dailykos--2020-01-16--The Ultimate Flaw in the GOP's Defense of Donald Trump

With more and more revelations coming out by the day of evidence stacked against Donald Trump about his politically-motivated plot to illegally withhold Ukrainian financial aid in exchange for announcing investigations into the Bidens ( because it worked against Hillary and Trump is nothing , if not redundant ) , it is becoming harder and harder for everyone involved to continue to deny Trump ’ s guilt in all of this .
Of course , most of us are not so naive at this point to think that , despite all of this , the Republican Party including high-ranking leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senators , and Kevin McCarthy and the GOP House Representatives , will still put all their effort into defending Trump from impeachment and removal from office — even if it means making themselves more vulnerable in their own re-election campaigns .
They may continue to argue that the Democratic Party ’ s case against Trump is weak — but all the evidence they have compiled up to this point , and seemingly can continue to find despite the Trump regime ’ s stonewalling of the investigations , would be pretty damn convincing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to argue that Speaker Pelosi ’ s withholding of the articles of impeachment from the Senate for nearly a month was a failed gambit and gave no leverage — but all the evidence that has come out only after Trump was impeached continues to show why this was a good decision on her part .
They may even continue to argue that Trump has the authority as President , even has the authority to break the law — but this stands in complete and utter contradiction to the Constitution and what the Framers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ostensibly argues that it still cares about .
But ultimately , the major flaw in the Republicans ’ efforts to defend Trump and to deny that there is any grounds for his removal — Donald Trump himself , and that it is hard to argue his innocence , when he has shown that this is exactly the kind of behavior that he is willing and capable of .
Really , how convincing is the argument going to be to objective observers that “ Trump is innocent ” when the subtext is , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of thing that Donald Trump would do , though.
” This is not the first time he has engaged in such behavior , after all .
There was the secret meeting with Russians in Trump Tower about damaging evidence against Hillary Clinton .
Then there was going to the extent of the longest government shutdown just so he could get funding for a border wall — again , a mostly politically-driven demand .
We can even look at Trump ’ s own rhetoric — such as when he openly called on Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At this point , the Republican Party ’ s argument amounts to , well , even though Trump would totally do these things , and has totally done these things , in this instance , he is innocent .
Please tell me , if it was any other person in any other situation , how convincing would such a statement be without the evidence to back it up ?
Ultimately , as much as the Republican Party rails against the impeachment process , and all the evidence and witnesses that have — they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove Trump ’ s innocence .
Because there is none .
All the evidence points to Trump actually doing this — and even when you set the evidence aside , Trump ’ s past behavior and past rhetoric ultimately shows that Trump would actually do this .
When Trump was running for President in 2016 , the Republican Party ’ s defense for him was not all that much different .
Sure , Trump ’ s rhetoric says that he would target immigrants and detain and deport them en masse , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they told us .
Sure , Trump says he wants a US-Mexico wall that he wouldn ’ t make the US pay for , only Mexico , he doesn ’ t really mean that , they tell us .
Sure , Trump publicly called on Russian to engage in cyber espionage against a US Presidential candidate , but he was not serious about wanting them to go that far , they tell us .
Trump said many outrageous and threatening things on the campaign trail , and his Republican surrogates largely argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would not be so awful as to actually try to implement most of those things .
Except he has done exactly all of those things .
Not only does the Republican Party ’ s defense now ring hollow , but continuing to use that same defense is ludicrous , and should be called out .
But more than that , it is not just a flaw in their argument , but one that can and should be used against them politically .
Republican House Representatives voted against impeaching Trump , when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty .
And now , Republican Senators are preparing to do the same thing in the impeachment trial .
To most partisans , this will be seen as cynically unsurprising , and not move the needle much .
But for the vast population of undecided , unaffiliated voters , they will see a Party going to great lengths to allow a guilty person to walk free unpunished .
This is not usually a country that allows such behavior , without electorally punishing such a Party .
Ultimately , the greatest flaw in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , is that , of all people , it is Donald Trump they have to defend .
This will cost them .

With more and more revelations coming out by the day of evidence stacked against Donald Trump about his politically-motivated plot to illegally withhold Ukrainian financial aid in exchange for announcing investigations into the Bidens (because it worked against Hillary and Trump is nothing, if not redundant), it is becoming harder and harder for everyone involved to continue to deny Trump’s guilt in all of this.
Of course, most of us are not so naive at this point to think that, despite all of this, the Republican Party including high-ranking leaders Mitch McConnell and all the other GOP Senators, and Kevin McCarthy and the GOP House Representatives, will still put all their effort into defending Trump from impeachment and removal from office — even if it means making themselves more vulnerable in their own re-election campaigns.
They may continue to argue that the Democratic Party’s case against Trump is weak — but all the evidence they have compiled up to this point, and seemingly can continue to find despite the Trump regime’s stonewalling of the investigations, would be pretty damn convincing in an actual courtroom. They may continue to argue that Speaker Pelosi’s withholding of the articles of impeachment from the Senate for nearly a month was a failed gambit and gave no leverage — but all the evidence that has come out only after Trump was impeached continues to show why this was a good decision on her part. They may even continue to argue that Trump has the authority as President, even has the authority to break the law — but this stands in complete and utter contradiction to the Constitution and what the Framers intended, something that the Republican Party ostensibly argues that it still cares about.
But ultimately, the major flaw in the Republicans’ efforts to defend Trump and to deny that there is any grounds for his removal — Donald Trump himself, and that it is hard to argue his innocence, when he has shown that this is exactly the kind of behavior that he is willing and capable of.
Really, how convincing is the argument going to be to objective observers that “Trump is innocent” when the subtext is, “nobody doubts that this is exactly the type of thing that Donald Trump would do, though.”
This is not the first time he has engaged in such behavior, after all.
There was the secret meeting with Russians in Trump Tower about damaging evidence against Hillary Clinton. Then there was going to the extent of the longest government shutdown just so he could get funding for a border wall — again, a mostly politically-driven demand.
We can even look at Trump’s own rhetoric — such as when he openly called on Russia to hack Hillary’s emails.
At this point, the Republican Party’s argument amounts to, well, even though Trump would totally do these things, and has totally done these things, in this instance, he is innocent. Please tell me, if it was any other person in any other situation, how convincing would such a statement be without the evidence to back it up?
Ultimately, as much as the Republican Party rails against the impeachment process, and all the evidence and witnesses that have — they have hardly offered up any evidence to prove Trump’s innocence. Because there is none. All the evidence points to Trump actually doing this — and even when you set the evidence aside, Trump’s past behavior and past rhetoric ultimately shows that Trump would actually do this.
When Trump was running for President in 2016, the Republican Party’s defense for him was not all that much different. Sure, Trump’s rhetoric says that he would target immigrants and detain and deport them en masse, but he would never actually go that far, they told us. Sure, Trump says he wants a US-Mexico wall that he wouldn’t make the US pay for, only Mexico, he doesn’t really mean that, they tell us. Sure, Trump publicly called on Russian to engage in cyber espionage against a US Presidential candidate, but he was not serious about wanting them to go that far, they tell us. Trump said many outrageous and threatening things on the campaign trail, and his Republican surrogates largely argued that it was mostly bluster, and that Trump would not be so awful as to actually try to implement most of those things.
Except he has done exactly all of those things. Not only does the Republican Party’s defense now ring hollow, but continuing to use that same defense is ludicrous, and should be called out.
But more than that, it is not just a flaw in their argument, but one that can and should be used against them politically.
Republican House Representatives voted against impeaching Trump, when the evidence is quite credible that he is guilty. And now, Republican Senators are preparing to do the same thing in the impeachment trial.
To most partisans, this will be seen as cynically unsurprising, and not move the needle much. But for the vast population of undecided, unaffiliated voters, they will see a Party going to great lengths to allow a guilty person to walk free unpunished. This is not usually a country that allows such behavior, without electorally punishing such a Party.
Ultimately, the greatest flaw in the Republican Party’s defense of Donald Trump, is that, of all people, it is Donald Trump they have to defend. This will cost them.


dailykos--2020-01-17--Court Tosses Landmark Youth Climate Change Lawsuit(+Greenpeace included with neo-Nazis in UK)

A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by 21 young people who claimed the U.S. government ’ s climate policy harms them and jeopardizes their future .
“ Exercising my ‘ reasoned judgment , ’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.
” Youth filed their constitutional climate lawsuit , called Juliana v. U.S. , against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015 .
Earth Guardians is also an organizational plaintiff in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the government 's affirmative actions that cause climate change , it has violated the youngest generation ’ s constitutional rights to life , liberty , and property , as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources .
The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants , joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed .
In April 2016 , U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended denial of both motions to dismiss .
U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin 's recommendation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 , 2016 opinion and order denying the motions .
When the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal of that order , Judge Aiken denied their motions in June 2017.www.ourchildrenstrust.org/ ...

A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by 21 young people who claimed the U.S. government’s climate policy harms them and jeopardizes their future.
JULIANA v. UNITED STATES
Youth Climate Lawsuit
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
www.ourchildrenstrust.org/…
Youth filed their constitutional climate lawsuit, called Juliana v. U.S., against the U.S. government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 2015. Earth Guardians is also an organizational plaintiff in the case.
Their complaint asserts that, through the government's affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.
The fossil fuel industry initially intervened in the case as defendants, joining the U.S. government in trying to have the case dismissed. In April 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin recommended denial of both motions to dismiss. U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken upheld Judge Coffin's recommendation, with the issuance of an historic November 10, 2016 opinion and order denying the motions. When the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal of that order, Judge Aiken denied their motions in June 2017.www.ourchildrenstrust.org/...


Why We Fight

“ I am not a member of any organized political party…I am a Democrat ” - Will Rodgers This has been true and will always be true we are a diverse group .
The Democratic Party is the Party of everyone else .
The Republican Party is the party of wealth , whiteness and privilege .
It ’ s easy for them , tip their hat to the bible thumpers promise them they love Jesus too and they ’ re good .
I ’ ll give you a perfect example of what I mean .
Over the last eighty years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs to help the American people .
Now , let ’ s look at the Democrats .
• The right to join a union Not bad for a group that can ’ t seem to get along .
Democrats generally can ’ t get along because they have ideas .
Former Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa had a brother who was disabled , and he had an idea to do something about it .
Ronald Reagan saw the unfairness in the world and began taxing Social Security because the elderly were just too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much free food in school lunches and solved the problem by declaring ketchup a vegetable .
Here ’ s my favorite , Reagan went to Congress and told them the Russians had doubled the size of their fleet at Vladivostok and the US must respond by building an aircraft carrier battle group .
Now , I wouldn ’ t say Reagan was lying because it was true .
The Russian ’ s had one destroyer in Vladivostok and had recently added another .
Two , count em two !
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tax cuts to billionaires will feed those hungry school children .
The Republican Party is the Party of Greed .
When they claim government doesn ’ t work , they run for office just to prove the point .
It ’ s the Party of negativity , and it ’ s not that they weren ’ t concerned about black people not being allowed their constitutional right to vote .
They were more concerned about the Federal government violating the mythical States Rights .
Virginia recently approved the Equal Rights Amendment becoming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats supported it and Republicans claimed if the act was passed it would do away with separate bathrooms in public places .
What is it with Republicans and bathrooms ?
They even went so far as to claim states would do away with separate prisons for men and women .
Okay , imagine you ’ re a prison warden…have you ever heard of a dumber idea ?
Fear is their logo , suspicion their brand .
The media likes to play this game , they like to pretend that this country is equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent Democrats and fifty percent Republicans , but it ’ s not true .
If it were there , wouldn ’ t be an issue with gerrymandering or voter suppression .
The Republicans would have supported the voting rights act if they thought black people would vote for them .
When Democrats show up at the polls Republicans go home empty .
History explains , in 1948 , Harry Truman insisted desegregation be a plank in the Democratic platform .
The Southern Democrats walked out of the convention because of it and overnight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bastion we know today .
But Truman did what was intellectually right not what was politically popular .
Now , to be fair Republicans had perfectly legitimate reasons for their beliefs .
Social Security is Communism !
Unions are Communism !
Martin Luther King was a Communist !
The State Department is full of Communists !
So , when Donald Trump talks about the Deep State… same song next verse .
Brown people are coming to give grandma and Paw paw a good scare .
Tell um they ’ re gon na take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of intellectual thought , monolithic hot button gestations to the holy one .
Bibles , bullets and babies with two minutes of hate on the side , twenty-four hours a day .
So , isn ’ t it obvious why we fight ?
We have differences on the issues because we think about the issues .
The right-wing call it ( TDS ) Trump Derangement Syndrome .
The childish belief that we ’ ll all stomp our feet and hold our breath until we turn blue because Hillary Clinton lost the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ LAS ) Law Abiding Syndrome .
We don ’ t hate Donald Trump because he ’ s Donald Trump .
We don ’ t hate Donald Trump ; we love the Constitution , and Donald Trump pisses on it .
“ Ha , ha Triggering Democommies ” …you know , sometimes you just feel bad for them .
This is their world view .
Blind obedience to the Emperor , do you think they show up for meetings ?
Do you think they ’ ve read anything besides the TV guide ?
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they never argue , got nothing to argue about !
Der Fuhrer says jump…you jump !
Like Church , no deviation allowed .
Is that really how you want to spend your adult life ?
“ Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.
” ― Eugene V. Debs

rss@dailykos.com (This Carbon Based Life)

“I am not a member of any organized political party…I am a Democrat” - Will Rodgers
This has been true and will always be true we are a diverse group. The Democratic Party is the Party of everyone else. The Republican Party is the party of wealth, whiteness and privilege. It’s easy for them, tip their hat to the bible thumpers promise them they love Jesus too and they’re good. I’ll give you a perfect example of what I mean. Over the last eighty years, the Republicans have proposed the following programs to help the American people.
The Environmental Protection Agency.
Now, let’s look at the Democrats.
Social Security Unemployment insurance Medicare G.I. Bill 30-year Mortgages NASA Forty Hour Week The right to join a union Elimination of child labor A woman’s right to choose The ERA. The Americans with Disabilities Act The Fair Housing Act The Voting Rights act The minimum wage The Civil Rights Act
Not bad for a group that can’t seem to get along. Democrats generally can’t get along because they have ideas. Former Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa had a brother who was disabled, and he had an idea to do something about it.
Ronald Reagan saw the unfairness in the world and began taxing Social Security because the elderly were just too prosperous. Hungry school children were getting too much free food in school lunches and solved the problem by declaring ketchup a vegetable. Here’s my favorite, Reagan went to Congress and told them the Russians had doubled the size of their fleet at Vladivostok and the US must respond by building an aircraft carrier battle group. Now, I wouldn’t say Reagan was lying because it was true. The Russian’s had one destroyer in Vladivostok and had recently added another. Two, count em two!
This is the Republican way, peace through poverty. Tax cuts to billionaires will feed those hungry school children. The Republican Party is the Party of Greed. When they claim government doesn’t work, they run for office just to prove the point. It’s the Party of negativity, and it’s not that they weren’t concerned about black people not being allowed their constitutional right to vote. They were more concerned about the Federal government violating the mythical States Rights.
Virginia recently approved the Equal Rights Amendment becoming the thirty-eighth state to approve it. The Democrats supported it and Republicans claimed if the act was passed it would do away with separate bathrooms in public places. What is it with Republicans and bathrooms? They even went so far as to claim states would do away with separate prisons for men and women. Okay, imagine you’re a prison warden…have you ever heard of a dumber idea?
Fear is their logo, suspicion their brand. The media likes to play this game, they like to pretend that this country is equally divided right down the middle. Fifty percent Democrats and fifty percent Republicans, but it’s not true. If it were there, wouldn’t be an issue with gerrymandering or voter suppression. The Republicans would have supported the voting rights act if they thought black people would vote for them. When Democrats show up at the polls Republicans go home empty.
History explains, in 1948, Harry Truman insisted desegregation be a plank in the Democratic platform. The Southern Democrats walked out of the convention because of it and overnight the Southern states soon became the Republican bastion we know today. But Truman did what was intellectually right not what was politically popular.
Now, to be fair Republicans had perfectly legitimate reasons for their beliefs. Social Security is Communism! Unions are Communism! Martin Luther King was a Communist! The State Department is full of Communists! So, when Donald Trump talks about the Deep State… same song next verse. Brown people are coming to give grandma and Paw paw a good scare. Tell um they’re gonna take their guns!
This is their level of intellectual thought, monolithic hot button gestations to the holy one. Bibles, bullets and babies with two minutes of hate on the side, twenty-four hours a day. So, isn’t it obvious why we fight? We have differences on the issues because we think about the issues. The right-wing call it (TDS) Trump Derangement Syndrome. The childish belief that we’ll all stomp our feet and hold our breath until we turn blue because Hillary Clinton lost the election. A more proper description would be (LAS) Law Abiding Syndrome. We don’t hate Donald Trump because he’s Donald Trump. We don’t hate Donald Trump; we love the Constitution, and Donald Trump pisses on it.
“Ha, ha Triggering Democommies” …you know, sometimes you just feel bad for them. This is their world view. Blind obedience to the Emperor, do you think they show up for meetings? Do you think they’ve read anything besides the TV guide? They don’t argue, no sir, they never argue, got nothing to argue about! Der Fuhrer says jump…you jump! Like Church, no deviation allowed.
Is that really how you want to spend your adult life?
“Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.”
― Eugene V. Debs


dailykos--2020-01-18--Senate Republicans have more to lose than the Senate Democrats in the Trump Trial

Realistically the focus for the Democrats should be to sway public opinion , more than persuading the Republicans to convict Trump Now that President Donald Trump ’ s Senate Trial has begun there are some critical points to keep in mind in evaluating both the process and the likely outcome .
All analysis , up to now , is based on the very low probability that 14 Republicans would break party ranks to convict Trump on the two articles of impeachment ( Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Congress ) .
It is not likely they will abandon Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congressional Budget Office concluded Trump violated the law by withholding assistance to Ukraine .
And , Lev Parnas , an associate of the president ’ s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani , said that Trump approved and directed public tax dollars to influence the election by asking Ukraine to investigate his potential main rival , former Vice President Joe Biden .
Republican senators won ’ t break from him because these “ facts ” don ’ t matter in their upcoming primary elections .
It doesn ’ t matter if they lose liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in most states , they don ’ t vote in the primaries .
As long as they can keep their core Republican primary voters , who are 90 % plus behind Trump , they will win the primary .
But afterwards , winning their general election could be severely jeopardized if the public perceives the trial as phony or not taken seriously by the Republicans .
More importantly , the conservative independents , who are more Republican than Trumpites , could be swayed to vote for a Democrat who believes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mean those voters would necessarily go for liberal candidates , they could just sit on their hands and not vote .
This is the what makes the senate Republicans vulnerable , much more than their Democratic challengers .
For instance , there are 22 Republican senators up for reelection in 2020 , while there are only 12 Democrats .
Ballotpedia did an analysis of these races using the 2016 presidential election and race ratings from three of the top organizations analyzing the races ( Cook Political Report , Sabato 's Crystal Ball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) they identified 12 Republican incumbents and 5 Democratic incumbents as being potentially vulnerable .
The Republicans have a greater exposure .
The Democrats do not need to win the Senate trial by convicting Trump , no matter how much evidence that he should be .
If the Republicans refuse testimony or admittance of documents , polls indicate that would alienate more voters than anything else .
A poll taken ABC News and The Washington Post on December 10th , before the House voted for impeachment , showed 70 % of Americans believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
That attitude crossed party lines ; 79 % of Democrats , 64 % of Republicans and 72 % of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial .
The struggle to control the trial ’ s image will not be a high drama TV event .
The senators do not speak !
Their questions or motions are submitted on paper to the presiding officer , i.e .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts .
He decides whether to bring them forward .
If he refuses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of 51 senators .
Almost all of the TV political pundits have made much of the 51 vote rule , that allows the Senate to create their own procedural rules for the trial .
It gives control of the trial to the Republican , since there are 53 of them .
There is a slight wrinkle in that description because the Standing Rules of the Senate details the rules of order of the United States Senate .
Normally it takes a two-thirds vote to alter any of the 43 standing rules that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules could serve as a possible hurdle for the Republicans , and they may seek alter them to protect Trump .
In the past , both Democrat and Republican Senate majority leaders , had employed a “ nuclear ” option , by using just a majority vote to permanently alter the standing rules .
Both actions had to do with eliminating the 60-vote rule for approving federal judicial appointments , including Supreme Court nominations .
This means that the Republicans probably could exercise that authority ; with 51 votes they could do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear option , it would appear to the public as excessive force in manipulating the senate trial to Trump ’ s advantage .
That could be the straw that breaks the public ’ s back in seeing the Republican run senate trial as a fair one .
Most dangerous to the Republican senators seeking reelection this November , is that this move could dampen the support of their traditional conservative constituents to get out and vote for their reelection .
Interestingly , one of the few mentions of the two-third rule being needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules was brought up by Fred Lucas , a reporter from the conservative The Daily Signal , which is funded entirely by The Heritage Foundation .
The conservative tradition is to respect the law and procedures .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejecting the request by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) to have four White House officials testify during the impeachment trial is going to hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats .
When the Republicans realize that problem , they will offer to repeat the process that was used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; having off site testimony videotaped and then selected portions shared with the full senate .
Having live testimony with cross examining , would make for a huge TV audience , but given the character of those testifying , the spectacle would likely confuse rather than educate the public on Trump ’ s guilt .
Plus , there is no telling what they will say .
In the Clinton senate trial , all of those testifying had done so before , so it was known what they were going to say .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the final decision on what portions of the videotaped testimony should be shared .
Although the Republicans could overrule his decision , that action will be remembered by the public long after what was said in the testimony .
The bottom line for the Democrats , and the Republicans as well , is that their behavior will be judged as much as President Trump ’ s .
Since he will not be present , the actions of the House Prosecution Managers and the President ’ s Defense Team will receive the immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media personalities commentating afterwards .
Nick Licata , was a 5 term Seattle City Councilmember , named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation , and is founding board chair of Local Progress , a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials .
Author of Becoming a Citizen Activist .
http : //www.becomingacitizenactivist.org/changemakers/ Subscribe to Licata ’ s newsletter Urban Politics http : //www.becomingacitizenactivist.org/

Realistically the focus for the Democrats should be to sway public opinion, more than persuading the Republicans to convict Trump
Now that President Donald Trump’s Senate Trial has begun there are some critical points to keep in mind in evaluating both the process and the likely outcome. All analysis, up to now, is based on the very low probability that 14 Republicans would break party ranks to convict Trump on the two articles of impeachment (Abuse of Power & Obstruction of Congress).
It is not likely they will abandon Trump, despite two recent developments. The nonpartisan Congressional General Accounting Office concluded Trump violated the law by withholding assistance to Ukraine. And, Lev Parnas, an associate of the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, said that Trump approved and directed public tax dollars to influence the election by asking Ukraine to investigate his potential main rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Republican senators won’t break from him because these “facts” don’t matter in their upcoming primary elections. It doesn’t matter if they lose liberal independents, they never had them, and in most states, they don’t vote in the primaries. As long as they can keep their core Republican primary voters, who are 90% plus behind Trump, they will win the primary.
But afterwards, winning their general election could be severely jeopardized if the public perceives the trial as phony or not taken seriously by the Republicans. More importantly, the conservative independents, who are more Republican than Trumpites, could be swayed to vote for a Democrat who believes in the rule of law. That doesn’t mean those voters would necessarily go for liberal candidates, they could just sit on their hands and not vote. This is the what makes the senate Republicans vulnerable, much more than their Democratic challengers.
For instance, there are 22 Republican senators up for reelection in 2020, while there are only 12 Democrats. Ballotpedia did an analysis of these races using the 2016 presidential election and race ratings from three of the top organizations analyzing the races (Cook Political Report, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and Inside Elections with Nathan Gonzales) they identified 12 Republican incumbents and 5 Democratic incumbents as being potentially vulnerable. The Republicans have a greater exposure.
The Democrats do not need to win the Senate trial by convicting Trump, no matter how much evidence that he should be. If the Republicans refuse testimony or admittance of documents, polls indicate that would alienate more voters than anything else. A poll taken ABC News and The Washington Post on December 10th, before the House voted for impeachment, showed 70% of Americans believe that administration officials should be able to testify. That attitude crossed party lines; 79% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans and 72% of independents agree that Trump should allow them to appear in a Senate trial.
The struggle to control the trial’s image will not be a high drama TV event. The senators do not speak! Their questions or motions are submitted on paper to the presiding officer, i.e. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He decides whether to bring them forward. If he refuses, he can be overruled by a simple majority of 51 senators. Almost all of the TV political pundits have made much of the 51 vote rule, that allows the Senate to create their own procedural rules for the trial. It gives control of the trial to the Republican, since there are 53 of them.
There is a slight wrinkle in that description because the Standing Rules of the Senate details the rules of order of the United States Senate. Normally it takes a two-thirds vote to alter any of the 43 standing rules that were last adopted in 2000. These rules could serve as a possible hurdle for the Republicans, and they may seek alter them to protect Trump.
In the past, both Democrat and Republican Senate majority leaders, had employed a “nuclear” option, by using just a majority vote to permanently alter the standing rules. Both actions had to do with eliminating the 60-vote rule for approving federal judicial appointments, including Supreme Court nominations.
This means that the Republicans probably could exercise that authority; with 51 votes they could do anything. But they if they use this nuclear option, it would appear to the public as excessive force in manipulating the senate trial to Trump’s advantage. That could be the straw that breaks the public’s back in seeing the Republican run senate trial as a fair one.
Most dangerous to the Republican senators seeking reelection this November, is that this move could dampen the support of their traditional conservative constituents to get out and vote for their reelection. Interestingly, one of the few mentions of the two-third rule being needed to change the senate’s standing rules was brought up by Fred Lucas, a reporter from the conservative The Daily Signal, which is funded entirely by The Heritage Foundation.
The conservative tradition is to respect the law and procedures. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejecting the request by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have four White House officials testify during the impeachment trial is going to hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. When the Republicans realize that problem, they will offer to repeat the process that was used in President Bill Clinton’s trial; having off site testimony videotaped and then selected portions shared with the full senate.
Having live testimony with cross examining, would make for a huge TV audience, but given the character of those testifying, the spectacle would likely confuse rather than educate the public on Trump’s guilt. Plus, there is no telling what they will say. In the Clinton senate trial, all of those testifying had done so before, so it was known what they were going to say.
The Democrats should propose having Chief Justice Roberts make the final decision on what portions of the videotaped testimony should be shared. Although the Republicans could overrule his decision, that action will be remembered by the public long after what was said in the testimony.
The bottom line for the Democrats, and the Republicans as well, is that their behavior will be judged as much as President Trump’s. Since he will not be present, the actions of the House Prosecution Managers and the President’s Defense Team will receive the immediate attention of the public watching and the media personalities commentating afterwards.
Nick Licata, was a 5 term Seattle City Councilmember, named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation, and is founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials.
Author of Becoming a Citizen Activist. http://www.becomingacitizenactivist.org/changemakers/
Subscribe to Licata’s newsletter Urban Politics http://www.becomingacitizenactivist.org/


dailykos--2020-01-18--Now is the Time for the Nationwide Message: Like Nixon, Trump Needs to Resign

With the bulk of the Senate impeachment trial to begin on Tuesday , now is the time for the Democratic nationwide message to be that we call on Trump to resign .
This would exactly echo Nixon ’ s resignation , forced by his own Republican Party at the time .
Now , as they did then , the Republican Party needs to show that they are willing to put the best interests of the country ahead of their own politics , by avoiding a divisive and ugly impeachment trial .
Democratic leaders need to be on every Saturday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and editorial column , and on every Sunday morning political program , and on all the airwaves until Tuesday , calling on Trump to resign .
The evidence of his guilt is inescapable , regardless of if McConnell will allow its inclusion in the Senate trial or not .
So by continuing to defend Trump , and even moving forward with a Senate trial even if he avoid being removed , this will all serve to damage his re-election chances in November , a prospect that the Republican Party has to take seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony and documents of Trump ’ s guilt out of the trial itself , it will make its way into the attack ads , the debates , and all the political rallies to drive out the vote , leading up to November .
They would be better off having Trump resign now , so they can get together a reasonable Primary process for a replacement .
As it stands now , even if the Senate trial goes McConnell ’ s and Trump ’ s way , the ugliness that it is sure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s re-election , but the re-election of several GOP Senators , such as Susan Collins , Cory Gardner , Martha McSalley , and Thom Tillis .
Forcing Trump to resign now , may not avoid one or two of them still going down in defeat , but it will give McConnell and the GOP their best chance at retaining a Senate majority .
Setting the Democratic message now that Trump ’ s resignation is best for the Republicans , and best for the country , also serves the Democrat Party ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Pelosi has leveraged impeachment , this saga is proving to damage Republicans all up and down the ticket this year .
Trump has been the primary reason the Republican Party has lost significant and key seats in multiple midterm elections now .
The impeachment process is going to make it so 2020 will likewise result in Trump dragging the GOP further down .
One thing swing voters are known to do , after all , is punish corruption when they see it .
Sending the message now that Republicans have a choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing not to , explicitly puts their whole contingent in the camp of supporting and having a hand in the corruption in DC .
By sending the clear message that the Democratic Party demands Trump resign , we can set the framing of the story that we are doing what is best for the country .
The trial is sure to bring much division and unrest to the country , and has already proven to have done so .
Voluntarily resigning , Trump can also send the message that he is doing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likewise , continuing to take us down this dangerous path proves that he is putting his own personal self-interests and grip on power over the interests of the country .
Again , this message is not for Trump ’ s rabid base , but for the larger and more effectual collection of swing and undecided voters , who strive to put the country ’ s interests ahead of pure political ideology .
Either Trump resigns , and spares the country and his own Party a huge amount of political damage , or continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own seats , not just Trump ’ s .
That tradeoff that the Republican Party is making , needs to be highlighted and amplified .
That Republicans have been allowed to largely shape the impeachment narrative is regrettable .
But with this change in the Party ’ s stance — calling on Trump to resign — the political scales will decisively lean back in the Democratic Party ’ s favor .

With the bulk of the Senate impeachment trial to begin on Tuesday, now is the time for the Democratic nationwide message to be that we call on Trump to resign.
This would exactly echo Nixon’s resignation, forced by his own Republican Party at the time. Now, as they did then, the Republican Party needs to show that they are willing to put the best interests of the country ahead of their own politics, by avoiding a divisive and ugly impeachment trial.
Democratic leaders need to be on every Saturday night news program, every Sunday front page and editorial column, and on every Sunday morning political program, and on all the airwaves until Tuesday, calling on Trump to resign.
The evidence of his guilt is inescapable, regardless of if McConnell will allow its inclusion in the Senate trial or not. So by continuing to defend Trump, and even moving forward with a Senate trial even if he avoid being removed, this will all serve to damage his re-election chances in November, a prospect that the Republican Party has to take seriously. Even if they can keep witness testimony and documents of Trump’s guilt out of the trial itself, it will make its way into the attack ads, the debates, and all the political rallies to drive out the vote, leading up to November. They would be better off having Trump resign now, so they can get together a reasonable Primary process for a replacement.
As it stands now, even if the Senate trial goes McConnell’s and Trump’s way, the ugliness that it is sure to bring, will not only seriously threaten Trump’s re-election, but the re-election of several GOP Senators, such as Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Martha McSalley, and Thom Tillis. Forcing Trump to resign now, may not avoid one or two of them still going down in defeat, but it will give McConnell and the GOP their best chance at retaining a Senate majority.
Setting the Democratic message now that Trump’s resignation is best for the Republicans, and best for the country, also serves the Democrat Party’s best interests. As shown by how Pelosi has leveraged impeachment, this saga is proving to damage Republicans all up and down the ticket this year. Trump has been the primary reason the Republican Party has lost significant and key seats in multiple midterm elections now. The impeachment process is going to make it so 2020 will likewise result in Trump dragging the GOP further down. One thing swing voters are known to do, after all, is punish corruption when they see it. Sending the message now that Republicans have a choice of removing Trump themselves, but are choosing not to, explicitly puts their whole contingent in the camp of supporting and having a hand in the corruption in DC.
By sending the clear message that the Democratic Party demands Trump resign, we can set the framing of the story that we are doing what is best for the country. The trial is sure to bring much division and unrest to the country, and has already proven to have done so. Voluntarily resigning, Trump can also send the message that he is doing what is best for the country — but likewise, continuing to take us down this dangerous path proves that he is putting his own personal self-interests and grip on power over the interests of the country.
Again, this message is not for Trump’s rabid base, but for the larger and more effectual collection of swing and undecided voters, who strive to put the country’s interests ahead of pure political ideology.
Either Trump resigns, and spares the country and his own Party a huge amount of political damage, or continue to back Trump, and risk losing their own seats, not just Trump’s. That tradeoff that the Republican Party is making, needs to be highlighted and amplified.
That Republicans have been allowed to largely shape the impeachment narrative is regrettable. But with this change in the Party’s stance — calling on Trump to resign — the political scales will decisively lean back in the Democratic Party’s favor.


dailykos--2020-01-18--It's a Woman's World...or...It Really Should Be

So , here we are : Women marching today , by the thousands all over the country , essentially asking their gender opposite to get with the program .
The march gives me pause to ruminate on a fantasy I ’ ve had for years .
I ’ m pretty well convinced that males ought to be prevented from holding almost any political office .
( Well , maybe dogcatcher ! )
At least for a good long while , in this country .
We guys mostly just don ’ t get it .
Too much testosterone is bad for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Too much pecker measuring amongst ourselves and particularly amongst the governing class .
Women generally seem to be much more grounded , much more analytical , and much less concerned with all the things that make males do really STUPID stuff .
Women don ’ t grab men by the balls , they don ’ t ( generally ) crow about their sexual encounters ; they don ’ t rape , much less gang rape ; they drive sanely ( and they don ’ t need 500 hp gasoline guzzling cars , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collect dozens of guns ; they don ’ t into our schools and shoot kids ; they don ’ t throw bombs into churches ; Without the mostly idiot male congressmen and senators and presidents , we ’ d probably be doing a lot better than we ’ re doing .
Wall St. would probably be pissed off at Congress , for sure .
Maybe colleges and the NFL , too , as I can readily imagine an all-female Congress enacting laws which hold universities and team owners fully responsible for their players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out law anything other than flag football .
Sure there are exceptions : You ’ ll find an Ann Coulter or a Phyllis Schlafly or a Fox News empty skirt ( Am I dating myself ? )
just about anywhere , but the numbers don ’ t lie .
Women are far less violent and far more nourishing toward the species .
At this point in our history , we ’ d do a hell of a lot better with a Congress of housewives/homemakers and single female working parents than with the 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run the show , not to mention the thousands of lobbyists and corporate “ government affairs ” specialists trying to influence them .
Imagine women running even the Mormon or the Catholic Church .
Imagine Franklin Graham being de-frocked by whatever religion he claims as his own , which of course is being run by a woman .
Imagine a woman President actually doing something about our planetary race toward species extinction .
Imagine an all-women Senate Judiciary Committee taking testimony from Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill .
Maybe women would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so the poor and dispossessed don ’ t have to quietly fight our battles for us overseas ; so every citizen would have to do his bit .
Imagine if Lindsey Graham ’ s kids ( Yes , I know he has none . )
had to do a stretch in the Army .
Do you think that tough guy Sen. Lindsey would send them into battle ?
I doubt it .
Someone else ’ s kids ?
No problem .
Especially if they ’ re non-white .
Oh well , what a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day it will never be .
But it ’ s fun to speculate on .

So, here we are: Women marching today, by the thousands all over the country, essentially asking their gender opposite to get with the program. The march gives me pause to ruminate on a fantasy I’ve had for years.
I’m pretty well convinced that males ought to be prevented from holding almost any political office. (Well, maybe dogcatcher!) At least for a good long while, in this country. We guys mostly just don’t get it. Too much testosterone is bad for politics. Too much greed, too. Too much pecker measuring amongst ourselves and particularly amongst the governing class.
Women generally seem to be much more grounded, much more analytical, and much less concerned with all the things that make males do really STUPID stuff. Women don’t grab men by the balls, they don’t (generally) crow about their sexual encounters; they don’t rape, much less gang rape; they drive sanely (and they don’t need 500 hp gasoline guzzling cars, either). They don’t collect dozens of guns; they don’t into our schools and shoot kids; they don’t throw bombs into churches;
Without the mostly idiot male congressmen and senators and presidents, we’d probably be doing a lot better than we’re doing. Wall St. would probably be pissed off at Congress, for sure. Maybe colleges and the NFL, too, as I can readily imagine an all-female Congress enacting laws which hold universities and team owners fully responsible for their players’ health, post-career. Maybe even out law anything other than flag football.
Sure there are exceptions: You’ll find an Ann Coulter or a Phyllis Schlafly or a Fox News empty skirt (Am I dating myself?) just about anywhere, but the numbers don’t lie. Women are far less violent and far more nourishing toward the species. At this point in our history, we’d do a hell of a lot better with a Congress of housewives/homemakers and single female working parents than with the 500 (or so) lawyers now trying to run the show, not to mention the thousands of lobbyists and corporate “government affairs” specialists trying to influence them.
Imagine women running even the Mormon or the Catholic Church. Imagine Franklin Graham being de-frocked by whatever religion he claims as his own, which of course is being run by a woman. Imagine a woman President actually doing something about our planetary race toward species extinction. Imagine an all-women Senate Judiciary Committee taking testimony from Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill.
Maybe women would revive the military draft, too, so the poor and dispossessed don’t have to quietly fight our battles for us overseas; so every citizen would have to do his bit. Imagine if Lindsey Graham’s kids (Yes, I know he has none.) had to do a stretch in the Army. Do you think that tough guy Sen. Lindsey would send them into battle? I doubt it. Someone else’s kids? No problem. Especially if they’re non-white.
Oh well, what a day it would be. What a day it will never be. But it’s fun to speculate on.
###


dailykos--2020-01-18--Let's Not Forget that, With Trump, the Republican Party Has Put All Their Eggs in One Basket(case)

As we enter the week where the Senate will try Donald Trump for impeachment , let us not forget why they are doing everything in their power to defend Trump , and in the process willing to sacrifice their Party ’ s so-called reverence for the Constitution , their Party ’ s image of being the better one for respecting law and justice , and perhaps even their own incumbent seats .
Because they put their own long-term viability as an entire Party on the line to get Trump , and now keep Trump , in office .
Because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost to large sections of the minority vote , perhaps forever .
Black Americans by-and-large see Trump as racist ; as a voting bloc , they do not look to the Republican Party to address issues such as minority poverty , police brutality and racial profiling , and the mass incarceration where African Americans are incarcerated at 5 times the rate of whites .
The Republican Party has no discernible platform on which to appeal to the Black vote , without numerous policies under Trump directly contradicting them .
Then of course there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Latinx and Hispanic communities .
The Trump administration ’ s forced detention , aggressive ICE raids and deportations , the poor acknowledgement and now his position against the settlement of refugees and asylum seekers , and his overall rhetoric demonizing this growing demographic , are all just a tip of the iceberg with him .
But look at the Republican Party ’ s own autopsy on it ’ s failed 2012 Presidential campaign .
They knew that if they did not make significant investments in reaching out to Hispanic Americans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrink to its core constituencies only.
” They have gone in just that direction .
As the % of non-white voters in each Presidential race increases , so too does the percentage of that same group voting for the Republican candidate .
But as a voting bloc , Republicans still only get only about 5 % of their popular vote from the non-white voters .
Thanks to these few years under Trump , the likelihood that his Presidency will motivate more minority voters is quite high , while the likelihood it does much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party , is rather quite low .
There is also women voters , where women ’ s rights have seen a dramatic increase in attacks by the Republican Party since Trump was elected .
In particular , his picks of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court are likely the primary catalysts to the most intense attacks on Roe v. Wade since the ruling .
How is that helping the Republican Party in its longterm appeal for women voters ?
Well , let this recent announcement that Planned Parenthood is spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates be the answer there .
There is now the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment , which was recently ratified by Virginia .
Will the Republican Party have an answer that values women , or sets them back even further ?
Then there is Trump ’ s embrace of the fossil fuel industry , and his attacks on renewable energies and the environment .
This brings down his and the Republican Party ’ s appeal to younger voters , who are increasingly becoming a more relevant voting group , while also being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the Democratic Party has many values and leaders that already line up with these young voters , it remains to be seen how the Republican Party can really convince them that they and Trump would be the best for their values and interests .
On the other hand .
It is true that , with some demographics , Trump has certainly helped the Republican Party make inroads .
White Evangelicals , 2nd Amendment die-hards , and the uninformed , low-education voters , for example .
However , it is easy to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have really rallied around Trump — the Republican Party was already well-represented .
It is hard to argue that with Trump ’ s policies , the Republican Party has done all that much to broaden their voting base , as opposed to simply baking the support in further .
Whether that actually helps the Republican Party ’ s longterm chances to remain viable is up for debate .
The Republican Party made a choice : to become more inclusive and address its weaknesses with minority , women , and young voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ autopsy prescribed , or fall back on its core constituencies that have allowed it to maintain a pervasive grip on this country ’ s political system .
With Trump , they gambled on the latter .
And if the Trump gamble fails , they stand to lose everything .

As we enter the week where the Senate will try Donald Trump for impeachment, let us not forget why they are doing everything in their power to defend Trump, and in the process willing to sacrifice their Party’s so-called reverence for the Constitution, their Party’s image of being the better one for respecting law and justice, and perhaps even their own incumbent seats.
Because they put their own long-term viability as an entire Party on the line to get Trump, and now keep Trump, in office.
Because of Trump, the Republican Party is likely lost to large sections of the minority vote, perhaps forever. Black Americans by-and-large see Trump as racist; as a voting bloc, they do not look to the Republican Party to address issues such as minority poverty, police brutality and racial profiling, and the mass incarceration where African Americans are incarcerated at 5 times the rate of whites. The Republican Party has no discernible platform on which to appeal to the Black vote, without numerous policies under Trump directly contradicting them.
Then of course there is the disastrous impact Trump has had on the Latinx and Hispanic communities. The Trump administration’s forced detention, aggressive ICE raids and deportations, the poor acknowledgement and now his position against the settlement of refugees and asylum seekers, and his overall rhetoric demonizing this growing demographic, are all just a tip of the iceberg with him. But look at the Republican Party’s own autopsy on it’s failed 2012 Presidential campaign. They knew that if they did not make significant investments in reaching out to Hispanic Americans and other minorities, the Party would “shrink to its core constituencies only.” They have gone in just that direction.
year % of Presidential vote Non-white % of Non-White for republican % of Republican’s Popular Vote 2008 26 18.3 4.57 2012 28 17.9 4.48 2016 30 20.7 5.17
As the % of non-white voters in each Presidential race increases, so too does the percentage of that same group voting for the Republican candidate.
But as a voting bloc, Republicans still only get only about 5% of their popular vote from the non-white voters.
Thanks to these few years under Trump, the likelihood that his Presidency will motivate more minority voters is quite high, while the likelihood it does much to claim their numbers for the Republican Party, is rather quite low.
There is also women voters, where women’s rights have seen a dramatic increase in attacks by the Republican Party since Trump was elected. In particular, his picks of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court are likely the primary catalysts to the most intense attacks on Roe v. Wade since the ruling. How is that helping the Republican Party in its longterm appeal for women voters? Well, let this recent announcement that Planned Parenthood is spending $45 million in support of Democratic candidates be the answer there. There is now the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment, which was recently ratified by Virginia. Will the Republican Party have an answer that values women, or sets them back even further?
Then there is Trump’s embrace of the fossil fuel industry, and his attacks on renewable energies and the environment. This brings down his and the Republican Party’s appeal to younger voters, who are increasingly becoming a more relevant voting group, while also being more involved in climate change activism. While the Democratic Party has many values and leaders that already line up with these young voters, it remains to be seen how the Republican Party can really convince them that they and Trump would be the best for their values and interests.
On the other hand. It is true that, with some demographics, Trump has certainly helped the Republican Party make inroads. White Evangelicals, 2nd Amendment die-hards, and the uninformed, low-education voters, for example.
However, it is easy to see that, with most of these demographics that have really rallied around Trump — the Republican Party was already well-represented. It is hard to argue that with Trump’s policies, the Republican Party has done all that much to broaden their voting base, as opposed to simply baking the support in further. Whether that actually helps the Republican Party’s longterm chances to remain viable is up for debate.
The Republican Party made a choice: to become more inclusive and address its weaknesses with minority, women, and young voters, as even its own Party’s autopsy prescribed, or fall back on its core constituencies that have allowed it to maintain a pervasive grip on this country’s political system.
With Trump, they gambled on the latter. And if the Trump gamble fails, they stand to lose everything.


On Human Nature

Three Behaviors We Must Consider The topic of human nature is extremely broad and much has been written .
When delving into the realm of politics there are a number of those behavioral tendencies that should be kept in the front of our minds .
In this particular age of extreme polarization being aware of why people behave as they do is essential .
This does not go without mention : I have no formal training in psychology .
I do not pretend to have made a unique revelation now shout it to the world .
Rather I propose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people ’ s minds .
The hope is that some or maybe many readers will consciously , at least occasionally , bring these concepts to the front of their minds and exert a bit of effort in applying them to our political and personal lives .
Neuroscientists have developed methods to monitor the human brain and detect many things about how we think .
One of those discoveries is that we make our decisions long before we have all the facts .
Implicit in this is that we make many if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brains rather than the rational parts of our brains .
Psychological research shows that not all of our decisions are made rationally .
Indeed , most probably are not .
Our decision making just might be the worst within a political environment .
It is there that we experience some of the greatest pressures to conform .
But , it is there that the consequences of bad decisions are the greatest .
I suspect this was an asset in early human development .
When there was a crisis , such as we detected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predator was evaluating us as a meal , we had to act immediately .
We had little to no time to ponder the situation and select from a menu of possible reactions .
When we were a bit too slow to react , we were something ’ s lunch and were no longer able to contribute to the genetic pool and have any descendants .
Things were much simpler then : He who hesitates is lost .
In today ’ s world , we very seldom face those immediate consequences .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brains are difficult to retrain .
We still retain those circuits that make immediate decisions .
Things are much more complicated now than many thousands of years ago .
Now we are much better off when we ponder the choices for a bit before deciding .
We might change the previous slogan of : He who hesitates is lost , to something a bit less than a slogan but more accurate : He who hesitates is more likely to be right .
But to a large part , we seldom do that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ slogans .
Even when they are not entirely accurate , and even quite misleading , we do like them .
That is often a problem , but a topic for another paper .
The second problem compounds the first .
Return again to prehistoric times and our very early ancestors .
I refer to the times before we developed a comprehensive spoken language .
We were not able to tell anyone what happened to us yesterday , or even just a few minutes ago .
We could not pass on specific knowledge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only by demonstration .
This means that we were not able to convey the concept of : That action that I , or someone else , just performed was wrong and for this reason .
That was not possible .
Given that concept , the paramount need was to appear that we are correct .
As a male , if most of the other members of the tribe think I am right in my behavior , that is what counted .
Being right counted only for the immediate life and death situations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the other situations .
The conclusion is that being able to change one ’ s mind was not high on the list of things that helped us acquire breeding rights .
Consequently , that is an attribute that is not foremost in our abilities .
If you disagree , watch young children who have learned a game with one specific set of rules .
Then see what happens when a newcomer suggests a change .
In most cases , either the newcomer adapts to local rules or is simply excluded from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want new ideas , and generally don ’ t want new ideas from an outsider .
Republicans tend to think of Democrats as outsiders while the reverse is also true .
We do have language now .
We can describe behaviors and resultant outcomes .
However , that has not improved our ability to change our minds .
The field of psychology is replete with examples and evidence that we strongly dislike the possibility of changing our mind .
Here is a quote from an article .
Side Note : I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but looking up research on thinking and decision making when I found this .
As a currently relevant example , consider that incontrovertible proof has been discovered that Donald Trump has lied , cheated , stolen , and committed very serious crimes that most people would face significant jail time for .
What ’ s more , he appears to be entirely unfit for the office he holds and has implemented policies that are hurting the vast majority of the people who voted for him .
Nevertheless , a great many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice , despite the tremendous amount of credible , incriminating information about him that has come to light since November 8 , 2016 .
Information that , had they been aware of before then , might have dissuaded some from casting their ballot the way they did .
And a bit further down is this sentence : • bottom line is that when there is a conflict between our attitudes and our behavior , we tend to change our attitudes to make them consistent with our behavior rather than change our behavior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The evidence is clear on several points .
We make hasty decisions , and we are reluctant to admit of a poor decision , even just to ourselves , must less to our fellow humans .
And when those decision are of major importance , we are significantly less likely to change our minds .
That seems to be exactly backwards .
When a decision is of major importance , we should be more prone to examine the facts , review the decision , and reconsider if we made the right choice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the less likely we are to reconsider .
I ask that you , dear reader , please take a few moments within the privacy of your personal thoughts , and review the decisions you have made .
Which political positions do you support ?
For whom did you vote and why ?
Was that a rational decision ?
Please think on these things .
In privacy , within just the confines of your mind .
And see what you come up with .
A version of this blog with some references is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ https : //ca23rd.org/blogs/on_human_nature.htm

On Human Nature
Three Behaviors We Must Consider
Why Write This
The topic of human nature is extremely broad and much has been written. When delving into the realm of politics there are a number of those behavioral tendencies that should be kept in the front of our minds. In this particular age of extreme polarization being aware of why people behave as they do is essential.
This does not go without mention: I have no formal training in psychology. I do not pretend to have made a unique revelation now shout it to the world. Rather I propose to bring a few issues to the front of people’s minds. The hope is that some or maybe many readers will consciously, at least occasionally, bring these concepts to the front of their minds and exert a bit of effort in applying them to our political and personal lives.
Jumping to Conclusions
Neuroscientists have developed methods to monitor the human brain and detect many things about how we think. One of those discoveries is that we make our decisions long before we have all the facts. Implicit in this is that we make many if not most of our decisions with our emotional brains rather than the rational parts of our brains.
Psychological research shows that not all of our decisions are made rationally. Indeed, most probably are not.
Our decision making just might be the worst within a political environment. It is there that we experience some of the greatest pressures to conform. But, it is there that the consequences of bad decisions are the greatest.
I suspect this was an asset in early human development. When there was a crisis, such as we detected or even just suspected, that a predator was evaluating us as a meal, we had to act immediately. We had little to no time to ponder the situation and select from a menu of possible reactions. When we were a bit too slow to react, we were something’s lunch and were no longer able to contribute to the genetic pool and have any descendants.
Things were much simpler then: He who hesitates is lost.
In today’s world, we very seldom face those immediate consequences. However, the fight or flight portions of our brains are difficult to retrain. We still retain those circuits that make immediate decisions.
Things are much more complicated now than many thousands of years ago. Now we are much better off when we ponder the choices for a bit before deciding. We might change the previous slogan of: He who hesitates is lost, to something a bit less than a slogan but more accurate: He who hesitates is more likely to be right.
But to a large part, we seldom do that.
Side note: We really like our slogans. Even when they are not entirely accurate, and even quite misleading, we do like them. That is often a problem, but a topic for another paper.
The second problem compounds the first.
Reluctance to Change
Return again to prehistoric times and our very early ancestors. I refer to the times before we developed a comprehensive spoken language. We were not able to tell anyone what happened to us yesterday, or even just a few minutes ago. We could not pass on specific knowledge to our offspring. We could teach them only by demonstration.
This means that we were not able to convey the concept of: That action that I, or someone else, just performed was wrong and for this reason. That was not possible.
Given that concept, the paramount need was to appear that we are correct. As a male, if most of the other members of the tribe think I am right in my behavior, that is what counted. Being right counted only for the immediate life and death situations. Appearing to be right was paramount in all the other situations.
The conclusion is that being able to change one’s mind was not high on the list of things that helped us acquire breeding rights. Consequently, that is an attribute that is not foremost in our abilities.
If you disagree, watch young children who have learned a game with one specific set of rules. Then see what happens when a newcomer suggests a change. In most cases, either the newcomer adapts to local rules or is simply excluded from the local games. The children don’t want new ideas, and generally don’t want new ideas from an outsider. Republicans tend to think of Democrats as outsiders while the reverse is also true.
We do have language now. We can describe behaviors and resultant outcomes. However, that has not improved our ability to change our minds. The field of psychology is replete with examples and evidence that we strongly dislike the possibility of changing our mind. Here is a quote from an article.
Side Note: I was not looking for this type of quote, but looking up research on thinking and decision making when I found this.
As a currently relevant example, consider that incontrovertible proof has been discovered that Donald Trump has lied, cheated, stolen, and committed very serious crimes that most people would face significant jail time for. What’s more, he appears to be entirely unfit for the office he holds and has implemented policies that are hurting the vast majority of the people who voted for him. Nevertheless, a great many people who voted for Trump vigorously defend their choice, despite the tremendous amount of credible, incriminating information about him that has come to light since November 8, 2016. Information that, had they been aware of before then, might have dissuaded some from casting their ballot the way they did.
And a bit further down is this sentence:
bottom line is that when there is a conflict between our attitudes and our behavior, we tend to change our attitudes to make them consistent with our behavior rather than change our behavior to make it consistent with our attitudes.
The evidence is clear on several points. We make hasty decisions, and we are reluctant to admit of a poor decision, even just to ourselves, must less to our fellow humans.
And when those decision are of major importance, we are significantly less likely to change our minds. That seems to be exactly backwards. When a decision is of major importance, we should be more prone to examine the facts, review the decision, and reconsider if we made the right choice. Instead, the more important the decision, the less likely we are to reconsider.
Conclusion
I ask that you, dear reader, please take a few moments within the privacy of your personal thoughts, and review the decisions you have made. Which political positions do you support? For whom did you vote and why? Was that a rational decision?
Please think on these things. In privacy, within just the confines of your mind. And see what you come up with.
A version of this blog with some references is posted on my political web site: https://ca23rd.org/blogs/on_human_nature.htm


dailykos--2020-01-20--Who Killed All Those People

Who Killed All Those People

Who Killed All Those People ?
It May Not Be Who You Think .
Please bear with me , there is a major political point made here .
The total number of non-combatants killed by the Nazis is about 11 million .
Over six million Jews were murdered .
From the web page : Prior to the collapse of the USSR and the archival revelations , some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin 's regime were 20 million or higher .
A quote : In 1957 , he launched a campaign known as the Great Leap Forward that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from agrarian to industrial .
This campaign led to the deadliest famine in history and the deaths of 20–45 million people between 1958 and 1962 .
Quoting : Pol Pot was a political leader whose communist Khmer Rouge government led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 .
During that time , an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians died of starvation , execution , disease or overwork .
Get the Words Right When we speak of those times we say that Stalin killed all those people In a very real sense , he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met an early and ugly death if Stalin had not risen to power .
In our quick sound bites , we rightfully accuse them of those deaths .
However , it is easy to forget that Stalin , Mao , or all of these dictators , did not take a knife , gun , or anything else and commit that many murders .
It is very important to remember individual people did take knife , gun , and any implement they chose and end the lives of those people .
They committed cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they were doing .
Their position often fell into some basic categories : I was just following orders .
I had to do it .
If I didn ’ t do it , someone else would have .
If I didn ’ t do it I would be killed .
My position is : No , you did not have to .
For various reasons , you elected to do that .
It was your choice .
The last excuse has significantly more urgency .
But if you , the respondent above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then maybe the people around you would decline to kill you .
Regardless , the correct position is No , there is no excuse for murdering large numbers of people like that .
The people that did all these killings were the leader ’ s lackeys .
The sycophants .
The people that were in mid-level authority that had not the courage to say No .
These are the people truly responsible for the up to 67 million murders just referenced .
They committed the murders , therefore they bear greater responsibility than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admit it , or own up to it , they bear that responsibility .
They can not abdicate it .
We have elected Trump .
He has shown himself , time and time again to be a Tyrant .
( Please look it up , he is not fully successful yet , but not for effort . )
He is a Racist .
He spews hate .
He disdains the Constitution .
He has praised Putin , and Zi Jinping as being greater leaders .
He mentioned how much respect Kim Jong-un gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not sufficiently obsequious are murdered .
Because Kim Jong-un said so .
Trump wants that kind of respect !
He explicitly stated he does !
Now ask the question : How does it get away with it ?
That is an incredibly important question and thought .
The answer is that there are two groups that enable him .
The most obvious are the elected Republicans in Congress .
With very few exceptions , they are his support team .
His lackeys and sycophants .
They are , day by day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hatred .
And if he continues in office , these are the people than can begin to commit crimes in his name .
They are already that , to a smaller degree , but they have taken many steps down that path .
The see the evidence of Trump violating the constitution and proclaim no evidence .
Very few of them have the courage to stand up and say no .
Like Senator McCain that Trump hate so much .
These are the types of people that supported Hitler , Mao , Stalin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than complicit .
They are active associates .
The second group is much larger , and much more pernicious .
They are the members of this country that support Trump .
They have the evidence in front of them .
It can not be denied .
Yet they continue to deny .
Each and every one of them is adding to the destruction of our democracy .
There is a subgroup of those voters .
These are the people with apathy .
They just don ’ t care .
They will not do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justifications .
They are complicit .
The situation is grim .
I would like to write that we are at a cross-roads .
That is not the case .
We have selected and taken a path .
The wrong path .
Now that we are there , we must exert even greater effort to backup and find the right path .
This will be difficult .
But our democracy depends on it .
If things go completely bad , a large portion of these people will say and claim : But we did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong , and merits two responses .
Yes !
You Did Know !
The evidence is abundant , clear , and plain .
You made the choice to pretend you did not know .
That is the second part of the response .
If we get to the point where people say : But we did not know , it may well be too late .
And it won ’ t matter anymore because it can not be fixed .
Please do something .

Who Killed All Those People?
It May Not Be Who You Think.
Please bear with me, there is a major political point made here.
Hitler
The total number of non-combatants killed by the Nazis is about 11 million.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/
Over six million Jews were murdered.
http://www.auschwitz.dk/holofaq.htm
Stalin
From the web page: Prior to the collapse of the USSR and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=PGtLXdnUDfO50PEP_Ma7oAQ&q=how+many+did+stalin+kill&oq=how+many+did+stalin+kill&gs_l=psy-ab.3...181951.185756..186076...0.0..0.119.1013.11j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0.gty3TBsU4BM&ved=&uact=5
Mao Zedong
A quote: In 1957, he launched a campaign known as the Great Leap Forward that aimed to rapidly transform China's economy from agrarian to industrial. This campaign led to the deadliest famine in history and the deaths of 20–45 million people between 1958 and 1962.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=OWxLXfzYH-6t0PEPlNqEYA&q=how+many+did+mao+zedong+kill&oq=how+many+did+mao+zedong+kill&gs_l=psy-ab.3...20359.30548..30937...0.0..0.92.1667.21......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i304i39j35i39.1Y3LKrPdt08&ved=&uact=5
Pol Pot
Quoting: Pol Pot was a political leader whose communist Khmer Rouge government led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork.
Get the Words Right
When we speak of those times we say that Stalin killed all those people In a very real sense, he did. That many people would not have met an early and ugly death if Stalin had not risen to power. In our quick sound bites, we rightfully accuse them of those deaths.
However, it is easy to forget that Stalin, Mao, or all of these dictators, did not take a knife, gun, or anything else and commit that many murders. It is very important to remember individual people did take knife, gun, and any implement they chose and end the lives of those people. They committed cold blooded murder. Knowing full well exactly what they were doing. Their position often fell into some basic categories: I was just following orders. I had to do it. If I didn’t do it, someone else would have. If I didn’t do it I would be killed.
My position is: No, you did not have to. For various reasons, you elected to do that. It was your choice.
The last excuse has significantly more urgency. But if you, the respondent above, hadn’t done it, then maybe the people around you would decline to kill you. Regardless, the correct position is No, there is no excuse for murdering large numbers of people like that.
Who Was Responsible?
The people that did all these killings were the leader’s lackeys. The sycophants. The people that were in mid-level authority that had not the courage to say No. These are the people truly responsible for the up to 67 million murders just referenced. They committed the murders, therefore they bear greater responsibility than the leaders. Whether or not they admit it, or own up to it, they bear that responsibility. They cannot abdicate it.
Now For Today
We have elected Trump. He has shown himself, time and time again to be a Tyrant. (Please look it up, he is not fully successful yet, but not for effort.) He is a Racist. He spews hate. He disdains the Constitution. He has praised Putin, and Zi Jinping as being greater leaders. He mentioned how much respect Kim Jong-un gets, knowing full well that those that are not sufficiently obsequious are murdered. Because Kim Jong-un said so. Trump wants that kind of respect! He explicitly stated he does!
Now ask the question: How does it get away with it?
That is an incredibly important question and thought.
The answer is that there are two groups that enable him. The most obvious are the elected Republicans in Congress. With very few exceptions, they are his support team. His lackeys and sycophants. They are, day by day, enabling him to continue his regime of hatred.
And if he continues in office, these are the people than can begin to commit crimes in his name. They are already that, to a smaller degree, but they have taken many steps down that path. The see the evidence of Trump violating the constitution and proclaim no evidence. Very few of them have the courage to stand up and say no. Like Senator McCain that Trump hate so much.
These are the types of people that supported Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and others. They are more than complicit. They are active associates.
The second group is much larger, and much more pernicious. They are the members of this country that support Trump. They have the evidence in front of them. It cannot be denied. Yet they continue to deny. Each and every one of them is adding to the destruction of our democracy.
There is a subgroup of those voters. These are the people with apathy. They just don’t care. They will not do anything. Each has their own little justifications. They are complicit.
Back to Today
The situation is grim. I would like to write that we are at a cross-roads. That is not the case. We have selected and taken a path. The wrong path. Now that we are there, we must exert even greater effort to backup and find the right path. This will be difficult. But our democracy depends on it.
If things go completely bad, a large portion of these people will say and claim: But we did not know!
That is flat our wrong, and merits two responses.
Yes! You Did Know!
The evidence is abundant, clear, and plain. You made the choice to pretend you did not know.
It Doesn’t Matter Anymore
That is the second part of the response. If we get to the point where people say: But we did not know, it may well be too late. And it won’t matter anymore because it cannot be fixed.
Conclusion
Please do something.


dailykos--2020-01-20--This simple difference between the Clinton and Trump impeachments is the key to everything

The impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump share a crucial element in that the necessary , predicate facts of wrongdoing were not seriously in dispute in either case .
In each case , the true inquiry is not about the facts , but whether the plain misconduct rises to the level of a “ removable ” offense .
Except … there really is something different and determinative here about the facts : Clinton apologized and promised never to do it again , and Trump unapologetically promises to do it again at the next opportunity ( if he is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference is everything , changes the whole analysis , and is the simple , obvious reason why Trump must be removed .
Imagine if Bill Clinton had said : “ Yeah , I had sex with my intern and I Iied about it under oath .
It was perfect .
And you know what ?
I ’ m gon na do it again each chance that I get !
” In that case , all rational observers would easily say : Holy shit !
This Clinton guy needs to be removed .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sex and lying were removable offenses .
But if he promised to keep doing it ?
?
Yeah , of course , I would have said that he had to be removed .
And yet this is President Trump ’ s stated position .
He doesn ’ t deny that he withheld crucial military aid to a vulnerable ally in a shooting war with Russia to pressure it to interfere with a US election .
No , he says it was “ perfect ” for him to do so and would do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , he defiantly doubled-down from the White House lawn : “ China should start an investigation into the Bidens , because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.
” As notably , in a seemingly forgotten Stephanopoulos Oval Office interview , before he was caught with Ukraine , Trump didn ’ t just admit , but argued , that he would cooperate with foreign interference in US elections — even expressly rejecting his own FBI Director ’ s warning : President Trump : Okay , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position : you ’ re a congressman , somebody comes up and says , “ Hey I have information on your opponent.
” Do you call the FBI ?
Stephanopoulos : If it ’ s coming from Russia you do .
President Trump : -- I ’ ll tell you what .
I ’ ve seen a lot of things over my life .
I don ’ t think in my whole life I ’ ve ever called the FBI .
In my whole life .
I don ’ t -- you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw somebody out of your office , you do whatever you do— Stephanopoulos : Al Gore got a stolen briefing book .
He called the FBI .
President Trump : Well , that ’ s different .
A stolen briefing book .
This isn ’ t -- this is somebody who said , “ We have information on your opponent.
” Oh , let me call the FBI .
Give me a break , life doesn ’ t work that way .
Stephanopoulos : The FBI Director says that ’ s what should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly , it doesn ’ t happen like that in life .
You see — when you put aside all the drama , arguments , partisanship , side issues , privilege disputes , and procedural fights — the core problem , threat and distinction is that Trump is promising to commit his wrongdoing again .
That is the crucial difference and question for Republican Senators .
It is the stark difference between judging a past transgression versus condoning , and joining , a promise of future corruption To circle back and put this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening impeachment brief defending Bill Clinton .
Here are the paragraphs : In addition to the factual , legal and Constitutional defenses we present in this document , the President has asked us to convey a personal note : What the President did was wrong .
As the President himself has said , publicly and painfully , `` there is no fancy way to say that I have sinned . ''
The President has insisted that no legalities be allowed to obscure the simple moral truth that his behavior in this matter was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his friends and our Nation about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky .
He did not want anyone to know about his personal wrongdoing .
But he does want everyone -- the Committee , the Congress and the country -- to know that he is profoundly sorry for the wrongs he has committed and for the pain he has caused his family , his friends , and our nation .
No , I wasn ’ t teary-eyed or tricked by Bill Clinton ’ s famous contrition .
Rather , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton admitted wrongdoing , expressed regret , asked for forgiveness , and ( at least ) promised it would not happen again .
Republicans desperately hope that we all will miss this simple , but crucial , distinction .
For example , Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama appeared yesterday on ABC News ’ s This Week with host George Stephanopoulos , who asked Shelby about Trump ’ s statements calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens : No .
This wasn ’ t a mistake or lapse of judgment by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pled guilty to .
Trump is saying the opposite : what he did was perfect , deliberate and he will do it again .
That is the whole difference , and it is why Trump must be removed .

The impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump share a crucial element in that the necessary, predicate facts of wrongdoing were not seriously in dispute in either case. In each case, the true inquiry is not about the facts, but whether the plain misconduct rises to the level of a “removable” offense.
Except … there really is something different and determinative here about the facts: Clinton apologized and promised never to do it again, and Trump unapologetically promises to do it again at the next opportunity (if he is not already doing it now).
This difference is everything, changes the whole analysis, and is the simple, obvious reason why Trump must be removed.
Imagine if Bill Clinton had said : “Yeah, I had sex with my intern and I Iied about it under oath. It was perfect. And you know what? I’m gonna do it again each chance that I get!”
In that case, all rational observers would easily say: Holy shit! This Clinton guy needs to be removed. I didn’t think that Clinton’s sex and lying were removable offenses. But if he promised to keep doing it?? Yeah, of course, I would have said that he had to be removed.
And yet this is President Trump’s stated position . He doesn’t deny that he withheld crucial military aid to a vulnerable ally in a shooting war with Russia to pressure it to interfere with a US election. No, he says it was “perfect” for him to do so and would do so again. And when challenged about that, he defiantly doubled-down from the White House lawn: “China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”
As notably, in a seemingly forgotten Stephanopoulos Oval Office interview, before he was caught with Ukraine, Trump didn’t just admit, but argued, that he would cooperate with foreign interference in US elections — even expressly rejecting his own FBI Director’s warning:
President Trump: Okay, let’s put yourself in a position: you’re a congressman, somebody comes up and says, “Hey I have information on your opponent.” Do you call the FBI? Stephanopoulos: If it’s coming from Russia you do. President Trump: You don’t -- I’ll tell you what. I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. I don’t--you don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do— Stephanopoulos: Al Gore got a stolen briefing book. He called the FBI. President Trump: Well, that’s different. A stolen briefing book. This isn’t-- this is somebody who said, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesn’t work that way . Stephanopoulos: The FBI Director says that’s what should happen. President Trump: The FBI Director is wrong. Because, frankly, it doesn’t happen like that in life.
You see — when you put aside all the drama, arguments, partisanship, side issues, privilege disputes, and procedural fights — the core problem, threat and distinction is that Trump is promising to commit his wrongdoing again. That is the crucial difference and question for Republican Senators. It is the stark difference between judging a past transgression versus condoning, and joining, a promise of future corruption
To circle back and put this in proper perspective, I read the opening impeachment brief defending Bill Clinton. Here are the opening paragraphs:
PREFACE In addition to the factual, legal and Constitutional defenses we present in this document, the President has asked us to convey a personal note: What the President did was wrong. As the President himself has said, publicly and painfully, "there is no fancy way to say that I have sinned." The President has insisted that no legalities be allowed to obscure the simple moral truth that his behavior in this matter was wrong; that he misled his wife, his friends and our Nation about the nature of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. He did not want anyone to know about his personal wrongdoing. But he does want everyone -- the Committee, the Congress and the country -- to know that he is profoundly sorry for the wrongs he has committed and for the pain he has caused his family, his friends, and our nation.
No, I wasn’t teary-eyed or tricked by Bill Clinton’s famous contrition. Rather, the important, minimally required thing was that Clinton admitted wrongdoing, expressed regret, asked for forgiveness, and (at least) promised it would not happen again.
Republicans desperately hope that we all will miss this simple, but crucial, distinction. For example, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama appeared yesterday on ABC News’s This Week with host George Stephanopoulos, who asked Shelby about Trump’s statements calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens:
"Those were just statements political. They make them all the time," Shelby said. The host pressed Shelby on whether he was trying to excuse Trump’s statement, and the Republican replied: "I didn’t say it was OK. I said people make them. People do things. Things happen." Shelby added: "The president of the United States is human, and he’s going to make mistakes of judgment and everything else. They have historically, both parties, from the beginning of our republic."
No. This wasn’t a mistake or lapse of judgment by President Trump. That is what Clinton pled guilty to. Trump is saying the opposite: what he did was perfect, deliberate and he will do it again.
That is the whole difference, and it is why Trump must be removed.