Reading Tea Leaves

In his year-end message for 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts struck a note that might rankle with Donald Trump.  Roberts urged his colleagues to uphold the independence of the Judiciary.  Over four pages, he touts the contributions of Article 3 folks to our government and our society.

What I find especially interesting is that, while the message never explicitly refers to the upcoming impeachment trial, its yeoman's effort at celebrating the Judiciary might be a signal to Mr. Trump.  The message?  His trial will be conducted according to what Justice Roberts considers appropriate, not according to Trump's wish lists.

Domestic Terrorism

What should have been a joyful moment turned into an horrific one on Saturday, when a Hanukkah celebration in New York became a stabbing attack in which five were injured.

Full disclosure - the rest of this post aspires to being more than just another effort at Trump-bashing on my part.  It hopes to understand Trump's hold on the base of the Republican Party, and to remind that base of the Be careful what you wish for, Ensign - you may get it  eidolon.

In August, shortly after mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, Mr. Trump did his Janus thing.  He vowed to give Federal law enforcement all the tools needed to combat hate crimes and domestic terrorism.  Then, his Department of Homeland Security persisted in directing resources away from combating far-right and white-supremacist groups.  And there's more.  Courts are beginning to see what's being called the Trump defense in domestic terrorism cases, and in less weighty suits as well.   It's seen as a motive for anyone who'd like  to intimidate those he (or she, but that latter is unlikely - most crimes of violence are committed by males)  perceives as Trump's enemies.

Here's why I feel Trump-bashing is justified.  I agree with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D - CA  16th) that Mr. Trump may unintentionally have contributed to an increase in anti-Semitism.

Patriotism

Merriam-webster defines patriotism as love for or devotion to one's country.

While that definition frequently applies to the military, patriotism can't be used to justify some actions during war.  Inversely, some unexpected steps, not ordinarily seen as patriotic, may be needed to untangle political knots, such as the impeachment with which we're currently dealing.

Things to Come?

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R - AK) has become something of a profile in courage.  Her action yesterday was hardly a chasm in Republican support for Donald Trump.  But that action does suggest there's at least a hairline crack developing.  It may turn out that more of the Senate will become unwilling to go along with Mr. Trump, and Leader McConnell.

Charlie Gets It

Ex-Representative Charlie Dent (R - PA 15th), of Allentown, stated recently that he thought his party was waaaaay out on a limb in its unquestioning support of Donald Trump.

Rudy's Latest

The President's personal attorney has outdone himself.  He's come up with the mother of all conspiracy theories.  Not surprising, since, if necessity is indeed the mother of invention, Donald sure as heck needs an acquital-in-the-Sente whopper.

As reported today, Mr. Giuliani now claims that chotyry Ukrainian oligarchs had ties to - wait for it - Marie Yovanovitch, and supported her in bending or even breaking Ukrainian law.

My question: will anyone ever debunk this, and every other, Giuliani-ism?

From Publius

For those of you who aren't political junkies, Publius:

• was the pen name under which Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote and published the Federalist Papers
• is the pen name under which one of 15104's guest bloggers publishes for us

Here's our Publius' most recent contribution, having to do with the ability to rebut what may be one of Donald Trump's most-used campaign arguments: that he's done wonders for our economy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Trump vs. Obama economy

(Original source:

Heather Long  at the Washington Post)

Is a recession coming in 2020 or 2021? Experts continue to debate the conflicting signals, but an equally telling question might be: How does the “Trump economy” compare to Barack Obama’s?

President Trump constantly refers to the economy with descriptors such as “strong,” “terrific” and the “greatest in the history of our country,” but a closer look at the data shows a mixed picture in terms of whether the economy is any better than it was in Obama’s final years.

The economy is growing at about the same pace as it did in Obama’s last years, and unemployment, while lower under Trump, has continued a trend that began in 2011.

The best case Trump can make for improvement since he took office is higher wages. The typical American worker’s pay is finally growing more than 3 percent a year, a level not seen since before the Great Recession. Similarly, consumer and business confidence surged after Trump’s election and has remained high, and manufacturing output (and jobs) also saw a noticeable jump in 2018 after Trump’s tax cut, although manufacturing is now struggling. There’s also been a drop in the number of Americans on food stamps.

But in other areas, Trump’s record does not look as rosy. Government debt and the trade deficit are climbing (while most economists don’t worry about the rising trade deficit, Trump made it a central part of his 2016 election campaign), and business investment is faltering as corporate leaders say they are wary of Trump’s trade war. The number of Americans lacking health insurance is also ticking up slightly.

Tariffs could cost U.S. families up to $1,000 a year, JPMorgan forecasts. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That summarizes what Publius forwarded to me.  But some of our brothers and sisters need to see more clearly.  How's this for motivation?  Historically, incumbent Presidents who campaign on a healthy economy have been re-elected.

