Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:04 pm

Bob Woodward has blood on his hands

Filed under: Evil — Lex @ 7:04 pm
Tags: , , ,

Bob Woodward knew early this year that Donald Trump understood early on that COVID-19 would be a dangerous epidemic but denied that for weeks and called the pandemic a “hoax.” Had Woodward reported that at the time he knew it, he might have saved tens of thousands of lives. Instead, he held onto that information to drive up sales of his book. And now, as I write, we’re a tad shy of 190,000 COVID-19 deaths, most of which could have been prevented had Woodward acted.

Woodward’s behavior has been called an example of the “beyondist personality,” author David Dark’s word for one who speaks of himself “as operating outside of ‘politics’ & thereby capable of opining & weighing in magically above the fray.” But there’s no such thing. What Woodward did is sociopathy, plain and simple, and no different from Trump’s. And not just Woodward but also the top managers of The Washington Post have blood on their hands for letting Woodward delay the release of this information.

Friday, August 14, 2020 7:00 pm

Here’s how to get Postmaster General Louis DeJoy fired and charged for his role in Trump’s attempt to steal the election

UPDATE: Added all members of the Board of Governors (h/t @DataAndPolitics)
UPDATE: Corrected email address (h/t @C0URTNEE)
Robert M. Duncan: mduncan@inezdepositbank.com
John Barger: barger.jm@gmail.com
Ron Bloom: ron.bloom@brookfield.com
Roman Martinez: roman@rmiv.com
Donald Moak: lee.moak@moakgroup.com
Wiliam Zollers: directoraccessmailbox@cigna.com

Dear Members of the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors:

I write to you in your capacity as members of the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors to ask you to remove Louis DeJoy as Postmaster General and refer his case to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
As postmaster general, DeJoy has introduced slowdowns in mail delivery and removal of sorting equipment and postal boxes without adequate explanation. He has done this, according to President Donald J. Trump, for the express purpose of hindering delivery of mail-in ballots for the Nov. 3, 2020, general election.
In so doing, he has committed criminal violation of 18 USC 241 (felony conspiracy to deny civil rights), 18 USC 595 (election interference) and 18 USC 1703 (felony interference with mail delivery by a member of the U.S. Postal Service), whence my request for a criminal referral.
I look forward to the board’s prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Hooper “Lex” Alexander IV
(address)
Greensboro, NC 2740X
(phone)

Wednesday, July 15, 2020 5:57 pm

U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis: “Look! A squirrel!”

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote both of my congresscritters, demanding to know what they were going to do about Trump letting Russia get away with putting bounties on the heads of U.S. service members in Afghanistan. My senior senator, Richard Burr, who says he will retire after the 2022 elections, responded almost immediately but said he was still waiting to find out more about the situation. Inasmuch as he is chairman of the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I seriously doubted that there was much more he needed to know, but at least he responded — a low bar, but significant for a guy who’s retiring.

My junior senator, Thom Tillis, who’s running for re-election this year, took a while longer to write back. And I’ll let you read what he wrote verbatim:

Dear Mr. Alexander:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the reports that Russian military operatives offered bounties to Taliban and Taliban-affiliated militants to attack United States and coalition servicemembers in Afghanistan. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, on June 26, 2020, the New York Times published an article alleging Russian GRU operatives provided “bounties” to Taliban and Taliban-affiliated militants as payment for attacking U.S. and other Western coalition forces deployed in Afghanistan. According to the New York Times article, the anonymous American officials based their assessment primarily on intelligence obtained from interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.

While American Intelligence agencies have not yet been verified these reports, I take them incredibly seriously. No nation or terrorist group should escape retribution after targeting American troops or civilians.

Therefore, I called for the United States to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, if the intelligence community corroborates and verifies the allegations made in the New York Times report. Designating Russia as a state sponsor of terror is one of the strongest actions the administration could take against Putin, and it would instantly force Russia into pariah status with the international community.

As the intelligence community works to verify the intelligence, I will continue to carefully monitor the U.S. operations in Afghanistan and our national security interests in the broader region. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to attend any classified briefings on this matter.

Moving forward, it is imperative the United States continues to oppose Putin’s destabilizing tactics designed to divide and mislead us. Russia remains an authoritarian police state committed to undermining the interests of the United States and our allies and partners. In recent years Putin has illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula, waged expansionist wars against Georgia and Ukraine, attempted to interfere in elections in the United States and other democracies. He now threatens our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland. Russia has also shamefully chosen support the foremost state sponsor of global terror, Iran, a regime that continues to support war criminal Bashar al-Assad and his grip on power in Syria.

For these reasons, I support taking tough punitive actions against Russia, including the use of crippling financial sanctions to pressure Putin to stop continued Russian aggression.

Thank you again for contacting me, and I will keep your views in mind. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again about other issues that are important to you.

 

Sincerely,

Thom Tillis

U.S. Senator

We’ll talk in a minute about what he said, but first I’d like to talk about what he didn’t say.

He never mentioned Trump’s name.

He never mentioned the president in any way.

He basically ignored the thrust of my question in the hopes that I wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care.

In so doing, he made it clear that he is ride-or-die Trump, that there is nothing Trump could do that would cost him Tillis’s support.

Uh-oh. I noticed. (And now, so have you.)

And there is nothing Tillis can do that would lead me to do anything but vote for his Democratic opponent, Cal Cunningham. If you can’t vote for Cal, please send him money. This race could dictate control of the Senate come 2021. And I don’t have to tell you how important that is.

 

 

 

Tuesday, February 11, 2020 6:28 pm

Today is the day the United States became an autocracy

We are in a very bad place. We need to vote Trump out in November. And God help us if we do not, because no decent person will be safe.

I’ve said, on here and on social media, that there is no bottom to what Trump and the GOP are willing to do, and today we got proof of it.

Longtime GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone who has thumbed his nose at the law pretty much his entire adult life and who was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in the Mueller investigation, is going to be sentenced. Federal prosecutors recommended a sentence within the appropriate sentencing guidelines — a range of roughly seven to nine years.

Then, later today, after tweets from Trump that the proposed sentence for Trump was far too excessive, the Justice Department said it would be recommending a much lower sentence for Stone. It also said that what the career prosecutors had recommended had never been communicated to their higher-ups.

Obviously, the safest course in any situation is to assume that Bill Barr’s Justice Department is lying. But that was particularly obvious in this case because not only did all four career prosecutors assigned to the case withdraw from it after Justice’s statement, one of them also quit the Justice Department entirely. Lawyer Twitter seems to have never seen anything like it. Neither have I.

Make no mistake: Trump and Barr are using the power of the Justice Department to protect their political friends. And if you think they won’t also use that power to attack and punish their political enemies, you are 12 different kinds of stupid. Trump, particularly has a vengeful streak a mile wide, a product of his malignant narcissism. And Barr has shown no inclination to press his boss to stay within law and ethics. To the contrary, he has facilitated his boss’s every illegal desire.

Today is the day the United States became an autocracy. Newspapers and cable news won’t say that, but I will because it’s true. We are in a very bad place. We need to vote Trump out in November. And God help us if we do not, because no decent person will be safe.

UPDATE: Senate Republicans just blocked three election-security bills. Sleep well, America.

Thursday, December 19, 2019 12:52 pm

Impeachment is only the beginning

I know you don’t want to, but please do me a favor and watch the three-minute pre-impeachment speech given last night by U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., because I think you need to see and hear it to understand just how much danger the country would remain in even if Donald J. Trump disappeared tomorrow.

After the votes last night to impeach Trump, MSNBC commentator Nicolle Wallace, a former Bush 43 administration official, decried the “cheap tribalism” of Congressional Republicans, calling it “sad.”

Well, don’t be sad, be terrified, because the problem with Republicans goes way further than “cheap tribalism.” The party has been on an unbroken 50-year slide toward dictatorship, and it shows no signs whatever of being ready to get off the ride. Trump is merely the logical, predictable, and predicted result of that slide, a symptom and not the disease.

Indeed, Trump could be gone tomorrow and we would still have to reckon with the fact that one of our two major parties has forsworn constitutional democracy in pursuit of absolute, dictatorial power. The GOP is now the party of treason, not nearly enough Americans understand that, and not nearly enough of those who understand it are saying so, including our so-called liberal media.

Again, if you doubt me, welp, just watch Nunes’s speech (or Mitch McConnell’s much longer speech from this morning, embedded below), in which Nunes ludicrously insists that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who colluded with Russia. While Nunes was last seen suing an imaginary cow, he cannot be underestimated because his speech is weapons-grade batshit and Reichstag-fire evil — and there’s not a Republican man or woman in the House or Senate who doesn’t agree with him.

I don’t know how you fight an entire party, but I do know that it starts with not giving them a single vote and denouncing them at every opportunity. But if we don’t fight it, America’s 232-year experiment with constitutional republican government could be over not in years, but in months.

(Here’s McConnell’s speech.)

 

Saturday, December 14, 2019 2:12 pm

We’re not nearly as worried about 2020 election security as we should be

Earlier today I started a Twitter thread on this subject. It ended up being long enough that Twitter was a cumbersome format for reading it, so I’m combining the thread and reposting the content here, with a bit of editing and formatting to make it more like a regular blog post.

A thread of uncertain length on 2020 election security:

I think that up to now, GOP attacks on an honest voting system have been attenuated: They wanted just enough votes to win without, they hoped, attracting much attention. And I think it’s fair to say that that’s what they’ve gotten.

When Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, illegally kicked a bunch of Florida voters off the rolls just before the 2000 election, the attention in the immediate aftermath of the election wasn’t on that act. Rather, it was on recounts, stopping recounts, and hanging ballot chads – all of which were important but missed the bigger picture. It took the investigative work of reporter Greg Palast to bring the voter-roll purge to detailed light in a chapter of his 2002 book, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.”

In 2004, the issues seemed to revolve around the state of Ohio rather than Florida, and its secretary of state. There were reports of voting-machine malfunctions and other irregularities that seemed to suggest the possibility of sabotage. But nothing was ever conclusively proven.

Then Obama got elected, and the Republicans seemed to recognize the need for more and better ways to fix the vote. Vote suppression seemed the way to go, which is why Chief Justice John Roberts practically went case-shopping to get Shelby County v. Holder before the high court.

(It didn’t help that Dems stayed home in droves in 2010 because they were mad that Obama didn’t give them a rainbow single-payer health-insurance unicorn or whatever. That temper tantrum put a lot of psycho Republicans in power at all levels and, in Congress, often at the cost of Dems who had voted for the Affordable Care Act.)

Immediately after Shelby County — and I mean “immediately”; some of the bills were pre-written — GOP legislatures across the country began enacting vote-suppression measures. One was voter ID, based on fictitious claims that in-person vote fraud was a widespread problem. Such requirements, of course, usually were accompanied by measures that severely limited the types and availability of complying ID. No state university ID cards, for instance. Availability was limited by limiting the number of locations where one could obtain valid ID, which put a huge burden on people without reliable transportation — the people who disproportionately are minorities and vote Democratic.

And voter-roll purging became more widespread, led by transparent opportunists like then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, whose “Crosscheck” program – a sloppy way of matching voter names against lists of convicted felons, say – was adopted by Republicans in more states. (The fact that such efforts appeared to be felony violations of 18 USC 241 was widely overlooked.)

But even that wasn’t enough for the Republicans, so Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign accepted the fruits of Russian hacking of Democrats’ computers.  (The Russians also hacked GOP computers, and while there’s no proof, it’s a popular theory that they found info with which to blackmail some GOP officials into doing their bidding.) And let us not forget Russian manipulation of social media to influence public opinion, using messages targeted to many different relatively small groups of people to try to influence outcomes at the margins.

The result, of course, was that while Trump lost the 2016 popular vote by almost 3 million votes, he won the Electoral College by a mere 80,000 votes divided among just three states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

(And don’t get me started on the Electoral College: Its purpose, per the Federalist Papers, was to prevent the election of a demagogue. It has failed in that purpose twice in the past 20 years. Its real purpose was to get slave-owning states to ratify the Constitution, and it serves no useful purpose today and should be scrapped lest our future be that of minority governance. But that’s an issue for a different thread.)

So we know what happened in 2016: Far from being an awful candidate, Hillary Clinton could be defeated only by a perfect storm of a slave-era election mechanism, Russian election sabotage in cahoots with Trump’s campaign, GOP vote suppression, and possible machine hacking.

