Trump Impeached Once Again

In a historic move, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Trump for a second time.  The vote was 232 for impeachment, 197 against, and largely along party lines.  Though there is a spot of hope - 10 Republican Representatives voted FOR impeachment, including high ranking leadership like Liz Cheney.

This is unprecedented.  This makes Trump the first president to be impeached twice.  It makes Trump's impeachment count equal with all prior presidential impeachments.  Trump's impeachment included just one article, incitement of insurrection, making him the first president to be impeached for ties to insurrection.

We remain in dark days in this country.  While this move is necessary, it is not something to be celebrated.  The fact that we are here reflected on how fragile our democracy is, how easily portions of us can be swayed by mis- and dis-information, and just how much damage has been done over the past five years.

We do have bright spots, though.  While once again, this may not result in any kind of action in the Senate, it reflects an attempt to provide consequences for the president's actions leading up to last Wednesday.  We also see Republicans willing to step up and be patriots.  To put country above party and to endanger their seat by refusing to capitulate to Trump and his cult like base.  Their willingness to vote for impeachment signals the beginning of the end for Trump in the Republican party.  Whether that is through a complete fracture or through a disassociation remains to be seen.

Either way, it will certainly be an interesting seven days ahead

Patriotism

"The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic's success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other's good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise "impartial justice." I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case; the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President's team presented three defenses: first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, that the Bidens' conduct justified the President's actions; and third that the judgement of the President's actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address each of those defenses.

The historic meaning of the words "high crimes and misdemeanors," the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgement convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove a president defies reason.

The President's counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.

With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father's name is unsavory but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President's counsel that a crime had been committed, the President's insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution's requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president. Hamilton explained that the Founders' decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize—to the extent possible—the partisan sentiments of the public.

This verdict is ours to render. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a "high crime and misdemeanor."

Yes, he did.

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President's purpose was personal and political.

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

What he did was not "perfect"— No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. Many demand that, in their words, "I stand with the team." I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind. I support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he said might raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office. The results of this Senate Court will in fact be appealed to a higher court: the judgement of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the President's lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.

We're all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen."

Mitt Romeny, voting against party to remove the president, February 5, 2020

This Is How Democracy Dies...

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."

Padme Amidala, Revenge of the Sith

The Star Wars prequels at least gave us one good quote.  In the previous film, Senator Palpatine was given autonomous emergency powers in light of a coming war.  In Revenge of the Sith, the senator uses those powers to great the Empire, for security and safety of the republic, of course.  So the senator becomes the Emperor, to the delight of the galactic senate.  Senator Amidala recognizes it for what it is, a power grab that means the end of the republic.

Yesterday, we witnessed two blows to democracy as we know it in two of its previously staunchest defenders.  But what Star Wars couldn't predict is that the thunderous applause will come from only a fraction of the population.  In Star Wars, the resistance was small; most everyone sided with the Empire, until it was too late.  What we are seeing across the globe today is such division that whatever group can get a small majority can inflict potentially irreparable harm.

First, the United States Senate, led by the Republican Party, voted against calling witnesses or presenting evidence in the trial of President Donald J. Trump.  It's not surprising, it's what they told us they would do from the beginning.  But it is disheartening.

It reflects their loyalty to party, or should I say to Trump, above country.  They are too afraid of Trump's 30% base across the country to do anything against him.  We knew that the word came out that any Republican who voted inconsistently with Trump's position would have their head on a pike.   We know GOP leadership had coordinated the entire trial with the White House.   "We'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate," McConnell said.    We know they are still coordinating now.

WH official confirms McConnell and Trump spoke about deal to end trial next week and Trump signed off.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) February 1, 2020

We also know the Republicans conceded the evidence already presented.  The deciding vote, Senator Lamar Alexander acknowledged "mountains of evidence" against Trump.

And yet, here we are.

It's not as if Republicans believed Trump was innocent.  The argument largely shifted into either the false argument that the offense wasn't a crime so it can't be impeachable, which has never been the standard, or to the argument that even if it's impeachable, he shouldn't be removed.

The Framers made it abundantly clear that even if actions are “impeachable” its up to the Senate to decide if its in the nations best interest to “remove”

Removing the President on Article I would inflict severe damage on the nation even if proven beyond doubt (which it was not)

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 1, 2020

So, we've had an impeachment from the House, though driven by Democrats, supplied with ample evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors," leading to a trial in the Senate, in which the defendant and the judge and jury have colluded on the ultimate acquittal.  Foreign leadership is already pointing out how we are conceding our position in the world as a bastion of liberty and democracy.

“Great! No more tedious US lectures on rule of law, fair trials, evidence, equality before the law, transparency, corruption, free and fair elections” — some 130 governments around the world right now.

— toomas hendrik ilves (@IlvesToomas) January 31, 2020

 Ilves is the former president of Estonia.

If all of the posturing surrounding the impeachment trial were not enough, the United Kingdom finally stumbled out of the European Union yesterday.  After a deal was finally drafted and approved in the United Kingdom in December, and agreed upon by the European Union on January 23, 2020, the Brexit was finally accomplished at 11:00 pm GMT on January 31, 2020.

Not one day removed, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is planning to ramp up and implement full customs and border checks on all European goods entering the United Kingdom.   This is a vast departure from pre-election discussion of the goals of Brexit, which previously emphasized the ease of trade with the EU.

So, we have xenophobic and nationalistic sentiment winning the day again.  The ideal that differing parties could work together through dialog and debate, that we can do better together, has been dealt a serious blow.

The good news is that democracy is not dead, it is dormant.  It lies to us to remember where the true power lies.  With the vote.

It's up to us to remind our elected officials who they are to answer to.  Who they are responsible to.  Who puts them in power in the first place.  They are to represent us. They are to look out for the best interests of the country, even when we may not recognize it.  And they are to respond to all of their constituents.

It's a reminder that your vote matters, now more than ever.

On With The Show

"This is a moment in American history where the arc of justice will either be bent forward or it will be bent backward.  So everyone who wants to see it should have the chance to see the whole story."

Bill Moyers, former PBS journalist and commentator

Public impeachment proceedings for President Donald Trump begin today.  The major news outlets are airing it, as well as all of the major networks.  If you are able, take the time to watch or listen.  Don't listen to the propaganda from Fox News that the proceedings aren't legitimate.  Impeachments by nature are a political proceeding, not a legal one.  They are a political mechanism to remove a president for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  That has always been vague.

And there has been clear evidence of at least high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of President Trump.  This particular inciting incident involves a clear abuse of power in pressuring a foreign power to investigate a political rival.  I firmly believe there is as much, if not more basis for the impeachment of Donald Trump than there was for Richard Nixon.

Look at past impeachment proceedings.   President Johnson was impeach for trying to abruptly and improperly replace a high ranking executive member in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.  President Nixon was investigated for impeachment because of obstruction of justice and abuse of power in trying to get dirt on political rivals.  President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in trying to cover up an affair.  Of that entire list, the allegations against Trump are only missing perjury, though given his record on truth telling, that may not be hard to establish.  After all, one reason given for him not testifying before Mueller was that his handlers did not believe he could testify without perjuring himself.

The public proceedings will hopefully lay out the full case for the America people.  I realize that even these public proceedings will not do anything to change the minds of those loyal supporters.  But they demand to be observed.  They demand our attention, just as the previous impeachment proceedings did.

I, too, join Moyer in hoping that PBS reverses course and re-airs the impeachment proceedings in prime time.  While they are airing them live, they are being aired at a time when most Americans are at work.  Or at school.  At a time when few will be able to take in the full proceedings and instead will rely on filtered clips from the news program of their choice.  If they pay attention at all, it will likely be through the same wind tunnel news program that affirms their own current political beliefs.  It will not be the actual source material.

During Watergate, PBS did re-air the broadcasts in prime time, so that the base of the American public could watch the proceedings as they unfolded, just a little delayed.  These re-broadcasts helped shape PBS and the national discourse on the proceedings.  It allowed America to come to its own conclusions.

"Over the course of 51 days and nights, millions of viewers watched as the story of the Watergate break-in, the cover-up, payoffs, and dirty tricks unfolded before their eyes. The evidence was undeniable: Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, had abused the power of his office, corrupted the rule of law, lied persistently, and obstructed justice.

Other networks carried the hearings, too, but what set public broadcasting apart was the decision to air them twice a day: live, in real time as they happened, and then via videotape in prime time every evening, when people who had spent all day working could come home, watch the drama play out without intrusive commentary, and become a part of the process of judgement. One viewer wrote: 'I arrive red-eyed and sleepy to work and I don’t care.' "

PBS is dumping the re-broadcast on a digital sub-channel, PBS World.  Something most of us have never heard of.  One has to wonder why.   Is it pressure from the Trump administration?  Is fear of the executive branch finally too much?  Nixon threatened to pull funding, but PBS at the time did not back down.  Is the current leadership of PBS too timid for our times?

Or perhaps its a different problem.  Tonight PBS is airing Nature, Nova, and Life From Above.  Are ratings to blame?  Is PBS too concerned with keeping their viewers on these programs that they won't interrupt?  Too concerned with keeping us entertained instead of truly informed?

Maybe we really are in Postman's nightmare - entertaining ourselves to death.

Requiem for the Religious Right

“I think it’s hard to take Nancy Pelosi’s call to prayer seriously.  I mean it reminds me of a pyromaniac with a match in hand about to set fire to a building saying, ‘Please pray with me that the damage I’m about to cause isn’t too severe.’  I mean if you’re really sincere about that prayer, then put down the dang match. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats can’t put down the impeachment match. They know they couldn’t beat him in 2016 against Hillary Clinton and they’re increasingly aware of the fact that they won’t win against him in 2020, and impeachment is the only tool they have to get rid of Donald J. Trump and the Democrats don’t care if they burn down and destroy this nation in the process. 

Look, I don’t pretend to speak for all evangelicals but this week I have been traveling the country and I’ve literally spoken to thousands and thousands of evangelical Christians, I have never seen the evangelical Christians more angry over any issue than this attempt to illegitimately remove this president from office, overturn the 2016 Election, and negate the votes of millions of evangelicals in the process.  They know the only impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton in 2016.  That’s the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him .  And I do want to make this prediction this morning: if the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.”

Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, on Fox News

I think we are finally seeing the last gasps of the religious right.  This might also be the last gasps of the political power of evangelicals.  Their defense of President Trump is reaching ludicrous lengths.  We've seen so many examples of denial, of gaslighting, of obfuscation, of redirecting, and of outright falsehood that I think we've become numb to it.  Now though, it seems the defenses are becoming totally divorced from reality.

Case in point, Robert Jeffress.  I've written before about my feelings on Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church Dallas.  He is likely the most visible supporter of President Trump and the Trump administration in the Evangelical realm.  He has gained a spot on Trump's advisory board, national prominence, and a commentator spot on Fox News.  Heavily focused on political weight and power.

His statement above is just too much.  He has previously questioned any religious sincerity in anyone other than an evangelical that votes conservative, so his opening is not surprising.  He then continues parroting the talking points we've come to expect.  Trump's victory was a mandate despite being largely a technicality.  Democrats want to destroy this country.  Humble-bragging to represent the voice of evangelicals, despite downplaying it.

The parts I cannot believe in his "impassioned plea" are how there can still be those in the evangelical community that believe Trump has not committed any other sins and his prophecy of a coming civil war.

So, now we'll threaten violence if Trump is removed from office?

We've hit the bottom of the barrel in mob tactics.  When all other persuasive tactics fail, threaten to break the legs, right?

Don't get me wrong, we are at as divided of a status as a nation as we have ever been. We are seemingly in a continual "us v. them" mentality and our media is designed to facilitate it. To foster it and to grow it.  We live in wind tunnels where we are continually fed only the voices that we agree with.  With the ones we like, we follow, we interact with.  We don't have to confront any reality that doesn't match that bubble.

But this has to be a gross overestimation of the support for Trump that would rise up.  His approval levels are hovering around 37-42%.  You have to assume not all of those that approve would take up arms if he is removed.  Some might even switch to the disapprove side during the process.

Maybe this "civil war" is threatened will be like everything else in Trump's world - a mirage, a lie.  Like the plaque for the "River of Blood" battle at his Northern Virginia Trump National Golf Club.

“Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot. The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ It is my great honor to have preserved this important section of the Potomac River!”

Which would definitely be a way to honor the battlefield - if it were true.

The closest site for the battle described on the plaque was 11 miles up the river.

Trump, nonetheless, remained undeterred.  When confronted with historians disputing his claims, "How would they know?  Were they there?"

It really takes a lot to be able to stare reality in the face and deny it.

Maybe we can ask the similar questions of Jeffress.  

How would he know anything about the reality of America?  

Is he even paying attention, or just regurgitating talking points?

Is there anything he won't say for Donald Trump?

Farewell political Religious Right, you won't be missed.

Impeachment Begins

"The President must be held accountable.  No one is above the law."

Nancy Pelosi, announcing the commencement of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, September 24, 2019

It begins.

In light of the whistleblower complaint and Trump's admitting to requesting a foreign government investigate a political rival, the Speaker of the House finally felt empowered enough to launch the impeachment investigation.  Pelosi had been long reluctant to proceed with impeachment without strong bipartisan support.  

It's not as if there has been enough for them to hang an impeachment proceeding on to date, or as if removal has not been pondered through impeachment or the 25th Amendment before.

It's not as if this investigation is not warranted.  I mean look at previous impeachments.  President Johnson was impeach for trying to abruptly and improperly replace a high ranking executive member in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.  President Nixon was investigated for impeachment because of obstruction of justice and abuse of power in trying to get dirt on political rivals.  President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in trying to cover up an affair.  Of that entire list, the allegations against Trump are only missing perjury, though given his record on truth telling, that may not be hard to establish.  After all, one reason given for him not testifying before Mueller was that his handlers did not believe he could testify without perjuring himself.

It's not as if the founding fathers did not contemplate someone like Trump rising to power.   "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats of Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."  Samuel Adams.  They literally wrote provisions in the Constitution and founding documents to help prevent it and to help evict one such person elected.  Checks and balances on power.  The ability to over-ride a presidential veto.  The Court being able to overrule an unconstitutional action by the executive.  The ability to impeach an elected official who commits treason, bribery, or the nebulous "high crimes and misdemeanors."  Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors covered "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.  They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."  To Benjamin Franklin, this was necessary for when the Executive has "rendered himself obnoxious."

We also have the newer 25th Amendment which enables the Vice President and a majority of the members of the executive cabinet or other equivalent body set by Congress to remove a president who is unable to discharge the powers and duties of their office.  And there have been times in this current administration that invoking the 25th has been contemplated within the Executive.

What the drafters could not contemplate is a Congress that would refuse to act in the face of such an act.  A Congress where one party was too timid to speak up, and the other party was complicit in enabling such behavior.  To quote the Washington Post, we've discovered "that the Constitution is not a mechanism that runs by itself.  Ultimately, we are a government of men and not law.  The law has no force without people who are willing to enforce it."

Thankfully, we have reached the point where people are willing to step up and enforce it.  Hopefully, this will be an action that crosses party lines.  That comes from our representatives of all stripes.  That puts the good of the country above party.

A point where we recognize that no one is above the law, not even the president.  That his actions, words, and character thus far cannot be tolerated any longer.  That we expect more from our current and future leaders, and that they will be held to that high bar.

That a thorough investigation must be held and the truth must be revealed, not withheld, obfuscated, or belittled.  That justice should prevail.

This will be a long process.  And it has the potential to be a weight on the Democratic party.  It has the potential to affect the outcome of the 2020 election in favor of the Republican party.

That should not matter.

It must be done because our processes demand it.  Because our democracy demands it.  Because we as the people should demand it.

Because it's right.

Hopefully we have the stamina to see it through.