Department of Homeland Security illegally withheld $95 million appropriated for the Coast Guard to support national security efforts. The funds were eventually released. GAO also found in 2014 that the Obama administration broke the law in exchanging five Taliban commanders for a captured U.S. soldier without giving Congress 30 days notice.
In other words, this is a law people can violate with impunity, although their decisions can and will be overturned by the judicial branch. That doesn’t offer much relief to anyone injured by a delay in spending. It doesn’t provide a remedy for a situation like that faced by Ukraine where the damage is already done and can’t be remediated.
Nonetheless, the GAO has deemed the withholding of this aid as a criminal act. It’s up to the Senate to determine if its a high crime or a low crime, but a crime has been established. It’s important to understand that the GAO is a nonpartisan institution and if it has any bias, its in defending the rights of the legislative branch against those of the executive. The Senate is part of the legislative branch, so a decision not to take this crime seriously would be an act of self-harm.
Predictably, the White House says it disagrees with GAO’s finding, but this won’t be adjudicated in court because the funds were eventually released and no other relief is provided under the law. Nonetheless, it was illegal to withhold the Ukrainian aid as part of an extortion scheme to pressure the government in Kyiv into doing political favors for Donald Trump.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-16--Has a Criminal Cabal Infected the Federal Government?

On Wednesday night , Rachel Maddow conducted an explosive interview with Rudy Giuliani ’ s associate , Lev Parnas .
There is likely more to come from part two of the interview , which will be broadcast on Thursday night .
While it is important to keep in mind that the claims Parnas made will need to be corroborated , he made one thing perfectly clear .
He was tasked by Trump and Giuliani to extort Ukrainian President Zelensky to announce an investigation that would implicate the president ’ s main rival in the 2020 election , Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As we saw with his letter to Zelensky , Giuliani made it clear that , in these efforts , he was working on Trump ’ s behalf .
That goes directly to the first article of impeachment on abuse of power and is why the Senate must remove Trump from office .
Based on some of the other things Parnas said , that is simply step one .
His more explosive revelations had to do with accusations that Vice President Mike Pence , Attorney General William Barr , and Representative Devin Nunes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given that the charges include the attorney general , it is not possible for the Department of Justice to investigate these claims .
What we learned from the Mueller investigation is that a special prosecutor basically works for the attorney general , so that is not a remedy either .
Congress must take up the charge and probe the depths of the criminal cabal in this administration .
But it doesn ’ t end there .
The 2020 election is only nine months away .
If the Democratic nominee wins the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inherit a federal bureaucracy that has been steeped in corruption .
While people like Pence , Barr , and Pompeo will be gone , their replacements will face the challenge of figuring out how deep the corruption went and cleaning up the mess their predecessors left behind .
Too often we forget that one of the main jobs of the chief executive is to manage the federal government .
That primarily happens via members of the president ’ s cabinet and includes everything from oversight of the military and diplomatic functions to immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few .
Donald Trump has both politicized and corrupted these institutions .
It is important to keep in mind that we might not have learned about the efforts to extort the government of Ukraine were it not for the whistleblower ’ s complaint .
We should all be questioning what other examples of corruption would be exposed by a little sunlight .
That raises a question that presidential candidates don ’ t usually talk about during a campaign : who will they appoint to various cabinet positions ?
But perhaps even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the battle for control of the Senate , where nominees to those positions are confirmed .
If Mitch McConnell continues as the majority leader , it doesn ’ t take much imagination to speculate about how he will play havoc with that process to stifle a new administration .
It is very possible that a criminal cabal has infected the federal government .
The first step in cleaning house is to remove Trump from office , either via the Senate trial or the November election .
But that won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigating the role of people like Pence , Barr , and Pompeo in the president ’ s attempt to extort Ukraine and voters give control of the Senate to Democrats , enabling the next administration to clean house .

On Wednesday night, Rachel Maddow conducted an explosive interview with Rudy Giuliani’s associate, Lev Parnas. There is likely more to come from part two of the interview, which will be broadcast on Thursday night.
While it is important to keep in mind that the claims Parnas made will need to be corroborated, he made one thing perfectly clear. He was tasked by Trump and Giuliani to extort Ukrainian President Zelensky to announce an investigation that would implicate the president’s main rival in the 2020 election, Joe Biden. Parnas affirmed that was the main objective.
As we saw with his letter to Zelensky, Giuliani made it clear that, in these efforts, he was working on Trump’s behalf. That goes directly to the first article of impeachment on abuse of power and is why the Senate must remove Trump from office.
Based on some of the other things Parnas said, that is simply step one. His more explosive revelations had to do with accusations that Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General William Barr, and Representative Devin Nunes were involved in the extortion scheme.
Given that the charges include the attorney general, it is not possible for the Department of Justice to investigate these claims. What we learned from the Mueller investigation is that a special prosecutor basically works for the attorney general, so that is not a remedy either. Congress must take up the charge and probe the depths of the criminal cabal in this administration.
But it doesn’t end there. The 2020 election is only nine months away. If the Democratic nominee wins the White House in November, he or she will inherit a federal bureaucracy that has been steeped in corruption. While people like Pence, Barr, and Pompeo will be gone, their replacements will face the challenge of figuring out how deep the corruption went and cleaning up the mess their predecessors left behind.
Too often we forget that one of the main jobs of the chief executive is to manage the federal government. That primarily happens via members of the president’s cabinet and includes everything from oversight of the military and diplomatic functions to immigration policies and environmental protection, to name just a few.
Donald Trump has both politicized and corrupted these institutions. It is important to keep in mind that we might not have learned about the efforts to extort the government of Ukraine were it not for the whistleblower’s complaint. We should all be questioning what other examples of corruption would be exposed by a little sunlight.
That raises a question that presidential candidates don’t usually talk about during a campaign: who will they appoint to various cabinet positions? But perhaps even more importantly, it ups the ante on the battle for control of the Senate, where nominees to those positions are confirmed. If Mitch McConnell continues as the majority leader, it doesn’t take much imagination to speculate about how he will play havoc with that process to stifle a new administration.
It is very possible that a criminal cabal has infected the federal government. The first step in cleaning house is to remove Trump from office, either via the Senate trial or the November election. But that won’t be enough unless congress does its job of investigating the role of people like Pence, Barr, and Pompeo in the president’s attempt to extort Ukraine and voters give control of the Senate to Democrats, enabling the next administration to clean house.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-17--Trump’s Legal Team Is a Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

From time immemorial , port cities have been “ wretched hives of scum and villainy , ” so why should spaceports be any different ?
That was the theory behind Mos Eisley , home of the famous bar scene in the original Star Wars .
And why should Trump ’ s International Hotel in Washington , D.C. be any different ?
It ’ s a gathering place for every kind of crook and scoundrel .
As Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow , “ It was like a breeding ground at the Trump hotel.
” And why should Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump ’ s defense team for his Senate impeachment trial will include former independent counsel Ken Starr , who investigated President Bill Clinton , and famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz , sources familiar with the president ’ s legal strategy told NBC News Friday .
Also joining the team is Robert Ray , who succeeded Starr as Clinton special counsel , and Pam Bondi , the former Florida attorney general who joined the White House in November to help manage the messaging around impeachment , the sources said .
Villainy may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the stench of scum is hard to ignore .
Kenneth Starr is a completely disgraced man , after bringing Baylor University into total disrepute : Starr was ousted as president of Baylor University and then resigned as chancellor in 2016 amid an investigation into claims he and school officials mishandled allegations of sexual assault by football players .
An independent investigation found that under Starr ’ s leadership the school actively discouraged “ some complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct processes and in one instance constituted retaliation against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been credibly accused of taking advantage of the services of Jeffrey Epstein ’ s underage sex slavery empire .
“ I kept my underwear on during the massage… I don ’ t like massages particularly.
” — Alan Dershowitz , via Skype , trying to explain why he was in an alleged sex trafficker ’ s house but was only massaged by an “ old , old Russian woman ” and had no clue what was going on in the rest of the house .
Dershowitz also said : “ Were there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house giving massages when I wasn ’ t around ?
I have no idea of that.
” Bondi is a poster girl for public corruption .
Further , the worst of the accusations against her actually involves the person she ’ s supposed to defend in the impeachment trial .
Bondi was serving as Florida ’ s attorney general when allegations began to arise that Trump University was a fraud .
On the one hand , she publicly said she ’ d look into it .
On the other , she privately asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump obliged , illegally using his charitable organization to do it .
Bondi promptly dropped the investigation into Trump University , and both parties defended the whole arrangement .
Then they denied it had been an arrangement at all , with Trump claiming that he had actually donated the money to another organization with a similar name .
But that organization never received any money , and Trump was fined by the IRS and his charitable organization was shut down .
More recently , Bondi has used her access to the president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbyist .
She also appears to disturbingly tight with the Scientologists .
Then there is Robert Ray .
He ’ s another piece of work .
The former federal prosecutor who succeeded Kenneth W. Starr as independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation has been charged with stalking his ex-girlfriend , police said .
Robert W. Ray surrendered to police Thursday .
He was ordered to appear in court at a later date and released , police said .
A complaint filed by Ray ’ s ex-girlfriend says he e-mailed , called and visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended .
There are many possible ways to respond to Trump ’ s choice of defenders .
As far as I know , Bondi has never been closely associated with sexual misconduct or assault , but I think she ’ d fit in at the Star Wars cantina just fine .
As it is , her lobbying firm regularly sends its clients to Trump ’ s D.C. hotel .
Maybe these are the only people who are morally compromised enough to see some advantage in arguing for the president ’ s innocence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring their lightsabers to the proceedings .
Speaking of which , maybe Ponda Baba was an innocent victim and Obi-Wan Kenobi was wrong to cut off his hand .
I ’ m sure Alan Dershowitz would be willing to make that argument .

From time immemorial, port cities have been “wretched hives of scum and villainy,” so why should spaceports be any different? That was the theory behind Mos Eisley, home of the famous bar scene in the original Star Wars. And why should Trump’s International Hotel in Washington, D.C. be any different? It’s a gathering place for every kind of crook and scoundrel. As Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow, “It was like a breeding ground at the Trump hotel.”
And why should Trump’s legal defense team not follow suit?
President Donald Trump’s defense team for his Senate impeachment trial will include former independent counsel Ken Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton, and famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, sources familiar with the president’s legal strategy told NBC News Friday. Also joining the team is Robert Ray, who succeeded Starr as Clinton special counsel, and Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general who joined the White House in November to help manage the messaging around impeachment, the sources said.
Villainy may be in the eye of the beholder, but the stench of scum is hard to ignore.
Kenneth Starr is a completely disgraced man, after bringing Baylor University into total disrepute:
Starr was ousted as president of Baylor University and then resigned as chancellor in 2016 amid an investigation into claims he and school officials mishandled allegations of sexual assault by football players. An independent investigation found that under Starr’s leadership the school actively discouraged “some complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct processes and in one instance constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault.”
Dershowitz has been credibly accused of taking advantage of the services of Jeffrey Epstein’s underage sex slavery empire.
“I kept my underwear on during the massage… I don’t like massages particularly.” — Alan Dershowitz, via Skype, trying to explain why he was in an alleged sex trafficker’s house but was only massaged by an “old, old Russian woman” and had no clue what was going on in the rest of the house. Dershowitz also said: “Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages when I wasn’t around? I have no idea of that.”
Bondi is a poster girl for public corruption. Further, the worst of the accusations against her actually involves the person she’s supposed to defend in the impeachment trial.
Bondi was serving as Florida’s attorney general when allegations began to arise that Trump University was a fraud. On the one hand, she publicly said she’d look into it. On the other, she privately asked Trump to fund her reelection campaign. Trump obliged, illegally using his charitable organization to do it. Bondi promptly dropped the investigation into Trump University, and both parties defended the whole arrangement. Then they denied it had been an arrangement at all, with Trump claiming that he had actually donated the money to another organization with a similar name. But that organization never received any money, and Trump was fined by the IRS and his charitable organization was shut down.
More recently, Bondi has used her access to the president to rake in money from Qatar as a lobbyist. She also appears to disturbingly tight with the Scientologists.
Then there is Robert Ray. He’s another piece of work.
The former federal prosecutor who succeeded Kenneth W. Starr as independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation has been charged with stalking his ex-girlfriend, police said. Robert W. Ray surrendered to police Thursday. He was ordered to appear in court at a later date and released, police said. A complaint filed by Ray’s ex-girlfriend says he e-mailed, called and visited her against her wishes after their relationship ended.
There are many possible ways to respond to Trump’s choice of defenders.
As far as I know, Bondi has never been closely associated with sexual misconduct or assault, but I think she’d fit in at the Star Wars cantina just fine. As it is, her lobbying firm regularly sends its clients to Trump’s D.C. hotel.
Maybe these are the only people who are morally compromised enough to see some advantage in arguing for the president’s innocence, but I hope the House Managers remember to bring their lightsabers to the proceedings.
Speaking of which, maybe Ponda Baba was an innocent victim and Obi-Wan Kenobi was wrong to cut off his hand. I’m sure Alan Dershowitz would be willing to make that argument.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-17--Two White Candidates Discuss the Roots of Racism

During an interview with the New York Times , Bernie Sanders discussed his view that the roots of racism are a “ blame game ” employed by demagogues .
There are some ways that Sanders is right .
As Tim Wise documented , white supremacy was invented by the elites in this country as a way to create a divide between poor white and black people .
Some of us lived through the creation of the Southern Strategy by Republicans as a way to divide poor white and black people in the South .
So Sanders has a point when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and white privilege as a tool to maintain power .
But Joe Biden adds something important to the mix .
The former vice president notes that the struggle between our American ideals and racism has been going on since this country ’ s founding .
There have been times when—particularly for white people—that struggle seems to disappear .
But as Biden said , “ hate never goes away , it just hides.
” He further notes that it comes roaring back when leaders like Donald Trump give it oxygen .
The oxygen Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Virginia .
Alarming calls online for a race war .
The arrest of three suspected neo-Nazis .
Memories of the explosive clashes in Charlottesville , Va. , three years ago .
A sense of crisis enveloped the capital of Virginia on Thursday , with the police on heightened alert and Richmond bracing for possible violence ahead of a gun rally next week that is expected to draw white supremacists and other anti-government extremists .
Members of numerous armed militias and white power proponents vowed to converge on the city despite the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam , who temporarily banned weapons from the grounds of the State Capitol .
The potential for an armed confrontation prompted fears of a rerun of the 2017 far-right rally that left one person dead and some two dozen injured in Charlottesville , about an hour ’ s drive from Monday ’ s rally .
These kinds of groups have always existed in the United States .
But their hatred has been empowered by the man who currently occupies the Oval Office .
Keep in mind that Donald Trump launched himself onto the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reignite the birtherism lie about the first African American president .
In his book , The Culture of Make Believe , Derrick Jensen explained what led to Trump being able to tap into that kind of hate .
From the perspective of those who are entitled , the problems begin when those they despise do not go along with—and have the power and wherewithal to not go along with—the perceived entitlement… Several times I have commented that hatred felt long and deeply enough no longer feels like hatred , but more like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have you .
It is when those traditions are challenged , when the entitlement is threatened , when the masks of religion , economics , and so on are pulled away that hate transforms from its more seemingly sophisticated , “ normal , ” chronic state—where those exploited are looked down upon , or despised—to a more acute and obvious manifestation .
Hate becomes more perceptible when it is no longer normalized .
Another way to say all of this is that if the rhetoric of superiority works to maintain the entitlement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But when that rhetoric begins to fail , force and hatred waits in the wings , ready to explode .
When Jensen talks about hatred becoming masked by tradition , economics , and religion , he is referring to the ways that racism has become systemic in our culture and institutions .
While that form of racism appears hidden to white people , its effects are felt almost daily by people of color .
It was during the Obama administration that the hatred began to explode .
Here is how white supremacist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Trump , on a gut level , kind of senses that this is about demographics , ultimately .
We ’ re moving into a new America.
” He said , “ I don ’ t think Trump is a white nationalist , ” but he did believe that Trump reflected “ an unconscious vision that white people have – that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country .
I think that scares us .
They probably aren ’ t able to articulate it .
I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to a great degree , explains the Trump phenomenon.
” So Sanders is right that , historically , demagogues have used racism to divide us and maintain their power .
But until we understand that the hatred exists , even when it appears hidden to most white people , it will be available for those demagogues to exploit .

During an interview with the New York Times, Bernie Sanders discussed his view that the roots of racism are a “blame game” employed by demagogues.
There are some ways that Sanders is right. As Tim Wise documented, white supremacy was invented by the elites in this country as a way to create a divide between poor white and black people.
Some of us lived through the creation of the Southern Strategy by Republicans as a way to divide poor white and black people in the South. So Sanders has a point when he says that demagogues have utilized racism and white privilege as a tool to maintain power.
But Joe Biden adds something important to the mix.
The former vice president notes that the struggle between our American ideals and racism has been going on since this country’s founding. There have been times when—particularly for white people—that struggle seems to disappear. But as Biden said, “hate never goes away, it just hides.” He further notes that it comes roaring back when leaders like Donald Trump give it oxygen.
The oxygen Trump has given hate is fueling these developments in Virginia.
Alarming calls online for a race war. The arrest of three suspected neo-Nazis. Memories of the explosive clashes in Charlottesville, Va., three years ago. A sense of crisis enveloped the capital of Virginia on Thursday, with the police on heightened alert and Richmond bracing for possible violence ahead of a gun rally next week that is expected to draw white supremacists and other anti-government extremists. Members of numerous armed militias and white power proponents vowed to converge on the city despite the state of emergency declared by Gov. Ralph Northam, who temporarily banned weapons from the grounds of the State Capitol. The potential for an armed confrontation prompted fears of a rerun of the 2017 far-right rally that left one person dead and some two dozen injured in Charlottesville, about an hour’s drive from Monday’s rally.
These kinds of groups have always existed in the United States. But their hatred has been empowered by the man who currently occupies the Oval Office.
Keep in mind that Donald Trump launched himself onto the national political scene with his racist attempt to reignite the birtherism lie about the first African American president. In his book, The Culture of Make Believe, Derrick Jensen explained what led to Trump being able to tap into that kind of hate.
From the perspective of those who are entitled, the problems begin when those they despise do not go along with—and have the power and wherewithal to not go along with—the perceived entitlement… Several times I have commented that hatred felt long and deeply enough no longer feels like hatred, but more like tradition, economics, religion, what have you. It is when those traditions are challenged, when the entitlement is threatened, when the masks of religion, economics, and so on are pulled away that hate transforms from its more seemingly sophisticated, “normal,” chronic state—where those exploited are looked down upon, or despised—to a more acute and obvious manifestation. Hate becomes more perceptible when it is no longer normalized. Another way to say all of this is that if the rhetoric of superiority works to maintain the entitlement, hatred and direct physical force remains underground. But when that rhetoric begins to fail, force and hatred waits in the wings, ready to explode.
When Jensen talks about hatred becoming masked by tradition, economics, and religion, he is referring to the ways that racism has become systemic in our culture and institutions. While that form of racism appears hidden to white people, its effects are felt almost daily by people of color.
It was during the Obama administration that the hatred began to explode. Here is how white supremacist Richard Spencer described what Trump tapped into.
“Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We’re moving into a new America.” He said, “I don’t think Trump is a white nationalist,” but he did believe that Trump reflected “an unconscious vision that white people have – that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably aren’t able to articulate it. I think it’s there. I think that, to a great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon.”
So Sanders is right that, historically, demagogues have used racism to divide us and maintain their power. But until we understand that the hatred exists, even when it appears hidden to most white people, it will be available for those demagogues to exploit.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-17--The Clinton Impeachment Was a Lot Different

Before Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing an investigation into his personal infidelity , he was pursued for six years on more serious matters .
The Whitewater investigation accused him of corruption during his time as the governor of Arkansas .
Troopergate accused him of using state police officers to help him arrange secret sexual liaisons .
The Travelgate and Filegate investigations pertained to actions his administration took soon after he was inaugurated in 1993 .
Most ominously , the suicide of Vince Foster was treated as a possible homicide , with Bill and Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to note that none of these accusations were ever proven .
It ’ s also important that they preceded the crimes he actually did commit .
The result in the public mind was that the Republicans were perceived as promising a whale and producing a minnow .
Were we really going to remove the president of the United States from office for a ticky-tack foul ?
The Republicans have attempted to create a similar impression in defense of Donald Trump .
Certainly , there are some Democrats who called for his impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , given the Russian assistance he requested and received during his campaign , many expected the Mueller investigation to result in articles of impeachment .
Now that the president has been impeached over “ a phone call , ” we ’ re supposed to see this as small potatoes compared to the original charges .
The reason this approach doesn ’ t work in the current context is that Trump was impeached for doing in office what he was originally accused of doing only as a candidate .
Imagine if the Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the power of the presidential office to pressure a bank into giving an improper loan .
That would have been a kind of confirmation of the original charge against them prior to the presidency , but now even more serious .
Instead , the Lewinsky matter reinforced a completely different suspicion about Bill Clinton .
His fatal flaw wasn ’ t personal corruption , but questionable sexual conduct .
Donald Trump has engaged in a lot of questionable sexual conduct and he ’ s committed crimes to cover it up , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegation against him : that he sought foreign political assistance and bent American policy to get it .
During the Clinton impeachment , the Democrats readily conceded that the president had perjured himself .
They mainly acknowledged that he had obstructed justice .
In the present case , it ’ s hard to get the Republicans to acknowledge the same type of obvious fact .
They won ’ t come out and admit that President Trump committed an extortion campaign against a foreign ally—using his office and federal dollars as weapons—in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically .
In 1999 , the Senate debated whether or not Clinton should be removed from office for lying under oath and obstructing an investigation .
In 2020 , the Senate is going to debate whether they should even hear evidence .
In the impeachment of Bill Clinton , the Senate had to decide what the appropriate punishment should be for a president who seeks to hide that he ’ s cheated on his wife and commits crimes in the process .
In the impeachment of Donald Trump , we can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes that were committed .
The explanation for this difference should be pretty obvious to everyone .
It was easy to say that the president shouldn ’ t be convicted over a blow job .
It ’ s a lot harder to say that the president shouldn ’ t be convicted for using military aid as a political weapon against Joe Biden .

Before Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing an investigation into his personal infidelity, he was pursued for six years on more serious matters. The Whitewater investigation accused him of corruption during his time as the governor of Arkansas. Troopergate accused him of using state police officers to help him arrange secret sexual liaisons. The Travelgate and Filegate investigations pertained to actions his administration took soon after he was inaugurated in 1993. Most ominously, the suicide of Vince Foster was treated as a possible homicide, with Bill and Hillary Clinton as likely suspects.
It’s important to note that none of these accusations were ever proven. It’s also important that they preceded the crimes he actually did commit. The result in the public mind was that the Republicans were perceived as promising a whale and producing a minnow. Were we really going to remove the president of the United States from office for a ticky-tack foul?
The Republicans have attempted to create a similar impression in defense of Donald Trump. Certainly, there are some Democrats who called for his impeachment before he was even sworn in. And, given the Russian assistance he requested and received during his campaign, many expected the Mueller investigation to result in articles of impeachment. Now that the president has been impeached over “a phone call,” we’re supposed to see this as small potatoes compared to the original charges.
The reason this approach doesn’t work in the current context is that Trump was impeached for doing in office what he was originally accused of doing only as a candidate. Imagine if the Clinton impeachment had been about Bill and Hillary using the power of the presidential office to pressure a bank into giving an improper loan. That would have been a kind of confirmation of the original charge against them prior to the presidency, but now even more serious. Instead, the Lewinsky matter reinforced a completely different suspicion about Bill Clinton. His fatal flaw wasn’t personal corruption, but questionable sexual conduct.
Donald Trump has engaged in a lot of questionable sexual conduct and he’s committed crimes to cover it up, but he was impeached for the most serious allegation against him: that he sought foreign political assistance and bent American policy to get it.
During the Clinton impeachment, the Democrats readily conceded that the president had perjured himself. They mainly acknowledged that he had obstructed justice. In the present case, it’s hard to get the Republicans to acknowledge the same type of obvious fact. They won’t come out and admit that President Trump committed an extortion campaign against a foreign ally—using his office and federal dollars as weapons—in order to get that foreign power to help him politically.
In 1999, the Senate debated whether or not Clinton should be removed from office for lying under oath and obstructing an investigation. In 2020, the Senate is going to debate whether they should even hear evidence.
In the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Senate had to decide what the appropriate punishment should be for a president who seeks to hide that he’s cheated on his wife and commits crimes in the process. In the impeachment of Donald Trump, we can’t even get the Republicans to voice the crimes that were committed.
The explanation for this difference should be pretty obvious to everyone. It was easy to say that the president shouldn’t be convicted over a blow job. It’s a lot harder to say that the president shouldn’t be convicted for using military aid as a political weapon against Joe Biden.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-18--The Troll Presidency Takes Another Pointlessly Cruel Action

There is so much news happening in the last 24 hours that it feels like drinking from a fire hose .
Others like our own Martin Longman can analyze the situation around Lev Parnas better than I , and it ’ s a very busy weekend for me , so apologies in advance .
But I would be remiss not to highlight one of the more minor stories of the day that might otherwise escape attention–if only because it puts in sharp focus the pointless , petty cruelty of this administration .
The Trump Administration decided to roll back the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school children .
This is obviously terrible , so why do it ?
Well , because it was a Michelle Obama initiative , that ’ s why .
Why do it now ?
It was Michelle Obama ’ s birthday .
The Trump administration moved on Friday to roll back school nutrition standards championed by Michelle Obama , an effort long sought by food manufacturers and some school districts that have chafed at the cost of Mrs. Obama ’ s prescriptions for fresh fruit and vegetables… Combating childhood obesity was Mrs. Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her supporters and a lightning rod for conservative critics who saw it as epitomizing the liberal “ nanny state ” of the Obama era .
The administration says , of course , that it was just a coincidence and not intentional : A spokeswoman for the department said that it had not intended to roll out the proposed rule on Mrs. Obama ’ s birthday , although some Democratic aides on Capitol Hill had their doubts .
Food companies applauded the proposal , while nutritionists condemned it , predicting that starchy foods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fattening foods like hamburgers would be served daily as “ snacks.
” Sure .
The folks at Red State are certainly celebrating it as an act of aggressive trolling .
So even in the unlikely event it wasn ’ t intentional , Trump ’ s base is reveling in the meanness of it nonetheless .
Which is further astonishing since…don ’ t some of these people also have kids who go to public schools ?
Certainly they must .
Do they not care about their own children ’ s health ?
Apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against their hated political opponents .
It ’ s just another reminder that we don ’ t actually have a government .
We have a cult of grievance orchestrated by a cable news network for bitter , angry bigots with a cruelty streak .

There is so much news happening in the last 24 hours that it feels like drinking from a fire hose. Others like our own Martin Longman can analyze the situation around Lev Parnas better than I can—and it’s a very busy weekend for me, so apologies in advance. But I would be remiss not to highlight one of the more minor stories of the day that might otherwise escape attention, if only because it puts in sharp focus the pointless, petty cruelty of this administration.
The Trump Administration decided to roll back the amount of fruits and vegetables given to school children. This is obviously terrible, so why do it? Well, because it was a Michelle Obama initiative, that’s why. Why do it now? It was Michelle Obama’s birthday.
No, seriously.
The Trump administration moved on Friday to roll back school nutrition standards championed by Michelle Obama, an effort long sought by food manufacturers and some school districts that have chafed at the cost of Mrs. Obama’s prescriptions for fresh fruit and vegetables… Combating childhood obesity was Mrs. Obama’s signature issue, a rallying cry for her supporters and a lightning rod for conservative critics who saw it as epitomizing the liberal “nanny state” of the Obama era.
The administration says, of course, that it was just a coincidence and not intentional:
A spokeswoman for the department said that it had not intended to roll out the proposed rule on Mrs. Obama’s birthday, although some Democratic aides on Capitol Hill had their doubts. Food companies applauded the proposal, while nutritionists condemned it, predicting that starchy foods like potatoes would replace green vegetables and that fattening foods like hamburgers would be served daily as “snacks.”
Sure. The folks at Red State are certainly celebrating it as an act of aggressive trolling. So even in the unlikely event it wasn’t intentional, Trump’s base is reveling in the meanness of it nonetheless. Which is further astonishing since…don’t some of these people also have kids who go to public schools? Certainly they must. Do they not care about their own children’s health? Apparently not as much as scoring a point against their hated political opponents.
It’s just another reminder that we don’t actually have a government. We have a cult of grievance orchestrated by a cable news network for bitter, angry bigots with a cruelty streak.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-18--The Real Impeachment Trial

The Real Impeachment Trial

In 1999 , after Democratic President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , then Republican Senator Arlen Specter said the following : “ The Senate proceeding posed a curious dichotomy with one hundred sitting silent Senators in the Chamber and non-stop Senators ’ interviews in the corridors and media galleries .
The case was really not being tried in the Senate Chamber , but in a sense was being tried in the Senate corridors , on the evening TV interview shows , and on the Sunday talk shows.
” Democrats today should find some comfort in those words , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the case for Donald Trump ’ s impeachment will be tried , like Clinton ’ s , not just on the Senate floor , but on the evening TV interview circuit and on the Sunday talk shows .
It will also extend to Twitter , Facebook , Instagram , and YouTube .
It will be all over the internet .
Simply put , Democrats will have the opportunity to win in the court of public opinion , if not in the Senate trial itself .
A little more than two decades after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attention , Democrats and Republicans are gearing up for just the third Senate impeachment trial in American history .
On Wednesday , Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed seven House members to serve as impeachment managers , or prosecutors of the case , and transmitted the articles of impeachment to the upper chamber .
Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial .
Without any witness testimony scheduled to date , the proceedings are expected to run two weeks long .
That opportunity to reach the public will be all the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitch McConnell ’ s current plans for Trump ’ s trial are egregiously illegitimate .
As of this writing , McConnell has blocked all attempts to allow for witness testimony during the Senate trial—even though every prior impeachment trial in United States ’ history has included witnesses .
As McConnell continues to insist on conducting a sham trial , voters must demand a fair showing of witnesses and relevant documents .
That said , Specter ’ s insight from 1999 serves as a strong reminder for what is at stake in the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information presented by House Democrats—and take advantage of the ongoing media attention—it will put Trump ’ s impeachable conduct in the forefront of the minds of the American people .
We don ’ t yet fully know the parameters of McConnell ’ s rules for the impeachment trial .
Historically , senators have not played a vocal role during impeachment trial proceedings .
The 1999 Clinton impeachment trial provides a glimpse of that limited role.In that case , the parties negotiated an agreement that three witnesses would be deposed by House Managers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then , six Senators , three from each party , “ presided over ” the three depositions , but none of them actually conducted them .
Instead , they held more of an administrative role , such as negotiating potential objections and asking only minor questions .
During Clinton ’ s Senate trial , the senators could not interject to ask questions .
Rather , their role was to observe and listen while the House managers presented the case for impeachment .
The senators could only pose written questions to Chief Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton trial .
At the trial ’ s conclusion , each individual Senator made a closed-door impeachment statement .
Then , the Senate voted .
Clinton was acquitted by a vote of 55-45 .
That all sounds very technical—and that ’ s because it was .
It ’ s one of the reasons hardly anyone remembers that aspect of the spectacle .
What they do remember , however , was the media blitz that accompanied the trial .
Indeed , in 2020 , senators will be able to make a meaningful impact through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours after the trial .
That ’ s when they will have the opportunity to go on the record and share publicly their thoughts and what they learned during the trial .
Republicans seem to be aware of this .
Senator Roy Blunt , under McConnell ’ s leadership , already has issued press restrictions for the 2020 trial , much to the frustration of the media , Democrats , and even some Republicans .
Those rules include confining reporters to a “ press pen ” in the Capitol , limiting their usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview members as they are walking around ) , and banning the use of electronics , such as cell phones or laptops , in the chamber during the trial .
These aren ’ t longstanding Senate rules .
Under the guise of security , they are an instrument for McConnell ’ s blatant attempt to blunt coverage of what will surely be a fiasco for the president .
Unfortunately , those restrictions will remain unless two-thirds of the Senate votes to loosen the rules—an unlikely scenario .
Nevertheless , Democratic senators will still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s removal from office before the largest possible audience .
Former prosecutors turned senators , like Kamala Harris , Amy Klobuchar , Patrick Leahy , Sheldon Whitehouse , and Doug Jones , will be particularly skilled in their ability to assess facts and evidence , paint a clear picture of wrongdoing , and distill a narrative for voters .
Other talented Senate orators , like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , can spend their evenings and weekends hitting the talk show circuit and utilizing their vast followings on social media .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective bullhorns , they can effectively chronicle the trial for the American public .
In many ways , this opportunity to reach voters at the end of the workday—most will be following through social media and the nightly news—and persuasively stringing together the day ’ s narrative may be more impactful than voters actually watching the proceedings .
That , in and of itself , could make the impeachment process worth it , even if it ultimately results in the president ’ s acquittal .
It will make more citizens informed of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senators who are up for re-election in purple states will be put in a prickly position : whether they support or oppose impeachment , they will automatically risk alienating key constituencies in their states .
While many Americans would like nothing more than for the impeachment trial to result in the removal of President Trump before the end of his term , Democrats likely won ’ t be able to whip the 67 Senate votes needed for his conviction .
Still , Democratic Senators may have more power than perhaps even they realize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can very well win over hearts and minds .
That may not remove Trump from office just yet , but it could go a long way toward making him a one-term president .

In 1999, after Democratic President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, then Republican Senator Arlen Specter said the following: “The Senate proceeding posed a curious dichotomy with one hundred sitting silent Senators in the Chamber and non-stop Senators’ interviews in the corridors and media galleries. The case was really not being tried in the Senate Chamber, but in a sense was being tried in the Senate corridors, on the evening TV interview shows, and on the Sunday talk shows.”
Democrats today should find some comfort in those words, because no matter what happens in the Senate, the case for Donald Trump’s impeachment will be tried, like Clinton’s, not just on the Senate floor, but on the evening TV interview circuit and on the Sunday talk shows. It will also extend to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. It will be all over the internet.
Simply put, Democrats will have the opportunity to win in the court of public opinion, if not in the Senate trial itself.
A little more than two decades after the Clinton impeachment trial consumed America’s attention, Democrats and Republicans are gearing up for just the third Senate impeachment trial in American history. On Wednesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed seven House members to serve as impeachment managers, or prosecutors of the case, and transmitted the articles of impeachment to the upper chamber. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. Without any witness testimony scheduled to date, the proceedings are expected to run two weeks long.
That opportunity to reach the public will be all the more important for Democrats because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s current plans for Trump’s trial are egregiously illegitimate. As of this writing, McConnell has blocked all attempts to allow for witness testimony during the Senate trial—even though every prior impeachment trial in United States’ history has included witnesses.
As McConnell continues to insist on conducting a sham trial, voters must demand a fair showing of witnesses and relevant documents. That said, Specter’s insight from 1999 serves as a strong reminder for what is at stake in the impeachment trial: If Democrats effectively communicate the information presented by House Democrats—and take advantage of the ongoing media attention—it will put Trump’s impeachable conduct in the forefront of the minds of the American people.
We don’t yet fully know the parameters of McConnell’s rules for the impeachment trial. Historically, senators have not played a vocal role during impeachment trial proceedings. The 1999 Clinton impeachment trial provides a glimpse of that limited role.In that case, the parties negotiated an agreement that three witnesses would be deposed by House Managers, in advance of the trial via videoconference. Then, six Senators, three from each party, “presided over” the three depositions, but none of them actually conducted them. Instead, they held more of an administrative role, such as negotiating potential objections and asking only minor questions.
During Clinton’s Senate trial, the senators could not interject to ask questions. Rather, their role was to observe and listen while the House managers presented the case for impeachment. The senators could only pose written questions to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presided over the Clinton trial. At the trial’s conclusion, each individual Senator made a closed-door impeachment statement. Then, the Senate voted. Clinton was acquitted by a vote of 55-45.
That all sounds very technical—and that’s because it was. It’s one of the reasons hardly anyone remembers that aspect of the spectacle. What they do remember, however, was the media blitz that accompanied the trial.
Indeed, in 2020, senators will be able to make a meaningful impact through what they say on television in the hours after the trial. That’s when they will have the opportunity to go on the record and share publicly their thoughts and what they learned during the trial.
Republicans seem to be aware of this. Senator Roy Blunt, under McConnell’s leadership, already has issued press restrictions for the 2020 trial, much to the frustration of the media, Democrats, and even some Republicans. Those rules include confining reporters to a “press pen” in the Capitol, limiting their usual hallway access (Capitol Hill reporters frequently interview members as they are walking around), and banning the use of electronics, such as cell phones or laptops, in the chamber during the trial. These aren’t longstanding Senate rules. Under the guise of security, they are an instrument for McConnell’s blatant attempt to blunt coverage of what will surely be a fiasco for the president. Unfortunately, those restrictions will remain unless two-thirds of the Senate votes to loosen the rules—an unlikely scenario.
Nevertheless, Democratic senators will still be able to make the case for Trump’s removal from office before the largest possible audience. Former prosecutors turned senators, like Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Doug Jones, will be particularly skilled in their ability to assess facts and evidence, paint a clear picture of wrongdoing, and distill a narrative for voters. Other talented Senate orators, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, can spend their evenings and weekends hitting the talk show circuit and utilizing their vast followings on social media.
With all of these lawmakers using their collective bullhorns, they can effectively chronicle the trial for the American public. In many ways, this opportunity to reach voters at the end of the workday—most will be following through social media and the nightly news—and persuasively stringing together the day’s narrative may be more impactful than voters actually watching the proceedings. That, in and of itself, could make the impeachment process worth it, even if it ultimately results in the president’s acquittal. It will make more citizens informed of Trump’s misbehavior.
Plus, Republican Senators who are up for re-election in purple states will be put in a prickly position: whether they support or oppose impeachment, they will automatically risk alienating key constituencies in their states.
While many Americans would like nothing more than for the impeachment trial to result in the removal of President Trump before the end of his term, Democrats likely won’t be able to whip the 67 Senate votes needed for his conviction. Still, Democratic Senators may have more power than perhaps even they realize. With some media savvy, they can very well win over hearts and minds. That may not remove Trump from office just yet, but it could go a long way toward making him a one-term president.