I shudder at the thought ...

Stacking the Deck

Ignore any rumors regarding the possible dismissal, by the Senate, of the Articles of Impeachment.

About a week ago, two Republican Senators told CNN that, should a majority of their colleagues feel the impeachment trial had run its course, the vote would be to acquit Mr. Trump.  Not to dismiss - to acquit.  As in he'd be off the hook completely.

Putin Told Him

Yesterday evening, the Washington Post published a report on Donald Trump's conversion experience - from Russia meddling with our elections, to Ukraine having done so.

According to the Post, members of the Administration asked  Mr. Trump why he'd decided it was Ukraine, not Russia, who'd tinkered with our voting in 2016.  Pressed for a response, he said "Putin told me".

You Go, Girl

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's mastery of tactics  continues to amaze and delight.

Yesterday and again this morning, she made it clear that, without some cooperation from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, she would not forward to the Senate the Articles of Impeachment approved yesterday by the House.  Pelosi wants a better understanding of how a Senate trial will be structured, as part of putting together a team of prosecutors for that trial.  (Note: there's already a set of general guidelines for such events.)

So Much for Objectivity

Sycophant in Chief Senator Lindsay Graham (R - SC) makes not the slightest pretense of fairness regarding the upcoming impeachment trial of Donald Trump.  This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly, Graham said Saturday.

If you'd like more on what to expect from Republicans in the next few days, click here

Senate Resolution 16

It's like a play-by-play before the game even begins.  The Senate of the 106th Congress (1999 - 2000) set the procedural rules for the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.  That Senate was dominated by Republicans, as is ours.  So it's not illogical to assume that the rules established then will pertain now.

Thank the Universe for the freedoms upon which this country was founded.  Include freedom of the press, and of information in general.  All of which is my way of saying there's a voluminous copy of the 1999 Senate rules and proceedings; it's a PDF of 1247 pages.  If you want to dig into it, I'd recommend you concentrate on Volume II: Floor Trial Proceedings.  That section runs from page 773 through page 1195 within the PDF.

Given the recent behavior of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, we may have to hold him and his colleagues in the Senate jury to these long-since-established  rules.

Annotated Articles of Impeachment

Unlike the humungous Mueller report, this document's an eminently manageable read - only nine pages.  Its text is pretty well evenly divided between the two Articles - Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.  Pay particular attention to page eight, and the following summation.

President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government.

Impeachable?

If arrogance and stupidity were impeachable, Donald Trump would long since have been removed from office.

Reportedly, it came as a surprise to Mr. Trump that Seoul, the capital of South Korea, and its 10 million residents, were only about 30 miles from the border with North Korea.  Despite having been briefed to that effect, Mr. Trump persisted in saying They have to move.  Those attending the briefing weren't sure if Trump was joking, since he'd been informed several times on the dangers Seoul faces.

Subsequent to this sequence of events, some within the Administration say that Mr. Trump asked advice on how to deal with North Korea from - wait for it - Vladimir Putin.

Three Questions

Why do the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

1. continue to deny facts, testified to by numerous individuals, that incriminate Donald Trump in the context of impeachment, and instead offer the canard of nullifying an election?
2. when they ruin out of other ways to undermine the positions taken by Democrats, impugn Barack Obama, overlooking the very real  probability of racist violence resulting?
3. insist on shouting; is their command of facts so thin that they feel they must substitute decibel level for cogency?

Place Your Bets

... on either or both of the following:

• how long Christopher Wray will keep his job as Director of the FBI
• how much bistha Donal;d Trump will unleash via tweet against Adam Schiff, who's rumored to be named as House Manager (AKA lead prosecutor) in Trump's upcoming Senate impeachment trial

10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ...

We appear, as a nation, to be on a countdown to chaos in governance.  If you can compile it, the example below will work.  It counts down in much the same manner as, and will produce output similar to, this post's title.

for (int i = 10; i > 0; i--) {
  cout << i << " ... " << "\n";
}

It's being widely reported tonight that articles of impeachment against Donald Trump have been prepared and will be released tomorrow, probably relatively early in the morning.  Most reports refer to two Articles - Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

It's also reported that there will be a vote on those Articles - that is, a vote to impeach - as early as Thursday.

Constitution 101: Pop Quiz 2

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of our Constitution states:

Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings ...

That being the case, what do you think Senator Mitch McConnell (R - KY), currently leader of the Republican majority in the Senate, plans to do regarding a framework for the Senate's anticipated trial of Donald Trump's impeachment?

McConnell is considered a master at manipulating rules, so don't assume that you'll agree with or approve of his decision.

Constitution 101 - Pop Quiz

If, as appears inevitable, Donald Trump goes to trial in the Senate for removal from office after impeachment, how many votes would be needed to deny him not only the Oval Office, but any office of trust or honor under the United States?

Question 2: assume that Mr. Trump is indeed removed from office.  Can he then be charged and tried for criminal conduct carried out while he was in office?

Full disclosure - the first item above is a trick question;  the answer is not  67 votes, or 2/3 of the Senate.

Constitution 101 - Impeaching a President

However much Donald Trump might believe that Article 2 of our Constitution gives him unlimited powers, he's wrong.  However much it might bite his keister to acknowledge that Congress is indeed a co-equal branch of government to "his" Article 2, he's wrong.  The Constitution gives Congress complete control over the Executive, at least as far as the bounds within which that Executive branch must operate.

Article 1 Section 2, Clause 5 states The House of Representatives  ... shall have the sole power of impeachment.  Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6 says The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.  ...  When the President ... is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside ... and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present

Sorry, Mr. Trump.

Constitution 101: Impeachment and Federalist 65

I'm a politics junkie, a progressive, and a lover of language. For all those reasons, I can imagine no better foundation for our government, and our society at large, than the Constitution and its most significant amendments. The Declaration of Independence states that the role of government is to secure unalienable rights. Trouble is, for the first few years of the United States, that laudable goal was never achieved. The Articles of Confederation, under which the nation functioned from 1777, through full ratification in 1781, till the adopting of the new Constitution in 1787, had no teeth. That is what brought about the Constitutional Convention. The new charter for our country was written in Philadelphia from May to September in 1787, as was the Bill of Rights, its first 10 Amendments. Both the core document and the Bill were fully ratified in 1789, based in part on the Federalist Papers , the latter work of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Today's post, and the rest of the group sharing the generic label Constitution 101, presents the quintessential role of the Federalist Papers  in structuring our government and society.  Alexander Hamilton anticipated, in Federalist 65, that: impeachment would divide the public at large into widely differing camps\ impeachment carries the danger that a decision would be based more on the strength of the parties than the guilt or innocence of the accused impeachment's being charged in the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate mimics the British  practice of impeaching in the House of Commons and trying in the House of Lords Come on in to the classroom for the rest of today's lecture:  impeachment as described in Federalist 65.

Karlan 1.5 Bazillion, Collins 0.371

In today's first round of impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Doug Collins (yes, that Collins) made it clear he intended to use the time-honored Republican tactic of  interrupting the proceedings at every opportunity and dismissing testimony as meaningless.

 But Mr. Co0llins hadn't reckoned with Professor Pamela Karlam ...  😄

History Repeats Itself

This past July, the Trump Administration withheld nearly a half-billion dollars (to be more precise, about $390 million) in aid, both military and more general, from Ukraine.  We've heard about the reasoning (if one can call it that) behind short-changing Ukraine   I have to wonder, though, how long it will be before we're told why military aid, to Lebanon, already appropriated by Congress, was withheld by the Trump Administration.

Today, the administration released $105 million of that aid.  This loosening of the purse strings was largely due to  criticism from legislators, as well as from current and former members of the U. S. Foreign Service.  The aid dispersed today had been held, unexplained, for months.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D - CT) traveled a few weeks ago to Lebanon, and said yesterday he could see no legitimate security rationale to withhold funding.

If You Can't Believe Fox News, Who Can You Believe?

In response to a question posed by The Economist magazine and the web site yougov.com, 53% of Republican respondents found Donald Trump a better President than Abraham Lincoln.

Click here to see this and all other results of the poll taken from Nov. 24 through Nov. 26 inclusive.  But be forewarned - the document as a whole is over 450 pages.

Doug Collins 2.0

On Saturday Nov. 30, Rep. Doug Collins (R - GA 9th), a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, insisted that further hearings into impeachment, scheduled to begin Wed. Dec. 4, should provide Republican members of the Judiciary Committee with the ability to call their own witnesses.  (One name mentioned in that context was Hunter Biden.)

Today (Sunday, Dec. 1) Rep. Collins outdid himself.  Again championing the idea that Republican members of Judiciary should have their own witness list, Collins took it a step further.  He insisted that such a list must include Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee and primary compiler of that Committee's report on the impeachment inquiry so far.  Collins justified this patently partisan choice of Schiff as witness by saying that Rep. Schiff had, on several occasions, tinkered with evidence.

I choose to call statements of that nature slander.  Here are other names for it.

December 6

That's when the:marhasag will hit the fan in the House Judiciary Committee.  Meanwhile, The Republican ranking member of that Committee sent a letter to the (Democratic) chairman on Saturday, requesting extra witnesses be added to the committee's first impeachment hearing, scheduled for Wednesday, December 4.  The ranking member, Doug Collins, also asked that Republicans have the opportunity to select some of those witnesses.

They might get "extra" testifiers, but I doubt they'll get the chance to decide who those folks should be.  To think otherwise would be to fall into a fox / hen-house type of reasoning.

Back in the Day ...

Peter Baker's book The Breach details the impeachment in 1998, and the Senate trial in 1999, of William Jefferson Clinton.  The volume's final chapter, The Most Difficult, Wrenching, and Soul-Searching Vote, describes just as fully the management of the case being brought against the President  by - wait for it - Mitch McConnell .

Even factors like the order in which Senators spoke (AKA "testified") in favor or against any of the Articles of Impeachment are outlined, as are:

• jockeying among Senators for advantageous positions in the order of speakers
• infighting among the president's advisers
• pressure among Democrats to call for Clinton's resignation
• the War Room set up by Tom DeLay to force Clinton out of office
• the anxiety of some lawmakers who feared the exposure of their own secrets

Given that management of the process coming to the Senate soon is even more firmly Mr. McConnell's grip, and that most Republican Senators exist in a chimera of belief in Mr. Trump, we could very well see at least some of these circumstances repeat themselves.

Doggone Nice

I can't take credit for the pun, but the folks at the Fort Worth, Texas Animal Care & Control Center can, as well as for a simple, sweet act of kindness.

For Once, He Did the Right Thing

Earlier today, Donald Trump signed legislation whose purpose is, at least in part, protecting pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.  Reportedly, Senator Mitch McConnell urged Mr. Trump to sign the bill into law.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Everything you ever wanted to know about them but were afraid to ask ...

Here's How It'll Go Down

On Wednesday, December 4, a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee will take place.  That hearing will, in the words of Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D - NY), serve as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers' intent and understanding of terms like 'high crimes and misdemeanors.

Despite repeated claims by Donald Trump and his supporters that the ongoing impeachment inquiry is a hoax and a sham, Chairman Nadler sent a letter to Trump today, notifying him of the hearing, and inviting him or his counsel to participate, up to and including the point of questioning witnesses.  Further, Nadler said We expect to discuss the constitutional framework through which the House may analyze the evidence gathered in the present inquiry ... as well as ... whether your alleged actions warrant the House's exercising its authority to adopt articles of impeachment.

That latter charge is still subject to the conditions high crimes and misdemeanors.  Those conditions include but aren't limited to such misconduct by officials as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order,  and more.

Sounds like a LinkedIn page for The Donald ...

A Change of Pace

All the News That Fits, We Print

 

 

from Routers Broadcasting

Tech-Head Society to attempt to save the world

Considers forming a new group dedicated to public service

This reporter has learned that some folks are considering forming an ad-hoc group, Tentatively titled Geeks for Peace and Justice, or GPJ .  The new group hopes to carry out public-service IT projects.

Seems like a natural progression, said one prospective member. After all, we’re people who’re interested in things like Linux, Apache, PHP, MySQL – you know – stuff that works. By definition, then, we’re fairly intelligent and reasonably enlightened. So, you know, we just thought we ought to share some of that around a little bit. After all, you can find truth in lots of places besides tables.

If you get that last groaner, or even if you don't, GPJ wants to talk to you, perhaps even to recruit you.  There is one glitch. Group meetings will have to take place either at 368 Smitbridge Road (also known as the headquarters of Routers Broadcasting), or online. Whether in person or by the Internets, we can discuss how to develop the idea suggested above. So give it some thought.

Should enough of you express a real interest, we can begin to set up meetings via the Manhattan Virtual Classroom that can run on whatever server we establish. Check your schedulers, and let me know if you'd like to queue up for this effort. It promises stacks of fun.  One last thing. Besides the already-cited groaner, there are several puns in this page, that use techie terms as the basis for humor. Don't thrash around; have some fun, and see how many you can find..

Getting in touch with GPJ

GPJ hopes to be unique - an online discussion board without angst or invective. So send us your thoughts on possible projects for the group. But remember  Drudge doppelgangers need not correspond.

Email us with your thoughts for GPJ.

No One Is Above the Law

So says Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.  In her ruling today, she cleared the way for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify to the Intelligence Committee in the House as part of their impeachment inquiry.

Jackson certainly didn't do a rush job; her ruling was 118 pages.  In it, she stated  no one is above the law, and  added However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires.

And it gets better.  The ruling could encourage other witnesses, like former national security adviser John Bolton, to come in from the cold, so to speak, and to testify in response to House subpoenas.

Et Tu, Devin?

Reports circulate that Rep. Devin Nunes (R - CA   22nd District), one of the most strident supporters of Donald Trump during the impeachment inquiry, may himself become subject to investigation.

Lev Parnas claims to have worked with Rudy Giuliani.  Their goal, according to Parnas, was to promote the theory that Democrats engaged with Ukraine in corrupt practices/.  Parnas alleged further that Nunes took part in meetings focused on getting dirt on the Bidens.

A Principled Stance

It's reported today that Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Navy, is strongly considering resigning.  Several of his colleagues say he will do so if Donald Trump signs an order to end a probe by the Navy of alleged war crimes.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump involved himself  in the case of Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, who's been accused of murdering a wounded ISIS militant in Iraq in 2017. Gallagher was acquitted of this crime by a military court, but found guilty of posing with the dead prisoner's body.

Without a written order from the Commander in Chief, the Navy plans to move forward with the review process.  Stay tuned ...

Lord Have Mercy

No matter how one translates that phrase:

• Gospdaru imaj milosti              Bosnian
• Ambuye chifundo                     Chechwa, a Bantu language   
• Heer, geb genade                    Dutch
• Bhagavana daya karo             Gujarati
• Omo wa jihi o motte imasu     Japanese
• Xudan rheme                           Kurdish
• Herre vis nade                         Norwegian
• Hospody pomyluy                   as my baba used to say in Ruthenian

... why cite all these ways to pray for mercy?

Today, on Fox and Friends, Donald Trump disclosed that he distrusted former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch because she never hung his portrait on the wall of our Embassy in Kiev.  In the same interview, Mr. Trump called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi paralyzed, totally incompetent, absolutely lost, crazy as a bedbug, simply nuts, not talented, and highly overrated .

Colloquialisms are tough to transl;ate, so I can't claim I ever heard her say it.  But I'm sure my baba would have agreed that Donald Trump often acts as a pot calling a kettle black, or:

Horshchyk zustrity chaynyk

To Dream the Impossible Dream

Throughout the impeachment inquiry, Donald Trump's defenders, and Mr. Trump himself, have cited his "landslide" victory in the Electoral College in 2016.  Trouble is, that's wrong.  Merriam-Webster defines landslide as a great majority of votes, an overwhelming victory, or winning an election by a huge majority.  Those frames don't fit the Electoral College.

Let's do the arithmetic.  There are a total of 538 votes available in the Electoral College.  One can reasonably assume that an overwhelming victory in that venue would require about 376. votes - roughly 70%.   Even at 60%, hardly a big enough margin to characterize as overwhelming, 323 Electoral votes would be needed.  In 2016, Donald Trump got 304 votes, or approximately 56%.  A majority, but not a huge one.

The popular vote in 2016 paints a different picture.  According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Hillary Clinton garnered 65,844,610 votes; Donald Trump managed  62,979,636.  That's a difference of 2,864,974. The total number of votes for all other candidates  were 7,804,213, making a grand total of over 136,627,000 popular votes.  In that context, while still not a landslide, Clinton's victory was statistically more impressive than Trump's in the Electoral College:

• Electoral College Trump percentage: 56%
• Popular vote Trump percentage: 46%

No wonder Mr. Trump claimed that millions of illegal (AKA immigrant) votes were cast for Secretary Clinton, and that but for those votes, he would have won the popular vote as well as tat in the Electoral College.

After You ... No, After You

Today, Gordon Sondland again revised his testimony in the House impeachment inquiry.  He threw all of Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, and Mike Pompeo under the bus.

The Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee reciprocated, by trying to throw Mr. Sondland under a different bus.

To me it was clear.  Sondland was and is deeply committed to CYA, and to avoiding perjury charges.  He didn't plead the Fifth Amendment; doing so might have proved problematic.  But by presenting a memory as full of holes as Swiss cheese, Sondland managed to shift blame away from himself and to the Trump administration.

Republicans as Lilliputians

Jonathan Swift's fictional characters, Lilliputians , have been described as people only six inches tall, but with a full share of arrogance and self-importance.  The list below offers synonyms for lilliputian from vocabulary.com .  All of these seem germane to the behavior today of the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee.

• fiddling 
• little 
• niggling
• petty
• picayune
• piddling
• piffling
• trivial 

If Only

... Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee - folks like Jim Jordan  - had half the grace and dignity that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman demonstrated today.

If You're Gordon Sondland

... you know you're in trouble when:

• you testiy
• you re-testify, changing some of what you originally revealed
• you're called to testify a third time, on Wednesday 11/20
• your attorneys suggest that you may exercise your rights under the Fifth Amendment that day
• you find out that, having already altered your testimony, you have in effect waived your right to the Fifth

Again, If You're Donald Trump

... you know you're in trouble when two Republican gubernatorial candidates for whom you campaigned in the past couple of weeks - one in Kentucky and  one in Louisiana - each lost.

If You're a Senate Republican

... and in particular if you're Cory Gardner, Susan Collins, Lindsay Graham, John Cornyn, Tim Scott, or Martha McSally, you're in trouble.  As Donald Trump's approval numbers have waned, so have yours.

How's this for a trifecta?  After Nov. 3, 2020, progressives may hold not only the House of Representatives, but also the Senate, and even the White House ...

If You're Donald Trump

... you know you're in trouble when Fox News, while the witness is still testifying, criticizes your treatment of that witness in the impeachment inquiry.

A Real Scandal

There's an ongoing scandal that  has nothing to do with politics, Donald Trump, the irresponsibility of Congressional Republicans, or impeachment.  I offer the link and info below in an effort to lighten 15104's tone, at least today.

Major League Baseball has begun an investigation into the Houston Astros' alleged use of video and other similar technologies to steal signs.

Yet another reason why I love our national pastime ...

A Mini-Thesaurus

Mine (below) explores my reaction to the conduct of Republican members and staff during today's impeachment inquiry hearing.

• abrasive
• abusive
• aggressive
• arrogant
• bellicose
• delusional
• hateful
• mean-spirited
• self-serving
• slanderous
• snarky
• sycophantic

If You're a Republican

... you know you're in trouble when George Conway says that Donald Trump is incapable of carrying out the duties of his office, and should be removed.

Make Lots of Popcorn, and Set your DVR

Tomorrow (Wednesday Nov. 12, 2019) at 10:00 AM, televised hearings in the inquiry into impeaching Donald Trump will begin.

Here's a program / scorecard / schedule.

DACA, Donald, and John Roberts

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments brought by the Trump administration in its effort to gut the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). program.

Like so much that chafes Mr. Trump's butt, DACA was begun, and proved a success by, Barack Obama.  So, despite all levels of the Federal judiciary having upheld the program, its fate will now be decided by SCOTUS. 

Enter Chief Justice John Roberts.  His vote with the Court's four liberal members (Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor) could preserve DACA in the same way it helped keep the Affordable Care Act alive.

Transfinite

The number of apologists for Donald Trump continues to approach the transfinite.

Yesterday, in an interview with the Washington Post, Nikki Haley joined the ranks.  Haley, at one time the ambassador from the United States to the United Nations, disclosed to the Post (and in a book about to be published) that she'd been approached by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former Chief of Staff John Kelly.  According to Haley, those gentlemen wanted to recruit her to join them in an effort to "restrain the President" and "save the country".

In an interview with CBS over the weekend, Haley stated To undermine a President is really a very dangerous thing. And it goes against the Constitution and it goes against what the American people want. It was offensive.

That approach might help sales of Haley's book, and her apparent campaign to lead the post-Trump Republican party.  But to me, Chris Cilliza of CNN nailed it with this statement.

... [W]hat, to me, is the most important part of the story is that both of these  ... Cabinet officials,  ... hand-picked for their roles by the President  ...  quickly and clearly assessed that the man they were working for was an active danger to the country.

 

Little Michael?

The Donald might want to be more careful in choosing insults.  Recently, in response to the possibility of a new candidate for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination, Trump referred to Michael Bloomberg as little Michael.

It's long been speculated that Mr. Trump wants no release of his tax returns, because those documents would demonstrate he's nowhere near as wealthy as he claims.  Such speculation continues to gain credibility.  Yesterday, Bloomberg's net worth was estimated at about $52 billion, while Trump's came in at only about $3 billion.

Not also that Mr. Bloomberg's government experience is vastly more extensive than Mr. Trump's ...

Kurds and Ukrainians

It appears that Donald Trump cares as little for Ukrainians as he's shown he does for other groups.  By caving to Putin and Erdogan, Mr. Trump may have caused the death of thousands of Kurds.  By withholding arms and other assistance from Ukraine, even in the short term, he may cause the same or worse in that nation.

In the period from April 2014 to December 2018,  the United Nations estimates that 12,000 - 13,000 Ukrainians were killed as a result of the conflict between their country and Russia.  Of these, more than 3,300 were civilians.

Reading Political Tea Leaves

­­

Three elections last night might foreshadow major weeping, wailing, and tooth-gnashing by Republicans in general, and by Donald Trump in particular. Let's start with a scorecard of sorts. Delaware County's Council is now under complete Democratic control for the first time since the Civil War Virginia's State legislature is similarly completely controlled by Democrats Kentucky's gubernatorial race was won by a Democrat

		That last point has particular relevance to the upcoming 2020 Federal elections. Monday night, Mr. Trump campaigned for Matt Bevin, the Republican candidate and incumbent governor. In 2015, Bevin won the Governor's mansion by 15 points; in 2016, Trump won Kentucky by 30 points. But yesterday, all that went down the tubes. That's because, in particular in Kentucky and in a manner reminiscent of the 2018 midterm elections, two voting blocks turned from red to blue. Foremost among them:
		white, college-educated suburban women blue-oollar males Teachers across the state, and coal miners in eastern Kentucky, turned out in numbers much higher than expected. It's safe to say their votes for Beshear were essentially a referendum of no confidence in Donald Trump. Mr. Trump, at his "get Bevin over the finish line" rally Monday night, framed the Kentucky gubernatorial race as validation for himself and his Presidency. Be careful what you wish for, Donald ...

Putting Cart Before Horse

Or in this case, assignment before content.

Constitution 101, as I've come to call this variety of posts, arose from my sense of awe over the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments to our Constitution.  But there are many other Amendments that have played as critical a role in shaping our society as has the Bill.

That being the case, I'm going to give you an assignment, based on the 13th and 14th Amendments.  Each of those has a relationship to the end of slavery in this country.  Which of the two abolished that nightmarish institution, and which ensured those who survived it were granted full citizenship?

Email me at:

Bodhi Mickie

The first correct answer wins a slot as guest blogger ...

Get a Grip, Gohmert

Louis Gohmert represents the 1st Congressional District in Texas.  He's done so since 2005.

As an early adherent to Tea Party and even tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories, Gohmert has a history of outrageous comments.   But this past Thursday, he outdid himself.  As has become so much the practice on the far right, Gohmert threw really red meat to the Republican (Trumpian?) base, claiming that the impeachment inquiry would force the United States into a civil war.

How long will it take for these whackamoles to understand that their florid rhetoric is taken seriously by some?  How many Charlottesvilles or Tree of Life?

Second Amendmnent Remedies

In 2010, Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate who won the Republican primary that year in Nevada,  broached the idea, during a radio interview, that the public had the right to bring down an out-of-control Congress with Second Amendment remedies.

Statements like that have contributed to the ever-more-frequent and ever-more horrific mass murders we've lived through since 2010.  Too many people misunderstand the Second Amendment.  They read it as Go out and get the biggest, most bad-ass gun you can find, and feel free to use it to blow away anyone whom you can't convince to agree with you.  That's not what the Framers had in mind.

As a student of language, I pay attention even to small details like punctuation.  In many cases, like The Second Amendment, punctuation can be considered the analog in rhetoric to rhythm or cadence in music. And the Second Amendment is replete with commas.

Its author James Madison, in Federalist 46, explained those marks:  During the ratification debate, many Americans feared that the federal government would become too powerful and too similar to the monarchy in Great Britain. Madison calculated while writing Federalist 46 that the standing military, controlled by the federal government, should be kept under a maximum of 30,000 troop.  Then, the people themselves, working through state governments, could extend efforts to to protect themselves from the the threat that might be posed by a standing arm.  Federalist 46 suggests an aggregate total militia of 500,000.

Here's how Madison described it.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Bold and italics mine.  Madison's concern was the ability of the public to contribute to its own defense and freedom.  He went so far as to say that if  European monarchies / tyrannies had to operate under the conditions prescribed in and for the Second Amendment, they would be speedily overturned.

Sorry, Sharon (and those who agree with her).  The Second Amendment protects the ability of governments. local, state, and federal, to protect the public.  Nothing more.

The Nats Are Champs in More Than One Way

Yesterday, it was confirmed that Sean Doolittle, a relief pitcher for the World Champion Washington Nationals, would decline an invitation to the White House.

Doolittle chose not to attend the ceremony slated for Monday. He's the first Nat to do so publicly.  Meanwhile, there have been reports that a handful of his teammates are considering taking the same step.

In an interview with The Washington Post Friday night, Doolittle explained his reasoning, which includes not compromising his beliefs, as well as an aversion to Donald Trump’s actions and policies.

Like I said - a champ in more than one way ...

Freedom of Assembly

­

Yet another reason to praise the drafters of our Constitution. The First Amendment guarantees not only the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, but also the right to affiliate with organizations. The terms freedom of assembly and freedom of association attempt to distinguish between: the right to assemble in public places, and the right to join an organization The term freedom of assembly, in Constitution-speak, often indicates the right to protest. Freedom of association, on the other hand, generally enters the realm of labor rights, and in the Constitution is usually interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association such as a labor union.

Freedom of Assembly and Association ... Assignment

For each of these cases: protests against the Vietnam War at the University of Pittsburgh protests at Chatham College in Pittsburgh against the same conflict/li> protests by faculty and staff at Gwynedd - Mercy College against the Iraq War describe, in a brief paragraph, whether the event in question more closely reflects freedom of assembly or of association.

Freedom of Assembly and Association ... More Resources

Each of the resources below can give you further insight into Freedom of Assembly and Association as defined in the First Amendment: First Amendment - Freedom of Assembly The Right of Association

Prosecuting Impeachment

In  January of 1998, there were  13 prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.  Such trials require one or more members of the House of Representatives to present to the jury of Senators one or more of the points with which the defendant is charged.  Those de facto prosecutors are referred to as House managers.

While it has never been applied to a President's impeachment, there are a few cases on record that involved a defense attorney in the Senate trial  , in addition to the corps of House managers.  Finally, note also that there need not be a full Senate present when the time comes to arrive at a verdict.  Article 1 Section 3 of our Constitution states that the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments… no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present".  

Not legally holding a seat - just present.  AKA in the chamber.

Historic

That's what this morning's tally in the House of Representatives was - historic.

By a vote of 233 to 196, the Resolution that will structure the remainder of the effort to impeach Donald Trump passed.

Reading the tea leaves as to what might happen next, we turn to 538 (Nate Silver's shop), which has one of the best records going for predicting this kind of thing.

What's Next

Yesterday, the House released a draft of the Resolution that outlines procedures for the impeachment process going forward.  Like so many government documents, its wording is both stiff, and voluminous, so I've summarized it here.  Note that, far from being slanted or in any other way glossing over Constitutional responsibilities, as has been asserted by Republican members of the House, the Resolution appears eminently fair.

---

• Adam Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, shall (note the verb - not "can", but "shall") set up open (AKA public) hearings
• Both the majority and the minority members of the Committee shall have equal time to ask questions at those hearings.
• Questions can be delegated to staff\
• The ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation
• The ranking member may issue subpoenas for depositions, testimony, and records of a number of kinds
• Schiff can make publicly available in electronic form transcripts of depositions and testimony
• The chair of any other committee having custody of records (e.g., Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means) will continue their ongoing investigations, and, upon completion of those investigations, transfer, along with the Intelligence Committee, any resulting records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
• The Judiciary Committee can then conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry, in accordance with procedures needed for printing in the Congressional Record.
• Such  procedures must allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
• The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations.

Articles of Impeachment - A Crystal Ball

Given the political climate in which we've lived for the past few weeks, I think it instructive to examine the process of impeachment more closely.  I'll start that examination today, with an edited (by me) copy of the three articles of impeachment issued by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974.

The edits shouldn't be considered analogs of redactions.  My goal in introducing a number of elipses wasn't to mask any information that might seem to support Donald Trump.   Rather, I'm simply trying to pare down the legal-speak without distorting underlying meaning.  Note also that the italics and bold you'll see below were present in the original.

One more thought.  We'll almost certainly, and probably within the next few weeks, see such an indictment of Donald Trump; there's an eerie similarity between what Nixon was charged with, (abuse of power in Article 1r, obstructing justice in Article 2, and contempt of Congress in Article 3) and what we've all seen Trump carry out.

---

Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.
 
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate: 

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE I

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.
Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. 

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
...

8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
 
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE II

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.  This conduct has included one or more of the following:

1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
 ...

4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities
 ...

ARTICLE III
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

---

Article I was approved by a vote of 27-11. Article II was approved by a vote of 28-10. Article III was approved by a vote of 21-17.

Freedom of the Press

­

Decades before there was a United States of America, the groundwork had been laid to protect freedom of the press. In 1735, John Peter Zenger, a journalist and publisher in New York, was charged with libel. After more than eight months in prison, Zenger went to trial. The jury returned in ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty. In defending Zenger, his lawyers established the precedent that a statement, even if defamatory, is not libelous if it can be proved. That was the begining of freedom of the press in America. Even when set aside by the powerful, freedom of the press could not be ignored. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln ordered Union Gen. John Dix to stop publication of the New York Journal of Commerce and the New York World, because they'd published a forged presidential proclamation calling for another military draft. The editors were arrested. But after the authors of the initial forgery were identified, the newspapers were allowed to resume publication. In 1952, he U.S. Supreme Court uphelde conviction of a white supremacist for passing out leaflets that characterized African Americans as dangerous and criminals. The group libel law under which the supremacist was prosecuted makes it a crime to make false statements about people of a particular race, color, creed or religion for no other reason than to harm that group. The Court also ruled that libel against groups, like libel against individuals, has no role in the marketplace of ideas.

Freedom of the Press: Assignment

For each of these cases: the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in the Pentagon Papers case Michael Moore's quoting George Orwell in the film Farenheit 911 cite what you consider to be the aspect of the case in which the First Amendment's suppoort of freedom of the press had the most impact (e.g., Moore's implying the wealthy did not bear an adequate share of the burden of national security)

Freedom of the Press: More Material

Each of the resources below can give you further insight into the relationship between the Federalist Papers, and Freedom of the Press as defined in the First Amendment: First Amendment - Freedom of the Press Federalist # 84 Jefferson, the First Amendment, and Freedom of the Press