(The lousy news media coverage of the campaign also immeasurably helped Trump, as did James Comey’s bogus announcement of possible new evidence against Clinton right before the election. But those, too, are subjects for another thread.)

So Trump got in and started criming on Day 1 with violations of the Emoluments Clause. He has crimed away since while weakening our global standing, viciously attacking our most vulnerable Americans, betraying our national security and our allies, and ignoring the existential disaster that is climate change. His popularity remains underwater, and a slight majority of Americans favors his impending impeachment.

Regarding that impeachment: I am under no illusions that the GOP-controlled Senate will vote to convict. McConnell and his party are too corrupt. So our only way of getting rid of this agent of a hostile foreign power is at the polls on Nov. 3.

The problem for the Republicans is that they have become so corrupt, and their corruption so thoroughly intertwined with Trump’s, that they cannot allow Trump to be beaten. If he is, not only is it game over for him, with indictments likely the instant he leaves office, but it’s also game over for them — their tax cuts, their appointment and confirmation of inept and corrupt judges, their profiting from the school-to-prison pipeline and for-profit corrections, and so many, many other scams, particularly if Warren or Sanders wins.

So Republicans must win in 2020 by any means necessary. Any. Means. Necessary. And that means not just stealing the presidency again. That means congressional races, legislative races, you name it. The alternative is too frightening for them to contemplate.

And why shouldn’t they? It’s not like we have a lot of ways to detect and stop it even after the fact, let alone in real time. For example, international voting-rights groups have found that comparing exit polling against ballot counts is a reliable way to detect cheating. But we don’t do that in the U.S. Because of Republican opposition, we have enacted no protections against foreign sabotage of our elections. We do not routinely audit voting machines and elections. We have mandatory recounts in far fewer situations than robust election security would call for. We need to be using voter-hand-marked, voter-verified, hand-counted paper ballots to prevent electoral sabotage and fraud. But because our elections are governed by state and local governments, almost nowhere are we doing so.

Which all brings me to my concern: If the Republicans decide to steal big in 2020 — so big that it becomes obvious to most people, not just interested parties like me — what’s to stop them? We have no standard mechanism for election do-overs. (The do-over this year in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, which was ordered after widespread absentee-fraud ballot by employees of a Republican candidate, is an exception.) We have no constitutional mechanism for undoing fraudulent elections,  let alone mechanisms for undoing the consequences of fraudulent elections. We can’t fire all the bureaucrats appointed by a fraudulently elected president. We would have to impeach them (and all the judges), one at a time, and then hold individual Senate votes to remove them from office — again, one at a time.

So what’s to stop Republicans from going so big on election theft that everyone is aware of it? Because no one will be able to do anything about it but demonstrate. And the GOP has an answer for that, too. From Trump’s executive order this week about Judaism down to bills in state legislatures, Republicans are seeking to criminalize our First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition our government for redress of grievances. So while I have no evidence that suggests the GOP WILL do this, I look at our situation and their corruption and think, well, why WOULDN’T they?

If Americans protested and Republicans tried to put down those protests, we might have riots. And, having no answers to how to fix this, I have to confess that I don’t know which I’m more afraid of: that we might riot, or that we might not.

Friday, December 13, 2019 4:30 pm

Want to know how crooked the Senate Republicans are? Here’s how crooked the Senate Republicans are.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear that Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial will be a sham. That would mean that Republican senators would be violating the Constitution, their existing and upcoming oaths to support the Constitution, and the Senate’s own rules. When that happens, Democrats must hold not just Republican senators but all Republican candidates accountable across the board.

With the full House of Representatives scheduled to vote Wednesday on the two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, The Washington Post has reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republicans plan on “holding a short impeachment trial early next year that would include no witnesses,” with an immediate vote to acquit.

That would mean that all the witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Affairs committees in recent weeks would not be able to repeat their testimonies in a Senate trial. It also means that Donald Trump would be unable to call witnesses in his own defense; he has said he wants to call House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, former Vice President Joe Biden, Biden’s son Hunter, and possibly other witnesses. This would be to create a narrative suggesting that rather than abusing his office to try to get Ukraine to announce a corruption probe of the Bidens, as one article of impeachment alleges, Trump actually was urging Ukraine to investigate alleged corruption on the part of the Bidens, the younger of whom sat on the board of a Ukrainian business.

But Republicans, the Post says, would rather just reject the articles and go home.

Can they do that? Probably; Article I, Sec. 3, clause 6 of the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try cases of impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts would preside, but unless an actual lawyer wants to argue otherwise, it looks to me as if the Senate can do as they damned well please in this regard. (That said, I think Roberts would be fine with the Republicans’ plans anyway; he almost always is. His reputation for caring about his and the Supreme Court’s places in history have always struck me as overblown.)

But there’s something else that affects this dynamic, something Senate Republicans really hope you don’t know about: the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials. This article in The Bulwark helpfully explains how and why the Framers decided that the Senate, rather than the Supreme Court, should try impeachment cases, and how those rules come into play:

Hamilton reported that the Court lacked the political fortitude to weather the storm that would attend any verdict: the Court’s legitimacy as a final tribunal for ordinary legal disputes would be undermined if it took on the issue of high politics as well. The Court might be able to mitigate partisanship, but it would risk its own legitimacy in doing so.

The Senate, on the other hand, was a more promising venue because it was a political body, but not as tightly tethered to factionalism and political passion as the House. It was designed to take a longer view and was therefore a promising site for such extraordinary trials.

But, you say, today’s Senate is tightly tethered to factionalism. And you’re right. But the Framers thought about that, too:

The idea was that rather than lowering the Supreme Court down to high politics, the Senate would be raised up. To raise the Senate up to the demands of high politics, the Framers decided that the Senate would need to recompose itself into a new institution—an impeachment court. (Emphasis in the original — Lex)

This transformation was serious enough that senators would have to take a new oath of office.

According to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” When they are elected to the Senate, all senators swear a general Oath to uphold the Constitution.

But the Oath taken in an impeachment trial is different. It is a juror’s oath and a judge’s oath—not a legislator’s oath. Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

For an impeachment trial of a president, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. He can be overruled by a majority vote of the other judges/jurors—which is to say the senators. But it is vital to remember that the Constitution asks them to remember that they are not sitting as senators, but now as judges and jurors.

So much so that for this brief period the senators are all equal. For the course of the trial the roles of Majority and Minority Leader, President Pro Tem, Committee Chairs, Whips, and so forth no longer exist. For the duration of the trial the Senate is a literally new institution with new rules, new norms, and new responsibilities.

The more people who understand that, the more people will see that any attempt by Senate Republicans not to have a full and fair airing of the facts — or to acquit Donald Trump in the face of these facts — is constitutionally flawed and violates the Senate’s own impeachment rules. Democrats need to point that out in real time during the trial as well as afterwards.

And afterwards, Democrats in every 2020 race, from president down to dogcatcher, need to hang that corruption, that violated oath, like a putrescent albatross carcass around the neck of not just every Republican senator, but every Republican running for office in 2020, from Dump down to dogcatcher.

I am not optimistic that Democrats will win the White House in 2020. I think it’s entirely possible that the Democratic nominee can win the popular vote by 5 million and still lose the Electoral College through a combination of Russian sabotage, hacked voting machines, and GOP vote suppression in key swing states including North Carolina. But if there’s a way to win this election by a margin too big to steal, this is it.

Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:56 pm

Bill Barr is the worst attorney general ever.

What should be crystal clear after today is that not only is Donald Trump dangerous to the Republic, so is Attorney General Bill Barr. Pursuing a propaganda theory that started with the Kremlin, Barr directed the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate the beginnings of the department’s 2016 investigation of Trump campaign connections to the Russians. Trump partisans thought this probe would come up with all sorts of derogatory information. But on Monday, the IG reported: Nope, all clean. Some procedural mistakes, but no hint of bias, and all standards for a proper Justice investigation were properly met.

Barr responded immediately that “in my view,” the IG investigation was inadequate and that the original investigation had been flawed, and never mind that what matters legally isn’t his view but whether departmental standards had been met — which, the IG determined, they had.

So Barr, still intent on pushing Kremlin propaganda to protect the criminal in the White House, has commissioned U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut to do ANOTHER investigation. And THIS time, he’s convinced, he’ll find proof that the original investigation of the Trump campaign was flawed all along. As former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi told MSNBC, “He’s shopping for outcomes, not searching for facts.”

The definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting a different result. But Barr isn’t insane, and the real goal here isn’t the result. It’s the APPEARANCE that the original Trump investigation was somehow flawed. THAT is what Barr is trying to sell to Trump voters, and he’s violating his oath of office to do it. We’ve had a run of mediocre to bad attorneys general since John Mitchell under Nixon, but Barr is by far the worst of them all. The nation’s chief law enforcement officer is using the powers of his office to protect a criminal. He, too, must be impeached, and abuse of office, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress should be only the starting point for his articles of impeachment.

Monday, December 9, 2019 9:08 pm

If I’d wanted a take this stupid, I’d have subscribed to the Times, not the Post.

Some people have asked me why I found Matt Vizer’s Washington Post story on Elizabeth Warren’s legal work (which I’m not going to link to) so objectionable. The short answer is that both factual accuracy and contextual accuracy matter, and while the story appeared to be factually accurate, it was wildly flawed from a contextual standpoint.

What do I mean by that? Well for starters, the article started out by saying Warren had made $2 million from her legal work. What it should have said in the headline and the same sentence was that she earned that $2 million over about 30 years, so that her average annual income from that work was about $66,000.

The article also should have pointed out that by the standards of corporate lawyers, Warren was grossly underpaid. Top corporate lawyers today command in excess of $1,000 per hour, or more than $2 million per year, not over 30 years.

Contextual accuracy also demands that before anyone stars hinting at impropriety, Warren’s earnings be compared with those of the Clintons and Obamas, who can command several times more money for a one-night speech than Warren averaged pear YEAR during her 30 years of legal work.

It’s fair to ask questions about some the clients Warren chose to represent. But contextual accuracy also requires pointing out that even as she was representing them, she was working to make it more difficult for them to behave in predatory fashion. And in the context of the presidential election, that matters a lot: As one lawyer, Warren couldn’t do much to change the system. But as president of the United States? She might be able to do quite a lot, particularly if Democrats hold the House and retake the Senate. (So could a couple of other current Dem candidates, and I’m reasonably sure that Kamala Harris, who has dropped out, would’ve been able to as well.)

Finally, contextual accuracy demands that the story point out that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, WHILE ON THE WHITE HOUSE PAYROLL, earned between $29 million and $135 million in outside income in 2018. (The reporting requires only ranges, not specific amounts, be reported.) In the face of that level of corruption, the Post’s absurd focus on Warren looks not just misguided but slanted. Indeed, I’ll wager that if the facts had been the same and Warren had been a man, the story wouldn’t even have been conceived, let alone published.

In short, this was the kind of contextually stillborn story that the New York Times specializes in — it was a Hillary’s-emails-type story about Warren. And that’s not just wrong, it’s insulting. If I wanted a take like that, I’d subscribe to the Times. Matt Viser and his editors should be ashamed.

Republicans: Nothing left but bullshit

Because I have a job and a life, I caught only a few snippets of today’s Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, but this is how stupid and contradictory Republicans are. The committee’s ranking minority member, Doug Collins, and several others called this a “focus-group impeachment” and said no president ever had been impeached so early in his tenure. Well, calling it a focus-group impeachment implies that there’s public support for it – but Republicans keep insisting that the issue is a loser with voters. (How much of a loser is it? Support for impeachment is at 50% in Ohio. Let me say that again: IN. OHIO.)

Republicans also argue that Trump can’t be impeached because he didn’t succeed in completing a quid pro quo. (He did, but set that aside for now.) But they also argue that he can’t be impeached because there’s no evidence because his obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice DID succeed. Sorry, kids, but you don’t get to have it both ways.

And today, committee member John Ratcliffe reached up into his descending colon and pulled out the notion that the whistleblower had somehow perjured himself in his complaint.

Not to be outdone, the committee’s Republican counsel, Stephen Kastor, lied under oath to the panel, stating that the readout of Dump’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian president Vlodymyr Zelensky made clear that there was no quid pro quo. In fact there was — read it for yourself. Problem is, if chair Jerry Nadler makes a criminal referral to the Justice Department, as might normally happen, Attorney General Bill Barr will just quash it.

They’re not arguing facts, except to insist that what clearly exists doesn’t. They aren’t arguing the law; they’re arguing a manufactured version of the law. They’ve got nothing but bullshit. No facts. No law. No logic.

