motherjones--2020-01-21--With Trump’s Impeachment, American Democracy Is on Trial

The start of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is a reminder that the American political system does include safeguards and norms that are meant to protect the citizenry from corruption and misdeeds in the highest offices of the land .
What happens in the Senate over the next few weeks will show whether these measures still matter .
The impeachment process , as shaped by the rules devised long ago by members of the House and Senate , is loaded with archaic tradition and stuffy ceremony .
The House speaker signs articles of impeachment .
House managers then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the articles to the Senate chamber .
In a somber session , senators take a solemn oath to deliver “ impartial justice ” and sign their names one by one in an oath book near the marble Senate rostrum .
These rituals were designed to highlight the gravity of the prospect of removing a president and to signal that in the United States , process and principle transcends all .
The rule of law trumps power and presidents .
At least , it is supposed to .
Trump has tested the system and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking point : only the third impeachment trial in the history of the republic .
The narrow case against him brought by the House is strong : Trump used—that is , abused—the power of his office for personal political gain .
The evidence is clear .
His hand-picked ambassador to the European Union—a hotelier with no previous diplomatic experience who contributed $ 1 million to Trump ’ s inauguration—testified there was an explicit quid pro quo : Trump would not grant a highly sought-after White House meeting to the new Ukrainian president or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless Ukraine announced investigations to sully Joe Biden and to legitimize a crazy conspiracy theory that held Ukraine , not Russia , hacked the Democrats in 2016 .
Trump ’ s actions were not in pursuit of any official aim .
Period .
He didn ’ t give a damn about corruption in Ukraine .
In a May 10 letter to the new Ukrainian president—which only became public last week—Rudy Giuliani noted that his efforts in Ukraine on behalf of Trump ( which centered on digging up dirt on Biden ) arose out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served Trump ’ s private interests .
That ’ s a nice way of saying Giuliani was on a purely political mission at Trump ’ s direction to gather from another government mud to hurl at Biden .
This letter ought to be regarded as a smoking gun .
And the General Accounting Office on Thursday released a finding that the withholding of aid to Ukraine that Trump ordered violated the law .
In other words , the president , in his official capacity , had demanded illegal action for his private benefit—to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival and to try to absolve Russia of intervening in the 2016 election .
Those data points should seal the deal .
But there ’ s so much more .
Other congressional testimony confirmed key elements of the extortion plot .
The quasi-transcript of Trump ’ s call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky depicts Trump putting the squeeze on the Ukrainian leader with a mobster-like request for a “ favor.
” In a stunning interview with MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow , Lev Parnas , the now-indicted associate of Giuliani who aided the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search for negative material on Biden , described a brazen shake-down scheme that was headed by Trump , and Parnas maintained that Vice President Mike Pence , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , and then-Energy Secretary Rick Perry each were co-conspirators .
Parnas ’ claims and other evidence suggest there was an even larger conspiracy in which Trump ’ s muscling of Zelensky was related to an attempt by Giuliani and two Fox News regulars—Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing , husband-and-wife lawyers—to lobby William Barr ’ s Justice Department to help indicted Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return for Firtash supplying them negative material on Biden and information that supposedly could discredit the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller .
RudyGate is becoming a scandal of its own .
The full story is complicated .
House Democrats thought they had a simple impeachment narrative : Trump improperly and arguably illegally pressured a foreign leader to take steps to influence the 2020 election in his favor .
That would—or should—be enough to impeach a president .
Yet pulling on that thread led to the unraveling of a bigger and uglier tapestry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and skulduggery reflect a wider and deeper rot that Trump has imported into the White House and spread throughout the US government .
Leaving the Ukraine affair aside , the man who is now being tried in the Senate has not only violated a specific provision of the Constitution—the emoluments clause—he has trampled long-existing norms that serve as guidelines for the nation ’ s leaders .
For example , a president should release his tax returns and not hand White House jobs to relatives , especially those who can not receive a security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-adhered-to but informal rules .
He also ignored long-standing guidance about conflicts-of-interest .
In fact , the moment Trump was sworn into office , he was in breach of this emoluments prohibition , which bans presidents from accepting gifts and payments from overseas governments and officials .
Through the Trump Organization—which Trump still owns—he has pocketed money from foreigners and governments who buy apartments from his firm or pay for rooms in his hotels .
Never has it been easier for seekers of influence and access—from across the oceans and from here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president .
Trump , though , has disregarded this section of the Constitution and fought lawsuits that would force him to comply with it .
This , too , could be the stuff of impeachment .
So could his interactions with Russia .
During the 2016 campaign , Trump encouraged Moscow ’ s attack on the election , which was waged partly to help him win the White House .
He also denied this attack was under way , echoing and signal-boosting Vladimir Putin ’ s we-didn ’ t-do-it disinformation , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interactions with Russia .
While running for president , Trump was also secretly negotiating a deal to develop a tower in Moscow that could have earned him hundreds of millions of dollars , and his company sought help with the venture from Putin ’ s office—and yet Trump lied to voters and said he had nothing to do with Russia .
As president , Trump continued to deny , discount , downplay , or dismiss the Kremlin ’ s attack , complaining endlessly about the “ Russian hoax.
” According to the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials , during a meeting in the Oval Office , that he was not concerned with Putin ’ s assault on a US election .
That was a serious dereliction of duty—a commander in chief informing a foreign adversary he didn ’ t care that it had attacked the United States .
Such an action might be grounds for removing a president from office .
As could be the multiple cases of potential obstruction of justice that Mueller documented in his final report .
Mueller noted that due to a Justice Department policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicted on a federal charge , he did not reach a decision on whether Trump ought to be indicted for any of these actions .
That was a job for Congress , Mueller explained in his final report—basically saying this was possible impeachment fodder .
From grand betrayal to sleazy scandal , Trump has covered it all .
His onetime fixer , Michael Cohen , now resides in a federal prison in part for making an illegal hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels , who has claimed to have had an affair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that case , Trump—identified as “ Individual 1″—directed Cohen to slip the $ 130,000 to Daniels to shut her up before Election Day in 2016 .
( Cohen said that Trump also indirectly encouraged him to not tell Congress the full truth about the Moscow tower negotiations and their interactions with Putin ’ s office—a lie that helped to land Cohen in the slammer . )
This means that the man who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was a co-conspirator in a proven criminal conspiracy .
That ’ s according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case .
Trump ’ s presidential tenure has been a never-ending swirl of conflicts of interest , nepotism , law-breaking , norm-squashing , and corruption .
( And lies .
Over 16,000 lies and false statements so far . )
All this has placed a tremendous strain on the system .
The media does not always know how to accurately and responsibly cover the flood of mendacity and misconduct .
House Democrats , once they took control of their side of the Capitol , were unsure what to do in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Focus on the Mueller-documented obstruction ?
Just plow ahead to the next election ?
It wasn ’ t until a whistleblower who worked in the CIA sounded the alarm about Trump ’ s Ukraine caper that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues realized they had no choice but to kick-start an impeachment inquiry .
In a way , Trump got off easy , with just two articles of impeachment : abusing his power in the Ukraine scandal and obstructing the House investigation of this episode by blocking administration officials from testifying and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol gumshoes .
As for the Republicans , in a cultish manner , they have adopted the line that Trump does no wrong .
They deny reality .
They live in the land of Fox News , infected and overwhelmed by dearleader-itis .
And their slavish devotion to Trump—out of love or fear—undermines the system , for the system is predicated on the notion that most of its inhabitants are good-faith actors who care about preserving it .
The built-in protections of this system—such as those that are symbolized by the ritualistic ceremonies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honored .
Should a significant number of the guardians of the system say , “ Screw it , ” a democracy may not be able to protect itself from an enemy within .
So much of Trump ’ s presidency has served up causes for impeachment .
Yet still the national debate , due to Trump ’ s incessant shouting of falsehoods and the loud and robotic amen-ing of Republicans and the conservative media , often becomes fixated on debating reality—was an obvious quid pro quo a quid pro quo or not ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
The founders envisioned the possibility of a scoundrel gaining control of the White House .
But could they envision an entire political party putting on blinders and becoming the loyal and unyielding foot-soldiers of that scoundrel ?
Could they imagine a wholesale attack on the rule of law and the principle that no man is above the law ?
Could they imagine a party-wide abandonment of the elemental notion of checks and balances ?
This impeachment focuses on one corrupt incident , but it addresses a deeper and wider assault on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most fundamental values .
Even if the ultimate verdict for Trump is essentially pre-ordained , how this trial is handled and staged will be one indication of just how broken the system is .
In many of our homes , offices , workplaces , schools , places of worships , and businesses , fire extinguishers are stored and kept in accessible spots—just in case .
They are rarely needed and not often thought about .
But they have been purposefully placed in these positions as a precaution .
They can be grabbed should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or limit damage and injury .
Our political system has its own safeguards—some written down , others that exist merely in practice .
As Trump and his impeachment demonstrate , these protections are there .
Yet they are not self-enforcing .
They only work if they are used when a threat emerges and disaster strikes .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The start of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is a reminder that the American political system does include safeguards and norms that are meant to protect the citizenry from corruption and misdeeds in the highest offices of the land. What happens in the Senate over the next few weeks will show whether these measures still matter.
The rule of law trumps power and presidents. At least, it is supposed to.
The impeachment process, as shaped by the rules devised long ago by members of the House and Senate, is loaded with archaic tradition and stuffy ceremony. The House speaker signs articles of impeachment. House managers then stride through the Capitol complex to hand-deliver the articles to the Senate chamber. In a somber session, senators take a solemn oath to deliver “impartial justice” and sign their names one by one in an oath book near the marble Senate rostrum. These rituals were designed to highlight the gravity of the prospect of removing a president and to signal that in the United States, process and principle transcends all. The rule of law trumps power and presidents. At least, it is supposed to.
Trump has tested the system and pushed it to a breaking point—to this breaking point: only the third impeachment trial in the history of the republic. The narrow case against him brought by the House is strong: Trump used—that is, abused—the power of his office for personal political gain. The evidence is clear. His hand-picked ambassador to the European Union—a hotelier with no previous diplomatic experience who contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration—testified there was an explicit quid pro quo: Trump would not grant a highly sought-after White House meeting to the new Ukrainian president or provide congressionally approved military assistance to Kyiv unless Ukraine announced investigations to sully Joe Biden and to legitimize a crazy conspiracy theory that held Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the Democrats in 2016.
Trump’s actions were not in pursuit of any official aim. Period. He didn’t give a damn about corruption in Ukraine. In a May 10 letter to the new Ukrainian president—which only became public last week—Rudy Giuliani noted that his efforts in Ukraine on behalf of Trump (which centered on digging up dirt on Biden) arose out of his personal representation of Trump and served Trump’s private interests. That’s a nice way of saying Giuliani was on a purely political mission at Trump’s direction to gather from another government mud to hurl at Biden. This letter ought to be regarded as a smoking gun. And the General Accounting Office on Thursday released a finding that the withholding of aid to Ukraine that Trump ordered violated the law. In other words, the president, in his official capacity, had demanded illegal action for his private benefit—to obtain derogatory information on a 2020 political rival and to try to absolve Russia of intervening in the 2016 election.
Those data points should seal the deal. But there’s so much more. Other congressional testimony confirmed key elements of the extortion plot. The quasi-transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky depicts Trump putting the squeeze on the Ukrainian leader with a mobster-like request for a “favor.” In a stunning interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Lev Parnas, the now-indicted associate of Giuliani who aided the former New York City mayor’s search for negative material on Biden, described a brazen shake-down scheme that was headed by Trump, and Parnas maintained that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and then-Energy Secretary Rick Perry each were co-conspirators. Parnas’ claims and other evidence suggest there was an even larger conspiracy in which Trump’s muscling of Zelensky was related to an attempt by Giuliani and two Fox News regulars—Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, husband-and-wife lawyers—to lobby William Barr’s Justice Department to help indicted Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash escape bribery charges in return for Firtash supplying them negative material on Biden and information that supposedly could discredit the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. RudyGate is becoming a scandal of its own.
The full story is complicated. House Democrats thought they had a simple impeachment narrative: Trump improperly and arguably illegally pressured a foreign leader to take steps to influence the 2020 election in his favor. That would—or should—be enough to impeach a president. Yet pulling on that thread led to the unraveling of a bigger and uglier tapestry of crookedness. And all the shenanigans and skulduggery reflect a wider and deeper rot that Trump has imported into the White House and spread throughout the US government.
Leaving the Ukraine affair aside, the man who is now being tried in the Senate has not only violated a specific provision of the Constitution—the emoluments clause—he has trampled long-existing norms that serve as guidelines for the nation’s leaders. For example, a president should release his tax returns and not hand White House jobs to relatives, especially those who cannot receive a security clearance. Trump ignored both of these long-adhered-to but informal rules. He also ignored long-standing guidance about conflicts-of-interest. In fact, the moment Trump was sworn into office, he was in breach of this emoluments prohibition, which bans presidents from accepting gifts and payments from overseas governments and officials. Through the Trump Organization—which Trump still owns—he has pocketed money from foreigners and governments who buy apartments from his firm or pay for rooms in his hotels. Never has it been easier for seekers of influence and access—from across the oceans and from here in the United States—to buy it straight from a president. Trump, though, has disregarded this section of the Constitution and fought lawsuits that would force him to comply with it. This, too, could be the stuff of impeachment.
So could his interactions with Russia. During the 2016 campaign, Trump encouraged Moscow’s attack on the election, which was waged partly to help him win the White House. He also denied this attack was under way, echoing and signal-boosting Vladimir Putin’s we-didn’t-do-it disinformation, as his campaign maintained a series of covert interactions with Russia. While running for president, Trump was also secretly negotiating a deal to develop a tower in Moscow that could have earned him hundreds of millions of dollars, and his company sought help with the venture from Putin’s office—and yet Trump lied to voters and said he had nothing to do with Russia.
As president, Trump continued to deny, discount, downplay, or dismiss the Kremlin’s attack, complaining endlessly about the “Russian hoax.” According to the Washington Post, he even told senior Russian officials, during a meeting in the Oval Office, that he was not concerned with Putin’s assault on a US election. That was a serious dereliction of duty—a commander in chief informing a foreign adversary he didn’t care that it had attacked the United States. Such an action might be grounds for removing a president from office. As could be the multiple cases of potential obstruction of justice that Mueller documented in his final report. Mueller noted that due to a Justice Department policy that says a president cannot be indicted on a federal charge, he did not reach a decision on whether Trump ought to be indicted for any of these actions. That was a job for Congress, Mueller explained in his final report—basically saying this was possible impeachment fodder.
From grand betrayal to sleazy scandal, Trump has covered it all. His onetime fixer, Michael Cohen, now resides in a federal prison in part for making an illegal hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, who has claimed to have had an affair with Trump. According to the evidence in that case, Trump—identified as “Individual 1″—directed Cohen to slip the $130,000 to Daniels to shut her up before Election Day in 2016. (Cohen said that Trump also indirectly encouraged him to not tell Congress the full truth about the Moscow tower negotiations and their interactions with Putin’s office—a lie that helped to land Cohen in the slammer.) This means that the man who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was a co-conspirator in a proven criminal conspiracy. That’s according to the US Department of Justice, which prosecuted the case.
Trump’s presidential tenure has been a never-ending swirl of conflicts of interest, nepotism, law-breaking, norm-squashing, and corruption. (And lies. Over 16,000 lies and false statements so far.) All this has placed a tremendous strain on the system. The media does not always know how to accurately and responsibly cover the flood of mendacity and misconduct. House Democrats, once they took control of their side of the Capitol, were unsure what to do in response to Trump’s transgressions. Investigate everything? Focus on the Mueller-documented obstruction? Just plow ahead to the next election? It wasn’t until a whistleblower who worked in the CIA sounded the alarm about Trump’s Ukraine caper that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues realized they had no choice but to kick-start an impeachment inquiry.
In a way, Trump got off easy, with just two articles of impeachment: abusing his power in the Ukraine scandal and obstructing the House investigation of this episode by blocking administration officials from testifying and by preventing the release of documents to Capitol gumshoes. As for the Republicans, in a cultish manner, they have adopted the line that Trump does no wrong. They deny reality. They live in the land of Fox News, infected and overwhelmed by dearleader-itis. And their slavish devotion to Trump—out of love or fear—undermines the system, for the system is predicated on the notion that most of its inhabitants are good-faith actors who care about preserving it. The built-in protections of this system—such as those that are symbolized by the ritualistic ceremonies of impeachment—only work if they are fully honored. Should a significant number of the guardians of the system say, “Screw it,” a democracy may not be able to protect itself from an enemy within.
So much of Trump’s presidency has served up causes for impeachment. Yet still the national debate, due to Trump’s incessant shouting of falsehoods and the loud and robotic amen-ing of Republicans and the conservative media, often becomes fixated on debating reality—was an obvious quid pro quo a quid pro quo or not?—rather than what to do about that reality. The founders envisioned the possibility of a scoundrel gaining control of the White House. But could they envision an entire political party putting on blinders and becoming the loyal and unyielding foot-soldiers of that scoundrel? Could they imagine a wholesale attack on the rule of law and the principle that no man is above the law? Could they imagine a party-wide abandonment of the elemental notion of checks and balances? This impeachment focuses on one corrupt incident, but it addresses a deeper and wider assault on the nation’s governance and its most fundamental values. Even if the ultimate verdict for Trump is essentially pre-ordained, how this trial is handled and staged will be one indication of just how broken the system is.
In many of our homes, offices, workplaces, schools, places of worships, and businesses, fire extinguishers are stored and kept in accessible spots—just in case. They are rarely needed and not often thought about. But they have been purposefully placed in these positions as a precaution. They can be grabbed should an emergency arise and deployed to prevent or limit damage and injury. Our political system has its own safeguards—some written down, others that exist merely in practice. As Trump and his impeachment demonstrate, these protections are there. Yet they are not self-enforcing. They only work if they are used when a threat emerges and disaster strikes.


motherjones--2020-01-21--Jessica Cisneros Could Be the Next AOC. (But Don’t Tell Her That.)

Jessica Cisneros needed to find a dentist .
When she decided to challenge Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar in the upcoming Democratic primary , Cisneros quit her job and moved back in with her parents in Laredo to save money .
She ’ d bought her own insurance plan after turning 26 last May , but it didn ’ t include dental , and she still had six figures in law school debt .
So when Cisneros needed a root canal in July , she went with the cheapest option : Mexico .
Affordable and accessible health care is hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third of the county she lives in is uninsured .
Diabetics go to Nuevo Laredo for insulin .
Women go there for birth control .
Cisneros met a woman who saved up for a mammogram , only to be hit with another expense out of nowhere .
“ She had to choose between getting the study that she needed done and fixing her AC , ” Cisneros told me when we met in August .
“ Sometimes people just decide to go to el otro lado , right ?
” As she introduces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in stories like that with her own to make the case for sweeping structural changes : She wants to blow up the private health insurance market , demilitarize the border , and shut down private immigration prisons .
A year and a half after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) stunned the political world with an upset victory over the chair of the House Democratic Caucus , Joseph Crowley , Cisneros is hoping to accomplish something similar .
A Vogue headline distilled the buzz surrounding her to a question : “ Is Jessica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cisneros had a ready response to such comparisons : “ I admire her a lot , ” she told me .
“ But right now I ’ m just focused on South Texas and trying to be the leader South Texas needs , and trying to be the next Jessica Cisneros.
” And Laredo is a long way from the Bronx .
Cisneros and the eight-term incumbent she ’ s running against have radically divergent ideas about the electorate and what kind of ideas will play in a large rural border district .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ once interned , has a lifetime A rating from the National Rifle Association , opposes abortion rights , and has voted with President Donald Trump more often than any other Democrat in Congress .
You might expect a record like that—in a district similar to this one—to doom the incumbent .
Cuellar is running on it .
There ’ s a lot riding on how well Cisneros does .
If the kinds of policies she ’ s pushing , like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All , are going to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to have to catch on in places like South Texas .
Either you figure out how to sell universal health care to people crossing the border for a mammogram , or your movement withers on the vine .
Cisneros ’ success or failure will rest heavily on a question that a lot of Democrats are asking : Just how much of a revolution do people want ?
So far , Cisneros has reason for encouragement .
When we met , she had just gotten off the phone with emily ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women and would eventually endorse her in October .
In September , she picked up her first congressional endorsement , from Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( Mass . )
, and introduced the presidential candidate in front of 5,000 people at a rally in Austin .
Not long after that , Ocasio-Cortez herself offered a stamp of approval , telling HuffPost , “ I want to be the shortest-lived ‘ youngest congresswoman ever.
’ ” We met at Cisneros ’ temporary campaign office in a neighborhood of single-family homes on the east side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grandparents of a staffer and still bore trappings of its past life : Old , faded family photos lined the walls and nice china filled a cupboard .
Cisneros walked in wearing a purple campaign T-shirt with her name on it .
Her necklace said “ Justicia.
” Cisneros was born in Laredo , the daughter of Mexican immigrants who received legal status as part of President Ronald Reagan ’ s 1986 overhaul of the nation ’ s immigration system .
She gravitated toward immigration law , she told me , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grande reminded her of her own .
Cisneros was skeptical when Justice Democrats , the group that had recruited Ocasio-Cortez , reached out to her about taking on Cuellar .
“ I think that ’ s kind of a product of imposter syndrome that women of color have , ” she reflected .
But she jumped into the race last June .
She raised $ 100,000 within 48 hours of her announcement and picked up more small-dollar donations than Cuellar did in his last campaign .
In her launch video , Cisneros took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s favorite Democrat , ” touting his opposition to sanctuary cities and Planned Parenthood funding , and painting him as a tool of the “ big corporations ” who fill his campaign coffers .
( More than half of Cuellar ’ s fundraising this cycle has come from PACs . )
Cuellar ’ s proudly conservative voting record makes him such a natural target for a progressive challenge and national grassroots energy .
But Cisneros is not just running against Cuellar .
She is also running against the regional economy as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades have seen a boom in federal law enforcement jobs in South Texas and a growing infrastructure of detention facilities to house immigrants caught in the ever-expanding dragnet .
The Laredo area alone houses three ICE detention centers , including the Rio Grande Detention Center , run by the GEO Group , the nation ’ s largest private prison company .
The number of Border Patrol agents in the Laredo sector has nearly doubled since 2002 .
Cuellar has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from GEO , and he boasts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his district .
Cisneros said Cuellar has created a “ dependence ” on border security jobs at the expense of other kinds of investment—in health care , education , housing , and new industries .
And it ’ s a corrosive kind of monoculture , creating jobs for some Laredoans by depriving others of their freedom .
She recently heard from a woman whose daughter had been put in deportation proceedings after being pulled over with a busted taillight .
“ Instead of her working , being with her kids who really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Group are making thousands of dollars off her while she ’ s being detained there , ” she said .
Who was this economy really for ?
The alternative is still a work in progress .
When I asked Cisneros what other lines of work a Border Patrol agent might pursue in her economy , she said , “ That ’ s something that we ’ ve been trying to talk about in terms of strategy , ” but “ if people like the fieldwork and being out there , I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of environmental regulation of the river ” —part of a Green New Deal , the centerpiece of her economic agenda .
Ditto for South Texans employed in the oil and gas industry .
Cisneros talks eagerly about the wind turbines she sees when she drives through the Rio Grande Valley and about a program that would give residents of public housing jobs retrofitting the buildings they live in to be more energy-efficient .
A few hours after our interview , Cisneros and her campaign manager , Danny Diaz , a former public school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the street from their campaign HQ for a listening session with a half-dozen supporters .
The attendees were young , and over chips and soda , they unloaded on the problems they faced in the district , and their dreams of what it could be .
Cisneros took notes .
They talked about the strain that truck driving puts on families , the symbolism of making Laredo—the nation ’ s largest inland port— “ green , ” and how their families struggled to make ends meet .
Cisneros and a college student recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their parents put labels on consumer goods to earn extra money .
They vented about going to Mexico for health care .
Above all , they were tired of how debates in Washington complicated their lives—Border Patrol showing up unannounced at the front door , checkpoints , cops asking where you ’ re really from .
Cisneros told them that when she has a light-skinned client , she sometimes gets asked if she ’ s the one in removal proceedings .
“ Even though I ’ m dressed in like a full suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ It doesn ’ t matter , because I ’ m the brown one and they ’ re not.
” These are the sparks of revolution she ’ s banking on—a long-ignored progressive base that is tired not just of Cuellar individually , but of the status quo he represents .
So far , there are signs of that revolution in small groups and in grassroots money pouring in from outside the district , but it ’ s still early .
The 64-year-old Cuellar speaks for a much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the Laredo of people who found work and stuck around .
Like his opponent , he was a child of migrant farmworkers who worked his way through law school and ran for office at a young age .
In 2004 , he beat a Democratic incumbent by 58 votes and has barely been challenged since .
The Cuellars virtually run the city—his brother is the county sheriff ; his sister is a judge .
Although he ’ s recently sharpened his attacks on Trump , Cuellar seems comfortable doing what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s ] definitely not in a situation like Crowley , where we ’ re gon na get weak in the knees and pierce our nose and adopt a socialist platform , ” his campaign manager , Colin Strother , told me .
In the eyes of Cuellar ’ s campaign , the entire premise of Cisneros ’ candidacy represents a fundamental misreading of the region , its voters , and its economy .
“ They ’ re welcome to come in here and tell 17,000 oil and gas field workers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have jobs under the Green New Deal , ” Strother said .
Ditto for the “ 3,700 ICE families ” and the “ high-end hunting ranches ” that dot the vast stretches of South Texas .
A vote for Cisneros , he argued , would be a vote to gut the regional tax base , and the religious , conservative , gun-owning residents won ’ t stand for it .
“ Jessica Cisneros knows nothing , ” he added .
When I mentioned this conversation to Cisneros , she laughed .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , telling people , ‘ If you vote for Jessica Cisneros , she ’ s gon na kill these jobs , ’ ” she said , referring to Cuellar .
“ That ’ s not true .
We have a jobs program that we ’ re gon na be advocating for and we ’ re gon na end up so much better if we make this transition .
The only job that I ’ m trying to kill is his .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Jessica Cisneros needed to find a dentist. When she decided to challenge Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar in the upcoming Democratic primary, Cisneros quit her job and moved back in with her parents in Laredo to save money. She’d bought her own insurance plan after turning 26 last May, but it didn’t include dental, and she still had six figures in law school debt. So when Cisneros needed a root canal in July, she went with the cheapest option: Mexico.
Affordable and accessible health care is hard to come by on the border. A third of the county she lives in is uninsured. Diabetics go to Nuevo Laredo for insulin. Women go there for birth control. Cisneros met a woman who saved up for a mammogram, only to be hit with another expense out of nowhere. “She had to choose between getting the study that she needed done and fixing her AC,” Cisneros told me when we met in August. “Sometimes people just decide to go to el otro lado, right?”
As she introduces herself to the district, Cisneros mixes in stories like that with her own to make the case for sweeping structural changes: She wants to blow up the private health insurance market, demilitarize the border, and shut down private immigration prisons.
A year and a half after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) stunned the political world with an upset victory over the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Joseph Crowley, Cisneros is hoping to accomplish something similar. A Vogue headline distilled the buzz surrounding her to a question: “Is Jessica Cisneros the Next Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?” Cisneros had a ready response to such comparisons: “I admire her a lot,” she told me. “But right now I’m just focused on South Texas and trying to be the leader South Texas needs, and trying to be the next Jessica Cisneros.”
And Laredo is a long way from the Bronx. Cisneros and the eight-term incumbent she’s running against have radically divergent ideas about the electorate and what kind of ideas will play in a large rural border district. Cuellar, in whose DC office Cisneros once interned, has a lifetime A rating from the National Rifle Association, opposes abortion rights, and has voted with President Donald Trump more often than any other Democrat in Congress. You might expect a record like that—in a district similar to this one—to doom the incumbent. Cuellar is running on it.
There’s a lot riding on how well Cisneros does. If the kinds of policies she’s pushing, like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, are going to take hold in the Democratic Party, they’re going to have to catch on in places like South Texas. Either you figure out how to sell universal health care to people crossing the border for a mammogram, or your movement withers on the vine. Cisneros’ success or failure will rest heavily on a question that a lot of Democrats are asking: Just how much of a revolution do people want?
So far, Cisneros has reason for encouragement. When we met, she had just gotten off the phone with emily’s List, which supports pro-choice Democratic women and would eventually endorse her in October. In September, she picked up her first congressional endorsement, from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and introduced the presidential candidate in front of 5,000 people at a rally in Austin. Not long after that, Ocasio-Cortez herself offered a stamp of approval, telling HuffPost, “I want to be the shortest-lived ‘youngest congresswoman ever.’”
We met at Cisneros’ temporary campaign office in a neighborhood of single-family homes on the east side of Laredo. The house had belonged to the grandparents of a staffer and still bore trappings of its past life: Old, faded family photos lined the walls and nice china filled a cupboard. Cisneros walked in wearing a purple campaign T-shirt with her name on it. Her necklace said “Justicia.”
“Right now I’m just focused on South Texas and trying to be the leader South Texas needs, and trying to be the next Jessica Cisneros.”
Cisneros was born in Laredo, the daughter of Mexican immigrants who received legal status as part of President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 overhaul of the nation’s immigration system. She gravitated toward immigration law, she told me, because the families she saw crossing the Rio Grande reminded her of her own. Cisneros was skeptical when Justice Democrats, the group that had recruited Ocasio-Cortez, reached out to her about taking on Cuellar. “I think that’s kind of a product of imposter syndrome that women of color have,” she reflected. But she jumped into the race last June. She raised $100,000 within 48 hours of her announcement and picked up more small-dollar donations than Cuellar did in his last campaign.
In her launch video, Cisneros took aim at Cuellar, calling him “Trump’s favorite Democrat,” touting his opposition to sanctuary cities and Planned Parenthood funding, and painting him as a tool of the “big corporations” who fill his campaign coffers. (More than half of Cuellar’s fundraising this cycle has come from PACs.) Cuellar’s proudly conservative voting record makes him such a natural target for a progressive challenge and national grassroots energy. But Cisneros is not just running against Cuellar. She is also running against the regional economy as it currently exists.
The past two decades have seen a boom in federal law enforcement jobs in South Texas and a growing infrastructure of detention facilities to house immigrants caught in the ever-expanding dragnet. The Laredo area alone houses three ICE detention centers, including the Rio Grande Detention Center, run by the GEO Group, the nation’s largest private prison company. The number of Border Patrol agents in the Laredo sector has nearly doubled since 2002. Cuellar has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from GEO, and he boasts of the border security pork he’s brought to his district. Cisneros said Cuellar has created a “dependence” on border security jobs at the expense of other kinds of investment—in health care, education, housing, and new industries. And it’s a corrosive kind of monoculture, creating jobs for some Laredoans by depriving others of their freedom. She recently heard from a woman whose daughter had been put in deportation proceedings after being pulled over with a busted taillight. “Instead of her working, being with her kids who really need her, private prisons like GEO Group are making thousands of dollars off her while she’s being detained there,” she said. Who was this economy really for?
The alternative is still a work in progress. When I asked Cisneros what other lines of work a Border Patrol agent might pursue in her economy, she said, “That’s something that we’ve been trying to talk about in terms of strategy,” but “if people like the fieldwork and being out there, I think it would probably involve something along the lines of environmental regulation of the river”—part of a Green New Deal, the centerpiece of her economic agenda. Ditto for South Texans employed in the oil and gas industry. Cisneros talks eagerly about the wind turbines she sees when she drives through the Rio Grande Valley and about a program that would give residents of public housing jobs retrofitting the buildings they live in to be more energy-efficient.
A few hours after our interview, Cisneros and her campaign manager, Danny Diaz, a former public school administrator, dropped by a house down the street from their campaign HQ for a listening session with a half-dozen supporters. The attendees were young, and over chips and soda, they unloaded on the problems they faced in the district, and their dreams of what it could be. Cisneros took notes.
They talked about the strain that truck driving puts on families, the symbolism of making Laredo—the nation’s largest inland port—“green,” and how their families struggled to make ends meet. Cisneros and a college student recalled getting dragged along to warehouses to help their parents put labels on consumer goods to earn extra money. They vented about going to Mexico for health care. Above all, they were tired of how debates in Washington complicated their lives—Border Patrol showing up unannounced at the front door, checkpoints, cops asking where you’re really from. Cisneros told them that when she has a light-skinned client, she sometimes gets asked if she’s the one in removal proceedings. “Even though I’m dressed in like a full suit with a whole case file under me,” she said. “It doesn’t matter, because I’m the brown one and they’re not.”
These are the sparks of revolution she’s banking on—a long-ignored progressive base that is tired not just of Cuellar individually, but of the status quo he represents. So far, there are signs of that revolution in small groups and in grassroots money pouring in from outside the district, but it’s still early.
The 64-year-old Cuellar speaks for a much different community—not the Laredo of millennial frustration, but the Laredo of people who found work and stuck around. Like his opponent, he was a child of migrant farmworkers who worked his way through law school and ran for office at a young age. In 2004, he beat a Democratic incumbent by 58 votes and has barely been challenged since. The Cuellars virtually run the city—his brother is the county sheriff; his sister is a judge. Although he’s recently sharpened his attacks on Trump, Cuellar seems comfortable doing what he’s always done. “[He’s] definitely not in a situation like Crowley, where we’re gonna get weak in the knees and pierce our nose and adopt a socialist platform,” his spokesperson, Colin Strother, told me.
“Sometimes people just decide to go to el otro lado, right?”
In the eyes of Cuellar’s campaign, the entire premise of Cisneros’ candidacy represents a fundamental misreading of the region, its voters, and its economy. “They’re welcome to come in here and tell 17,000 oil and gas field workers that they’re no longer gonna have jobs under the Green New Deal,” Strother said. Ditto for the “3,700 ICE families” and the “high-end hunting ranches” that dot the vast stretches of South Texas. A vote for Cisneros, he argued, would be a vote to gut the regional tax base, and the religious, conservative, gun-owning residents won’t stand for it. “Jessica Cisneros knows nothing,” he added.
When I mentioned this conversation to Cisneros, she laughed. “He’s running a campaign of fear, telling people, ‘If you vote for Jessica Cisneros, she’s gonna kill these jobs,’” she said, referring to Cuellar. “That’s not true. We have a jobs program that we’re gonna be advocating for and we’re gonna end up so much better if we make this transition. The only job that I’m trying to kill is his.”
An earlier version of this article, also distributed to print subscribers, misidentified the role of Rep. Cuellar’s spokesperson, Colin Strother.


motherjones--2020-01-21--Watch Chuck Schumer Make the Case for Impeachment in 90 Seconds

Addressing the Senate at the outset of the historic impeachment trial against President Donald Trump , Senate Minority Leader Chuck @ @ @ @ @ which Trump is accused “ crimes against democracy itself.
” “ It ’ s hard @ @ @ @ @ of our democracy than for powers outside our borders to determine the elections from within @ @ @ @ @ New York said .
“ For a foreign country to attempt such a thing on @ @ @ @ @ .
For an American president to deliberately solicit such a thing , to blackmail a @ @ @ @ @ to help him win an election , is unimaginably worse.
” Schumer then attacked Trump @ @ @ @ @ Article Two of the Constitution enables him to “ do whatever he wants.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ erosion of the sacred democratic principles for which our founders fought a bloody war of @ @ @ @ @ .

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-01-21--No, Voter Fraud Is Not the Biggest Threat to Democracy

Nearly a quarter of Americans believe that the biggest threat to safe and secure elections is voter fraud , according to a new NPR poll .
But despite President Donald Trump ’ s false claims that “ millions of people…voted illegally ” in the 2016 presidential elections , voter fraud almost never happens .
In fact , an individual is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate another at the polls , according to the Brennan Center for Justice .
A Washington Post review of the 2016 election found just four documented cases of voter fraud .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter suppression , which 16 percent of Americans consider the biggest threat to elections , according to NPR .
Bolstered by the false notion that hordes of voters were bound to show up to polling places and cast ballots under false identities , many states have enacted strict voter ID laws that disproportionately restrict low-income Americans and Americans of color from voting .
As Mother Jones voting rights reporter Ari Berman wrote in 2017 , these laws may have handed Trump the election : According to a comprehensive study by MIT political scientist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people—12 percent of all voters—encountered at least one problem voting in 2016 .
There were more than 1 million lost votes , Stewart estimates , because people ran into things like ID laws , long lines at the polls , and difficulty registering .
Trump won the election by a total of 78,000 votes in Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
Ranking even lower among voters ’ concerns is the issue for which the president of the United States is now subject to an impeachment trial : foreign interference in our elections @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Nearly a quarter of Americans believe that the biggest threat to safe and secure elections is voter fraud, according to a new NPR poll.
But despite President Donald Trump’s false claims that “millions of people…voted illegally” in the 2016 presidential elections, voter fraud almost never happens. In fact, an individual is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate another at the polls, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. A Washington Post review of the 2016 election found just four documented cases of voter fraud.
Still, the voter fraud myth fuels voter suppression, which 16 percent of Americans consider the biggest threat to elections, according to NPR. Bolstered by the false notion that hordes of voters were bound to show up to polling places and cast ballots under false identities, many states have enacted strict voter ID laws that disproportionately restrict low-income Americans and Americans of color from voting. As Mother Jones voting rights reporter Ari Berman wrote in 2017, these laws may have handed Trump the election:
According to a comprehensive study by MIT political scientist Charles Stewart, an estimated 16 million people—12 percent of all voters—encountered at least one problem voting in 2016. There were more than 1 million lost votes, Stewart estimates, because people ran into things like ID laws, long lines at the polls, and difficulty registering. Trump won the election by a total of 78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Ranking even lower among voters’ concerns is the issue for which the president of the United States is now subject to an impeachment trial: foreign interference in our elections.


motherjones--2020-01-21--Clinton Blasts Sanders, Refuses to Say Whether She’d Endorse Him Over Trump

Hillary Clinton , nearly four years after a bitter race for the 2020 Democratic nomination , blasted her former primary opponent Bernie Sanders , claiming in a new interview that “ nobody likes ” him and that Sanders has achieved nothing during his time as a senator from Vermont .
“ Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done , ” Clinton told the Hollywood Reporter as a part of the upcoming Hulu documentary on the former secretary of state .
“ He was a career politician .
It ’ s all just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people got sucked into it.
” Clinton also declined to say whether she would endorse or campaign for Sanders , a leading contender in the current 2020 primary race , if he were to clinch the Democratic nomination to run against President Donald Trump .
“ I ’ m not going to go there yet , ” she said .
The stinging remarks were roundly condemned on the left , even by Clinton supporters , many of whom expressed confusion as to why she ’ d seek to relitigate the 2016 primary and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast-approaching Iowa caucus .
Clinton previously defended Joe Biden against allegations that he interacted inappropriately with women throughout his political career .
“ This man who ’ s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States , ” Clinton told People in September .
“ So get over it.
” “ Vote for anybody to get rid of Donald Trump , ” she added .
It appears , however , that this exhortation might exclude her former primary opponent .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Hillary Clinton, nearly four years after a bitter race for the 2020 Democratic nomination, blasted her former primary opponent Bernie Sanders, claiming in a new interview that “nobody likes” him and that Sanders has achieved nothing during his time as a senator from Vermont.
“Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done,” Clinton told the Hollywood Reporter as a part of the upcoming Hulu documentary on the former secretary of state. “He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
Clinton also declined to say whether she would endorse or campaign for Sanders, a leading contender in the current 2020 primary race, if he were to clinch the Democratic nomination to run against President Donald Trump. “I’m not going to go there yet,” she said.
The stinging remarks were roundly condemned on the left, even by Clinton supporters, many of whom expressed confusion as to why she’d seek to relitigate the 2016 primary and potentially sow more divisions ahead of the fast-approaching Iowa caucus.
This is inexcusable. If Bernie wins the nomination, we all need to work our asses off to help him win. If someone else is the nominee, we all do the same for them. Don't kick up this bullshit right before Iowa, especially after complaining about Bernie's lack of support in 2016. https://t.co/VXKCixb4Ci — Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) January 21, 2020
I proudly voted for Hillary Clinton, and if Bernie Sanders should win the nomination, I will campaign my heart out for him and believe he would make a great president. I don't see how any other opinion on this is helpful to anyone. At some point, we gotta come together, folks. — Charlotte Clymer🏳🌈 (@cmclymer) January 21, 2020
when the accounts that tweeted snakes at you last week are suddenly distracted by Hillary pic.twitter.com/v4DbsMJf7D — Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 21, 2020
Clinton previously defended Joe Biden against allegations that he interacted inappropriately with women throughout his political career. “This man who’s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States,” Clinton told People in September. “So get over it.”
“Vote for anybody to get rid of Donald Trump,” she added. It appears, however, that this exhortation might exclude her former primary opponent.


motherjones--2020-01-20--Virginia’s Massive Pro-Gun Rally Draws Big Crowds, Big Weapons, and Alex Jones in a Big Armored Vehi

Virginia’s Massive Pro-Gun Rally Draws Big Crowds, Big Weapons, and Alex Jones in a Big Armored Vehicle

It had all the ingredients for a powder keg : Thousands of heavily armed protesters pissed off about proposed gun control laws , troubling online calls for violence and a new civil war , and echoes of a deadly rally that took place in the same state three years ago .
But the pro-gun rally in Richmond , Virginia , on Monday did not end in violence , as many had feared .
Instead , it ended with the shrill , gravelly baritone of Alex Jones ’ voice , as the notorious conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder popped out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ vehicle , cruising around and screaming at passersby through a megaphone .
“ If they try to take our firearms , ” he yelled , “ 1776 will commence again !
” Ever since a newly elected Democratic majority took control of Virginia ’ s state legislature in November , gun owners and 2nd Amendment activists have been preparing for a fight to protect the state ’ s gun laws , which for years—partially because the headquarters of the National Rifle Association are located in the state—have been some of the loosest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group Virginia Citizens Defense League had planned a peaceful pro-gun rally on the Martin Luther King , Jr. holiday , which in Richmond happened to fall on Lobby Day , an annual day for residents to lobby lawmakers on all sorts of issues , including gun laws .
But in the weeks leading up to the massive gun rally , neo-Nazi and fascist groups online shared plans to co-opt the rally to advance their own violent agenda .
On Facebook pages , and on sites like 4chan and the encrypted messaging app Telegram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and white supremacists were calling the day the “ boogaloo ” —neo-Nazi slang for the start of a new civil war .
“ If you are not ready to leave your family , friends and daily life and get violent then you need to sit the fuck down , ” said one message posted to Telegram by an account with over a thousand followers .
Last week , the FBI announced they had arrested seven members of the extremist neo-Nazi group known as The Base , three of whom had allegedly planned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of violence .
In response to the heightened sense of potential danger , Virginia governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency , temporarily banning weapons from the grounds of the state capitol—Virginia law allows gun owners to openly carry firearms without a permit .
But his move only exacerbated the fury of gun advocates .
To get into the official rally space on the Capitol grounds , where the VCDL had set up a stage for local pro-gun activists and politicians to address the crowd , attendees had to go through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packing heat could slip through .
Instead , thousands of gun-wielding Second Amendment advocates—many of whom were carrying assault weapons and AR-15-style rifles—crowded the streets around the security perimeter of the capitol grounds .
Many proudly held signs that said , with variations , that Northam and other government officials could “ pry their guns out of their cold , dead hands ” and that “ gun rights are civil rights.
” If any other members of The Base were in attendance , they did not make themselves known , and the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disavowed former Proud Boy , who was booted from the group because his anti-Semitic and racist views were too extreme even for this far-right group .
He has been an outspoken supporter of Jason Kessler , who organized the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 , as well as James Fields Jr. , the avowed neo-Nazi who killed Heather Heyer at that rally and is now serving a life sentence .
Though members of other far-right groups—including the Three Percenters , the Oath Keepers , and Proud Boys—were spotted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consisted of a smattering of militia types and extremely vocal Donald Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats and frequently breaking out into chants of “ TRUMP !
” and “ USA !
” Trump did not attend , but he managed to fire off a tweet in support of the rally : Inside the state capitol , it was business as usual for all lawmakers , with a full session of the state ’ s House of Delegates and Senate , as is Lobby Day tradition .
Though the rally outside the state capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rage , especially directed at Northam , with signs comparing him to Adolf Hitler and other famous fascist leaders throughout history .
Nonetheless , despite the anger and the tensions , the violence that had been feared never took place .
Local law enforcement officials estimated that 22,000 people were in attendance , and only one person was arrested—a 21-year-old woman who allegedly broke the state ’ s anti-mask law ( though , for what it ’ s worth , I saw hundreds of militia-styled attendees in masks at today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relative calm might be that unlike previous right-wing rallies , there was no counter protest .
Antifa and gun control groups like Everytown and Moms Demand Action urged their supporters not to show up to counter protest , citing the concerns for safety .
“ I think that their intimidation tactics are a way to scare us into backing down , ” said Courtney Champion , a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America .
Despite the threats of violence , Champion , along with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a hotel room a few blocks from the rally where they closely monitored the day ’ s events .
“ I think that a lot of the pushback that we ’ re getting right now is because we flipped our state ’ s legislature in the NRA ’ s backyard , ” she added , “ and they know that we ’ re winning .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It had all the ingredients for a powder keg: Thousands of heavily armed protesters pissed off about proposed gun control laws, troubling online calls for violence and a new civil war, and echoes of a deadly rally that took place in the same state three years ago. But the pro-gun rally in Richmond, Virginia, on Monday did not end in violence, as many had feared. Instead, it ended with the shrill, gravelly baritone of Alex Jones’ voice, as the notorious conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder popped out of a hatch from inside an armored Infowars’ vehicle, cruising around and screaming at passersby through a megaphone.
“If they try to take our firearms,” he yelled, “1776 will commence again!”
Ever since a newly elected Democratic majority took control of Virginia’s state legislature in November, gun owners and 2nd Amendment activists have been preparing for a fight to protect the state’s gun laws, which for years—partially because the headquarters of the National Rifle Association are located in the state—have been some of the loosest in the country. The gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League had planned a peaceful pro-gun rally on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, which in Richmond happened to fall on Lobby Day, an annual day for residents to lobby lawmakers on all sorts of issues, including gun laws.
But in the weeks leading up to the massive gun rally, neo-Nazi and fascist groups online shared plans to co-opt the rally to advance their own violent agenda. On Facebook pages, and on sites like 4chan and the encrypted messaging app Telegram, militia members, fascist coalitions, and white supremacists were calling the day the “boogaloo”—neo-Nazi slang for the start of a new civil war. “If you are not ready to leave your family, friends and daily life and get violent then you need to sit the fuck down,” said one message posted to Telegram by an account with over a thousand followers. Last week, the FBI announced they had arrested seven members of the extremist neo-Nazi group known as The Base, three of whom had allegedly planned to attend the Richmond rally and commit acts of violence.
In response to the heightened sense of potential danger, Virginia governor Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency, temporarily banning weapons from the grounds of the state capitol—Virginia law allows gun owners to openly carry firearms without a permit. But his move only exacerbated the fury of gun advocates.
To get into the official rally space on the Capitol grounds, where the VCDL had set up a stage for local pro-gun activists and politicians to address the crowd, attendees had to go through a single gate lined with metal detectors—no one packing heat could slip through. Instead, thousands of gun-wielding Second Amendment advocates—many of whom were carrying assault weapons and AR-15-style rifles—crowded the streets around the security perimeter of the capitol grounds. Many proudly held signs that said, with variations, that Northam and other government officials could “pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands” and that “gun rights are civil rights.”
If any other members of The Base were in attendance, they did not make themselves known, and the only neo-Nazi I spotted was Jovi Val, the disavowed former Proud Boy, who was booted from the group because his anti-Semitic and racist views were too extreme even for this far-right group. He has been an outspoken supporter of Jason Kessler, who organized the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017, as well as James Fields Jr., the avowed neo-Nazi who killed Heather Heyer at that rally and is now serving a life sentence. Though members of other far-right groups—including the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys—were spotted at the rally, the crowd mostly consisted of a smattering of militia types and extremely vocal Donald Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats and frequently breaking out into chants of “TRUMP!” and “USA!” Trump did not attend, but he managed to fire off a tweet in support of the rally:
The Democrat Party in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia are working hard to take away your 2nd Amendment rights. This is just the beginning. Don’t let it happen, VOTE REPUBLICAN in 2020! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2020
Inside the state capitol, it was business as usual for all lawmakers, with a full session of the state’s House of Delegates and Senate, as is Lobby Day tradition. Though the rally outside the state capitol was peaceful, there was no shortage of rage, especially directed at Northam, with signs comparing him to Adolf Hitler and other famous fascist leaders throughout history.
Nonetheless, despite the anger and the tensions, the violence that had been feared never took place. Local law enforcement officials estimated that 22,000 people were in attendance, and only one person was arrested—a 21-year-old woman who allegedly broke the state’s anti-mask law (though, for what it’s worth, I saw hundreds of militia-styled attendees in masks at today’s rally).
One reason for the relative calm might be that unlike previous right-wing rallies, there was no counter protest. Antifa and gun control groups like Everytown and Moms Demand Action urged their supporters not to show up to counter protest, citing the concerns for safety. “I think that their intimidation tactics are a way to scare us into backing down,” said Courtney Champion, a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Despite the threats of violence, Champion, along with a few other Moms Demand Action volunteers were in a hotel room a few blocks from the rally where they closely monitored the day’s events. “I think that a lot of the pushback that we’re getting right now is because we flipped our state’s legislature in the NRA’s backyard,” she added, “and they know that we’re winning.”


motherjones--2020-01-22--On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, States Are Scrambling to Preserve It

On this day in 1973 , the Supreme Court issued a decision that enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion in the landmark case Roe v. Wade .
But with mounting attacks on abortion rights and the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history , states across the country have spent the 47th year of Roe scrambling to protect a women ’ s right to choose in the increasingly plausible event that the historic court decision is soon overturned .
“ The reality is that the balance of the Supreme Court is not in our favor , ” says Bonyen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns for Planned Parenthood , adding , “ We have to be prepared [ if ] Roe falls .
That ’ s just part of the reality of living under the Trump administration.
” The effort began exactly one year ago , when New York became the first state to enshrine the right to an abortion in its state law , effectively codifying Roe v. Wade .
( The law also ended New York ’ s ban on abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy . )
Since then , Illinois , Rhode Island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws protecting the right to an abortion .
Michigan , New Jersey , and the District of Columbia are also looking at codifying the right to an abortion .
In 2019 , statehouses passed more legislation protecting or expanding abortion access than in the entire previous decade .
However , in the aftermath of the confirmation of two staunchly conservative justices to the Supreme Court in 2018 , red states have been doing the opposite kind of preparation for a post-Roe world .
In 2019 , four states—Arkansas , Kentucky , Missouri , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturned Roe , and 12 states passed abortion bans .
In total , eight states now have trigger laws on the books , and 20 have laws that could be used to restrict the right to an abortion if Roe were overturned .
“ States are going in widely divergent directions when it comes to both abortion rights and abortion access , ” says Andrea Miller , president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health .
“ We have a group of states last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a race to the bottom to try to ban abortion outright , and then we also had a real record year on the other side.
” According to Planned Parenthood , roughly 25 million women of reproductive age live in a state where abortion could be banned if Roe is overturned .
Millions more are already forced to jump through hoops to access abortions , including 72-hour waiting periods , mandatory counseling , and invasive ultrasound procedures .
In March , the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neil Gorsuch .
The case concerns a 2014 Louisiana law , which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals , a stipulation that opponents of the bill argue would leave the state with only one provider for a population of more than 4.5 million .
Although the justices are not expected to overturn Roe outright in this case , legal experts argue that if the court were to rule in favor of the law , access to abortion in states like Louisiana could exist in name only .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On this day in 1973, the Supreme Court issued a decision that enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion in the landmark case Roe v. Wade. But with mounting attacks on abortion rights and the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history, states across the country have spent the 47th year of Roe scrambling to protect a women’s right to choose in the increasingly plausible event that the historic court decision is soon overturned.
“The reality is that the balance of the Supreme Court is not in our favor,” says Bonyen Lee-Gilmore, who works on state media campaigns for Planned Parenthood, adding, “We have to be prepared [if] Roe falls. That’s just part of the reality of living under the Trump administration.”
The effort began exactly one year ago, when New York became the first state to enshrine the right to an abortion in its state law, effectively codifying Roe v. Wade. (The law also ended New York’s ban on abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy.) Since then, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont have all passed similar laws protecting the right to an abortion. Michigan, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia are also looking at codifying the right to an abortion. In 2019, statehouses passed more legislation protecting or expanding abortion access than in the entire previous decade.
However, in the aftermath of the confirmation of two staunchly conservative justices to the Supreme Court in 2018, red states have been doing the opposite kind of preparation for a post-Roe world. In 2019, four states—Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee—passed legislation known as trigger laws, which would ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturned Roe, and 12 states passed abortion bans. In total, eight states now have trigger laws on the books, and 20 have laws that could be used to restrict the right to an abortion if Roe were overturned.
“States are going in widely divergent directions when it comes to both abortion rights and abortion access,” says Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health. “We have a group of states last year that were tripping over each other in a race to the bottom to try to ban abortion outright, and then we also had a real record year on the other side.”
According to Planned Parenthood, roughly 25 million women of reproductive age live in a state where abortion could be banned if Roe is overturned. Millions more are already forced to jump through hoops to access abortions, including 72-hour waiting periods, mandatory counseling, and invasive ultrasound procedures.
In March, the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case since the confirmation of conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. The case concerns a 2014 Louisiana law, which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, a stipulation that opponents of the bill argue would leave the state with only one provider for a population of more than 4.5 million. Although the justices are not expected to overturn Roe outright in this case, legal experts argue that if the court were to rule in favor of the law, access to abortion in states like Louisiana could exist in name only.


motherjones--2020-01-22--Mitch McConnell Is Pretending He’s Holding a Fair Impeachment Trial. He’s Not.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to be testing how rigged an impeachment trial his Republican caucus will allow .
With Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts looking on , McConnell was set Tuesday night to push through rules for President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial that give Republicans the option of acquitting the president without hearing from any witnesses , examining any White House ( or State Department or Office of Management and Budget ) documents , or considering any evidence revealed after the House voted to impeach .
The course of the trial is not yet fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be approved late Tuesday night give senators the chance to vote on whether to subpoena witnesses down the road—after up to three days of opening arguments by Democratic House impeachment managers and three days from Trump ’ s defense team .
But the process drawn up by McConnell , who is up for reelection this year in Trump-friendly Kentucky , will give the GOP leader leeway to stave off testimony that might prove damaging to the president and his party .
Democrats derided McConnell ’ s rules as designed to help Trump cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer offered a series of amendments on Tuesday that would have altered the rules and immediately allowed subpoenas of witnesses and documents .
“ This is an obligation we have to the Constitution , to outline what a fair trial would be , to not go along with a cover-up , with a sham trial , ” Schumer said on the Senate floor .
Republicans rejected amendments pertaining to documents from the White House , State Department , and OMB on party-line votes and were poised to do so for witnesses like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mulvaney .
McConnell ’ s rules say that the president ’ s lawyers and the House impeachment managers , not senators themselves , can seek to subpoena witnesses later in the trial .
If the Senate votes to allow it , the witnesses “ shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify , pursuant to the impeachment rules.
” This means that the Senate would take multiple votes .
It could vote to hear from any of the witnesses Democrats have said should be subpoenaed : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser ; Mulvaney ; Michael Duffy , an OMB appointee who works on national security issues ; and Robert Blair , a top Mulvaney adviser .
But—and this is crucial—if those officials reveal damaging information on Trump in private depositions , Republicans could then still vote to block them from testifying in public .
The multiple votes give McConnell several chances to block witnesses .
Democrats need four Republicans to vote with them to force witness testimony or subpoena documents .
( Sens .
Mitt Romney of Utah , Susan Collins of Maine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lamar Alexander of Tennessee are most frequently cited as potential crossovers , but they ’ re not the only GOP senators who could buck their party . )
By requiring a second vote , McConnell has better odds at prevailing on one or more of those senators .
A senator might bow to popular pressure or try to burnish his or her legacy by joining Democrats on an initial vote but then vote to block actual public testimony based on a White House assertion of national security concerns or an executive privilege claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to avoid considering revelations that came after the House impeached Trump .
That includes the Government Accountability Office ’ s finding that Trump broke the law by withholding aid Ukrainian aid that Congress had already approved , as well as sensational evidence that Lev Parnas , an associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani , recently turned over to the House following a federal court order .
McConnell did show some flexibility on Tuesday .
After a caucus meeting in the afternoon , the Republican leader altered a proposal for trial rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new version dropped a requirement that impeachment managers and Trump ’ s lawyers present their defense over just two days , a provision that could have pushed proceedings past midnight , but ended them as early as Saturday .
( He extended the time frame to three days now . )
McConnell also dropped a provision that would have left the House unable to put material it compiled during its impeachment inquiry into the evidence at the Senate trial without a vote .
( The altered text still allows Trump ’ s lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record by describing testimony as “ hearsay ” or for any other reason . )
Sen. Collins , who faces a tough reelection fight this fall , took credit Tuesday for pushing McConnell to tweak his resolution .
Trump ’ s lawyers have attacked the impeachment as unconstitutional and unfair but have not substantively disputed the facts of Democrats ’ case against Trump .
Instead , the attorneys , echoing Trump ’ s personal pronouncements , assert his conduct was unimpeachable .
Senate Republicans set a course Tuesday to support that argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjustment to the rules shows that he can still be influenced by public pressure .
But the majority leader appears set to tilt as far in Trump ’ s favor as GOP senators , and American voters , will permit .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Update: 6:50 am, 1/22: The Senate voted down all amendments proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, which would’ve allowed the introduction of new documents from various government agencies and the White House, as well as witness testimony, in the Senate impeachment trial. The rules, as proposed by McConnell, passed at 2 a.m. EST time along a party-line vote.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to be testing how rigged an impeachment trial his Republican caucus will allow.
With Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts looking on, McConnell was set Tuesday night to push through rules for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial that give Republicans the option of acquitting the president without hearing from any witnesses, examining any White House (or State Department or Office of Management and Budget) documents, or considering any evidence revealed after the House voted to impeach.
The course of the trial is not yet fully determined. The impeachment rules expected to be approved late Tuesday night give senators the chance to vote on whether to subpoena witnesses down the road—after up to three days of opening arguments by Democratic House impeachment managers and three days from Trump’s defense team. But the process drawn up by McConnell, who is up for reelection this year in Trump-friendly Kentucky, will give the GOP leader leeway to stave off testimony that might prove damaging to the president and his party.
The process drawn up by McConnell, who is up for reelection this year in Trump-friendly Kentucky, will give the GOP leader leeway to stave off testimony that might prove damaging to the president and his party.
Democrats derided McConnell’s rules as designed to help Trump cover up his conduct. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offered a series of amendments on Tuesday that would have altered the rules and immediately allowed subpoenas of witnesses and documents. “This is an obligation we have to the Constitution, to outline what a fair trial would be, to not go along with a cover-up, with a sham trial,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. Republicans rejected amendments pertaining to documents from the White House, State Department, and OMB on party-line votes and were poised to do so for witnesses like acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
McConnell’s rules say that the president’s lawyers and the House impeachment managers, not senators themselves, can seek to subpoena witnesses later in the trial. If the Senate votes to allow it, the witnesses “shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules.” This means that the Senate would take multiple votes. It could vote to hear from any of the witnesses Democrats have said should be subpoenaed: John Bolton, the former national security adviser; Mulvaney; Michael Duffy, an OMB appointee who works on national security issues; and Robert Blair, a top Mulvaney adviser. But—and this is crucial—if those officials reveal damaging information on Trump in private depositions, Republicans could then still vote to block them from testifying in public.
The multiple votes give McConnell several chances to block witnesses. Democrats need four Republicans to vote with them to force witness testimony or subpoena documents. (Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee are most frequently cited as potential crossovers, but they’re not the only GOP senators who could buck their party.) By requiring a second vote, McConnell has better odds at prevailing on one or more of those senators. A senator might bow to popular pressure or try to burnish his or her legacy by joining Democrats on an initial vote but then vote to block actual public testimony based on a White House assertion of national security concerns or an executive privilege claim.
The trial rules also give Republicans the ability to avoid considering revelations that came after the House impeached Trump. That includes the Government Accountability Office’s finding that Trump broke the law by withholding aid Ukrainian aid that Congress had already approved, as well as sensational evidence that Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, recently turned over to the House following a federal court order.
This is crucial: If those officials reveal damaging information on Trump in private depositions, Republicans could then still vote to block them from testifying in public.
McConnell did show some flexibility on Tuesday. After a caucus meeting in the afternoon, the Republican leader altered a proposal for trial rules he had released on Sunday. The new version dropped a requirement that impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers present their defense over just two days, a provision that could have pushed proceedings past midnight, but ended them as early as Saturday. (He extended the time frame to three days now.) McConnell also dropped a provision that would have left the House unable to put material it compiled during its impeachment inquiry into the evidence at the Senate trial without a vote. (The altered text still allows Trump’s lawyers to object to adding the evidence to the record by describing testimony as “hearsay” or for any other reason.) Sen. Collins, who faces a tough reelection fight this fall, took credit Tuesday for pushing McConnell to tweak his resolution.
Trump’s lawyers have attacked the impeachment as unconstitutional and unfair but have not substantively disputed the facts of Democrats’ case against Trump. Instead, the attorneys, echoing Trump’s personal pronouncements, assert his conduct was unimpeachable.
Senate Republicans set a course Tuesday to support that argument with limited scrutiny. McConnell’s adjustment to the rules shows that he can still be influenced by public pressure. But the majority leader appears set to tilt as far in Trump’s favor as GOP senators, and American voters, will permit.


motherjones--2020-01-23--An Impeachment Smoking Gun: The Damning Letter Trump Can’t Cover Up

Smoking guns ain ’ t what they used to be .
Last week , one such smoking gun emerged that should have been a turning point in the Ukraine episode , for this was proof—confirmation—that Donald Trump pressured Ukraine not for any official policy aims , but for his own personal benefit .
Yet in the swell of Trump chaos and impeachment news , this new material did not get the full stop-the-presses notice it deserved .
And , consequently , it did not alter the overall shape and political dynamics of the Trump-Ukraine scandal .
But it should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial kicked off , the House Intelligence Committee released material it had been provided by Lev Parnas , a now-indicted Florida businessman who had worked with Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , to find dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine .
That trove included a letter that Giuliani sent to Ukrainian president-elect Volodymyr Zelensky on May 10 , 2019 .
In the note , Giuliani identified himself as “ private counsel ” to Trump .
He explained , “ Just to be precise , I represent him as a private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States.
” He added , “ This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same.
” Giuliani then had a request for Zelensky : “ In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent , I request a meeting with you.
” The former NYC mayor noted that he would need no more than a half-hour of Zelensky ’ s time and that he would be accompanied by Victoria Toensing , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with this matter.
” Giuliani did not describe the “ matter , ” but he told the New York Times at the time that he was heading to Ukraine on a hunt for derogatory material on Biden and for information that could support a nutty conspiracy theory that Ukraine—not Russia—was somehow responsible for the 2016 hack of the Democratic Party .
The letter demonstrates two things : Giuliani is a liar , and the pressure campaign on Kyiv , from the start , was mounted to serve Trump ’ s personal gains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
Shortly after the Ukraine scandal broke in September , Giuliani made an important claim ; he said had been mucking about in Ukraine at the request of the State Department .
That is , his actions were part of an official undertaking .
In response to news accounts reporting that administration officials had complained about Giuliani interjecting himself into US-Ukrainian relations , Giuliani went on Fox News and asserted , “ You know who I did [ this ] at the request of ?
The State Department .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State Department called me and asked me to do it.
” Talking to host Laura Ingraham , Giuliani dramatically waved his cell phone and said , “ Laura , I ’ m a pretty good lawyer , just a country lawyer , but it ’ s all here , right here .
The first call from the State Department.
” Giuliani was lying .
The letter proves he had reached out to Zelensky on his own initiative as part of an effort to help Trump privately .
He had not been drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some ongoing diplomatic initiative .
He was freebooting for Trump .
Giuliani never got his meeting with Zelensky .
But shortly after he sent that May letter , something else happened .
Gordon Sondland—the hotelier who donated $ 1 million to Trump ’ s inauguration and who then was appointed ambassador to the European Union—and other senior US officials met with Trump at the White House to discuss enhancing the relationship between Trump and Zelensky .
“ Talk with Rudy , ” Trump told them , according to Sondland ’ s testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sondland that the ambassador saw as part of a “ quid pro quo ” : Ukraine would have to announce investigations related to Biden and to that conspiracy theory about the 2016 hack .
Only then , it was clear to Sondland , would Trump agree to meet with Zelensky .
( Later on , the withholding of nearly $ 400 million in military assistance would become part of the investigations-or-no-dice scheme . )
Trump and his defenders—especially House Republicans , such as Reps. Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan—have repeatedly claimed ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely pushing the Ukrainian government to address corruption within its ranks and that it was well within his duties ( and obligations ) as president to do so .
That is , he was acting in an official capacity to advance the nation ’ s foreign policy interests .
Giuliani ’ s letter—which has been cited at the Senate impeachment trial by Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif ) , the lead House impeachment manager—blows that argument to smithereens .
Trump , through his personal attorney , was requesting information from Zelensky that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There was nothing official about this .
Yet , as other testimony and evidence show , Trump then used official actions—an Oval Office meeting , military aid passed by Congress—as leverage in this “ private ” effort .
Trump ’ s personal lawyer , with this letter , makes a strong case against his client .
This letter , though , is not the first smoking gun in the Ukraine scandal .
The quasi-transcript of Trump ’ s July 25 call with Zelensky was another one .
It showed that when Zelensky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-tank missiles from the United States , Trump uttered that now-famous reply : “ I would like you to do us a favor though.
” He proceeded to ask Zelensky for those investigations on Biden and the baseless Ukraine hacking conspiracy theory .
This document was explosive , portraying Trump leaning on Zelensky in a mobster-like fashion .
Its release in September fueled the drive toward impeachment .
But Trump and his acolytes resorted to their go-to play : deny reality .
They claimed the transcript—and it wasn ’ t a verbatim transcript—showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro quo .
Trump has insisted this document proves the call was “ beautiful ” and “ perfect.
” It was as if he and his amen choir saw a gun with smoke coming out of its barrel and said , “ Oh , look , a shining new golf club.
” ( Trump has also claimed he knew nothing about Giuliani ’ s letter to Zelensky . )
On August 5 , 1974 , President Richard Nixon , after losing a fight before the Supreme Court , released what would become known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this recording of a meeting between Nixon and his chief of staff , H.R .
Haldeman , Nixon—six days after the Watergate burglary—ordered the FBI to abandon its investigation of the break-in .
It was undeniable evidence that Nixon himself was behind the Watergate cover-up .
Republicans back then accepted that this tape was game-set-match .
They did not argue that Nixon had not said what he said or that the tape was not the incriminating proof it was .
Following the release of the tape , 11 GOPers on the House Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and support the impeachment of Nixon .
That smoking gun ended Nixon ’ s presidency .
He resigned three days after its release .
Nowadays , in the era of Trump post-modern relativism , Trump and his Republican fanboys , if confronted with a smoking gun , pretend ( and insist ) it isn ’ t there .
( The parrot is not dead . )
As silly as it may seem , the confusion and clutter they create with these absurd denials do serve a purpose .
With all this noise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen clearly within the never-ending media maelstrom .
Their goal , after all , is to stir a debate over reality ; that prevents a debate over what reality means and what should be done about it .
The quasi-transcript , the Giuliani letter , the damaging testimony—it ’ s smoke , and it ’ s fire .
Case closed—or it ought to be .
But by refusing to acknowledge all this slam-dunk evidence , Trump and his cultists are doing all they can to keep an entire nation inside a house @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Smoking guns ain’t what they used to be.
Last week, one such smoking gun emerged that should have been a turning point in the Ukraine episode, for this was proof—confirmation—that Donald Trump pressured Ukraine not for any official policy aims, but for his own personal benefit. Yet in the swell of Trump chaos and impeachment news, this new material did not get the full stop-the-presses notice it deserved. And, consequently, it did not alter the overall shape and political dynamics of the Trump-Ukraine scandal. But it should have.
In the days before the impeachment trial kicked off, the House Intelligence Committee released material it had been provided by Lev Parnas, a now-indicted Florida businessman who had worked with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to find dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine. That trove included a letter that Giuliani sent to Ukrainian president-elect Volodymyr Zelensky on May 10, 2019. In the note, Giuliani identified himself as “private counsel” to Trump. He explained, “Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States.” He added, “This is quite common under American law because the duties and privileges of a President and a private citizen are not the same.”
Giuliani then had a request for Zelensky: “In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you.” The former NYC mayor noted that he would need no more than a half-hour of Zelensky’s time and that he would be accompanied by Victoria Toensing, “a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter.” Giuliani did not describe the “matter,” but he told the New York Times at the time that he was heading to Ukraine on a hunt for derogatory material on Biden and for information that could support a nutty conspiracy theory that Ukraine—not Russia—was somehow responsible for the 2016 hack of the Democratic Party.
The letter demonstrates two things: Giuliani is a liar, and the pressure campaign on Kyiv, from the start, was mounted to serve Trump’s personal gains, not the foreign policy interests of the United States.
Shortly after the Ukraine scandal broke in September, Giuliani made an important claim; he said had been mucking about in Ukraine at the request of the State Department. That is, his actions were part of an official undertaking. In response to news accounts reporting that administration officials had complained about Giuliani interjecting himself into US-Ukrainian relations, Giuliani went on Fox News and asserted, “You know who I did [this] at the request of? The State Department. I never talked to a Ukrainian official until the State Department called me and asked me to do it.” Talking to host Laura Ingraham, Giuliani dramatically waved his cell phone and said, “Laura, I’m a pretty good lawyer, just a country lawyer, but it’s all here, right here. The first call from the State Department.”
Giuliani was lying. The letter proves he had reached out to Zelensky on his own initiative as part of an effort to help Trump privately. He had not been drawn in by the State Department to assist with some ongoing diplomatic initiative. He was freebooting for Trump.
Giuliani never got his meeting with Zelensky. But shortly after he sent that May letter, something else happened. Gordon Sondland—the hotelier who donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration and who then was appointed ambassador to the European Union—and other senior US officials met with Trump at the White House to discuss enhancing the relationship between Trump and Zelensky. “Talk with Rudy,” Trump told them, according to Sondland’s testimony. And Giuliani subsequently conveyed a request to Sondland that the ambassador saw as part of a “quid pro quo”: Ukraine would have to announce investigations related to Biden and to that conspiracy theory about the 2016 hack. Only then, it was clear to Sondland, would Trump agree to meet with Zelensky. (Later on, the withholding of nearly $400 million in military assistance would become part of the investigations-or-no-dice scheme.)
Trump and his defenders—especially House Republicans, such as Reps. Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan—have repeatedly claimed (often very loudly) that Trump was merely pushing the Ukrainian government to address corruption within its ranks and that it was well within his duties (and obligations) as president to do so. That is, he was acting in an official capacity to advance the nation’s foreign policy interests.
Giuliani’s letter—which has been cited at the Senate impeachment trial by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif), the lead House impeachment manager—blows that argument to smithereens. Trump, through his personal attorney, was requesting information from Zelensky that would help Trump as a “private citizen.” There was nothing official about this. Yet, as other testimony and evidence show, Trump then used official actions—an Oval Office meeting, military aid passed by Congress—as leverage in this “private” effort. Trump’s personal lawyer, with this letter, makes a strong case against his client.
This letter, though, is not the first smoking gun in the Ukraine scandal. The quasi-transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky was another one. It showed that when Zelensky raised the subject of Ukraine obtaining more anti-tank missiles from the United States, Trump uttered that now-famous reply: “I would like you to do us a favor though.” He proceeded to ask Zelensky for those investigations on Biden and the baseless Ukraine hacking conspiracy theory.
This document was explosive, portraying Trump leaning on Zelensky in a mobster-like fashion. Its release in September fueled the drive toward impeachment. But Trump and his acolytes resorted to their go-to play: deny reality. They claimed the transcript—and it wasn’t a verbatim transcript—showed the opposite: There was no quid pro quo. Trump has insisted this document proves the call was “beautiful” and “perfect.” It was as if he and his amen choir saw a gun with smoke coming out of its barrel and said, “Oh, look, a shining new golf club.” (Trump has also claimed he knew nothing about Giuliani’s letter to Zelensky.)
On August 5, 1974, President Richard Nixon, after losing a fight before the Supreme Court, released what would become known as the Smoking Gun tape. On this recording of a meeting between Nixon and his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, Nixon—six days after the Watergate burglary—ordered the FBI to abandon its investigation of the break-in. It was undeniable evidence that Nixon himself was behind the Watergate cover-up.
Republicans back then accepted that this tape was game-set-match. They did not argue that Nixon had not said what he said or that the tape was not the incriminating proof it was. Following the release of the tape, 11 GOPers on the House Judiciary Committee declared they would flip their votes and support the impeachment of Nixon. That smoking gun ended Nixon’s presidency. He resigned three days after its release.
Nowadays, in the era of Trump post-modern relativism, Trump and his Republican fanboys, if confronted with a smoking gun, pretend (and insist) it isn’t there. (The parrot is not dead.) As silly as it may seem, the confusion and clutter they create with these absurd denials do serve a purpose. With all this noise, it becomes harder for clear-as-day evidence to be seen clearly within the never-ending media maelstrom. Their goal, after all, is to stir a debate over reality; that prevents a debate over what reality means and what should be done about it. The quasi-transcript, the Giuliani letter, the damaging testimony—it’s smoke, and it’s fire. Case closed—or it ought to be. But by refusing to acknowledge all this slam-dunk evidence, Trump and his cultists are doing all they can to keep an entire nation inside a house that is burning down.