vox--2020-02-04--Gretchen Whitmer’s smart, boring speech highlighted Democrats’ biggest 2020 dilemma

Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer probably made a smart choice by trying to give an earnest policy speech in her response to the State of the Union address , rather than one addressing the president ’ s crimes or the blood-soaked demagoguery of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in Trump ’ s speech Tuesday night .
The problem is that it was also a boring speech .
The logic behind Whitmer ’ s approach is the great paradox of the Trump era .
Over the past couple of months , when Trump ’ s been mired in scandal and impeached in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively strong his low point came in the fall and winter of 2017 , when political media was mostly focused on Republican legislation on health care and taxes .
All of Trump ’ s antics and scandals don ’ t exactly help him politically .
His approval rating at this point in his presidency is lower than what Barack Obama , George W. Bush , Bill Clinton , George H.W .
Bush , or Ronald Reagan enjoyed .
But it ’ s policy issues that seem to have the power to really sink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on in her speech , observing that congressional Democrats aren ’ t just investigating Trump .
They ’ re passing bills .
“ Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats passed a landmark bill on equal pay , ” she said , “ another bill to give 30 million Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage , and groundbreaking legislation to finally give Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices for America ’ s seniors and families.
” This is all true .
She shouted out state-level initiatives , including overtime pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay increases in Nevada and North Carolina , all-day kindergarten in Colorado , and a school funding hike in Wisconsin , that show what Democrats can do when they ’ re allowed to govern .
And she observed , accurately , that despite the squabbling in the Democratic presidential primary , all the candidates ’ health plans are directionally the same — offering Americans better , more robustly subsidized coverage — while Trump is suing to eliminate the Affordable Care Act .
In theory , this is absolutely the right message for Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and your family in tangible ways rather than get sucked into a culture war food fight with Trump .
The problem is the speech was so boring that I was tempted not to write about it at all .
But as someone who strongly believes that treating Trump as a more-or-less “ normal ” Republican politician is the best way to beat him , I have an obligation not to just tune Democrats out when they try .
That , though , is easier said than done .
Trump has such a larger-than-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s buttons that following a speech full of reality show antics ( a live medal presentation to Rush Limbaugh ! )
with an earnest discussion of why his paid family leave plan is grossly inadequate compared to Democrats ’ plans for leave and a child allowance ends up seeming gray and sad .
I generally believe that moderates do better in elections , but this is one reason the “ electability ” calculus in 2020 is a bit more complicated .
Most Democrats just loathe Trump and everything he stands for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a reason House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped his speech up .
But the Electoral College margin is going to be won and lost on the backs of voters who don ’ t feel that way about Trump , but who might disagree with him nonetheless about health care , the minimum wage , or the right to an abortion .
( A lot of people are under the impression that swing voters are dead and modern elections are all won through mobilization these days , but it ’ s not true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to find a better way to execute on Whitmer ’ s basic plan : talk about real stuff , not the Trump Show , but make it interesting enough that people will want to watch , quote , and share what they have to say .

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer probably made a smart choice by trying to give an earnest policy speech in her response to the State of the Union address, rather than one addressing the president’s crimes or the blood-soaked demagoguery of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in Trump’s speech Tuesday night.
The problem is that it was also a boring speech.
The logic behind Whitmer’s approach is the great paradox of the Trump era. Over the past couple of months, when Trump’s been mired in scandal and impeached in Congress, his approval ratings have actually been relatively strong his low point came in the fall and winter of 2017, when political media was mostly focused on Republican legislation on health care and taxes.
All of Trump’s antics and scandals don’t exactly help him politically. His approval rating at this point in his presidency is lower than what Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan enjoyed. But it’s policy issues that seem to have the power to really sink him.
Those issues are what Whitmer focused on in her speech, observing that congressional Democrats aren’t just investigating Trump. They’re passing bills.
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats passed a landmark bill on equal pay,” she said, “another bill to give 30 million Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage, and groundbreaking legislation to finally give Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices for America’s seniors and families.”
This is all true. She shouted out state-level initiatives, including overtime pay rights in Pennsylvania and Michigan, teacher pay increases in Nevada and North Carolina, all-day kindergarten in Colorado, and a school funding hike in Wisconsin, that show what Democrats can do when they’re allowed to govern.
And she observed, accurately, that despite the squabbling in the Democratic presidential primary, all the candidates’ health plans are directionally the same — offering Americans better, more robustly subsidized coverage — while Trump is suing to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.
In theory, this is absolutely the right message for Democrats: They are going to help you and your family in tangible ways rather than get sucked into a culture war food fight with Trump.
The problem is the speech was so boring that I was tempted not to write about it at all. But as someone who strongly believes that treating Trump as a more-or-less “normal” Republican politician is the best way to beat him, I have an obligation not to just tune Democrats out when they try.
That, though, is easier said than done. Trump has such a larger-than-life personality and is so skilled at pushing people’s buttons that following a speech full of reality show antics (a live medal presentation to Rush Limbaugh!) with an earnest discussion of why his paid family leave plan is grossly inadequate compared to Democrats’ plans for leave and a child allowance ends up seeming gray and sad.
I generally believe that moderates do better in elections, but this is one reason the “electability” calculus in 2020 is a bit more complicated. Most Democrats just loathe Trump and everything he stands for on an instinctual level. There’s a reason House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped his speech up.
But the Electoral College margin is going to be won and lost on the backs of voters who don’t feel that way about Trump, but who might disagree with him nonetheless about health care, the minimum wage, or the right to an abortion. (A lot of people are under the impression that swing voters are dead and modern elections are all won through mobilization these days, but it’s not true.)
The challenge for Democrats this fall is to find a better way to execute on Whitmer’s basic plan: talk about real stuff, not the Trump Show, but make it interesting enough that people will want to watch, quote, and share what they have to say.


vox--2020-02-04--Donald Trump didn’t need the wall

Donald Trump didn’t need the wall

President Donald Trump has spent three years molding America ’ s immigration system to primarily be concerned with keeping people out .
He built , layer by layer , impediments in Central America , at the border , in detention centers , and in the immigration courts that have made obtaining asylum nearly impossible .
He swept aside former President Barack Obama ’ s immigration enforcement priorities in favor of vastly expanding immigration detention and prosecuting every immigrant who crosses the border without authorization .
The result is a punitive system that treats immigrants as criminals and places them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pose any danger to the public .
And he waged a quiet and effective campaign to reduce legal immigration — including expanding his travel ban to block immigration from Nigeria , the largest country in Africa .
Under Trump , the legal immigration system increasingly rewards skills and wealth over family ties to the US , while shutting out a growing number of people from low-income countries .
When Trump laid out the start of his reelection-year argument in the State of the Union address on Tuesday night , his guests included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brother of a man who was killed by an unauthorized immigrant .
His immigration record was one of his top talking points .
He painted immigrants as criminals that pose a danger to public safety ( overall , they don ’ t ) and railed against sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities .
And he touted his policies clamping down on unauthorized border crossers .
“ Before I came into office , if you showed up illegally on our southern border and were arrested , you were simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never to be seen again , ” Trump said .
“ My Administration has ended Catch-and-Release .
If you come illegally , you will now be promptly removed.
” It ’ s true that Trump has run into some roadblocks : He ’ s behind schedule on construction of the southern border wall , a key messaging tool for his base .
He hasn ’ t been able to appoint his preferred candidates to lead the immigration agencies .
His attempts to pass immigration-related legislation in Congress have failed .
And his policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts that his administration has appeared to pursue a strategy of rapidly churning out new policies and hoping that at least some of them survive judicial review .
But while he might not have succeeded at building an actual wall to keep immigrants out , his policies have achieved the same end .
Reducing overall immigration levels has long been on the wish list of once-fringe restrictionist groups like the Center for Immigration Studies , whose co-founder advocated for maintaining a European-American majority population .
Trump is making it a reality .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the border Trump ’ s primary focus upon entering office was addressing the unprecedented number of children and families arriving at the southern border from Honduras , El Salvador , and Guatemala — collectively known as Central America ’ s Northern Triangle — where crime , violence , and lack of economic opportunity has driven hundreds of thousands to flee over the past two years .
The administration hasn ’ t addressed the root causes of that crisis , but it has effectively cut off migrants ’ access to the US asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this has even surprised Mark Krikorian , the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies .
“ I didn ’ t expect them to pull it off , ” he said .
( Krikorian and his group are still pushing Trump to go further in his second term ; his strategies have “ taken the edge off , ” but migrants are still continuing to arrive in “ unacceptably high ” numbers , he argues . )
Trump has deputized Central American countries in his immigration enforcement efforts .
Some 60,000 asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wait for their immigration court hearings in the US under his “ remain in Mexico ” policy , officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols ( MPP ) .
It has appeared to discourage migrants from attempting to cross the southern border but has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Mexico , where thousands are waiting for their court hearings in the US , many of them in dire need of humanitarian aid .
Some migrants are lucky to find housing in shelters , hotels , or rooms for rent , but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tarps , some held up by only sticks and stones , stand between them and the elements , even as temperatures drop below freezing .
As populations swell , both the US and Mexico have left thousands in the camps without basic necessities like clean drinking water and warm clothes — and at risk of extortion , kidnapping , and rape at the hands of cartels and other criminal actors .
Trump has also brokered a series of agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that require migrants to apply for protections in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so , US immigration authorities can send them back to those countries ( though only the agreement with Guatemala is currently in effect ) .
So far , 368 asylum seekers have been deported to Guatemala .
The agreements resemble “ safe third-country agreements , ” a rarely used diplomatic tool that requires migrants to seek asylum in the countries they pass through by deeming those countries capable of offering them protection ( though the Trump administration has been reluctant to use that term ) .
Until recently , the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one country : Canada .
These agreements were never meant to be a means to push the burden of absorbing asylum seekers onto other countries , but that appears to be the way Trump is trying to use them .
Immigrant advocates say the costs could be deadly , since it means returning migrants to countries that have high levels of crime and instability , and that are not used to dealing with an influx of people seeking refuge .
In Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries , migrants are commonly robbed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and killed .
The State Department , meanwhile , has issued travel warnings for US citizens in all four countries .
El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in the world , while Honduras ranks fifth , Guatemala 16th , and Mexico 19th , according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime .
They have rampant government corruption and high rates of violence against women and LGBTQ individuals .
As much as Trump ’ s rhetoric focuses on clamping down on unauthorized immigration at the southern border , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration — many of which have survived Supreme Court review .
During his speech on Tuesday , Trump called for an immigration system that rewards immigrants who “ contribute to our economy , support themselves financially , and uphold our values ” — while keeping out low-income immigrants and nonwhites from what he once referred to as “ shithole countries.
” He ’ s already bringing that vision to life .
Heeding calls from 31 states to end refugee admissions from Syria , Trump has slashed the total number of refugees the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years ago .
His so-called public charge rule essentially establishes a wealth test for immigrants seeking to enter the US , extend their visa , or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card .
The rule gives immigration officials much more leeway to turn away those who are “ likely to be a public charge ” based on an evaluation of 20 factors , ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicaid — to English language proficiency .
Julia Gelatt , a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute , a nonpartisan think tank , said that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years had at least one negative factor under the rule , which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits .
Trump is also cracking down on foreigners giving birth to children in the US who become , by birth , American citizens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can pay for their medical treatment .
And he ’ s placed restrictions on citizens of many Muslim-majority and African countries .
His travel ban prevents citizens of Iran , Libya , Somalia , Syria , Yemen , Venezuela , and North Korea from obtaining any kind of visa allowing them to enter the US .
He recently added new restrictions on immigration from six additional countries — Myanmar , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , Nigeria , Sudan , and Tanzania — in what advocates are calling an “ African ban ” since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are from African nations .
Trump has overcome court challenges to some of these policies : In four of the six cases in which the Supreme Court weighed in on Trump ’ s immigration policies , the court ’ s conservative majority has so far sided with the administration .
Notably , the justices upheld his travel ban in June 2018 , affirming his broad powers to restrict immigration to the US for national security reasons .
The justices have also allowed Trump to move forward with his immigration policy plans while lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts .
They gave the green light to Trump ’ s rule preventing migrants from applying for asylum if they passed through another country other than their own before arriving in the US .
They also allowed him to divert $ 3.6 billion in military funds to construct the border wall and implement the public charge rule .
The way Trump talks about immigration in his State of the Union address is likely to preview what he says on the campaign trail .
That might appeal to the 42 percent of voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of voters disapprove of Trump ’ s performance on immigration and 60 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the construction of the border wall , his signature immigration policy .
Not only are most voters against Trump ’ s immigration policies , but many also just don ’ t view it as a top priority — bread-and-butter issues like health care and the economy are what they care about most .
Fifty-one percent of voters overall said that immigration should be a top priority , ranking below eight other policy issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with 68 percent saying it should be a top priority compared to 40 percent of Democrats .
The share of Americans who support increasing immigration has also risen to 32 percent as of 2018 , up from 10 percent in 2001 .
“ While Trump mobilizes his core supporters on the issue of immigration , he also mobilizes a backlash to his divisiveness and xenophobia , ” Frank Sharry , the executive director of the immigrant advocacy group America ’ s Voice , said .
Democratic candidates have largely ignored the topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but based on the immigration plans they ’ ve released , the entire field has moved to the left on immigration .
All of the frontrunners would , for example , push for a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants living in the US and streamline the process of applying for asylum and other forms of legal immigration .
Their biggest challenge upon entering office , however , would be reversing Trump ’ s changes to the immigration system .
Much of it they could accomplish unilaterally by executive action — they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and raise the cap on refugee admissions immediately , for example — but some of Trump ’ s changes are harder to reverse .
Repealing Trump-era immigration regulations would involve a protracted process of giving public notice and the opportunity to comment that often takes months .
It may also take time to rebuild some of the institutions that deal with immigration .
For example , Trump has presided over a brain drain of experienced staffers in the immigration courts and the State Department , which manages the refugee program and consulates abroad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim they will reverse Trump ’ s policies , the president has left his mark on the immigration system .
He has delivered for his base on that front — and he ’ s hoping it will be enough to carry him to victory again in 2020 .

President Donald Trump has spent three years molding America’s immigration system to primarily be concerned with keeping people out.
He built, layer by layer, impediments in Central America, at the border, in detention centers, and in the immigration courts that have made obtaining asylum nearly impossible.
He swept aside former President Barack Obama’s immigration enforcement priorities in favor of vastly expanding immigration detention and prosecuting every immigrant who crosses the border without authorization. The result is a punitive system that treats immigrants as criminals and places them in prolonged detention even if they don’t pose any danger to the public.
And he waged a quiet and effective campaign to reduce legal immigration — including expanding his travel ban to block immigration from Nigeria, the largest country in Africa. Under Trump, the legal immigration system increasingly rewards skills and wealth over family ties to the US, while shutting out a growing number of people from low-income countries.
When Trump laid out the start of his reelection-year argument in the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, his guests included a senior Border Patrol official and the brother of a man who was killed by an unauthorized immigrant. His immigration record was one of his top talking points.
He painted immigrants as criminals that pose a danger to public safety (overall, they don’t) and railed against sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement authorities. And he touted his policies clamping down on unauthorized border crossers.
“Before I came into office, if you showed up illegally on our southern border and were arrested, you were simply released and allowed into our country, never to be seen again,” Trump said. “My Administration has ended Catch-and-Release. If you come illegally, you will now be promptly removed.”
It’s true that Trump has run into some roadblocks: He’s behind schedule on construction of the southern border wall, a key messaging tool for his base. He hasn’t been able to appoint his preferred candidates to lead the immigration agencies. His attempts to pass immigration-related legislation in Congress have failed. And his policies have faced so much opposition in the courts that his administration has appeared to pursue a strategy of rapidly churning out new policies and hoping that at least some of them survive judicial review.
But while he might not have succeeded at building an actual wall to keep immigrants out, his policies have achieved the same end. Reducing overall immigration levels has long been on the wish list of once-fringe restrictionist groups like the Center for Immigration Studies, whose co-founder advocated for maintaining a European-American majority population. Trump is making it a reality.
Trump is shutting the door on asylum seekers at the border
Trump’s primary focus upon entering office was addressing the unprecedented number of children and families arriving at the southern border from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala — collectively known as Central America’s Northern Triangle — where crime, violence, and lack of economic opportunity has driven hundreds of thousands to flee over the past two years.
The administration hasn’t addressed the root causes of that crisis, but it has effectively cut off migrants’ access to the US asylum system. His ability to do all this has even surprised Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
“I didn’t expect them to pull it off,” he said. (Krikorian and his group are still pushing Trump to go further in his second term; his strategies have “taken the edge off,” but migrants are still continuing to arrive in “unacceptably high” numbers, he argues.)
Trump has deputized Central American countries in his immigration enforcement efforts. Some 60,000 asylum seekers have been sent back to Mexico to wait for their immigration court hearings in the US under his “remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). It has appeared to discourage migrants from attempting to cross the southern border but has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Mexico, where thousands are waiting for their court hearings in the US, many of them in dire need of humanitarian aid.
Some migrants are lucky to find housing in shelters, hotels, or rooms for rent, but for more than 5,000 others, only tents and tarps, some held up by only sticks and stones, stand between them and the elements, even as temperatures drop below freezing. As populations swell, both the US and Mexico have left thousands in the camps without basic necessities like clean drinking water and warm clothes — and at risk of extortion, kidnapping, and rape at the hands of cartels and other criminal actors.
Trump has also brokered a series of agreements with the Northern Triangle countries that require migrants to apply for protections in those countries first. If they fail to do so, US immigration authorities can send them back to those countries (though only the agreement with Guatemala is currently in effect). So far, 368 asylum seekers have been deported to Guatemala.
The agreements resemble “safe third-country agreements,” a rarely used diplomatic tool that requires migrants to seek asylum in the countries they pass through by deeming those countries capable of offering them protection (though the Trump administration has been reluctant to use that term). Until recently, the US had this kind of agreement with just one country: Canada.
These agreements were never meant to be a means to push the burden of absorbing asylum seekers onto other countries, but that appears to be the way Trump is trying to use them. Immigrant advocates say the costs could be deadly, since it means returning migrants to countries that have high levels of crime and instability, and that are not used to dealing with an influx of people seeking refuge.
In Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries, migrants are commonly robbed, kidnapped for ransom, raped, tortured, and killed. The State Department, meanwhile, has issued travel warnings for US citizens in all four countries.
El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in the world, while Honduras ranks fifth, Guatemala 16th, and Mexico 19th, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. They have rampant government corruption and high rates of violence against women and LGBTQ individuals.
Trump’s changes to legal immigration
As much as Trump’s rhetoric focuses on clamping down on unauthorized immigration at the southern border, the president has also instituted new restrictions on legal immigration — many of which have survived Supreme Court review.
During his speech on Tuesday, Trump called for an immigration system that rewards immigrants who “contribute to our economy, support themselves financially, and uphold our values” — while keeping out low-income immigrants and nonwhites from what he once referred to as “shithole countries.” He’s already bringing that vision to life.
Heeding calls from 31 states to end refugee admissions from Syria, Trump has slashed the total number of refugees the US accepts annually to just 18,000 this year, the fewest in history and down from a cap of 110,000 just two years ago.
His so-called public charge rule essentially establishes a wealth test for immigrants seeking to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card. The rule gives immigration officials much more leeway to turn away those who are “likely to be a public charge” based on an evaluation of 20 factors, ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, and Medicaid — to English language proficiency.
Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years had at least one negative factor under the rule, which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits.
Trump is also cracking down on foreigners giving birth to children in the US who become, by birth, American citizens, particularly if they can’t prove they can pay for their medical treatment.
And he’s placed restrictions on citizens of many Muslim-majority and African countries. His travel ban prevents citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea from obtaining any kind of visa allowing them to enter the US. He recently added new restrictions on immigration from six additional countries — Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania — in what advocates are calling an “African ban” since about four in five of those affected are from African nations.
Trump has overcome court challenges to some of these policies: In four of the six cases in which the Supreme Court weighed in on Trump’s immigration policies, the court’s conservative majority has so far sided with the administration. Notably, the justices upheld his travel ban in June 2018, affirming his broad powers to restrict immigration to the US for national security reasons.
The justices have also allowed Trump to move forward with his immigration policy plans while lawsuits challenging them make their way through lower courts.
They gave the green light to Trump’s rule preventing migrants from applying for asylum if they passed through another country other than their own before arriving in the US. They also allowed him to divert $3.6 billion in military funds to construct the border wall and implement the public charge rule.
Most voters don’t identify with Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric
The way Trump talks about immigration in his State of the Union address is likely to preview what he says on the campaign trail.
That might appeal to the 42 percent of voters who support his immigration policies. But 57 percent of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance on immigration and 60 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the construction of the border wall, his signature immigration policy.
Not only are most voters against Trump’s immigration policies, but many also just don’t view it as a top priority — bread-and-butter issues like health care and the economy are what they care about most. Fifty-one percent of voters overall said that immigration should be a top priority, ranking below eight other policy issues. Republicans seem to care more about immigration, with 68 percent saying it should be a top priority compared to 40 percent of Democrats.
The share of Americans who support increasing immigration has also risen to 32 percent as of 2018, up from 10 percent in 2001.
“While Trump mobilizes his core supporters on the issue of immigration, he also mobilizes a backlash to his divisiveness and xenophobia,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of the immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice, said.
Democratic candidates have largely ignored the topic of immigration in the debates so far, but based on the immigration plans they’ve released, the entire field has moved to the left on immigration. All of the frontrunners would, for example, push for a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants living in the US and streamline the process of applying for asylum and other forms of legal immigration.
Their biggest challenge upon entering office, however, would be reversing Trump’s changes to the immigration system. Much of it they could accomplish unilaterally by executive action — they could end MPP and the travel ban and raise the cap on refugee admissions immediately, for example — but some of Trump’s changes are harder to reverse.
Repealing Trump-era immigration regulations would involve a protracted process of giving public notice and the opportunity to comment that often takes months. It may also take time to rebuild some of the institutions that deal with immigration. For example, Trump has presided over a brain drain of experienced staffers in the immigration courts and the State Department, which manages the refugee program and consulates abroad.
For as much as Democratic candidates claim they will reverse Trump’s policies, the president has left his mark on the immigration system. He has delivered for his base on that front — and he’s hoping it will be enough to carry him to victory again in 2020.


vox--2020-02-05--Trump immediately refuted the Republican idea he was chastened by impeachment

Minutes after the Senate vote to acquit him on Wednesday afternoon , President Donald Trump posted a tweet undercutting the belief a number of Republican senators expressed in recent days that getting impeached might prompt him to tone it down a little .
Trump posted a video with an edited animation of a Time magazine cover teasing that he , or at the very least someone with the same last name , will be running for president in 2020 , 2024 , 2028 , and beyond .
It ends with Trump standing being an election placard reading , “ TRUMP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than two terms in office .
Coming from someone who ’ s supposedly the leader of the free world , Trump ’ s quips along these lines are never in good taste .
But alluding to them in the immediate aftermath of a trial in which a bipartisan group of senators voted for his removal from office is especially brazen .
Meanwhile , the Trump campaign ’ s official Twitter account posted a tweet making a mockery of the entire impeachment proceedings .
None of this is surprising at this stage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveal the absurdity of the talking points used by Republican Sens .
Susan Collins ( ME ) , Lamar Alexander ( TN ) , and Rob Portman ( OH ) , each of whom indicated in recent days they believe Trump learned a lesson from getting impeached and will behave better going forward .
That talking point was self-evidently absurd for anyone operating with a basic understanding of the timeline that culminated in Trump ’ s impeachment .
The call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump implicitly linked the release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his political foes took place on July 25 — just one day after special counsel Robert Mueller wound down his investigation of the president by testifying to Congress and saying Trump could be indicted after his term for obstructing justice because of his interference with the Russia investigation .
So instead of responding to the end of the Russia investigation by cooling his jets , Trump was on the phone with the Ukrainian president the very next day trying to solicit political favors — the very same conduct that fueled suspicions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With Republican senators now having voted to let him off the hook for that conduct , there ’ s no reason to think he won ’ t try and do it again .
Trump is who he is .
Republican senators who justified impeaching him partly because they thought he ’ d be chastened by the experience were either fooling themselves or the American people .
Trump ’ s initial response to being impeached made that perfectly clear .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s policy and politics coverage .

Minutes after the Senate vote to acquit him on Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump posted a tweet undercutting the belief a number of Republican senators expressed in recent days that getting impeached might prompt him to tone it down a little.
Trump posted a video with an edited animation of a Time magazine cover teasing that he, or at the very least someone with the same last name, will be running for president in 2020, 2024, 2028, and beyond. It ends with Trump standing being an election placard reading, “TRUMP 4EVA.”
Trump regularly jokes about serving more than two terms in office. Coming from someone who’s supposedly the leader of the free world, Trump’s quips along these lines are never in good taste. But alluding to them in the immediate aftermath of a trial in which a bipartisan group of senators voted for his removal from office is especially brazen.
Meanwhile, the Trump campaign’s official Twitter account posted a tweet making a mockery of the entire impeachment proceedings.
Here's what Cocaine Mitch thinks of the Articles of Impeachment pic.twitter.com/WAgxwLKVjE — Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) February 5, 2020
None of this is surprising at this stage of the Trump presidency. But it does reveal the absurdity of the talking points used by Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Lamar Alexander (TN), and Rob Portman (OH), each of whom indicated in recent days they believe Trump learned a lesson from getting impeached and will behave better going forward.
That talking point was self-evidently absurd for anyone operating with a basic understanding of the timeline that culminated in Trump’s impeachment. The call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump implicitly linked the release of military aid to Ukraine helping with investigations into his political foes took place on July 25 — just one day after special counsel Robert Mueller wound down his investigation of the president by testifying to Congress and saying Trump could be indicted after his term for obstructing justice because of his interference with the Russia investigation.
So instead of responding to the end of the Russia investigation by cooling his jets, Trump was on the phone with the Ukrainian president the very next day trying to solicit political favors — the very same conduct that fueled suspicions about his Russia dealings in the first place. With Republican senators now having voted to let him off the hook for that conduct, there’s no reason to think he won’t try and do it again.
Trump is who he is. Republican senators who justified impeaching him partly because they thought he’d be chastened by the experience were either fooling themselves or the American people. Trump’s initial response to being impeached made that perfectly clear.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-02-05--Iowa Democratic caucuses: Live results

Iowa Democratic caucuses: Live results

At long last , the Iowa Democratic Party is reporting its 2020 caucus results .
By late Wednesday evening — and after an initial delay of nearly a day after the caucuses took place — the state party had posted results from about 85 percent of precincts .
The delay in the count has been highly unusual and was driven by a combination of technical difficulties and human error .
A poorly performing app for reporting results , a poorly staffed backup phone line for reporting results , and complicated new rules all seem to have played a role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa Democratic Party has not given a timetable for when it will release the results from the remaining 15 percent of precincts .
There are three separate metrics to watch in these results .
The traditional way Iowa Democrats have determined who wins the Iowa caucuses is by state delegate equivalents .
This is essentially taking the final results of the 1,600-plus precinct caucuses — which conclude in allotting county convention delegates to candidates — and weighting them to estimate how many state delegates that would correspond to .
We ’ re displaying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and if you ’ re interested in understanding the math behind this in further detail , I have a longer explainer at this link .
So in this current count of state delegate equivalents , Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead , with Bernie Sanders close behind .
Elizabeth Warren is a bit further back for third place , followed by Joe Biden in fourth and Amy Klobuchar in fifth .
( Remember , there are still a number of precincts remaining to be counted and these results could certainly change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time , Iowa Democrats are releasing actual vote totals from the caucuses .
First , they will release the initial vote totals each candidate got at each precinct — added up for a statewide total .
This is the pre-realignment vote total , or Round 1 .
So it turns out that Sanders is in first place with a plurality of first-round votes .
Buttigieg and Warren are in second and third , with Biden and Klobuchar in fourth and fifth .
( And once again , these are not final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes to be counted . )
After that , at each caucus gathering , supporters of candidates who are viable — above a particular threshold ( 15 percent in most precincts ) — are locked in .
However , supporters of nonviable candidates then have the opportunity to realign and change their votes .
After this , we get the final vote total , displayed below .
As you can see , things changed a bit from the first tally .
Sanders is still in first place , but Buttigieg has gotten a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage points after the realignment , while Sanders gained a little more than 1 percentage point .
Warren gained slightly more than 2 percentage points , but Biden and Klobuchar both lost support .
( And , for the final time , these results are only partial and they will change as more precincts come in . )
So far , it ’ s too early to call a winner for any of these metrics .
What we are seeing is really that the caucuses were quite close .
So far , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top three candidates .
Still , the results so far are obviously most encouraging for Sanders and Buttigieg ( the latter of whom already declared victory before any results were in ) , while they ’ re mediocre for Warren and certainly disappointing for Biden .
But all of this is , of course , subject to change as more results come in .

At long last, the Iowa Democratic Party is reporting its 2020 caucus results.
By late Wednesday evening — and after an initial delay of nearly a day after the caucuses took place — the state party had posted nearly all of the results.
The delay in the count has been highly unusual and was driven by a combination of technical difficulties and human error. A poorly performing app for reporting results, a poorly staffed backup phone line for reporting results, and complicated new rules all seem to have played a role in the delay.
So far, the Iowa Democratic Party has not given a timetable for when it will release the results from the remaining precincts.
There are three separate metrics to watch in these results.
The traditional way Iowa Democrats have determined who wins the Iowa caucuses is by state delegate equivalents. This is essentially taking the final results of the 1,600-plus precinct caucuses — which conclude in allotting county convention delegates to candidates — and weighting them to estimate how many state delegates that would correspond to. We’re displaying that number here as it comes in, and if you’re interested in understanding the math behind this in further detail, I have a longer explainer at this link.
So in this current count of state delegate equivalents, Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead, with Bernie Sanders close behind. Elizabeth Warren is a bit further back for third place, followed by Joe Biden in fourth and Amy Klobuchar in fifth. (Remember, there are still a number of precincts remaining to be counted and these results could certainly change.)
Now also, this year for the first time, Iowa Democrats are releasing actual vote totals from the caucuses. First, they will release the initial vote totals each candidate got at each precinct — added up for a statewide total. This is the pre-realignment vote total, or Round 1.
So it turns out that Sanders is in first place with a plurality of first-round votes. Buttigieg and Warren are in second and third, with Biden and Klobuchar in fourth and fifth. (And once again, these are not final vote totals and there are many remaining votes to be counted.)
After that, at each caucus gathering, supporters of candidates who are viable — above a particular threshold (15 percent in most precincts) — are locked in. However, supporters of nonviable candidates then have the opportunity to realign and change their votes. After this, we get the final vote total, displayed below.
As you can see, things changed a bit from the first tally. Sanders is still in first place, but Buttigieg has gotten a lot closer — he gained about 4 percentage points after the realignment, while Sanders gained a little more than 1 percentage point. Warren gained slightly more than 2 percentage points, but Biden and Klobuchar both lost support. (And, for the final time, these results are only partial and they will change as more precincts come in.)
So far, it’s too early to call a winner for any of these metrics. What we are seeing is really that the caucuses were quite close. So far, there are only a few thousand results separating the top three candidates. Still, the results so far are obviously most encouraging for Sanders and Buttigieg (the latter of whom already declared victory before any results were in), while they’re mediocre for Warren and certainly disappointing for Biden. But all of this is, of course, subject to change as more results come in.


Impeachment, explained

The Trump-Ukraine scandal began in September 2019 with the revelation that an intelligence officer had filed a whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community inspector general alleging wrongdoing on the part of Trump .
The whistleblower , who we now know was a member of the CIA and detailed to the National Security Council , claimed that a phone call in July 2019 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky set off alarm bells in the intelligence community .
He writes in the complaint : “ The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the course of my official duties , I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election .
This interference includes , among other things , pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President ’ s main domestic political rivals .
The President ’ s personal lawyer , Mr. Rudolph Giuliani , is a central figure in this effort .
Attorney General Barr appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote of a possible cover-up by the White House : In the days following the phone call , I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “ lock down ” all records of the phone call , especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room .
This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call .
The whistleblower had followed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professionals who believe wrongdoing is taking place .
Rather than leaking to the press , intelligence professionals are supposed to file a report with the inspector general .
Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act , if the inspector general deems the complaint to be credible and the matter to be of “ urgent concern , ” he or she is supposed to forward it to the director of national intelligence , who then is required to forward the complaint to Congress within seven days .
But when Director of National Intelligence Joseph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t forward it to Congress .
Instead , he asked the Justice Department ’ s Office of Legal Counsel what he should do .
The office concluded that it was not a matter of urgent concern and that Maguire should therefore sit on the report .
The statute does not give the director nor the Office of Legal Counsel discretion over the question of “ urgent concern.
” The inspector general is given this responsibility and , in this case , that assessment had already been made .
Nonetheless , Maguire followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructions and did not forward the report .
The existence of the report and the hold-up at the Justice Department came to light in mid-September .
By September 19 , we learned that the subject of the whistleblower ’ s report was Trump ’ s effort to get the government of Ukraine to gin up an investigation into Hunter Biden , the son of Joe Biden , the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate .
Controversy about this raged for several days , until the White House made an abrupt about-face and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the official White House record of Trump ’ s phone call with Zelensky to become public on September 25 and 26 .
Trump and his allies waged an on-again , off-again campaign to discredit the whistleblower — arguing both that he is biased against Trump and also that he didn ’ t have first-hand knowledge of the situation he was writing about .
Trump threw in vague calls to unmask him .
The memo itself , however , was almost entirely overtaken by subsequent events and corroborated by other sources .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it showed ( see below ) .
Testimony by senior officials made it clear that Rudy Giuliani was deeply involved in Ukraine policy despite not holding any government position .
And Trump himself in extemporaneous remarks essentially admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden .
I would think that if they were honest about it , they ’ d start a major investigation into the Bidens .
It ’ s a very simple answer .
They should investigate the Bidens ... and by the way , likewise , China should start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened to China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine .

The Trump-Ukraine scandal began in September 2019 with the revelation that an intelligence officer had filed a whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community inspector general alleging wrongdoing on the part of Trump.
The whistleblower, who we now know was a member of the CIA and detailed to the National Security Council, claimed that a phone call in July 2019 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky set off alarm bells in the intelligence community. He writes in the complaint: “The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call.”
Specifically, he alleges:
In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.
The whistleblower also wrote of a possible cover-up by the White House:
In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.
The whistleblower had followed the procedure laid out in law for intelligence professionals who believe wrongdoing is taking place. Rather than leaking to the press, intelligence professionals are supposed to file a report with the inspector general. Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, if the inspector general deems the complaint to be credible and the matter to be of “urgent concern,” he or she is supposed to forward it to the director of national intelligence, who then is required to forward the complaint to Congress within seven days.
But when Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire got the complaint, he didn’t forward it to Congress. Instead, he asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel what he should do. The office concluded that it was not a matter of urgent concern and that Maguire should therefore sit on the report. The statute does not give the director nor the Office of Legal Counsel discretion over the question of “urgent concern.” The inspector general is given this responsibility and, in this case, that assessment had already been made. Nonetheless, Maguire followed the Office of Legal Counsel’s instructions and did not forward the report.
The existence of the report and the hold-up at the Justice Department came to light in mid-September. By September 19, we learned that the subject of the whistleblower’s report was Trump’s effort to get the government of Ukraine to gin up an investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate.
Controversy about this raged for several days, until the White House made an abrupt about-face and allowed both the whistleblower’s report and the official White House record of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky to become public on September 25 and 26.
Trump and his allies waged an on-again, off-again campaign to discredit the whistleblower — arguing both that he is biased against Trump and also that he didn’t have first-hand knowledge of the situation he was writing about. Trump threw in vague calls to unmask him.
....the Whistleblower, and also the person who gave all of the false information to him. This is simply about a phone conversation that could not have been nicer, warmer, or better. No pressure at all (as confirmed by Ukrainian Pres.). It is just another Democrat Hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2019
The memo itself, however, was almost entirely overtaken by subsequent events and corroborated by other sources. The call record showed exactly what the memo said it showed (see below). Testimony by senior officials made it clear that Rudy Giuliani was deeply involved in Ukraine policy despite not holding any government position. And Trump himself in extemporaneous remarks essentially admitted that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden. I would think that if they were honest about it, they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens ... and by the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Because what happened to China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.


vox--2020-02-05--Trump was never going to be forced out

Trump was never going to be forced out

July 2017 seems like a million years ago now , but in some ways it feels like little has changed .
Take this article I wrote that month .
The headline is “ The latest revelation won ’ t end Trump ’ s presidency .
Only Paul Ryan can.
” The first section is subtitled “ Robert Mueller can ’ t fell Donald Trump.
” The only part of that which feels dated — and the main mistake I see in my analysis , in retrospect — is the name “ Paul Ryan.
” It was never up to Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nancy Pelosi , did impeach Trump for holding aid to Ukraine hostage in hopes of damaging a political rival .
But what has become clear in the two and a half years since is that the House ’ s role was only preamble .
Yes , Trump will go down in history books as the third president to be impeached .
But he will not go down in history as the first president to be removed .
The Senate ’ s vote to acquit him on charges of obstruction of Congress and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a deeply unsatisfying punchline to the past few years of American politics .
At least since Donald Trump first announced his presidential campaign in June 2015 , journalists and activists have been asking : Is this the scandal that finally does him in ?
Would his casual description of Mexican immigrants as rapists in his announcement speech force him to drop out shortly after he jumped in ?
Would his attack on John McCain for being captured in Vietnam end his campaign ?
Or proposing an all-out ban on Muslim immigration ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on which he brags about sexually assaulting women ?
Or the stories from multiple women who said he did sexually assault them ?
Or leaking highly classified information to the Russian government ?
Or intimidating Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden ?
Would any of these be enough to finally bring Trump down ?
As it turns out , the answer in each case was no .
That ’ s not because none of these things should have been enough to end his campaign or force him out of office .
Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the sad truth is that whether or not Trump was “ brought down ” had at best an indirect relationship to the truth and the gravity of the charges against him .
The hope that he would be gone rested entirely on a hope that at least 20 Republican senators would do the right thing .
And anybody who has paid attention to Mitch McConnell ’ s Republican Party the past decade would have told you that was never going to happen .
In the end , only one Republican senator , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 , the New Yorker ’ s Adam Davidson called the FBI ’ s raid on former Trump attorney Michael Cohen “ the end stage of the Trump presidency ” — a prediction that obviously will not come to pass .
But what ’ s more interesting than the prediction was the emotion behind it , a yearning for something , anything , to end the death loop that American democracy appears to be trapped in .
In the liberal imagination , that blow-up took the form of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sets us back toward a path of normalcy and sane politics .
This yearning is understandable , but it is misplaced .
For one thing , ending the Trump presidency will not fix , or even substantially ameliorate , most of the problems plaguing the American political system .
They were mounting for years before he took office — indeed , they made him possible — and will continue to plague us for years after he leaves .
And more importantly , as this week clarifies , there will be no dramatic end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be one .
If he leaves office , it ’ s not going to be because the other shoe drops .
There ’ s no revelation that can do that when [ gesticulates wildly to everything that has happened and been revealed since 2015 ] was not enough .
If he leaves office , it will be because he loses the 2020 election .
That was always the case .
We were always going to have to do this the hard way .
Most observers acknowledge that American democracy is in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problems our democracy confronted were mounting but largely faceless .
Trump gave them a human form .
He illustrates the US ’ s susceptibility to demagoguery and to the influence of billionaires seeking to deregulate their own businesses and cut their own taxes .
He won with the assistance of one of America ’ s most broken and anti-majoritarian institutions ( the Electoral College ) with a congressional majority bolstered by gerrymandering and the underrepresentation of left-leaning urban areas .
He shows how America ’ s thermostatic electorate , constantly responding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dramatic swing to the other side , can undermine democratic responsiveness by catapulting a party with a deeply unpopular agenda into office .
And he shows how dangerous the presidency ’ s extraordinary war powers can be in the wrong hands .
So it ’ s no wonder his presidency has proved a breeding ground for fantasies of his regime ’ s demise that range from the responsible — see my colleague Ezra Klein ’ s case that Trump should be impeached for being ridiculously bad at his job — to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s claims that Trump ’ s impeachment and arrest were imminent and that the “ Marshal of the Supreme Court ” had informed the president his impeachment was coming ; or Jamie Kirchick , who even before Trump ’ s presidency was musing about a military coup unseating him ) .
As the late literary critic Frank Kermode argued in his book The Sense of an Ending , humans crave narrative structure .
“ We are surrounded by [ chaos ] , and equipped for coexistence with it only by our fictive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t see the world as a sequence of events , one right after another , with no end or resolution in sight .
“ To see everything as out of mere succession , ” he observed , “ is to behave like a man drugged or insane.
” We can ’ t see what ’ s happening to American politics as just a succession of events that , in themselves , mean nothing .
They have to be leading up to a climactic Götterdämmerung in which our slate is wiped clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictions of the Trump administration ’ s collapse — that made Mueller , then the impeachment process , such a vessel for liberal hopes .
There is no easy fix to our problems .
We have to muddle through .
So where does this leave us ?
Everything feels horrible , Trump is still in office , and he ’ s not going anywhere .
The glib answer is that if you don ’ t want Trump to be president , you should make sure he loses the 2020 election .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strength of the economy and the advantage of incumbency , but incumbents sometimes lose and Democrats have a number of strong candidates .
But a Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren presidency isn ’ t going to wipe clean the system ’ s problems .
The maladies remain .
To borrow a quote that 2020 hopeful Pete Buttigieg likely knows well , “ The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new can not be born ; in this interregnum a great variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolutionary shock to create a radically new political order , the best we can do is just muddle along .
That is probably the one unromantic takeaway that the Trump experience has left me with .
We fantasize about an early , dramatic end to the Trump years in part because that signals a return to normalcy and a rejection of all the dysfunctions he symbolizes .
But Trump was never going to be frog-marched out of the White House .
And even if he was , it wouldn ’ t have solved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to muddle through , for a big , climactic finish to both the Trump presidency and the American national nightmare .
But if muddling through is to lead anywhere , we ought to be prepared for it , and prepared to make the most of it , rather than thinking a deus ex machina like impeachment will blow the whole thing up in a stroke .
The Trump years will likely end with a whimper rather than a bang — just as the conclusion of Watergate did not lead to a cleansed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a flurry of reforms that improved things for a spell ) , and just as the financial crisis did not usher in a new era of ethical banking ( same ) .
But we don ’ t have to wait for the Trump presidency to end , or force it to end , to start thinking about what a more systematic approach to fixing American politics would look like .
It will not make for a very good , eventful movie , and it will be a long and at times unfulfilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only way we can make it through .

July 2017 seems like a million years ago now, but in some ways it feels like little has changed. Take this article I wrote that month. The headline is “The latest revelation won’t end Trump’s presidency. Only Paul Ryan can.” The first section is subtitled “Robert Mueller can’t fell Donald Trump.”
The only part of that which feels dated — and the main mistake I see in my analysis, in retrospect — is the name “Paul Ryan.” It was never up to Paul Ryan, after all. His successor, Nancy Pelosi, did impeach Trump for holding aid to Ukraine hostage in hopes of damaging a political rival.
But what has become clear in the two and a half years since is that the House’s role was only preamble. Yes, Trump will go down in history books as the third president to be impeached. But he will not go down in history as the first president to be removed. The Senate’s vote to acquit him on charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power guarantees that.
This is a deeply unsatisfying punchline to the past few years of American politics. At least since Donald Trump first announced his presidential campaign in June 2015, journalists and activists have been asking: Is this the scandal that finally does him in?
Would his casual description of Mexican immigrants as rapists in his announcement speech force him to drop out shortly after he jumped in? Would his attack on John McCain for being captured in Vietnam end his campaign? Or proposing an all-out ban on Muslim immigration?
What about the revelation of a tape on which he brags about sexually assaulting women? Or the stories from multiple women who said he did sexually assault them? Or leaking highly classified information to the Russian government? Or intimidating Ukraine into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden? Would any of these be enough to finally bring Trump down?
As it turns out, the answer in each case was no. That’s not because none of these things should have been enough to end his campaign or force him out of office. Each of them should have been enough!
But the sad truth is that whether or not Trump was “brought down” had at best an indirect relationship to the truth and the gravity of the charges against him. The hope that he would be gone rested entirely on a hope that at least 20 Republican senators would do the right thing. And anybody who has paid attention to Mitch McConnell’s Republican Party the past decade would have told you that was never going to happen. In the end, only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, did the right thing.
In 2018, the New Yorker’s Adam Davidson called the FBI’s raid on former Trump attorney Michael Cohen “the end stage of the Trump presidency” — a prediction that obviously will not come to pass. But what’s more interesting than the prediction was the emotion behind it, a yearning for something, anything, to end the death loop that American democracy appears to be trapped in. In the liberal imagination, that blow-up took the form of Trump’s removal from office, an event that sets us back toward a path of normalcy and sane politics.
This yearning is understandable, but it is misplaced. For one thing, ending the Trump presidency will not fix, or even substantially ameliorate, most of the problems plaguing the American political system. They were mounting for years before he took office — indeed, they made him possible — and will continue to plague us for years after he leaves.
And more importantly, as this week clarifies, there will be no dramatic end for Trump. There never was going to be one. If he leaves office, it’s not going to be because the other shoe drops. There’s no revelation that can do that when [gesticulates wildly to everything that has happened and been revealed since 2015] was not enough.
If he leaves office, it will be because he loses the 2020 election. That was always the case. We were always going to have to do this the hard way.
An unsatisfying end
Most observers acknowledge that American democracy is in a pretty bad way.
Until 2015, the problems our democracy confronted were mounting but largely faceless. Trump gave them a human form.
He illustrates the US’s susceptibility to demagoguery and to the influence of billionaires seeking to deregulate their own businesses and cut their own taxes. He won with the assistance of one of America’s most broken and anti-majoritarian institutions (the Electoral College) with a congressional majority bolstered by gerrymandering and the underrepresentation of left-leaning urban areas.
He shows how America’s thermostatic electorate, constantly responding to one party’s electoral success with a dramatic swing to the other side, can undermine democratic responsiveness by catapulting a party with a deeply unpopular agenda into office. And he shows how dangerous the presidency’s extraordinary war powers can be in the wrong hands.
So it’s no wonder his presidency has proved a breeding ground for fantasies of his regime’s demise that range from the responsible — see my colleague Ezra Klein’s case that Trump should be impeached for being ridiculously bad at his job — to the conspiratorial and preposterous (see Louise Mensch’s claims that Trump’s impeachment and arrest were imminent and that the “Marshal of the Supreme Court” had informed the president his impeachment was coming; or Jamie Kirchick, who even before Trump’s presidency was musing about a military coup unseating him).
As the late literary critic Frank Kermode argued in his book The Sense of an Ending, humans crave narrative structure. “We are surrounded by [chaos], and equipped for coexistence with it only by our fictive powers,” he wrote. We can’t see the world as a sequence of events, one right after another, with no end or resolution in sight. “To see everything as out of mere succession,” he observed, “is to behave like a man drugged or insane.”
We can’t see what’s happening to American politics as just a succession of events that, in themselves, mean nothing. They have to be leading up to a climactic Götterdämmerung in which our slate is wiped clean. This is the yearning behind bold predictions of the Trump administration’s collapse — that made Mueller, then the impeachment process, such a vessel for liberal hopes.
There is no easy fix to our problems. We have to muddle through.
So where does this leave us? Everything feels horrible, Trump is still in office, and he’s not going anywhere.
The glib answer is that if you don’t want Trump to be president, you should make sure he loses the 2020 election. He’s the favorite at this point given the strength of the economy and the advantage of incumbency, but incumbents sometimes lose and Democrats have a number of strong candidates.
But a Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren presidency isn’t going to wipe clean the system’s problems. The maladies remain. To borrow a quote that 2020 hopeful Pete Buttigieg likely knows well, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
And absent a revolutionary shock to create a radically new political order, the best we can do is just muddle along.
That is probably the one unromantic takeaway that the Trump experience has left me with. We fantasize about an early, dramatic end to the Trump years in part because that signals a return to normalcy and a rejection of all the dysfunctions he symbolizes. But Trump was never going to be frog-marched out of the White House. And even if he was, it wouldn’t have solved our problems.
I understand the yearning not to muddle through, for a big, climactic finish to both the Trump presidency and the American national nightmare. But if muddling through is to lead anywhere, we ought to be prepared for it, and prepared to make the most of it, rather than thinking a deus ex machina like impeachment will blow the whole thing up in a stroke.
The Trump years will likely end with a whimper rather than a bang — just as the conclusion of Watergate did not lead to a cleansed and more ethical politics (though there was a flurry of reforms that improved things for a spell), and just as the financial crisis did not usher in a new era of ethical banking (same).
But we don’t have to wait for the Trump presidency to end, or force it to end, to start thinking about what a more systematic approach to fixing American politics would look like. It will not make for a very good, eventful movie, and it will be a long and at times unfulfilling slog. But it’ll be the only way we can make it through.


vox--2020-02-05--Trump’s impeachment acquittal shows how democracy could really die

Donald Trump ’ s impeachment acquittal is a warning sign that something has gone deeply wrong in our political system .
It shows a kind of subtle corruption of the law that has , in other countries , led to the decline and fall of their democratic systems in their entirety .
Senate Republicans didn ’ t violate the Constitution ’ s rules for holding an impeachment trial .
They adhered fairly reasonably to the letter of the law and can credibly claim they did all that was legally required of them .
But this was a sham trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt .
By following the formal rules , Senate Republicans gave this fiction a veneer of formal legitimacy .
All of them , with the brave exception of Mitt Romney , weaponized the letter of the law against its spirit .
This kind of corrupt legalism is a common practice among ruling parties in democracies that have fallen into autocracy .
That these regimes contain the most direct parallels to what ’ s just happened in America makes clear the precise way in which our democracy is under attack .
We should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency powers , but a slow hollowing-out of our legal system to the point where the people no longer have meaningful control over their leaders .
On Wednesday , the United States took another notable step in that direction .
To understand the threat from this process , it ’ s worth looking at a country that has become an autocracy despite retaining a legal code that seems , on paper , fully democratic : Hungary .
“ Hungary is not a democracy anymore , ” Zsuzsanna Szelényi , a former Hungarian member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , told me during a 2018 visit to Budapest .
“ The parliament is a decoration for a one-party state.
” Orbán and much of his inner circle are not strongmen on the classical model , but devilishly clever lawyers .
After winning the country ’ s 2010 elections in a landslide , they ended up writing new laws and reinterpreting old ones in a way that rendered future elections largely noncompetitive .
The government controls the airwaves and media companies to such a degree that the opposition can ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsensical regulations makes it nearly impossible for pro-democracy organizations to serve as a check on the government .
Tax law and economic regulations are fundamentally political , enforcement cherry-picked in a way that punishes government critics and enriches its cronies .
All of this happens despite a Hungarian constitution that still protects “ the free establishment and operation of political parties ” and “ the freedom and diversity of the press.
” The legal trappings of a democracy , including regular elections , a liberal-sounding constitution , and nominally independent courts , mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s how sympathetic Western intellectuals like Christopher Caldwell can visit Budapest and still write that “ [ Orbán ’ s ] power had been won in free elections ” with a straight face .
The brilliance of this system comes in the way it manufactures its own false legitimacy .
The Hungarian government can tell both its citizens and the international community that it is still a democracy .
It holds elections that aren ’ t obviously rigged , in the sense of having falsified ballot counts , to vindicate its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a world where democracy is ( for now ) the dominant political ideology , that ’ s valuable for both maintaining support at home and avoiding problems internationally .
The United States is , of course , not Hungary .
But the Republicans have treated the impeachment trial as a rough equivalent of a Hungarian election : a parody of its actual thing , a performance that undermines the aim of holding the executive branch accountable while claiming to follow constitutional obligations to do just that .
Any meaningfully fair trial would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment proceedings lacked : full consideration of the evidence and open-minded jurors .
These two defects were linked .
The reason Republicans wouldn ’ t hear John Bolton ’ s testimony , despite a book manuscript suggesting he has new and damning evidence against Trump ’ s defense , is that they had already decided to acquit Trump .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was quite open about all this before the trial started .
“ I ’ m not an impartial juror .
This is a political process .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said in December .
McConnell put together a “ trial ” that would guarantee this outcome without flagrantly violating the rules of the Constitution , a kind of narrow legalism that empties out the law of its true meaning .
How the liberal dependence on law is being twisted against American democracy When we think about the impeachment vote ’ s broader significance for the health of American democracy , it ’ s worth keeping the Hungarian model of authoritarianism in mind — and what it tells us about our democratic system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — in the broad philosophical sense of the term , not the partisan American one — loves the law .
It aims to use legally sanctioned contests to tame the dangers of deep political disagreement .
The poll station and the court hearing replace the battlefield and the street riot as a way of setting the balance of political power .
For a liberal democracy like the United States to work as intended , there needs to be a set of legal procedures that govern how these contests work .
Campaign regulations make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from becoming dictators in robes , and legislative rules ensure laws are enacted fairly and openly .
Hungary ’ s example exposes a flaw in this dependence on such “ neutral ” procedures : that they don ’ t just enforce themselves .
People interpret the law , sometimes with an eye toward fairness and sometimes without one , but always through the lens of their own values and worldview .
When in power , they tend to come up with legalistic ways of justifying the policy or outcome they ’ d prefer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theses of a school of legal thought that rose to prominence in the 1980s , called “ critical legal studies.
” CLS scholars argued that the law is “ indeterminate , ” that legal texts mean nothing on their own and , instead , are interpreted by judges through the lens of their own particular priorities .
“ It turns out that the limits of craft are so broad that in any interesting case any reasonably skilled lawyer can reach whatever result he or she wants , ” Mark Tushnet , a Georgetown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key thinkers in this school of thought , wrote in 1983 .
A classic example of this indeterminacy in action came just last month , when the Trump administration argued that the 2002 law authorizing Bush ’ s invasion of Iraq provided legal justification for their assassination of an Iranian general ( Qassem Soleimani ) .
This was obviously not the intent of the 18-year-old law , but enough of an argument can be put together for it to serve as a fig leaf for the president ’ s preferred policy .
CLS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law often leads to it being used to entrench structures of domination .
Court rulings aren ’ t neutral expressions of legal reasoning but political processes determined by the interactions of involved parties ( like judges , attorneys , and interest groups filing amicus briefs ) .
Given underlying asymmetries in social and political power , the law can be used to secure the interests of those in power — even laws that are written with egalitarian intent .
There are problems with the CLS thesis as a comprehensive theory of law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in power can interpret the law creatively to entrench their power , has been darkly vindicated in places like Hungary .
It also helps us understand the specific kind of danger the impeachment farce is warning us about .
Republicans will not vote to give Trump dictatorial powers ; we will not wake up tomorrow , the day after , or the year after in a police state .
The risk , instead , is that the legal procedures necessary for a liberal democracy to work — the fairness of elections , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority rights — become hollowed out from the inside , rendered meaningless despite remaining on the books .
We will never stop claiming to be a democracy , but we might end up quietly losing so many different components of one that we ultimately lose the capacity for meaningful self-rule .
The American ship of state becomes a version of the ship of Theseus , replaced plank by plank until very few of the original components remain .
Many of these democratic planks , like voting rights and equal participation in elections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This fake impeachment trial shows that another one has been quietly replaced .

Donald Trump’s impeachment acquittal is a warning sign that something has gone deeply wrong in our political system. It shows a kind of subtle corruption of the law that has, in other countries, led to the decline and fall of their democratic systems in their entirety.
Senate Republicans didn’t violate the Constitution’s rules for holding an impeachment trial. They adhered fairly reasonably to the letter of the law and can credibly claim they did all that was legally required of them. But this was a sham trial, one whose outcome was never seriously in doubt. By following the formal rules, Senate Republicans gave this fiction a veneer of formal legitimacy. All of them, with the brave exception of Mitt Romney, weaponized the letter of the law against its spirit.
This kind of corrupt legalism is a common practice among ruling parties in democracies that have fallen into autocracy. That these regimes contain the most direct parallels to what’s just happened in America makes clear the precise way in which our democracy is under attack. We should not fear a coup or seizure of authoritarian emergency powers, but a slow hollowing-out of our legal system to the point where the people no longer have meaningful control over their leaders.
On Wednesday, the United States took another notable step in that direction.
Impeachment’s worrying parallels abroad
To understand the threat from this process, it’s worth looking at a country that has become an autocracy despite retaining a legal code that seems, on paper, fully democratic: Hungary.
“Hungary is not a democracy anymore,” Zsuzsanna Szelényi, a former Hungarian member from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s party, told me during a 2018 visit to Budapest. “The parliament is a decoration for a one-party state.”
Orbán and much of his inner circle are not strongmen on the classical model, but devilishly clever lawyers. After winning the country’s 2010 elections in a landslide, they ended up writing new laws and reinterpreting old ones in a way that rendered future elections largely noncompetitive.
The government controls the airwaves and media companies to such a degree that the opposition can’t get a fair hearing. A patchwork of nonsensical regulations makes it nearly impossible for pro-democracy organizations to serve as a check on the government. Tax law and economic regulations are fundamentally political, enforcement cherry-picked in a way that punishes government critics and enriches its cronies.
All of this happens despite a Hungarian constitution that still protects “the free establishment and operation of political parties” and “the freedom and diversity of the press.” The legal trappings of a democracy, including regular elections, a liberal-sounding constitution, and nominally independent courts, mask the actual authoritarianism of the system. It’s how sympathetic Western intellectuals like Christopher Caldwell can visit Budapest and still write that “[Orbán’s] power had been won in free elections” with a straight face.
The brilliance of this system comes in the way it manufactures its own false legitimacy. The Hungarian government can tell both its citizens and the international community that it is still a democracy. It holds elections that aren’t obviously rigged, in the sense of having falsified ballot counts, to vindicate its claim that the people still rule. In a world where democracy is (for now) the dominant political ideology, that’s valuable for both maintaining support at home and avoiding problems internationally.
The United States is, of course, not Hungary. But the Republicans have treated the impeachment trial as a rough equivalent of a Hungarian election: a parody of its actual thing, a performance that undermines the aim of holding the executive branch accountable while claiming to follow constitutional obligations to do just that.
Any meaningfully fair trial would contain at least two elements the Senate impeachment proceedings lacked: full consideration of the evidence and open-minded jurors. These two defects were linked. The reason Republicans wouldn’t hear John Bolton’s testimony, despite a book manuscript suggesting he has new and damning evidence against Trump’s defense, is that they had already decided to acquit Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was quite open about all this before the trial started.
“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it,” he said in December.
McConnell put together a “trial” that would guarantee this outcome without flagrantly violating the rules of the Constitution, a kind of narrow legalism that empties out the law of its true meaning.
How the liberal dependence on law is being twisted against American democracy
When we think about the impeachment vote’s broader significance for the health of American democracy, it’s worth keeping the Hungarian model of authoritarianism in mind — and what it tells us about our democratic system’s resilience more broadly.
Liberalism — in the broad philosophical sense of the term, not the partisan American one — loves the law. It aims to use legally sanctioned contests to tame the dangers of deep political disagreement. The poll station and the court hearing replace the battlefield and the street riot as a way of setting the balance of political power.
For a liberal democracy like the United States to work as intended, there needs to be a set of legal procedures that govern how these contests work. Campaign regulations make elections fair, legal codes keep judges from becoming dictators in robes, and legislative rules ensure laws are enacted fairly and openly.
Hungary’s example exposes a flaw in this dependence on such “neutral” procedures: that they don’t just enforce themselves. People interpret the law, sometimes with an eye toward fairness and sometimes without one, but always through the lens of their own values and worldview. When in power, they tend to come up with legalistic ways of justifying the policy or outcome they’d prefer.
This is one of the central theses of a school of legal thought that rose to prominence in the 1980s, called “critical legal studies.” CLS scholars argued that the law is “indeterminate,” that legal texts mean nothing on their own and, instead, are interpreted by judges through the lens of their own particular priorities.
“It turns out that the limits of craft are so broad that in any interesting case any reasonably skilled lawyer can reach whatever result he or she wants,” Mark Tushnet, a Georgetown University law professor and one of the key thinkers in this school of thought, wrote in 1983.
A classic example of this indeterminacy in action came just last month, when the Trump administration argued that the 2002 law authorizing Bush’s invasion of Iraq provided legal justification for their assassination of an Iranian general (Qassem Soleimani). This was obviously not the intent of the 18-year-old law, but enough of an argument can be put together for it to serve as a fig leaf for the president’s preferred policy.
CLS scholars argue that the indeterminacy of the law often leads to it being used to entrench structures of domination. Court rulings aren’t neutral expressions of legal reasoning but political processes determined by the interactions of involved parties (like judges, attorneys, and interest groups filing amicus briefs). Given underlying asymmetries in social and political power, the law can be used to secure the interests of those in power — even laws that are written with egalitarian intent.
There are problems with the CLS thesis as a comprehensive theory of law. But its essential insight, that people in power can interpret the law creatively to entrench their power, has been darkly vindicated in places like Hungary. It also helps us understand the specific kind of danger the impeachment farce is warning us about.
Republicans will not vote to give Trump dictatorial powers; we will not wake up tomorrow, the day after, or the year after in a police state. The risk, instead, is that the legal procedures necessary for a liberal democracy to work — the fairness of elections, the separation of powers, the protections of minority rights — become hollowed out from the inside, rendered meaningless despite remaining on the books.
We will never stop claiming to be a democracy, but we might end up quietly losing so many different components of one that we ultimately lose the capacity for meaningful self-rule. The American ship of state becomes a version of the ship of Theseus, replaced plank by plank until very few of the original components remain.
Many of these democratic planks, like voting rights and equal participation in elections, have been chipped away at for years. This fake impeachment trial shows that another one has been quietly replaced.


vox--2020-02-05--Mitt Romney is the only Republican who voted for Trump’s conviction

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney just voted to convict the president on one article of impeachment : abuse of power .
The Utah senator stands in stark contrast to every other person in the 53-member Republican conference , who all voted to acquit President Trump on both articles .
Romney was also one of just two Republicans to vote in favor of considering more witnesses for the trial last week , alongside Sen. Susan Collins .
He voted in line with his party on the second article , obstruction of Congress .
“ What [ the president ] did was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our electoral rights , our national security , and our fundamental values , ” Romney said on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon while explaining his decision .
“ Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one ’ s oath of office that I can imagine.
” You can watch his full speech here .
Despite Romney ’ s past critiques of Trump , the decision is a shocking one .
Collins — and fellow moderates who did not vote to call witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s alleged decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens was wrong but not worthy of removal .
Romney ’ s differing conclusion made the vote to convict Trump a bipartisan one , unlike the House vote on the articles of impeachment , when not a single Republican voted in favor of them .
In his floor remarks Wednesday , Romney systematically dismantled the arguments presented by Trump ’ s defense and repeatedly cited his faith as central to making his final decision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside , ” he said .
“ Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me , for the sake of a partisan end , it would , I fear , expose my character to history ’ s rebuke.
” Romney added , too , that he was breaking with his party due to an “ inescapable conviction ” on the subject , even as he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and loyalty to the president .
Senate Republicans have broadly stuck by Trump ’ s side largely due to how popular he remains with the Republican base , 89 percent of whom approve of the job he ’ s doing as president , according to a recent Gallup poll .
Romney won ’ t be up for reelection until 2024 , meaning that he didn ’ t need to weigh the same electoral consequences of voting to convict as some of his colleagues may have .
His actions , though , are consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news broke about Trump ’ s efforts to condition military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of political investigations , Romney has been one of the most outspoken Republican critics .
In an interview with Fox News following his Wednesday speech , Romney said that he is aware his party — and its base — may not be happy with his vote , but that he does not believe he had any other choice , placing the president ’ s conduct in stark terms : “ I believe that the act he took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is as destructive an attack on the oath of office and our Constitution as I can imagine.
” And when asked if he believes Trump should be removed from office , Romney told Fox ’ s Chris Wallace , “ I do believe he should be removed from office .
”

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney just voted to convict the president on one article of impeachment: abuse of power.
The Utah senator stands in stark contrast to every other person in the 53-member Republican conference, who all voted to acquit President Trump on both articles. Romney was also one of just two Republicans to vote in favor of considering more witnesses for the trial last week, alongside Sen. Susan Collins. He voted in line with his party on the second article, obstruction of Congress.
“What [the president] did was not perfect. It was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values,” Romney said on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon while explaining his decision. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.”
You can watch his full speech here.
Despite Romney’s past critiques of Trump, the decision is a shocking one.
Collins — and fellow moderates who did not vote to call witnesses, like Lamar Alexander — argued that Trump’s alleged decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens was wrong but not worthy of removal. Romney’s differing conclusion made the vote to convict Trump a bipartisan one, unlike the House vote on the articles of impeachment, when not a single Republican voted in favor of them.
In his floor remarks Wednesday, Romney systematically dismantled the arguments presented by Trump’s defense and repeatedly cited his faith as central to making his final decision.
“My promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside,” he said. “Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me, for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke.”
Romney added, too, that he was breaking with his party due to an “inescapable conviction” on the subject, even as he was lobbied by other Republicans to maintain unity and loyalty to the president.
Senate Republicans have broadly stuck by Trump’s side largely due to how popular he remains with the Republican base, 89 percent of whom approve of the job he’s doing as president, according to a recent Gallup poll. Romney won’t be up for reelection until 2024, meaning that he didn’t need to weigh the same electoral consequences of voting to convict as some of his colleagues may have.
His actions, though, are consistent with his past stances. Ever since news broke about Trump’s efforts to condition military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of political investigations, Romney has been one of the most outspoken Republican critics.
In an interview with Fox News following his Wednesday speech, Romney said that he is aware his party — and its base — may not be happy with his vote, but that he does not believe he had any other choice, placing the president’s conduct in stark terms: “I believe that the act he took, an effort to corrupt an election, is as destructive an attack on the oath of office and our Constitution as I can imagine.”
And when asked if he believes Trump should be removed from office, Romney told Fox’s Chris Wallace, “I do believe he should be removed from office.”