And that news media aren’t saying that, simply and forthrightly, is just one more illustration of how much danger this constitutional republic is in.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019 6:22 pm

Sure, you can riot … if you’re a white Republican

Once again, the GOP has proven itself literally lawless. Let’s be very clear about what happened today. The Republicans who attempted to get into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility in which three House committees are taking depositions and testimony from witnesses in the impeachment investigation BROKE THE LAW. Several took their cell phones into the facility and even “broadcast live,” violating security regulations.

Republicans are fond of talking about a “secret impeachment,” and unfortunately, even a few journalists have started using that phrase. There is no secret impeachment. There is a secret impeachment INVESTIGATION, just as there was before articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton were publicly discussed and voted upon. The only difference is that Clinton’s investigation was conducted by a special prosecutor (which the GOP-controlled Congress sought and the Clinton Justice Department granted), while Democratic House members and staff are conducting the investigation by themselves because the Trump/Barr Justice Department would not appoint a special prosecutor.

(Republicans also are insisting that for an impeachment investigation to be “official,” the full House must vote on it. The Constitution says no such thing. They’re counting on your not knowing that.)

If the investigation recommends articles of impeachment, any discussion or vote on those articles, in committee or in the full House, will be conducted on live TV, and Republicans know it. They just hope you’re not as informed as they are.

Moreover, both Republican and Democratic members of all three committees already are present in the SCIF, and Republicans are getting equal time to ask witnesses questions. They complain of leaks by Democrats, and that’s a legitimate complaint. But the absence of leaks by Republicans, even to such reliably Trump-friendly outlets as Fox & Friends, Breitbart or Tucker Carlson tells you all you need to know about the substance of what the committees are hearing.

Knowing this, and having no other way to stop the hemorrhage of damning information about Trump, Republicans today simply rioted to disrupt the hearing.

This isn’t the first time such a thing has happened. During the disputed Florida election of 2000, Republicans sent Congressional aides to literally throw a temper tantrum (when it’s not white boys doing it, we say “riot”) outside one location where recounts were under way. The so-called Brooks Brothers Riot in Florida during the 2000 election recount actually succeeded in stopping a recount that was finding more and more unread ballots actually to have been votes for Democratic candidate Al Gore.

The Republicans stole the presidency in 2000. They stole the presidency again in 2016. They’re trying to do it again in 2020. We cannot allow that.

In impeachment, remember, the House acts as a grand jury, considering whether to effectively indict the president (or other high federal officials) on charges, on which the Senate acts as jury in holding a trial. An ordinary defendant with an ordinary grand jury doesn’t even get to see or hear witnesses, let alone confront and cross-examine them. In an impeachment proceeding, the Republicans will be able to cross-examine witnesses and perhaps even offer their own, if the Democratic majority allows them to subpoena them.

They shouldn’t bother. Trump’s Emoluments Clause violations are a matter of public record, and his abuse of office in hinging military aid to Ukraine on that government’s willingness to dig up dirt on the son of a possible Democratic challenger was nailed down as a quid pro quo by former Ambassador Bill Taylor in his testimony Tuesday. No witness can exculpate him.

But just as important is the Republicans’ willingness to break the law to bring about their desired political result. House Democrats should vote to censure every Republican who took part in today’s disturbance, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi should order suspended for a week without pay any congressional staffers who took part in the disturbance. She needs to make clear that we, the American people, will have law and order, Trump’s gangster instincts and corrupt government cronies like Bill Barr be damned.

Sunday, September 15, 2019 6:36 pm

Brett Kavanaugh, redux

A new New York Times story brings forward another account of Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assaults, illustrates just how badly the GOP tried to prevent a through investigation of the allegations against him, adds evidence that Kavanaugh lied to Congress during his confirmation hearings, and illustrates just how pustulently corrupt the 21st century GOP has become.

New York Times reporters Robin Progrebin and Kate Kelly published a story in Saturday’s New York Times about Deborah Ramirez, a woman who alleges that when they were students at Yale in the winter of 1984, future Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it.”

The story points out that another woman, Christine Blasey Ford, accused Kavanaugh of more serious behavior, saying that Blasey Ford “claimed that he pinned her to a bed, groped her and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth.”

Blasey Ford’s accusation was more serious, the Times pointed out, but Ramirez’s allegation proved easier to corroborate:

During his (2018) Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Kavanaugh denied these and other allegations at his truncated Senate confirmation hearing, and he was confirmed by the narrowest vote in more than a century. But this report reaffirms not only how the GOP greased the skids of Kavanaugh’s confirmation by preventing a full and through investigation, but also how likely it is that Kavanaugh committed perjury during that confirmation hearing:

Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her “credible.” But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. “‘We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,’” Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez’s lawyers, recalled the agents saying. “It was almost a little apologetic.”

Of course the Republicans didn’t want Kavanaugh thoroughly investigated, because here’s just a little of the damning information about him that I was able to assemble from public sources on Sept. 7, 2018:

Let us start with perjury, which has been exposed by some of the very documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush 43 White House that the Trump Administration has been so reluctant to release. (Those records are public under the law, by the way.)

He has denied receiving documents stolen from the Senate Judiciary’s Democratic staff by a GOP staffer, Michael Miranda, in 2002, only to have those copies of those documents sent to him from Miranda show up in his White House email. Yet in 2004 and 2006, he denied under oath ever receiving those documents. Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, personally called him out on it.

Sen. Patrick Leahy

@SenatorLeahy

BREAKING: Kavanaugh testified he never received any docs that even “appeared to … have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff.” Well, he got 8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files, obviously written by Dem staff, LABELED “not [for] distribution”.

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter
16.9K people are talking about this

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Kavanaugh also in 2006 denied knowing anything about President George W. Bush’s (then-illegal) warrantless domestic wiretapping program until The New York Times first reported publicly on the existence of the program in 2001. Yet among documents released this week was this email from Kavanaugh to all-around Bush Administration war criminal John Yoo on Sept. 17, 2001, discussing the program.

Also in 2006, Kavanaugh denied under oath having been involved in any White House discussions related to torture. But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the same senator to whom Kavanaugh gave his 2006 denial, said Thursday that released documents indicate that Kavanaugh took part in such discussions at least three times.

During his own 2004 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh denied under oath any involvement in the selection of William Pryor for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Once again, the documents show otherwise: Kavanaugh helped pick Pryor and get him confirmed.

Similarly, in 2006 Kavanaugh denied under oath having been involved in the selection of Charles Pickering for a federal judgeship, only to have documents pop up more recently that say otherwise.

Kavanaugh also may have misled a lot of people about his recent $200,000 in what he said was credit-card debt. That debt disappeared pretty quickly before his nomination, and because he and his wife both work for the government and don’t make a ton of money by Washington standards, it’s not clear how that happened.

That’s not the only question about that debt, though. This Kavanaugh email seems to suggest that he was a gambler. Frankly, that sounds a lot more plausible than his original story, which is that he ran up that debt because friends had been slow to repay him for purchases of Washington Nationals season tickets on their behalf. Who fronts friends $200,000 on an annual salary of only about $174,000?

Finally, Kavanaugh’s lies about the stolen Democratic records might not just leave him exposed to perjury charges, he may face other charges as well, such as receiving stolen property. Leahy explains it in this Twitter thread.

Republicans’ responses to both the old and the new information have generally divided themselves into these categories:

Americans are tired of the mob justice based on 3rd &4th party witnesses coming out decades later, near an election. Just stop. Yeah, except for the part where Americans not tired of it in 2018 — indeed, they were so not tired of it in 2018 that they unseated 29 Republican congresscritters and seized another 14 open seats previously held by Republicans.

Are we really going to call exposure a crime now? Yeah, we are. Welcome to the 21st century. Hell, welcome to 1984, when it was also a crime.

Should we all be held accountable decades later for stupid behavior? Yes, we should! Because that’s how we stop the “stupid behavior” — the sexual assault, which isn’t just “stupid behavior,” it’s a goddamned crime.

And then there’s this: Kavanaugh was asking to be seated not just to any federal court, but to the highest court in the land. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect any candidate for a seat on the federal bench, and on the high court in particular, to have led a blameless life. Not “perfect,” because nobody is perfect. But blameless. There were plenty of other Republican candidates for that seat who have led demonstrably blameless lives. But it has been a particular characteristic of the Trump administration to appoint people to all sorts of federal jobs who have NOT led blameless lives — whether because Trump wants to be able to manipulate them or simply whether criminals love company, I don’t know. Nonetheless, it’s an obvious tend that needs to be called out.

#MeToo is hurting real sexual-assault victims more than it’s helping. Prove it. Read “She Said,” by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. Read “Catch and Kill,” by Ronan Farrow. Educate yourself.

What about “innocent until proven guilty”? Oh, THROW me in that briar patch. Lying to Congress is a crime, whether you’re under oath (18 USC 1621) or not (18 USC 1001). So let’s do this. Let’s have a complete, full, thorough, FAIR investigation of the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Republicans didn’t allow that in 2018 because they knew damned well where it would lead: with Kavanaugh under indictment and likely a number of them charged as co-conspirators.

And one other thing: A Senate confirmation hearing is not criminal court. “Innocent until proven guilty” in this context, while not completely irrelevant, is not a bedrock standard. In such a hearing, U.S. senators are asked to decide — on the basis of what, more often than not, is an incomplete and perhaps even manipulated record — whether the president’s nominee is fit for office. They have to ask themselves, on the basis of incomplete information, “Based on what I know, do I believe that this individual will serve the long-term public interest?”

In point of fact, the overwhelming majority of presidential appointments subject to confirmation since 1789 have been confirmed, and the number of those appointments who were damaging, while not trivial, has been a remarkably small portion of the whole. But there is plenty of room in constitutional jurisprudence for senators who suspect malfeasance, or who simply just aren’t sure, to vote no.

Anyone who’s not comfortable passing judgment on Brett Kavanaugh for incidents that happened 35 years ago is welcome to pass judgment on Brett Kavanaugh for incidents that happened ONE year ago, when he, a grown-ass man and a candidate for the highest court in the land, lied under oath to Congress. Now, Congress could impeach him, or it could refer his case to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation because sitting SCOTUS justices, unlike sitting presidents, can be impeached. Given Attorney General William Barr’s absolute determination to treat DOJ like Donald Trump’s personal law firm, I honestly don’t know which is the best way to go. But the evidence in the public record suggests pretty strongly that Brett Kavanaugh is a perjuring sumbitch who belongs in prison.

Oh, and, hey? It suggests the same thing about Clarence Thomas. So let’s have full, fair, thorough investigations of both, while the witnesses are still alive.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:40 pm

If you have to cheat to win, your ideas suck, Part 8,264

So this morning, on the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Democrats in the N.C. General Assembly went to a 9/11 memorial. While they were doing that, the Republicans who control the General Assembly, having told the Democrats that no substantive votes would take place this morning, voted anyway to override Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of the GOP’s state budget.

It is important to note that the Republicans could not have won on this issue without cheating. Republicans had sought for weeks to get Democrats to join them in voting to override by offering pork-barrel spending for their districts. Even that dishonesty failed to get them the necessary majority, so they simply cheated.

One of the biggest lessons of this decade’s low, deceitful politics has been that norms and customs are meaningless unless they are codified into criminal law with harsh penalties. That has been true at the federal level, with everything from the GOP theft of a Supreme Court seat to serial contempt of Congress, and it obviously is now true at the state level as well. Henceforth, here in North Carolina, deceiving the legislative minority about when substantive votes will occur must be treated as a capital crime, because apparently being hanged on the steps of the Old Capitol Building is the only deterrent that will keep Republicans from cheating.

And the thing about cheating? If you have to cheat to win, your ideas suck, which is relevant not only in this case but also in the case of the special election for U.S. House District 9, held on Tuesday. Republican Dan Bishop appears to have pulled out a very narrow win in a district Trump carried by 12 points in 2016, but here’s the thing: Anyone who knows jack about Robeson County politics knows that this massive shift among Native American voters from pro-Democratic in 2018 to pro-Republican in 2019 is simply inexplicable. I’m not saying that this proves election theft, but I am saying that we badly need a thorough election audit, and that that audit should start from the defensible presumption that the statistical odds against such a pro-GOP shift in Native precincts in just eight months are astronomical.

One last lesson for Dems and unaffiliated voters: You can never, ever, EVER again, in your lifetimes, assume the honesty of Republicans, not in Washington and not in Raleigh. Just assume that they are lying. About everything.

Monday, September 2, 2019 11:07 am

911 says you can’t call them anymore

Brock Long, who served as Dolt 45’s head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from June 2017 to May of this year, says FEMA can’t do its job and that it’s up to us:

“we have to refocus the training” to better equip citizens in terms of disaster preparedness, including emphasizing that “insurance is the first line of defense.”

“Until Congress starts to incentivize putting building codes in place and land use planning in place, incentivizing states and locals for ensuring their public infrastructure, FEMA’s job is impossible,” Long said.

“We have to set realistic expectations for the agency and really bolster the capability from neighbor helping neighbor all the way to the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” he added.

Insurance is the first line of defense against a Cat 5 hurricane? Brock, son, you’re gonna have to ‘splain that to me. Use small words, because it sounds a lot to me like sending Paul Revere out after the British have already landed, burned our farms and slaughtered our livestock.

See, FEMA has a history — an uneven history that has varied significantly depending upon who was in the White House and which party controlled Congress. FEMA sucked under Bush I (cf. Hurricane Andrew in 1992), got dramatically better under Clinton, got lousy again under Bush II (cf. Katrina in 2005), got better again under Obama, and is being sabotaged once again by Dolt 45, as residents of Puerto Rico and southeastern North Carolina know all too well.

This is part of a larger trend by post-Nixon Republicans: They tell Americans that government is the problem rather than the solution, and when they get power, they work very hard to turn that statement into reality by under-funding agencies, staffing them with incompetent administrators hostile to the agencies’ missions, and, in the case of Trump, forcing key agency personnel to leave in droves by planning on short notice to move agencies’ work a long distance for no reason.

Currently, FEMA is incompetent and has no interest in becoming competent, and this “president” not only has no interest in their being competent, he just stole $155 million from FEMA to try to spend it on his war on immigrants at the Mexican border,  and everyone, including FEMA, just stood around and let him do it.

Rather than fixing FEMA, Dolt 45, Congressional Republicans and FEMA itself tell us that we must adjust our expectations downward instead. Well, hell, no. This is one of the most basic tasks of government: People’s LIVES are at stake. Yes, building codes should be improved to face the stronger storms that global warming will bring, although developers and the construction industry will scream bloody murder about that and probably bribe Congress and state legislatures to keep it from happening. Yes, people should prepare for hurricanes. But not everyone can; moreover, some disasters, like tornadoes, allow little or no time for prep.

FEMA indeed DOES have to be kind of like 911, and a competent FEMA is only one of many factors people should think about when choosing a president and deciding which party should control Congress.

Sunday, September 1, 2019 1:49 pm

Hit ’em with the chair

When I was a kid in Charlotte in the 1960s, my brothers, my friends and I watched a lot of pro wrestling on TV, which fact is essential context for what I’m about to say next: In this era, pleas for civility are the last refuge of people who desperately need to be hit with the chair.

As the journalist Eve Fairbanks points out in The Washington Post, conservatives, almost as if they’d all been sent the same list of talking points, have been on and on lately about being “reasonable” and “civil.” She links to many, many examples, almost all of which are premised on a fundamental misunderstanding about what’s actually going on in our society. I’ll get to that in a minute.

Fairbanks, as a senior at Yale, wrote a thesis on the rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln and his political rivals on both sides of the issue of slavery. And today’s conservative rhetoric sounded so familiar to her that she thought she must have heard it somewhere before. Sure enough, there it was in her old research: The language of conservatives in 2019 is almost identical to that of antebellum defenders of slavery. She lays it out in her Post column.

I see another parallel: Both before the Civil War and today, the people defending the indefensible are the ones most insistent upon civility and reason and are trying very hard to cast their opponents as unreasonable and uncivil. In both instances, the people defending the indefensible are able to do so as the result of having amassed great power, much of it unmerited and obtained through dubious, if not evil, means.

The slavery example is self-evident. But what about today?

For the past 40 years, American conservatives, though a minority, have used their greater wealth to get even more money and more power, often at the expense of everyone else. They got the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) to declare that money is speech, a category error that likely will be the downfall of the Republic if climate disaster or the Sweet Meteor of Death don’t get us first. They bought themselves congresscritters and legislators who have passed a number of huge tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy. The effect of those tax cuts has been the greatest upward transfer and concentration of wealth in history and the greatest income inequality in U.S. history. They have raped the planet, privatizing the profits while socializing the costs and making damn sure they had bought themselves a government that would let them do that, in search of more wealth — there’s roughly $27 trillion of proven carbon reserves still in the ground, and they will be damned if they’ll just write it off, just as slave owners insisted they were entitled not to write off the value of their slaves. They have insisted that health care is not a human right, but rather a consumer good on which they can profit as on few others. In what can only be called modern-day slavery, they are profiting off our correctional systems. They have sought to roll back the civil-rights advances we finally won a century after the 14th and 15th Amendments were ratified. And on and on. All of THAT is “unreasonable.” All of THAT is “uncivil.”

The people who opposed antebellum slavery were portrayed as radical, and indeed some of them were. But they weren’t wrong. And given the horrors of slavery, complaining about their incivility and lack of reason displayed nothing but moral stillbirth.

And so it is today.

Conservatives are pursuing policies that literally threaten the lives of me, my family, and more than 100 million other Americans who have pre-existing conditions and/or are people of color and/or are LGBTQ. And yet they want us to be reasonable and civil.

Screw that noise sideways. Pleas for civility are the last refuge of someone who desperately needs to be hit with the chair. Moreover, any Republican who thinks we need more civility needs to take it up with Newt Gingrich, whose GOPAC began the trend of instructing Republican political candidates to publicly characterize their unremarkable Democratic opponents as “extremist,” “sick” and “un-American.”

Moreover, as Fairbanks points out, conservative writer Ben Shapiro, to name just one example, likely knows and certainly doesn’t care that “ascrib(ing) right-wing anger to unwise left-wing provocation,” as Fairbanks says he does, is the blame-the-victim language of the domestic abuser.

(A note on that: Conservatives are trying to smear those who oppose white nationalists as “antifa,” which they believe to be an organized and violent movement. “Antifa” is simply short for “antifascist,” and the term encompasses everyone from the first wave at Omaha Beach to any American today who opposes the joined forces of fascism and white supremacy. You will seen the term thrown around even by journalists who should know better, but you can safely dismiss anyone who uses it in that way as at best a propagandist and at worst a fascist, particularly if that person works for the Trump administration.)

I’ve said for a long time that anyone doubting the existence of eternity need only ponder the capacity of conservatives for playing the victim. Indeed, I’ve thought for a long time that that might be the most important, and is certainly the most enduring, dynamic of postwar American politics.

I was wrong. Fairbanks’s column shows that it’s the most enduring dynamic of American politics, period. She doesn’t remark on it in her column, but it’s visible throughout so many of the sources she cites (and in fairness, she may have thought it was so obvious she didn’t even need to mention it) — an overweaning mentality of victimhood among conservative antebellum “thinkers” and modern-day conservatives alike.

And why do they feel that way? The answer is in the old saying, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” That’s the fundamental misunderstanding I referred to up at the top of the post. They do it because they can feel their privilege slipping and/or because they can hear and feel the rest of us coming for it. And on some level they’re terrified that we’re going to treat them the way they have treated us. I have no intention of doing this, but given the outrages they have foisted upon us in the past 40 years, from destroying the middle class to sacrificing our children to the Baal of the NRA to lighting the planet on actual fire, I can offer no guarantee regarding anyone else.

And at this point nothing would surprise me. Because when you call things like decent, affordable health care and a strong public education system “socialism” long enough, eventually socialism starts to sound like a good idea. And when you work your ass off for a lifetime and still can’t manage to obtain adequate food, clothing, shelter, and education for your family and equal treatment in society because of every way the system has been rigged by conservatives in the past 40 years, so does “eat the rich.”

UPDATE, 9/1: This was posted before I became aware that Democratic presidential Beto O’Rourke had been quoted as saying, “Yes, this is fucked up,” talking about the federal government’s inaction on mass shootings such as the one Saturday in Odessa, Texas, that claimed eight lives. When the inevitable criticism came, he had the perfect response:

 

Friday, August 30, 2019 6:50 pm

A belated but sincere obituary for David Koch

I was a Republican for about 40 years, so here is where I am on this:

David Koch used his wealth to buy government policies that are wiping out the middle class, to keep government from mitigating the deaths his industries cause to thousands of Americans annually, to socialize the costs of his businesses while privatizing the benefits, and for his last act, to light the planet on actual fire. Had he lived, he almost certainly would have bought himself a constitutional convention in which the United States would be turned from a constitutional democratic republic into a kleptocracy in which tens of millions of citizens would lose basic human rights, and his surviving family and a few of their friends may yet bring this about. Society was so utterly unable to contain his serial sociopathy that hundreds of millions if not billions of people on this planet would have had legal standing to kill him in self-defense. In short, David Koch was a goddamned monster. Anyone who can’t see that is morally stillborn, and anyone wishing to defend him is welcome to follow him straight to hell.

Tuesday, July 2, 2019 9:35 pm

Sure, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could be lying. But what if she’s not?

“Now I’ve seen the inside of these facilities. It’s not just the kids. It’s everyone. People drinking out of toilets, officers laughing in front of members Congress. I brought it up to their superiors. They said ‘officers are under stress & act out sometimes.’ No accountability.” — U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeting after visiting a camp where CBP is holding migrants prisoner.

This tweet asserts horrible things, about line CPB officers, about the agency and its culture, and about our government and our country. Some of the responses to it are quite skeptical. Leaving aside the disingenuous tone of some of the skeptical responses (and the ridiculous calls for video when CBP agents took the Congress members’ phones before allowing them in), I get it. No one wants to believe that these horrible accusations are true. And AOC certainly wouldn’t be the first person not just to politicize an issue but to outright lie about it for political gain.

Let’s suppose she is lying. If that’s the case, she should be expelled from the House. I doubt she could be sued successfully, inasmuch as she’s not saying anything defamatory about any particular individual. (Agencies can be defamed, but it’s tough to do.) But she certainly would deserve our opprobrium and condemnation.

That said, let’s ask ourselves a question. If she IS lying, whom does it hurt? An agency doesn’t have feelings, and she identifies no culpable individual.

So, then, let’s ask ourselves another question: What if she’s NOT lying?

And another: If she’s not, then whom does THAT hurt, particularly if the rest of us do not act on what she is telling us?

I’ll tell you whom it hurts.

It hurts suffering human beings, children of God just like you and me, people driven here in large measure by circumstances beyond their control and for which our country bears a significant measure of responsibility.

And our border officers are making them drink toilet water. In our name and paid by our tax money.

And it hurts public trust and confidence in CBP specifically and government in general at a time when both need more, not less.

It hurts the reputation and image of the United States around the world at a time when the world needs a powerful, honest broker more desperately than at any time since the day after Nagasaki.

And, finally, regarding the issue of trust and confidence, who has, and deserves, more of it? AOC, who has made mistakes and admitted them and also caught powerful people out on their mistakes and lies and is pushing policies that are at least intended to benefit most Americans? Or this administration, which lies like it breathes and seeks to screw over every American it can find to screw who’s not a rich white man?

If you ever wondered how German concentration camps became death camps, AOC is right here telling you and showing you. And if you’ve ever wondered what you would have done if you’d been a German in the early Nazi era, whatever you’re doing now is probably an excellent indicator.

“A Face in the Crowd” and the MAGATs

Over the weekend I got to see, for the first time, “A Face in the Crowd.” The 1957 film, written by Budd Schulberg (“The Harder They Fall,” “On the Waterfront”) and directed by Elia Kazan (“A Streetcar Named Desire,” “East of Eden”), was North Carolina icon Andy Griffith’s first starring role. In it, Griffith portrays Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, an Arkansas yokel propelled to national stardom as the “voice of the people.” Ahead there be spoilers, so don’t read the jump if you want to watch the movie first. (Apparently it’s available on Amazon if you’re curious.)

(more…)

Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:48 pm

Thought for the day, freedom-of-religion edition

If Americans can claim religious freedom to refuse to bake a cake or even provide medically necessary abortion, they certainly should be able to claim religious freedom to provide an alien dying of thirst at the border a goddamned bottle of water.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019 7:29 pm

Mueller to U.S. House: Saddle the hell up

Robert Mueller all but begs Congress to impeach Donald Trump and implicitly tears a deserving news media a big new orifice in the process.

Outgoing special counsel Robert Mueller made several critical points today in his roughly eight-minute statement at the Department of Justice.

First (and I’m not necessarily going in chronological order here), he emphasized at both the beginning and the end of his statement that the evidence is crystal clear that Russian military intelligence sought to interfere with the 2016 presidential election for the benefit of Donald Trump and that they are continuing to try to interfere with U.S. elections even today.

Second, he emphasized that the Mueller report speaks for itself, which was a polite way of saying that if the people whose jobs it was to tell us what was in the report had done their jobs and read the damned report, we wouldn’t be nearly so confused about the way forward and we wouldn’t have wasted the past two months. Instead, he implicitly pointed out, journalists covered what people (i.e., Attorney General William Barr) SAID about the report, rather than what the report itself said, to the detriment of the American public. As The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer put it, “Mueller’s statement is an indictment of a press that focused more on what people had to say about the report than what the report said, because the former was easier to cover. No one has learned anything.” (The first three rules of investigative reporting are “Follow the money,” “follow the money,” and “follow the money,” but Rule 4 is, “Always read the documents” and Rule 5 is “Always do the math.”)

Third, he said that he did not seek charges against Trump because Justice Department policy, while authorizing investigations of a sitting president “while memories are fresh and documents are available,” forbade charging a sitting president. (For what it’s worth, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley went on CBS immediately after the statement to say that, constitutionally speaking, Mueller was “dead wrong,” that Trump indeed could have been indicted.) Mueller clearly implied that had Trump been anyone but the sitting president, he would have been indicted.

Fourth, he fleshed out that point by observing that, contrary to what Donald Trump and Barr have said, the report is not an exoneration. Indeed, he said, “As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

Fifth, he emphasized that that obstruction definitely had hampered his campaign: “When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.” The implication, though it is only that, might explain why he failed to find enough evidence to indict people on the conspiracy charge. Because while Vol. 1 of the report said Mueller’s team found insufficient evidence to indict Trump on a conspiracy charge, notwithstanding Trump’s lies, you can’t swing a dead cat in it without running across multiple instances of collusion, a concept that has real-world meanings but no legal significance.

Fifth, he re-emphasized that in his view and given Justice Department policy, it was not for Justice to accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing; rather, that responsibility fell to Congress. Combined with the documentation in Vol. 2 of the Mueller report of up to 10 instances of obstruction of justice on Trump’s part, he seemed to be practically begging the House to begin impeachment hearings.

He said a few other noteworthy things, such as that even if he were to appear before Congress to testify, he would not go beyond what’s already in the report. Legally and constitutionally, that’s a dubious claim, particularly if the House opens impeachment hearings. If the House subpoenas him and asks him questions and he refuses to answer, he can be held in contempt and spend up to a year in jail. Moreover, as Esquire’s Charles Pierce observed:

He has no excuse left. He is a private citizen now. And if he only repeats what’s in the report, on television, in front of the country, it will contribute mightily to the political momentum behind the demands that Congress do its damn job or shirk its duty entirely. He still needs to testify. He still needs to take questions. He’s only a citizen like the rest of us now, and he has a duty to do the right thing. We all do.

And Mueller said that our ongoing election-security weaknesses “deserve the attention of every American.” That assertion must be weighed against Republicans’ outright hostility, and particularly that of Mitch McConnell, to taking the slightest action to make elections more secure, such as, oh, I don’t know, even holding a vote on H.R. 1.

But his main points make clear what I and many others, from Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School to Rep. Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, already have been saying: It is past time for the House to begin formal impeachment hearings. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her second-in-command, Steny Hoyer, publicly have been reluctant to acknowledge that the need exists. But House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, whose committee would be the one to hold such hearings, said today:

Although Department of Justice policy prevented the Special Counsel from bringing criminal charges against the President, the Special Counsel has clearly demonstrated that the President is lying about the Special Counsel’s findings, lying about the testimony of key witnesses in the Special Counsel’s report, and is lying in saying that the Special Counsel found no obstruction and no collusion. Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the president, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies, and other wrongdoing of President Trump — and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.

Democrats have talked tough before only to fold, and there’s no guarantee they won’t fold again. But I believe at this point that whether or not Democrats actually pull the trigger on impeachment hearings, they at least have heard and understood that that is what the outgoing special counsel is asking, if not begging, them to do. I won’t reiterate the many reasons why I think it’s important to do so, except to say this: Thanks in large part to our mealy-mouthed news media, Trump has been able to spend the past two months lying with impunity about the findings of the Mueller investigation. Anyone who saw and heard Mueller speak today now knows that Trump has been gaslighting the American public — and that televised impeachment hearings aren’t just a constitutional necessity but also a necessary news and public relations corrective to Trump’s gaslighting. I hope and trust that Nadler and other House committee chairs, currently on Memorial Day recess, will make this happen soon.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 7:36 pm

NPR: Your so-called liberal media at work

When NPR lets a war criminal like John Yoo defend the Trump administration’s defiance of subpoenas and contempt of Congress, it is neither liberal nor news media.

Today was long and full of aggravations, from morning to evening. And to end it this afternoon, like a rancid cherry atop a shit sundae, we got a 5 p.m. report from NPR on the White House’s claim of executive privilege in withholding the full Mueller report, with underlying evidence, from the U.S. House, which has subpoenaed it.

Now, let’s be very clear here. The U.S. House, as a co-equal branch of government, has an almost absolute right to subpoena any document or person in either of the other two branches for the purpose of conducting oversight. There are a few limited exceptions, but no one has offered any that such constitutional experts as Laurence Tribe of Harvard take seriously.

But NPR calls today’s vote by the House Judiciary Committee to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt “a major escalation of a battle between President Donald Trump and the House Democrats investigating his administration.” That framing almost makes it look as if the House is at fault. At the least, that’s misspelling “a perfectly justified and long overdue attempt by the House to bring this lawless administration to heel” so badly you can’t even hardly recognize it.

Yeah, House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler is quoted as saying, “If allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight.” But the segment treats this conflict as a normal and unremarkable contest between White House and Congress in which both sides are more or less equally at fault and nothing particularly significant is at stake. In fact, the framers of the Constitution viewed legislative oversight, including impeachment when appropriate, as essential to preventing a runaway executive. Having lately fought a war to rid themselves of one runaway executive, they wanted to make damn good and sure there would never be another.

And that’s the just the intro. Reporter Kelsey Snell’s report is in the worst tradition of mainstream reporting, offering a very careful one-side-says-this, the-other-side-says that take that manages to be almost 100% journalism-free, particularly the failure to note that some of the limitations Justice attempted to place on access to the unredacted report had no basis in law whatever.

“It’s partially political, partially symbolic, but it’s also pretty high-stakes,” Snell said, not even bothering to mention that one and only one side in this dispute is, you know, breaking the law.

That was bad enough. But made me actually pull my car over to the side of Walker Avenue, stop dead, and shriek like a banshee at the radio was that NPR’s next segment devoted a huge 7.5 minutes to the legal stylings of alleged law professor John Yoo and his resurrection of the corpse of the “unitary executive.”

Who is John Yoo and what is the “unitary executive,” you ask? Yoo, now at Berkeley, was deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush. He wrote the so-called “torture memos” justifying torture as an instrument of national policy under Bush. For that alone, he should have been hanged at The Hague, particularly inasmuch as he wrote in 2002, by which time the U.S. already was engaged in torture, meaning he wrote it to try to provide justification in hindsight for a crime against both U.S. and international law.

To put it plainly, Yoo’s support for torture was so unhinged that even some of his most powerful co-workers in the Bush administration thought it was nuts. Secretary of State Colin Powell flatly insisted that Yoo’s position violated the Geneva Conventions, while Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora called Yoo’s position “catastrophically poor legal reasoning.”

As for the “unitary executive theory,” well, to hear Yoo tell it in today’s segment, it is a theory of executive power, running from Lincoln down through FDR and so on until today, that claims that unlike enumerating individual powers, which is what most conservatives profess to claim Article II of the Constitution does for the executive branch, that article actually creates a “pool,” in Yoo’s word, of unspecified executive powers.

In fact, “unitary executive theory” is bullshit. Yoo decided that his boss, Bush, during the so-called Global War on (some) Terror, ought to be able to do anything he wanted, including interpreting treaties like the Geneva Conventions as he pleased, with Congress’s only control being the power of the purse. So he cobbled together this sorry excuse for legal theory and cherry-picked from history to try to make it look as if this legal Frankenstein’s monster had a long and honorable legal tradition.

Those of you keeping score at home also will note that this assertion flies in the face of everything that conservatives have traditionally said about executive power and the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution, but Yoo and the Republicans have never let that hypocrisy stop them except when a Democrat occupied the Oval Office.

Anyway, NPR, whose mission is supposed to be journalism, actually devoted pretty much 11 full minutes of prime afternoon drive time to Trumpian propaganda at the expense of educating and informing its audience, and coming at the end of a day such as today, it was just more than this listener could take.

And as Trump and the Republicans try to dismantle our democracy, this is one of the biggest problems we face: Not only are Trump and the Republicans and Fox News and Breitbart trying to gaslight the American public, a ton of mainstream journalists are doing the same. Yes, they’re trying — I believe we have long since passed the point at which we can as ascribe performances like NPR’s this afternoon just to incompetence. (Also, and not for nothing, competence is an ethical issue.)

So this is just one of the many reasons why we need immediate, televised impeachment hearings: to counteract the fire hose of unmitigated bullshit emanating not only from the criminals in this case but also from their co-conspirators in the so-called liberal media. (I have heard some people say that’s actually what the House is doing right now, they’re just not calling them “impeachment” hearings. To which I respond: You HAVE to call them impeachment hearings to get the news media to broadcast them live and the American public to pay the appropriate amount of attention.) Accordingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to lead or get the hell out of the way.

Sunday, May 5, 2019 2:35 pm

With all due respect to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, time has run out. We must begin impeachment hearings now.

If House Democrats do not begin immediate, televised impeachment hearings and begin jailing immediately any administration figure who refuses to comply with a duly issued subpoena, we could be mere weeks from one-party GOP rule.

A lot of y’all fail to understand two things: how close we are to effective one-party GOP rule and how electoral politics works.
Look, I supported Nancy Pelosi for speaker for three reasons:
  1. Her superior record, relative to the other candidates, of being able to wrangle the notoriously fractious House Dem caucus, move legislation, and raise money.
  2. The fact that her most viable opponents were WAY too cozy with a Republican Party that long ago demonstrated that it doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution.
  3. The likelihood that, when Trump’s obfuscation over the Mueller report and his and his administration’s inevitable contempt of Congress against the inevitable House subpoenas finally manifested, she would have a logical and effective plan for responding.

I supported her despite serious misgivings about her spine. She unilaterally took impeachment of George W. Bush off the table despite the fact that Bush and his inner circle had ordered torture in violation of both U.S. and international law. My father, an Army infantry officer in the Korean War who won a Bronze Star and who had been a lifelong Republican voter, cast the last ballot of his life in 2004 against Bush specifically because of the torture. As an amateur student of the Holocaust for decades, I thought then that Bush had crossed the one line besides first-strike nuclear war that could never be crossed. And I was horrified to watch how Democrats under Pelosi threw away their opportunity to bring about justice. Still, you vote for one of the candidates you’ve got, and she was head and shoulders above the rest.

Problem is, I turned out to be badly wrong on item No. 3 above. She had and has no plan to deal with a president intent on becoming a dictator and a major party that is all in with him on this effort. Indeed, in this New York Times article, she makes clear in her own words that she is drawing exactly the wrong conclusions given the facts before us:

In recent weeks Ms. Pelosi has told associates that she does not automatically trust the president to respect the results of any election short of an overwhelming defeat. That view, fed by Mr. Trump’s repeated and unsubstantiated claims of Democratic voter fraud, is one of the reasons she says it is imperative to put roadblocks in the way of Mr. Trump’s efforts, with the full support of the Republican party, to become a dictator.
See, that makes sense. Unfortunately, that’s not what she actually said. What the article actually reports her as saying is:
In recent weeks Ms. Pelosi has told associates that she does not automatically trust the president to respect the results of any election short of an overwhelming defeat. That view, fed by Mr. Trump’s repeated and unsubstantiated claims of Democratic voter fraud, is one of the reasons she says it is imperative not to play into the president’s hands, especially on impeachment.
Opposing a would-be dictator’s efforts to become dictator is “playing into the president’s hands, especially on impeachment”? With all due respect, Madam Speaker — and in my case, that’s a lot of respect — that’s 180 degrees wrong.
Pelosi insists we have plenty of time. And a lot of people, noting that she is an expert in American politics, agree with her. But here’s the thing: We’re not faced with a conventional political opponent. We’re faced with a would-be dictator, and Pelosi is IN NO WAY an expert on dealing with that because America has never had one before. And the people who ARE experts in authoritarianism and dictators — historians, diplomats, war-crimes investigators, some members of the intelligence community, even Holocaust survivors? Almost all of them are waving red flags. A number are saying that if Dems don’t respond forcefully to the GOP’s concerted effort to ignore the subpoenas of a co-equal branch of government, then we will effectively become a one-party GOP government within weeks.

Now, what if they’re wrong? No harm, no foul, and we may yet see the impeachments we want with strong public backing and a clean and fair 2020 election. And I sincerely hope they, and I, are wrong.

But what if they’re right? No, serious question. I want you to stop and think for a minute about what that would mean — and not just for the country as a whole, although a stolen election is just about guaranteed, and not just for comfortable, privileged WASPS, but also for Jews, for poor people, for women (particularly women’s health care), for children, for racial and ethnic and religious minorities, for LGBTQIA people.

The safest bet — which also has the advantage of being the House’s constitutional duty — is for House Dems to: 1) Stop asking and start subpoenaing. Asking just leads to needing to subpoena anyway with this administration, and time is of the essence. 2) Begin jailing for contempt immediately any member of the administration who refuses to testify and/or produce records pursuant to a subpoena. 3) Begin holding televised impeachment hearings immediately. The hearings can begin with the multiple instances of Trump’s obstruction of justice documented in Vol. 2 of the Mueller report and expand from there, or they can begin with other high crimes and misdemeanors already in public view such as Trump’s serial violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, and expand from there. The important thing to remember is that we already have evidence in the public record that Trump has obstructed justice, abused his office, and behaved in legal contempt of Congress. Those were the three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon that led him to resign, and Trump’s violations have been even more egregious.

And why are the televised hearings so important? As with Watergate, given what we already know about this administration, they are likely to reveal the kind of information to the public that will build public support for impeachment. Moreover, they are essential to counteracting the gaslighting of the American public now being carried on by this administration, particularly Attorney General William Barr, and its henchmen at Fox News, Breitbart, and some of the darker media neighborhoods such as 8chan and VDare. Believe it or not, a large number of Americans still aren’t paying very close attention to this, so Dems need to give them a reason to. And even the mainstream media have largely treated this issue as a conventional Democrats-vs.-Republicans partisan political issue rather than the constitutional crisis that it is. The Times article linked above contained information that should have been the lede headline for every mainstream news outlet in the country: House Speaker Doubts President Will Leave Office If Defeated. And yet it was not.

Now some of you have expressed concerns about how robust opposition to, and even attacks on, Trump’s people and policies might affect the 2020 elections. A couple of thoughts on that:

  • In constitutional terms, impeachment’s effect on the 2020 election shouldn’t even be a consideration. A president is carrying out high crimes and misdemeanors in full public view; as the Framers’ contemporaneous writings make clear, impeachment in such circumstances is not just option but duty.
  • But let’s say it is a consideration. A lot of people with elementary math skills but no political understanding have pointed out that the GOP-controlled Senate won’t convict. I cannot say this too many times or strongly enough: So what? Dems must make Republicans run in 2020 on defending this criminal (as well as on such other issues as trying to kill people’s health insurance and supporting environmental despoliation). Dems made Republicans run in 2018 on their desire to destroy insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and Dems generated the biggest blue wave since Watergate. The biggest political risk attached to the 2020 election is not that more Trump supporters will turn out if Dems impeach — Republicans already are going to turn out. No, the biggest political risk is that if Dems do NOT impeach, a big chunk of the Democratic base is likely to stay home in 2020, as it did in 2010 and 2014 when Dem caution also prevailed over the need for action. And without that base, not only will Trump win re-election, the Republicans also will regain the House.
  • For the folks, including Pelosi, who have expressed concern that Trump might not leave office if he doesn’t win in 2020, I’ve got news: That’s Trump’s plan no matter how large or narrow the Dems’ margin of victory. Guaranteed. And it is far from sure that the Secret Service would do its duty at noon on Jan. 20, 2021: arrest him for trespassing and drag him from the White House. I mean, I think they will? But given Trump, assuming the worst generally is the most accurate method of forecasting.

Folks, we’re in very dire straits here; the attempted coup against FDR in the 1930s is the only thing that comes close and this is way worse than that. House Dems need to act now, and not only is there no good reason to wait, there are some chilling reasons why we cannot afford to. Whether we do or not act will determine whether this country is still a democratic republic come sunset on Jan. 20, 2021. So if your rep is a Democrat, call him/her and demand: 1) That House Dems stop asking nicely and start issuing subpoenas from the git-go. 2) That administration officials who refuse to immediately comply with subpoenas be jailed for contempt the FIRST time. (That legal mechanism hasn’t been used for decades, but it’s still on the books.) 3) That the House immediately begin televised impeachment hearings on Trump and AG Barr, who lied to Congress about the contents of the Mueller report and Mueller’s dissatisfaction with Barr’s summary of it. Those hearings MUST include the subject of election security and the Russians’ election-theft efforts in 2016 and 2020, and should hear from former President Obama and some of his officials as well as current administration officials if need be to get the full picture.

The next year and a half are going to be ugly politically no matter what choices Dems make. And the ugliness might extend beyond the halls of Congress and the White House and into the streets. But rest assured that 1) the most vulnerable will suffer the most, and 2) Republicans couldn’t give less of a damn about the most vulnerable.

Citizenship is not a spectator sport. History has pointed down the bench at us, swatted us on the asses and ordered us into the game. We need to play hard and play to win, because the cost of defeat would be too great for any of us to bear.

UPDATE, 5/5: For some excellent historical perspective on the rise of authoritarianism in America, read Teri Kanefield’s piece here. She’s an author and lawyer.

Wednesday, May 1, 2019 5:34 pm

In which Attorney General William P. Barr crumples his career and sets it on actual fire

In testimony today before the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, the attorney general firmly established himself as the worst AG since John Mitchell and equally deserving of prison time.

Dumpster fire

The 85th attorney general of the United States walked into the ostensibly friendly confines of a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today, and when his questioning was over, he had left no bed unshat and no pooch unscrewed. The Republicans might have come to dissemble and distract, but the Democrats came to prosecute and for once showed no mercy.

Not only did he present himself as clearly guilty of multiple counts of perjury, he also made a credible case that he himself should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice as well. It is crystal clear now that he must be impeached and removed from office and prosecuted and sent to prison. And he did his “client,” Donald Trump, no favors either, implicitly implicating Trump in abuse of office under questioning from committee member Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

The only real question remaining about what Barr did is why he did it. Why did he tell lies to Congress about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that any sentient human being who read the report would realize were lies?

Why would he decide the report cleared Trump when he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein hadn’t read the underlying evidence — and why would he admit that to the committee? As committee member Harris, California’s former attorney general and a current candidate for president in 2020, pointed out, no sane prosecutor would make such a decision one way or another without reviewing all the evidence. (Maybe that’s just a Republican thing. The committee chair, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, admitted that he hadn’t fully read the Mueller report. The guy. Who chairs the committee. And who called the hearing. Hadn’t. Read. The report. And as for what else Graham said, let’s just say it’s a darned good thing for him that he was not under oath.)

Why would Barr lie in his April 9 testimony to the House and say that he was unaware of Mueller’s concerns about his characterization of the report when, at that point, Barr had had Mueller’s letter to that effect, which was made public today, in his possession for more than a week?

And why couldn’t Barr answer Harris’s big yes-or-no question:

Gaping kitten illustrates the bomb Kamala Harris dropped during her questioning

Has the president or anyone else at the White House asked you to open a criminal investigation on anyone? Doing so likely would not be a crime, but as Richard Nixon’s case showed, it certainly would be an impeachable offense. That Barr either couldn’t or wouldn’t flatly deny that it had happened was damning of both Trump and Barr.

And under questioning from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Barr insisted that he had never discussed Trump-related matters with anyone at the White House. That was so plainly perjury that he immediately tried to walk it back, saying he didn’t remember any such “substantive” conversations.

Barr also committed at least one huge unforced error: He insisted that there were no underlying crimes documented in the Mueller report and that, based on that, an innocent president had the right to interfere in or kill an investigation of his activities. You following that? An innocent president has the right to kill an investigation — that’s going to prove his innocence.

Not only is that absurd on its face as legal theory, it also presumes facts not in evidence: The Mueller report did indeed surface underlying crimes. Indeed, Trump was named an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment for one of them along with his former attorney/fixer, Michael Cohen.

The Republican senators were little better, if news reports are to be believed. Hell, Jon Cornyn of Texas really did bring up Hillary’s emails. None showed any interest in getting at the truth; instead, they tried to change the subject to (undocumented) claims of wrongdoing by the intelligence community under President Barack Obama — anything but deal with the dumpster sitting right there before them.

If we learned anything today, it’s the following:

  • Barr is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice; he has violated the terms of his oath of office to become the personal defender of a corrupt president. He must be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted, and unlike with the president, indictment could come before impeachment.
  • Trump almost certainly has been abusing his office to criminally investigate political enemies, just as Richard Nixon did. It became an article of impeachment for Nixon; it should for Trump as well.
  • The next president is going to have to be a Herakles to cleanse the Aegean stables of this administration. Or else will have to burn it with fire. That’s how bad things are in this, the 243rd year of our country, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that things will get better anytime soon. Indeed, there is a nontrivial likelihood that they’ll get worse: Barr is scheduled to testify Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee — but his reluctance to be questioned by committee staff means he might well be in contempt of Congress before lunchtime.

UPDATE, 5:52 p.m.: Barr is now refusing to testify Thursday. The Dems really need to just stop asking and start subpoenaing from the git-go, because asking clearly is never going to do them a damn bit of good with this administration. And if anyone tries to jerk them around, they need to hold them in criminal contempt and send them to jail for a year. That’s the only language the mob family in the White House understands.

 

 

Friday, December 21, 2018 5:14 pm

Bill Kristol, Davidson College, and ethics

In public life some sins really are both disqualifying and unforgivable. Bill Kristol is guilty of at least two, and Davidson should have recognized that fact and chosen differently.  

I’m going to be very up-front about Bill Kristol: I do not like him. I never have. And despite his Billy-come-lately effort to vault to the front rank of never-Trumpers, I never will.

So what am I to do with the news that my alma mater, Davidson College, has named him its inaugural visiting Vann Professor of Ethics in Society for 2019? I think the college has made a big mistake.

First, let’s make clear what this ISN’T about. It’s not about censorship or free speech, which is an issue of government regulation, not private regulation. (Davidson is a private school.)

It’s not about exposing students to a broad range of views; Davidson already does that and has for many, many years. You’d have to have gone there to understand how truly laughable we alums find it that conservative critics on occasion have criticized Davidson as liberal.

For me, the mistake here, by Davidson and by the Vann family, who are funding this initiative, is to hold Bill Kristol up as someone from whom the rest of us can learn about applied ethics. Because unless the college were to identify Kristol specifically as a negative example, that certainly isn’t true.

One can disagree with Kristol about plenty, and that’s fine, and it wouldn’t disqualify him from speaking at Davidson or even holding a guest professorship in applied ethics. But I can point to two huge tests of applied ethics that Kristol failed, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and of world-historical consequences that humanity still will be grappling with long after he and I are dead. Those tests were the use of torture as an instrument of U.S. governmental policy and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I’ve written a great deal on this blog over the years about the ineffectiveness and evil of torture — not just what it does to the victim but also what it does to the torturer and to the nation that sanctions the use of torture. You can plug “torture” into the search box over there on the right and find it all; it is, as the lawyers say, incorporated by reference.

Not only did Kristol support torture, , he also continued to support it even after all previous arguments for its use during the War on Some Terror had fallen flat. Why would Kristol — why would any human being — continue to support the use of torture even after all the practical arguments on its behalf have been weighed and found wanting? Is there an argument for supporting it other than a practical one? The War on Some Terror is 17 years old, and I have yet to come across such an argument. That Kristol has not repented of his views that I can find suggests he continues to support torture, and for what? For its own sake? That, I suspect, is a question for him and his counselor, but the fact that it exists ought to be disqualifying for a person expected to provide guidance to others in the field of applied ethics.

The other huge test of applied ethics that Kristol failed was the U.S invasion of Iraq in 2003. He and Robert Kagan were among the nation’s leading advocates for that invasion, and the only reason they weren’t the most effective was that George W. Bush, and not they, got to be the one to lie to Congress about the possibility of an Iraqi nuclear-weapons capability. To refresh your memory, most of Congress wasn’t buying what the Bush administration was selling about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a justification for invasion. The so-called “16 words” in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address — the suggestion that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons, though the country in fact had no evidence that that was so — got Congress to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which, unlike Desert Storm in 1991, was illegal under the United Nations charter and international law.

Tens of thousands of U.S. service members were killed and wounded, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the grossly mismanaged occupation of Iraq gave rise to ISIS.

As with torture, Kristol has never repented.

I don’t have a real slam-bang ending here. But in public life some sins really are both disqualifying and unforgivable. Kristol is guilty of at least two, and Davidson should have recognized that fact and chosen a different visiting professor of applied ethics.

 

 

 

Wednesday, September 19, 2018 7:58 pm

“What do we owe her now?”

Filed under: Evil,Say a prayer — Lex @ 7:58 pm
Tags: , , ,

After I read this story, a deeply reported and insightful examination of a 2006 rape case that happened to a classmate of the writer, Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig, when they were in high school in Texas, I was warned by some online acquaintances not to share it (even though they admit the story is excellent) because the reporter, Elizabeth Bruenig, supposedly is extremely anti-abortion, believes misogyny is caused by demon possession, and thinks the patriarchy doesn’t exist.

That gave me pause because I generally try not to amplify the voices of people with whom I disagree on social issues. I follow Bruenig on Twitter, but I seldom see her posts and didn’t recall anything like that. So I spent a few minutes Googling this. I didn’t find conclusive information one way or the other except that Bruenig, a convert to Catholicism, opposes abortion. (In my short search I found no indication of whether she thinks abortion should be illegal).

But here’s the thing. Whether or not she holds those views is irrelevant, because if she holds these views, she very clearly kept them out of the story. Isn’t that exactly what we expect reporters to do?

She didn’t keep all her views out; she is, after all, a columnist. She obviously feels the need for expiation:

There were personal reasons, too, for my investigation. I wanted to understand why it had to be as bad as it was — why she wasn’t just doubted but hated, not simply mocked but exiled — and why it had always lingered on my conscience like an article of unfinished business, something I had meant to do but hadn’t. I wanted to look directly at the dark things that are revealed when episodes of brutality unfold and all pretense of civilization temporarily fades, and I wanted to understand them completely.

Otherwise, I thought, they could at any time pull me under. And I could watch mutely while something like this happened again.

Bruenig began work on this story three years ago. In addition to being a strong and damning piece of journalism, it also includes some insights drawn from this 2006 rape case that are frighteningly relevant in 2018. Consider:

Montaigne and Wordsworth lived near enough to the bloody indifference of nature to spare a thought for its victims. But the veneer of civility painted over modern life has paradoxically revealed a certain contempt for victims and the condition of victimhood. And perhaps, lurking in all the complaints about our putative culture of victimhood, there is something uglier than generalized contempt: a disdain for the weak.

That is absolutely true. And in recent years, driven largely though not exclusively by Republican politicians and out-of-control financiers, the “veneer of civility” has been chipping and flaking; since the ascent of Trump, it has begun falling away in chunks. Contempt for victims and disdain for the weak have become more socially acceptable; they are the stock-in-trade of many would-be iconoclasts. They think they are fighting political correctness, neither knowing nor caring that what they think of as political correctness, most people think of as just good manners.

This has always been the case for victims of sexual assault, and the way Senate Republicans are handling the credible allegation of Christine Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh shows just how incredibly little progress we have made in preventing sexual assault and caring for its victims, even in 2018.

This isn’t just evil, it also is distinctly un-American. This country has always been at its best when, whether in good circumstances like moon landings or bad circumstances like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, we realized we were all in this together. But more and more people aren’t just ignorant of the less fortunate, they are actively trying to harm them even more than they already have been harmed. That goes against every ancient teaching, sacred and secular, that above all we must give a damn about one another. I haven’t the first idea how to reverse it, but it needs to be called out, and that is only one service among many that Bruenig has provided with this article.

Sunday, September 16, 2018 4:53 pm

Anita Hill Redux

So now a woman has come forward to tell The Washington Post that Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted and attempted to rape her when they were both in high school.

Read The Washington Post’s story. The accuser, Christine Braley Ford, comes across as credible — certainly more credible than Kavanaugh, who has committed serial perjury before the U.S. Senate.

As corroborating evidence, the accuser offers notes from a 2012 conversation involving her, her husband and a marriage counselor, which describes the incident but does not name Kavanaugh (or anyone else) as her attacker. What has the GOP to offer in response? A ham-handed effort to make us believe that they were able to round up 65 female character witnesses from Kavanaugh’s high-school years within just a few hours.

At the very least, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is scheduled to vote Thursday on Kavanaugh’s nomination, ought to postpone the vote long enough to get any and all witnesses with relevant information under oath. But that appears unlikely to happen.

Senate Judiciary Republicans issued a statement calling the accusation “uncorroborated allegations” (despite the counselor’s notes) and criticizing the Democrats for not having brought the allegation forward sooner. Ford sent her congresswoman a letter in July, before Kavanaugh was nominated; she passed it on in July to Feinstein as a member of the Senate committee that would be vetting whomever Trump nominated. Feinstein has said she had kept the letter secret at the request of the writer, whose name had been redacted.

A lawyer close to the White House told Politico the nomination would not be withdrawn:

“No way, not even a hint of it,” the lawyer said. “If anything, it’s the opposite. If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried. We can all be accused of something.”

(I imagine it doesn’t bother the White House at all that their lawyer friend is basically conceding that the building is full of rapists.)

Those of us who were around for Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court know how the Republicans will handle this: stonewall on the accusation and attack the accuser. The possibility that there might be something here worth getting sworn testimony on doesn’t even seem to have crossed Republicans’ minds.

If all Senate Republicans toe the party line, as looks likely, Kavaugh will be confirmed with at least 51 votes. So, in all likelihood, Ford will be smeared and Kavanaugh, despite documented perjury, will be confirmed. Two sexual assaulters will be radically reshaping laws that affect all of us, particularly women and girls. And a formerly great major political party will be demonstrating again the staggering depths of its corruption and yet more justification for its utter ouster in November and in 2020.

 

Friday, September 7, 2018 1:11 pm

Dead SCOTUS nominee walking

In any sane republic, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination would have been pulled by now. Not only has he clearly perjured himself, more on which in a minute, he also appears to have a gambling problem and may himself have been involved in criminal activity.

But it hasn’t been and it almost certainly won’t be. That’s because the once-noble Republican Party has degenerated completely into a continuing criminal enterprise.

Let us start with perjury, which has been exposed by some of the very documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the Bush 43 White House that the Trump Administration has been so reluctant to release. (Those records are public under the law, by the way.)

He has denied receiving documents stolen from the Senate Judiciary’s Democratic staff by a GOP staffer, Michael Miranda, in 2002, only to have those copies of those documents sent to him from Miranda show up in his White House email. Yet in 2004 and 2006, he denied under oath ever receiving those documents. Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, personally called him out on it.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Kavanaugh also in 2006 denied knowing anything about President George W. Bush’s (then-illegal) warrantless domestic wiretapping program until The New York Times first reported publicly on the existence of the program in 2001. Yet among documents released this week was this email from Kavanaugh to all-around Bush Administration war criminal John Yoo on Sept. 17, 2001, discussing the program.

Also in 2006, Kavanaugh denied under oath having been involved in any White House discussions related to torture. But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the same senator to whom Kavanaugh gave his 2006 denial, said Thursday that released documents indicate that Kavanaugh took part in such discussions at least three times.

During his own 2004 confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh denied under oath any involvement in the selection of William Pryor for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Once again, the documents show otherwise: Kavanaugh helped pick Pryor and get him confirmed.

Similarly, in 2006 Kavanaugh denied under oath having been involved in the selection of Charles Pickering for a federal judgeship, only to have documents pop up more recently that say otherwise.

Kavanaugh also may have misled a lot of people about his recent $200,000 in what he said was credit-card debt. That debt disappeared pretty quickly before his nomination, and because he and his wife both work for the government and don’t make a ton of money by Washington standards, it’s not clear how that happened.

That’s not the only question about that debt, though. This Kavanaugh email seems to suggest that he was a gambler. Frankly, that sounds a lot more plausible than his original story, which is that he ran up that debt because friends had been slow to repay him for purchases of Washington Nationals season tickets on their behalf. Who fronts friends $200,000 on an annual salary of only about $174,000?

Finally, Kavanaugh’s lies about the stolen Democratic records might not just leave him exposed to perjury charges, he may face other charges as well, such as receiving stolen property. Leahy explains it in this Twitter thread.

Finally, keep in mind that only a small fraction of the records pertaining to Kavanaugh’s tenure in the Bush White House has been made public. Given what we’ve learned from what little we have seen so far, it’s no surprise that Republicans have fought so hard to keep the records secret. And it also would be no surprise if more damaging information about Kavanaugh came to light as more records are released, as they will be.

So why haven’t senior Republicans tried to persuade Trump to pull the nomination, that we know of? Maybe they have, but given how badly this administration leaks, if that had been the case I suspect we’d have heard about it by now.

I suspect the reason they haven’t tried is because they’re JUST FINE with Kavanaugh? Why? Because Kavanaugh, like Trump, will advance their conservative agenda if confirmed, just as he has on the D.C. Circuit. He’ll vote to ban abortion and even birth control, approve their destruction of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, approve their gerrymandering, uphold their executive orders, and on and on. Character and probity mean nothing to them. They chose Kavanaugh precisely BECAUSE, for all their professed fealty to stare decisis, he will rewrite the Constitution from the bench. Given that opportunity, they would say nothing even if he shot someone dead at high noon in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Senate Democrats already should have referred these matters to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. But let’s not kid ourselves: Jeff Sessions, or any other Trump-appointed attorney general, won’t allow that investigation to happen.

So his nomination, which by all rights should be dead, shuffles foward until the day, not long from now, when he can begin eating the brains of a lot of stuff that makes America such a wonderful country.

And so, because Republicans hold majorities on the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the full body, Kavanaugh probably will be confirmed before the leaves even start changing. But if the Democrats retake at least one house of Congress in November, Kavanaugh could be facing impeachment before midwinter. He probably wouldn’t be convicted – Republicans would need only 34 Senate votes to keep him in office, but he’d be permanently tarred. And that, in this era of diminished expectations, might be the best we can hope for.

So, to sum up: Not only has Kavanaugh lied under oath to the Senate at least five times, not only does his own email suggest he has a gambling problem, but Sen. Patrick Leahy also caught him lying about his involvement in the Republican effort to benefit from Russian interference in the 2016 election – the very investigation of which will come before him if he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court and which might well come before him on the D.C. Circuit even if he isn’t. This nomination is fatally flawed and should be pulled. If it isn’t, Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis should vote against it. But it won’t be, and they won’t, because the GOP is nothing anymore but a continuing criminal enterprise.

***

UPDATE, 9/8: My longtime friend Rob Campany writes on Facebook:

Bill Burck, the lawyer who has been deciding which of these documents about Kavanaugh are released to the committee and of those which documents the public is allowed to see, currently represents former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, former White House adviser Steve Bannon and the current White House counsel Don McGahn, specifically in the Russia matter, along with at least three other current or former Trump staffers.

He’s representing like six people in the Russia investigation and he`s deciding what we’re allowed to know about the nominee who appears to have been picked probably because of the Russian investigation.

It’s starting to feel like the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh nomination are not competing stories anymore. It is starting to feel like this is the same story.

Rob refers to this MSNBC story, which I encourage you to see. Not only are we on the verge of confirming a gambler and perjurer — and having a gambling issue is only one of many things that can keep you from even having a law license in most states — we may be confirming someone complicit in the Russia conspiracy.

 

Monday, July 23, 2018 7:31 pm

For the 4,683rd time: No, the two parties are NOT both equally bad

I see some version every day, usually multiple times a day, of this argument: “Both parties are to blame for our problems. They’re both equally bad.”

I’m not sure why today’s iteration, a point made in passing by someone I don’t know in the comments of a friend’s Facebook post, triggered me when all the others didn’t. There was nothing unique about his argument, and it wasn’t even his main point.

But he said it, and I reacted viscerally. After taking some time to boil down my thinking, here’s where I am.

Whoa, sorry, ” … the two parties … simply will not compromise for any reason whatsoever”?? No, sir. WRONG. ONE party will not compromise for any reason whatsoever, as a result of which actual Holocaust survivors are warning us that we’re heading down the same road Germany followed in the 1930s.

I’ll give you just one example, albeit a hugely important one. Obama was elected in 2008 with a clear mandate to do something about health care. Rejecting the pleas of his own base for single-payer, something many other Western industrialized democracies are quite happy with, he instead offered what became the ACA, which originated in the 1990s as the Republican/Heritage Foundation alternative to Hillarycare. Democrats accepted more than 130 Republican-sponsored amendments to the original bill. And still, it passed without one single Republican vote. I could cite many more examples.

Please stop repeating false storylines. Both parties are not equally bad. One and only one party has rejected science and truth. One and only one party has made itself an agent of a hostile foreign power and a perpetrator of treason — yes, treason; I’m well aware of the legal definition. One and only one party is pushing economic and tax policies that transfer vast quantities of wealth upward from the poor and middle class into the hands of a hyperwealthy few. One and only one party is campaigning on undisguised appeals to racism and other forms of bigotry. One and only one party is breaking down our democratic norms and our constitutional system of checks and balances. And it’s the party to which I belonged for 38 years: the GOP.

I think the reason why so many people adhere to this view is that no one ever challenges them on it, despite the abundance of grounds on which to do so. Another reason is that some people on cable TV say it, and they don’t get challenged either.

Well, we all know it’s bullshit. So it’s time to call it bullshit, out loud and without apology. If the Democratic Party were flawless I’d join it, and I haven’t done that for a reason. But the Republican Party has gone so far off the edge in so many policy and procedural areas that there isn’t any comparison, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying.

 

Monday, June 18, 2018 10:15 pm

The crying of the lambs

First, listen to this:

That’s the sound of 10 Central American children, recently taken from their parents by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol at the U.S. border with Mexico.

Listen again, dammit. That’s the sound of a human rights violation being committed in your name and with your tax dollars. That’s audio smuggled out of an office in which your government wouldn’t allow pictures, video or audio. What are they hiding?

They’re hiding a crime against humanity: the tearing of children from their parents, perhaps never to be reunited. Already, a sheriff’s deputy has been accused of sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl and threatening her mother with deportation if she told police.

This administration started out in mid-2015 making brown people the enemy. It has only done more so since. In the tradition of murderous dictators before him, Donald Trump has insisted that would-be immigrants from Latin America aren’t human, but animals. And so we’re viciously ripping children, including nursing infants, from their parents. In many cases, the parents are being deported but the children kept here, for what nefarious purpose we’re left to guess. The policy is so distasteful that not only Democrat Rosalyn Carter but also Republican Laura Bush have criticized it.

Why? Republicans like to insist — lie — that this is the law of the land and has been since Bill Clinton. That’s horseshit. Although this was an option, it was one that Obama and Bush 43 alike refused to choose, not least because they had to know how bad it was and how bad it would look. This is happening because Attorney General Jeff Sessions invoked this policy in April 2018 (although it always had been part of the plan). Trump, despite claiming that Democrats must “change the law,” is Sessions’s boss and could overturn this policy with a phone call.

But he won’t, because he supports the policy. He supports it because he knows his base does: 58 percent of Republicans support it, as opposed to 5% of Democrats and 27% of independents. And he supports it because he believes he can use these kids as hostages to get funding for his border wall, which wouldn’t work and would only enrich his contractor buddies.

Overall, two-thirds of Americans oppose the policy. At least 48 Democratic senators have signed on to S. 3036, a bill that would overturn the policy, but at this writing not one Republican has signed on. (Jeff Flake and Lindsay Graham and Ben Sasse have expressed concern about the policy, but as usual none is putting his vote where his mouth is.)

At this writing, more than 2,000 children have been separated from their parents. And why? In many cases, the kids accompanied their parents as they came to the U.S. to seek political asylum from the violence in their home countries. Entering this country to seek political asylum is, Hello, absolutely legal.

But there’s a catch. Such immigrants must present themselves at a designated port of entry. And the Department of Homeland Security has been delaying immigrants on the Mexico side of the border for days on end at such ports, forcing some to seek to enter the country at places other than designated ports of entry.

Thus, immigrants fleeing gang violence and death squads are forced to commit a misdemeanor in order to try to enter our country. And it is on that “basis” that children are being separated from their parents. (Some children are taken from parents under the guise of getting a bath. You know where else did that? Auschwitz.)

And the current policy calls for prosecution in 100% of such cases, with parents being told that the only way they ever will see their children again is to plead guilty.

So far, roughly 2,000 kids have been separated from their parents, and that may be an undercount. Why is this bad? It isn’t just sad or inconvenient; it can do permanent brain damage to the children who experience it:

“It is a form of child abuse,” Dr. Colleen Kraft, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King. Kraft visited a Texas facility where children 12 years and younger are being held.

Kraft described seeing “very quiet” toddlers and one young girl under 2 years old “who was just sobbing and wailing and beating her little fists on the mat.”

“I was told that you couldn’t comfort or hold a crying child,” Kraft said. “And we all knew that this child was crying because she wanted her mother, and we couldn’t give that to her.”

Kraft explained how stress increases levels of cortisol, “our fight-and-flight hormones.”

“Normally that helps to protect us when there’s a dangerous situation. In the instance where children are separated from their parents, the one buffer they have against these fight-or-flight chemicals is gone and so these children are on red alert all the time and they’re not able to buffer these different hormones,” Kraft said. “And what this can do is disrupt the synapses and the neurological connections that are part of the developing brain.”

The American Psychological Association adds:

APA warned that trauma from family separation is a significant social determinant of mental and physical health, and referenced decades of documented research showing the harmful effects of parent-child separation on children and caregivers’ emotional and psychological well-being. APA implored the administration to reconsider this deleterious policy and commit to the more humane practice of housing families together pending immigration proceedings.

This is what is being done to children in our name. This is what Trump, lying, says is the result of a Democratic law. This is what we must do, says Attorney General Jeff Sessions, invoking Romans 13, despite the fact that the Bible says that unjust laws may not be obeyed, that the Torah says no fewer than 36 times that aliens must be treated hospitably and that Jesus, most famously in the parable of the Good Samaritan, constantly stresses hospitality; despite the fact that we are a secular republic and don’t use the Bible as a policy guide; despite the fact that Jeff Sessions’s own church says he’s wrong, wrong, wrong; despite the fact that a huge number of faith leaders from a wide variety of faith traditions agrees; despite the fact that Jeff Sessions ordered this to happen and Jeff Sessions could order it to stop. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Neilsen even insisted, laughably, that the U.S. had no such policy …
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.

… even as White House staffer Stephen Miller said that it was a simple decision.

Welp. This is who we are, America in 2018. When Trump took office, tried to ban Muslims, and got hit with a barrage of lawsuits, we proudly boasted, “First they came for the Muslims, and we said, ‘Not this time, motherf*ckers.'” But, somehow, we have gotten very quickly to well past “First they came for …”

The Nazis are here, America, right here in 2018. Wake up and fight back. That means voting Democratic, every race, every time, and getting as many people as possible to the polls to do likewise. Mueller isn’t going to save us. Trump isn’t going to get bored and resign, and the current, Republican-controlled House will never impeach him. This will only stop when we elect enough Democrats to Congress to put a stop to this hideous practice, which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has denounced and which Amnesty International has called “nothing short of torture.”

We have roughly 150 days to the election. If enough Democrats win, we can put a stop to this and many other inhumane and ill-advised policies. But if we do not, we will slip, as Winston Churchill warned in 1940, into the abyss of a new Dark Age.

And we had better move fast, because go listen to that audio again. Those kids are already there.

Monday, May 28, 2018 7:32 pm

Some stuff matters more than manners

A couple of days ago I had a conversation on Facebook with a relative of mine and a friend of his whom I didn’t know. It looks as if my relative has taken the thread down now, so I’m going from (potentially flawed) memory here, but it had to do with civil political discourse. In particular, the friend, whom I’ll call Al because that’s easy to type, argued that Trump supporters and Trump opponents should discuss their differences civilly.

I said then what I’ve said many times before here and in many other forums: I’m not interested in civil discussions with racists. Donald Trump is an unreconstructed racist. He ran on an unapologetically racist platform and was elected by racist people acting on their racism; the research, ranging from polls to focus groups, has been pretty much unanimous on that score. Accordingly, I believe that if you voted for Trump, you’re a racist, or you’re indifferent to his racism, which amounts to the same thing. Al, for his part, called people who can’t discuss politics civilly “immature.”

Well.

Those of you who know me know that I think that pleas for civility in political discourse are often the last refuge of people who desperately need to be hit with the chair. Sure, I think we ought to be able to discuss political differences civilly. But some things are more important than polite dialogue. Like racism. And torture. And genocide. And Nazism. And these things cannot be reasoned with, for they seek to overthrow the very rule of reason. They can only be defeated.

Al’s remark betrayed both a political naivete and a high level of privilege. While he wants to have civil discussions about Trump’s neo-Nazism, Trump’s minions are working to build a fascist government, separating children from their parents at our borders, perhaps never to see one another again, in some cases only because the families have committed the legal act of seeking political asylum in the United States. Moreover, in areas ranging from environmentalism to health care, Trump’s actions are literally putting thousands of American and other lives in jeopardy while people like Al insist that the real problem is the maturity level of Trump’s critics.

Here is what people like Al (and my relative, who, to be fair is a dedicated, decorated public-school teacher who’s usually way more sensible than this) need to understand.

In 1930s Germany, the Nazis used the tools of a free state against a free state. They used freedom of their own expression to destroy freedom of expression for others. They used the ballot to ultimately deny the ballot to others. And Trump and his minions are walking the same path today, using the same techniques, and pulling the same wool over the same people’s eyes, that the Nazis did 85 years ago.

About that: As it happens, being on vacation last week, I read a novel, Brandenburg Gate, by the English writer Henry Scott. It’s a spy novel set just before the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. The protagonist, Rosenharte (whose father had been a high-ranking SS officer during World War II), and his girlfriend, both former employees of the East German secret state police, the Stasi, have met an elderly German man, Flammensbeck, who served on the Eastern Front with the Nazis during World War II. Rosenharte asks Flammensbeck whether he thinks the current demonstrators against the East German government have legitimate grievances.

Flammensbeck blew out his cheeks and exhaled. He seemed to be weighing something. Eventually he addressed them both. ‘By the spring of 1945, I was in a prisoner of war camp in the East — we didn’t know where. I was lucky to be alive because they shot many of us when we surrendered. Then one day in April it was announced that the Fűhrer had committed suicide. We were stunned, but after a bit we fell to asking each other what it had all been about. So much death and destruction. Millions dead. And each one of us with innocent blood on our hands. What was it all about? No one could say. Then one in our group answered that it was about nothing. There was no point to it, no hidden meaning. Nothing! We’d been had.’

And with Trump, here we are again fighting Nazism. Think I’m wrong? Think there’s no comparison between the Trump administration and the Nazi regime? Grapple, then, with this 1996 7-page paper, “The 8 Stages of Genocide,” by Gregory H. Stanton, the James Farmer Professor of Human Rights at The University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, Virginia; president of Genocide Watch; chairman of The International Campaign to End Genocide; director of The Cambodian Genocide Project; and vice president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. A guy who knows from genocide, in other words.

He posits eight stages of genocide: classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, extermination, and denial. The administration is unquestionably engaging in classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, and polarization of certain minorities. And with Trump’s decision to order ICE and the Justice Department to separate children from their parents at our borders, even when those families have come to request political asylum as the law allows, we arguably have entered the stage of preparation as well.

Wake up, people. Extermination and denial are all that are left.

Given those circumstances, Al and his ilk, and my relative for that matter, are going to have to forgive me for not wanting to reason with Trumpists. This country spent 425,000 lives and untold billions of dollars defeating fascism in World War II. That argument was supposed to have been done, just as our argument about slavery was supposed to have been done after the Civil War. And given the decades I have spent researching World War II and Nazism in particular, I’ll be damned if I’m going to be lectured to by a political virgin about my political maturity in the context of crimes against humanity. Indeed, Al had better wake the hell up before he finds himself either up against the wall or wearing a swastika himself.

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: