monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Why are you making up lies? Can't beat him, lie about him.

It's satire, and was mentioned as such. Keep your shirt on.

And without one-upmanship what is Trump?

Listening to Humpty Trumpty talk is like listening to the rantings of a professional wrestler shouting about how he's going to smash his opponent. He has no charisma and he can't even act, yet people go gaga over him like he's the second coming of Goebbels. It's just embarrassing.

When the process of impeachment drove President Richard Nixon from office in 1974, there was widespread celebration that “the system worked.” But the 1974 impeachment process may turn out to have been unique, a model for how it should work that has yet to be replicated — and perhaps never will be.

The current proceedings have demonstrated how fragile the Constitution’s impeachment clause is. The idea of the clause was to hold a president accountable for misdeeds between elections; but it’s now clearer than ever that it doesn’t work very well in the context of a very partisan political atmosphere.

That’s because the founders didn’t anticipate political parties, or “factions,” much less the power they would gain. James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 51 that men aren’t angels, and so there needed to be a check on a president’s power — in addition to the voters’ decision every four years. In 1974, the constitutional system held while a president tried to assert, unsuccessfully, that he wasn’t accountable to Congress or the courts. But now the impeachment process is barely functioning, and it’s not difficult to envision it breaking down completely.

Today, there’s a president who feels free to completely stonewall an impeachment inquiry. Even Nixon did not deem the entire process illegitimate. Yes, he tried to hold back damning recordings of Oval Office conversations, but when he was overruled by the Supreme Court he turned the tapes over to Congress. He also held back some documents from the House Judiciary Committee — an act that formed the basis of an article of impeachment against him. But he allowed his aides to appear before the Senate Watergate Committee, helping to seal his own doom.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has forbidden his aides from appearing before the House investigative committees (some lower-level aides appeared of their own volition). Mr. Trump also went well beyond Nixon — who was no sweetheart — in lashing out personally at the major figures working toward his impeachment. Mr. Trump’s closest allies in the Senate, in particular the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have also brought pressure, at least of the verbal kind, on Senate Republicans to vote against conviction (which would drive the president from office).

It is, of course, not surprising that impeachment should be a highly partisan affair. It’s difficult to contemplate the investigations of Nixon, President Bill Clinton and now Mr. Trump ever commencing if the same party held the House and the White House.

But today’s partisanship is more intense than ever. In 1974, as many as seven Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee broke with Nixon — and the fact that a number of Republican senators were willing to convict him led him to resign. Today, such unorthodoxy is heresy among Republicans. No defections by Republicans are expected when the full House votes on impeachment in the coming week, and perhaps at most a tiny number in the Senate when the case goes to trial, probably early next year.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, expects that there will be at least a handful of Democratic defectors when the full House votes on the articles. Reportedly, more than a dozen of the 31 Democrats who won in districts that went for Mr. Trump in 2016 don’t want to risk losing their seats by riling up Mr. Trump and his supporters in 2020, and this group has had Ms. Pelosi’s ear. (By her own estimate, she can lose 17 votes and have the House adopt the articles.)

Most of the more moderate House Democrats (in recruiting the class of 2018 Ms. Pelosi put a lot of emphasis on finding veterans to run) initially opposed the idea of impeachment. They were galvanized only after the leadership convinced them that Mr. Trump’s withholding military assistance to Ukraine while it was fighting off a Russian invasion was a matter of national security. The unusual step of having the Intelligence Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee run the impeachment inquiry was also engineered to calm those moderate Democrats, who feared that the liberals on the Judiciary Committee would run wild.

That same group of moderates wanted the articles kept as narrow as possible, and they got their wish. On Friday, the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee approved two articles. One charges that Mr. Trump abused his power by withholding military assistance to Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to examine an already debunked theory of Russian origin about alleged Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, and to at least announce an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, who served on the board of Ukraine’s largest natural gas company. The second article holds Mr. Trump in contempt of Congress for his absolute refusal to cooperate in the impeachment investigation.

According to members of the Judiciary Committee, a number of committee Democrats wanted a more expansive set of articles. Some wanted to add an article taking Mr. Trump to task for violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Some argued for a far more expansive indictment of Mr. Trump for abuse of power. A few wanted articles to reflect the president’s alleged violations of campaign finance laws by concealing hush money payments to two women with whom he’d had sexual relations after his marriage to Melania. (Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is in prison for abetting those payments.) And several Democrats wanted to add some of the evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, that Mr. Trump might have obstructed justice by trying to shut down Mr. Mueller’s investigation.

But Ms. Pelosi and her close ally, Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the Intelligence Committee and a fellow Californian, didn’t want to re-raise the matter of Russia’s role in the 2016 election. They argued that they should stick with matters on which the facts were clear and that pertained to national security.

This left the more liberal Judiciary Committee members — the majority — less than happy. One committee Democrat had told me that if the liberals didn’t win additional charges, they could bring them up later. But barring something extraordinary happening, it seems highly unlikely that the Democrats would undergo another impeachment exercise in 2020.

I asked Mr. Schiff during the Judiciary Committee’s deliberations about the concern of many Democrats that by limiting the articles of impeachment to Ukraine, the Democrats were by implication saying that other Trump misdeeds were acceptable.

“I think that that’s very much a legitimate concern,” he replied. “The president has engaged in other misconduct, but I felt that the most egregious misconduct was in pressuring an ally.” The charges in the two articles was “the case that we can prove today.”

He added that work on other matters relating to Mr. Trump’s ethical conduct “will continue.” The last thing he wants to happen, he said, is to allow Mr. Trump to invite foreign intervention in another election.

What, then, are we learning about Congress’s ability to check a wayward president? One can conclude that in our highly polarized world, a strong-willed president like Mr. Trump can limit impeachment — and possibly wreck it.

Had a whistle-blower not raised concerns, and had those brave State Department witnesses not testified before Congress despite the president’s admonitions not to, the House Democrats would have had too little validation for their effort to bring charges. And then, because Mr. Trump’s hold over Senate Republicans seems almost cultlike, he is all but certain to be acquitted at the trial early next year.

What checks, then, remain? The unwieldy 25th Amendment, which essentially relies on the vice president to initiate the process of removal, is no real alternative, unless a president is near comatose.

That means that unless our political system undergoes a radical change, we could be on the brink of having no check on the president, no matter how radically he defies the Constitution.

“I’m absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything,” Obama said during a private event in Singapore on Monday, according to the BBC.

Democrats Win Deal to Fund Gun-Violence Research for the First Time Since 1996

...Gun violence is the least studied of 30 causes of death in America; in 2017, it led to almost 40,000 deaths, the highest toll since 1968. As the Washington Post notes, “As many people die because of gun violence, for example, as of sepsis infection, yet funding for gun research is less than 1 percent of that for sepsis.”

The problem remains under-researched due to a 1996 budget rider known as the Dickey Amendment, which effectively banned federal funds going toward research that would “advocate or promote gun control.” The rider is named after the late Republican representative Jay Dickey, who expressed regret for his contribution prior to his death in 2017.

On Tuesday, March for Impeachment
The anti-Trump majority needs to make itself seen.

...For months now, many people, myself included, have looked at mass protest movements around the world and wondered why Americans horrified by the depravity of this administration aren’t taking to the streets. Well, on Tuesday evening, in every part of the country, many will be.

Over 550 protests calling for the impeachment and removal of Trump are planned, sponsored by a coalition of progressive groups including Public Citizen, Indivisible, the Service Employees International Union and the Sierra Club. There will be at least one protest in every state. If you are disgusted by Trump’s behavior, and by the way elected Republicans have built an impenetrable wall of lies to protect him, you should go.

"We must establish a Brezhnev Doctrine for conservative gains. The Brezhnev Doctrine states that once a country becomes communist it can never change. Conservatives must establish their own doctrine and declare their victories permanent…A revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself…(W)e want to remove liberal personnel from the political process. Then we want to capture those positions of power and influence for conservatives. Stalin taught the importance of this principle."

I Headed the F.B.I. and C.I.A. There’s a Dire Threat to the Country I Love.

The rule of law is the principle that protects every American from the abuse of monarchs, despots and tyrants.

I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director is critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government.

I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director is critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government.

Over my nine-plus years as F.B.I. director, I reported to four honorable attorneys general. Each clearly understood the importance of the rule of law in our democracy and the critical role the F.B.I. plays in the enforcement of our laws. They fought to protect both, knowing how important it was that our F.B.I. remain independent of political influence of any kind.

As F.B.I. director, I served two presidents, one a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who selected me in part because I was a Republican, and one a Republican, Ronald Reagan, whom I revered. Both of these presidents so respected the bureau’s independence that they went out of their way not to interfere with or sway our activities. I never once felt political pressure.

I know firsthand the professionalism of the men and women of the F.B.I. The aspersions cast upon them by the president and my longtime friend, Attorney General William P. Barr, are troubling in the extreme. Calling F.B.I. professionals “scum,” as the president did, is a slur against people who risk their lives to keep us safe. Mr. Barr’s charges of bias within the F.B.I., made without providing any evidence and in direct dispute of the findings of the nonpartisan inspector general, risk inflicting enduring damage on this critically important institution.

The country can ill afford to have a chief law enforcement officer dispute the Justice Department’s own independent inspector general’s report and claim that an F.B.I. investigation was based on “a completely bogus narrative.” In fact, the report conclusively found that the evidence to initiate the Russia investigation was unassailable. There were more than 100 contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents during the 2016 campaign, and Russian efforts to undermine our democracy continue to this day. I’m glad the F.B.I. took the threat seriously. It is important, Mr. Wray said last week, that the inspector general found that “the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization.”

As a lawyer and a former federal judge, I made it clear when I headed both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. that the rule of law would be paramount in all we did. While both agencies are staffed by imperfect human beings, the American people should understand that both agencies are composed of some of the most law-abiding, patriotic and dedicated people I have ever met. While their faces and actions are not seen by most Americans, rest assured that they are serving our country well.

I have complete confidence in Mr. Wray, and I know that the F.B.I. is not a broken institution. It is a professional agency worthy of respect and support. The derision and aspersions are dangerous and unwarranted.

I’m profoundly disappointed in another longtime, respected friend, Rudy Giuliani, who had spent his life defending our people from those who would do us harm. His activities of late concerning Ukraine have, at a minimum, failed the smell test of propriety. I hope he, like all of us, will redirect to our North Star, the rule of law, something so precious it is greater than any man or administration.

This difficult moment demands the restoration of the proper place of the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. as bulwarks of law and order in America. This is not about politics. This is about the rule of law. Republicans and Democrats alike should defend it above all else.

In my nearly 96 years, I have seen our country rise above extraordinary challenges — the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, segregation, assassinations, the resignation of a president and 9/11, to name just a few.

I continue to believe in and pray for the ability of all Americans to overcome our differences and pursue the common good. Order protects liberty, and liberty protects order.

William Webster, a former federal judge, was director of the F.B.I. from 1978 to 1987, and director of the C.I.A. from 1987 to 1991.

Trade wars rarely have victors. They do, however, sometimes have losers. And Donald Trump has definitely turned out to be a loser.

Of course, that’s not the way he and his team are portraying the tentative deal they’ve struck with China, which they’re claiming as a triumph. The reality is that the Trump administration achieved almost none of its goals; it has basically declared victory while going into headlong retreat.

And the Chinese know it. Chinese officials are “jubilant and even incredulous” at the success of their hard-line negotiating strategy.

(...)

Justin Hendrix
@justinhendrix
In a new ABC poll, 64% of Republicans(!) say the president should allow his top aides to testify, as do 72% of independents. http://abcn.ws/2M2Ex8w

Voices From The Right: episode 1 quazillion dozen and three
We Are Republicans, and We Want Trump Defeated

The president and his enablers have replaced conservatism with an empty faith led by a bogus prophet.
By George T. Conway III, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver and Rick Wilson

Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics. As Americans, we must stem the damage he and his followers are doing to the rule of law, the Constitution and the American character.

That’s why we are announcing the Lincoln Project, an effort to highlight our country’s story and values, and its people’s sacrifices and obligations. This effort transcends partisanship and is dedicated to nothing less than preservation of the principles that so many have fought for, on battlefields far from home and within their own communities.

This effort asks all Americans of all places, creeds and ways of life to join in the seminal task of our generation: restoring to this nation leadership and governance that respects the rule of law, recognizes the dignity of all people and defends the Constitution and American values at home and abroad...

More than 700 scholars pen letter urging House to impeach Trump

A group of more than 700 historians, legal scholars and others published an open letter Monday urging the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump, denouncing his conduct as “a clear and present danger to the Constitution.”

The letter’s release comes two days before the House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment.

“President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government,” the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy...